Kaufman, J., Ewing, M., Montgomery, D. Hyle, A., & Self, P. (2003). From girls in their elements to women in science: Rethinking socialization through memory-work Reviewed by Shirley Gholston Key, University of Memphis

	Kaufman, J., Ewing, M., Montgomery, D. Hyle, A., & Self, P. (2003). From girls in their elements to women in science: Rethinking socialization through memory-work. New York: Peter Lang Publishing. 160 pp. $29.95 ISBN 0-8204-4512-6 Reviewed by Shirley Gholston Key University of Memphis February 6, 2004 How often do we as science educators hear how females and elementary teachers say they fear science, they can't do science, and how they have had so many bad experiences in science classrooms? Yet, the elementary student is the most naturally curious student about scientific concepts in natural phenomena. As educators we try to build bridges between these two groups so science education can be beneficial and rewarding for both groups. From Girls in Their Elements to women in Science by Kaufman, J., Ewing, M., Montgomery, D. Hyle, A., & Self, P. (2003), is an example of how to use student's personal science memories to show the value of science and the non-threatening aspects of science in our personal lives. From Girls in Their Elements to women in Science makes all readers appreciate the informal science experiences, which one participates in throughout their lives. The authors remind us that we are products of our environments and all activities influence our lives. Yet, upon first impression one will probably say many of our experiences just happened and did not have any lasting impact. The memory work research proves that our experiences do have impact on our future behaviors and how we interact with our environment. Scenarios in each chapter are used to demonstrate this. In the Introduction and nine chapters of this book, the authors share with us how their science experiences from their natural play environment influenced their future and empowered them in the process but they did not recognize this until they undertook the memory work process. The Introduction presents the subjects to us and the theoretical framework, that science is social and can be feminine and experienced by females. The work enabled the authors to present science on a personal level of experience through the many stories, which they shared. The works of Haug (1987), Vygotsky (1986), and Cataldi (1993) influenced the methods used to develop and analyze this memory-work. In Chapter 1, “Nature to Natural Science,” the characteristics of science were emphasized and the cultural notion of science and scientists laid the foundations for the authors’ experiences and their memory-work. The traditional view of children’s perceptions of science has and still captures it as the white male dominant discipline. Children still do not see women and people of color as scientists and have a hard time defining daily activities as scientific work (Jarvis, 1996). Views of science have changed over the years but still include science as disciplines e.g. physics, chemistry, biology. Others see science as a systematic way of knowing and a systematic way of explaining as in the scientific methods. By examining these views, it showed that science is not seen as a social vehicle. The positivist tradition separates empirical science from nonscience, and this view has dominated Western science for at least 100 years. There is a distance associated with objectivity and empirical science characterizing elite science as in prestigious laboratories across the country. It does not characterize the common daily tasks one uses experimentation to solve or conduct as shown via the tasks of the authors. They use nonempirical approaches to convey their relational science. This distance in science is the threatening aspect of science seen in elementary and elementary preservice teachers. Feminist critiques of science notes that science usually ignores the concerns of women and people of color. The scientific method, the positivist view, usually reflect the concern of white middle-class men. There is a contention that there is a conflict between feminist views in science and the masculine view. Through the scenarios in the chapters, one is able to see this conflict. Women’s views of science usually include the notion that science is everywhere, yet it has nothing to do with me. Whereas, women do not have the power to name what counts as science, they do have the power of experiencing science. For example, the science of women’s kitchens and gardens (Hubbard, 1988) and the personal science as demonstrated in the scenarios in the text are different from the formal science we experience in chemistry and physics classrooms and laboratories. It took memory work for Kaufman, et al. (2003) to realize this. This memory work demonstrated that becoming a scientist in the traditional sense is a conflict in their identity and much of what they believe science should be about. There are fewer females receiving degrees in science and engineering on all levels than males. There are several reasons for this assertion: classrooms discourage females, the invisibility of female representation in curricular materials, the hierarchical nature of traditional science, and the competitive nature of the classroom. Their research indicates that mentors play an important role in helping females to remain in the field and in obtaining higher degrees at competitive research institutions. The message that there is a conflict in the female scientists occur in grades 4-8 subtly and not-so-subtly; later environmental constraints restrict females from majoring and choosing a science career. Yet, a few females manage to make it through this narrow pipeline. I thought at this point that the focus of the book would use memory work to show how to get more females through this narrow pipeline or how to use social science to increase this pool of potential scientists. I had to resign to an implication in the conclusion of the book. Yet, examining this conflict from a different angle allowed the authors to look at traditional vs nontraditional ideas about where science is pursued. Memory work allowed them to look at women experiencing science outside of sterile laboratories and in the natural world around them as children in the natural world. Using memory work took them back to their childhoods and their fun activities. Children play spaces became places of informal science learning and children became scientists. Chapter Three describes the “methodology “ section in traditional research. It begins by defining memory and memory work, the population, subject, and methodology. Memory work is accepted as the bridge to span the gap between theory and experience. The subjects were five white, middle class, women. They noted in this chapter that they were lesbian and heterosexual women but nothing in the book showed where this made a major difference in the memory experiences. They lived in various locale in the United states from the Midwest to New York, Ohio, Massachusetts, and D.C. This is important in promoting science for all children and especially elementary students in impoverished urban schools where science is often neglected. Originally the group was on the same campus and met weekly for writing and research sessions. The method used was the rules established by Haug (1987) and Crawford, Kippax, Onyx, et al. (1992) which are: write one of your earliest memories; of a particular episode, or event; related to the identified cue; in the third person; in as much detail as is possible; but without interpretations, explanation, or biography. They adopted an additional rule of being nonjudgmental of other memories. Following this, they read memories aloud to the group, asked questions, clarified details present and missing, and added needed context. Discussions were audiotaped and transcribed. The criteria for choosing memories were that they generated extensive discussion and as a result were elaborated by the rememberer and understood more complexly by the group. The elements air, water, earth, fire, and tree were used to focus the group’s relationship to the natural world. Each was viewed through the young adult and adolescence phases of life. From this point everything was unique and varied for each individual. It appeared that memories were stirred and recorded then each was analyzed for the scientific aspect. The exact procedure was confusing to me as the reader. Strategies for memory generation were diverse and many times they were not written until minutes before the scheduled meetings. An explanation of how memories were accessed led to the three ways, cognitive recall as a sequential and logical process of linking the element to the age, sensory stimulation as Anna tasting dirt, and finally the visual or imagery stimulation as in Sue’s memory being based on a picture. They generated two types of memories, amalgams and events. Events are linked to a specific point in time and specific events. Amalgams are between episodic and semantic memories. Semantic memories hold general knowledge that is built up from repeated experiences. They still found it hard to break away from the traditionalist mode of viewing and analyzing the research to the extent that they reduced the method to a linear and causal perspective. Therefore, contrary to Haug (1987) and Crawford, et al. (1992), they reread all of a person’s memories from early childhood through adulthood. (Which is probably the way that the book should have been written) and found emergent themes of creativity, use of metaphor, family, and power. The themes were helpful to understanding memory as a concept. Memory in the traditional research literature is regarded as a social construct and memory does not exist in the material sense. Memory-work can only provide another way of thinking about who we are and how we have been socialized. The discrete memories retrieved through memory-work were determined by posed questions asked by the other subjects. In Chapter Four, Making Sense, brings the subjects and readers to reality and thus deal more with this conflict of personal science and the very respected, traditional science. This chapter demonstrates how making sense is necessary to science. How the sensuous in their memories provides the observations, the data, for understanding how the senses meld with the social in influencing their connections to nature. Another reality was admitted in this chapter also. They admitted that ordinary embodied experience, neither necessarily systematic nor abstract, may hold keys to girls’ development in relation to nature and perhaps to their interest (or lack of interest) in science. Integration of the senses was essential in these experiences of personal science. Knowledge gained and applied in domestic settings typically is not considered science but it is considered as personal science for this memory work. Personal science is believed to begin in childhood and continues through life. An example of the adult personal science is demonstrated when a woman’s knowledge of an almond tree is anchored in memory by the sensation of taste. This shows that personal science is an interaction or web of elements. Within that web, girls develop complex relationships to nature and fruitful approaches to their science from an early age, as is particularly evident in many of the memories. The memories suggested a range of social settings where personal science has taken place and highlighted exchanges that valued curiosity and observation of nature as well as those that discourage further exploration of nature. Chapter Five describes how metaphors associated with the elements illuminated basic human experiences. For example, fire represents through metaphor warmth in relationships. They took the traditional definition of metaphor used in language and extended it to the personal science experiences. Lakoff and Johnson (1980) says that metaphor structures the development and understanding of concepts. Originally Kaufman, et al. (2003), resisted the concept of metaphors. Some metaphors drew them in close connection to particular aspects of nature while others pushed them away. The group found metaphors particularly productive, not just in identifying metaphors but having the group develop the practice of using their own metaphors to understand it. The metaphors were used to express feelings, to tie two or more experiences together, and used to help provide insight (e.g. Bell’s tree house memory as a child). Using and recognizing metaphors helped the subjects to see the emergent themes/subthemes of fear, efficacy, relationship, and growth and development. Fear was mostly memories of natural disasters. Efficacy, as a subtheme, related to being successful or not and usually was cued by the memory of fire and water. Science in school presented challenges to their efficacy, which also represented rituals in many of the memories. Growth as a metaphor extended to the appearance of hated objects to be cleaned up year after year by adolescents like planting gardens, harvesting vegetables, and cultivating the earth. The fact that personal science is different and distant from traditional science is also a thread throughout the text. In summarizing the chapter on metaphors, it was said that “the results of thinking about metaphor and the distancing of women and girls from nature is a clearer understanding of the roles that science in school may play in that distancing” (p.82). The memory work led them to believe that the traditional science in schools could still be positive for girls as Anna’s lecture on the importance of chemistry. What they did not find to be true was that memories of science in school would be readily cued by the elements and that these memories would provide insight into their socialization as apprentice scientists. They were surprised that they did not find this to be true. In some instances school science was inviting as in Rae’s carrot water and Bunsen burner experiences. In other cases, it interfered with the interest in natural science as in Bell’s sweaty palms memory. Chapter Six shares with the readers how memory work created a new understanding of their relationship to nature. They discovered how they made new meaning in nature while playing, solving problems, imagining, exploring, and experimenting. Acts of play in nature throughout their lives seemed to bring new values and differing perspectives to everyday life. They realized that traditional science requires distance from its objects of study, the natural world, while creativity is thought to be essential to science and its processes. Memory-work enabled them to see that creativity in their playing as children reinforced close connections with nature. They found that there were creative spaces, that playing is at the heart of human experiences, and through the memories, that play is more characteristic of childhood than it is of adulthood. They also found that not all play resulted in an obviously creative product. Major influences in the memories were examined in Chapter Seven and usually that was a family member. Most of the memories involved the father as a controller and the mother as an agent of choice for the subjects. Fathers were prominent in the wet sand and sandbox memory by Sue, in Cele’s cool clear water memory, and Anna’s description of smoke. There was the conflict between enjoyment in the natural world and structure introduced by fathers in the form of rules and/or orchestration of events. Their mothers did the typical “motherly” things and were not noticed as much as the fathers. Sue found that while the father exerted control with rules, her mother expressed control with choice. Inside learning with her mother was characterized as natural, safe, easy, and fun. With ant farms, gerbils, and fish, Sue had stated that her early memories were not “sciencey.” Bell’s mother was a gardener, which facilitated Bell’s growing rock memory. This act of gardening was interpreted as a socialization act so Bell did not view this as science. Cele’s mother and activities structured for Cele left her with the memories of powerful women as seen in the campfire memory and the Order of the Arrow. The results of the memory work and personal science project can be found in Chapter Eight. The results were measured in empowerment. The power in the memories was demonstrated and changed from early to later memories and from having great power with nature to distancing themselves from nature. They saw power in the relationships of the women in their lives. They also gained power as they took on the role of transmitter of their culture and their values. As a result of examining this work, they can now offer an opportunity for power to the next generation. In the Conclusions on page 130, it states “Power and apprenticeship are significant in the construction of both our personal science and professional science. Although some of the linkages are less direct than we originally envisioned, a number of interesting considerations emerged in our analysis. For some of us, control of the elements or the environment was crucial in the construction of our personal science. This control was seldom autonomous and often exerted within the context of our families". This conclusion ties in with Chapter Nine and the analysis of their power and apprenticeship, which established a bridge between their personal science as girls and their professional science as women. On the way to this realization, they found that in both theoretical and experiential way that they were part of nature. They engaged in personal science as a child and revisited these experiences in themes of sensuous, metaphoric, creative, family, and power. Some emerging questions arose from this method of research like: Can the findings be generalized? Are the findings useful? Are the findings of this study specific to this group? Is this a valid study? A definite finding was that this type of work is transformative. Memory-work suggests that one can open up the data beyond the boundaries of regular discourse, which is not usually possible within a traditional research paradigm. If one goal is to stop reproducing aspects of the culture that we believe are in need of change, then perhaps it is time to seek other possible stories that can be told about educational practice. In this case, the researcher would need to join with educators in conducting memory-work research and to this end, this work was successful for it did allow for a valid research paradigm shift. The book ends with a chapter of pictures, which leave the reader with a feeling that these memories were very real, for we can see the elements in the photos. Further documentation of their work and a final effort to "traditionalize" a nontraditional format was shown in the Appendix of numbers and charts. References Cataldi, S. (1993). Emotion, depth, and flesh: A study of sensitive space. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Crawford, J., Kippax, S., Onyx, J., Gault, U., & Benton, P. (1992). Emotion and gender: Constructing meaning from memory. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE. Haug, F. (Ed.). (1987). Female sexualization: A collective work of memory (Erica Carter, trans.). Towbridge, Wiltshire, UK: Doteios Ltd. Hubbard, R. (1988). Science, facts, and feminism. Hypatia, 3(1), 5-17. Jarvis, T. (1996). Examining and extending young children's views of science and scientists. In Lesley H. Parker, Leonie J. Rennie, & Barry J. Fraser (eds.), Gender, science and mathematics: Shortening the shadow (pp.29-40). Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute Technology Press. (Original work published in 1934). About The Reviewer Dr. Shirley Gholston Key is an Associate Professor of Science Education in the College of Education at the University of Memphis. Her research interests include science education (cognitive learning in science education, multicultural science education, preservice science education) and mentoring of the science professionals.

Raschke, Carl A. (2002). The Digital Revolution and the Coming of the Postmodern University Reviewed by Charalambos Vrasidas and Michalinos Zembylas, Intercollege, Nicosia, Cyprus

	Raschke, Carl A. (2002). The Digital Revolution and the Coming of the Postmodern University. New York: Routledge/Falmer. Pp. 129 $19.95 (Paper)     ISBN 0415369843 Reviewed by Charalambos Vrasidas &     Michalinos Zembylas Intercollege Nicosia, Cyprus January 15, 2004 Technology has often been cited as the major driving force behind innovation in higher education and for educational reform in a variety of contexts. Carl Raschke, in The Digital Revolution and the Coming of the Postmodern University, advances some interesting arguments and makes some intriguing observations regarding the status of higher education and the impact of technology on the university. One of his major arguments is that technology and the Internet are having a major impact on education and that they are bound to change the traditional university into what is called the “hyperuniversity,” which in no way resembles the contemporary physical university. As indicated in the title, the arguments set forth in the book come through a postmodernist lens. However, the book lacks the solid evidence to warrant the author’s assertions and to explain how technology and distance education are changing education and traditional schooling as we know it. The book is divided into nine chapters. The author begins the first chapter “Higher education and the postmodern condition” with the popular quote by French philosopher Jean Baudrillard: “The university is in ruins.” The “postmodern condition” (a Lyotardian expression that is mentioned in this chapter but is not discussed until much later in Chapter 7) is the condition of living in an age in which the all boundaries are fluid, all hierarchies and principles are questioned, and “grand meta-narratives” are held in suspicion. In modernist times, according to Raschke, universities have traditionally been known as the gatekeepers of knowledge. In a postmodern age, the author argues, this will change and the traditional classroom, as we know it, will become obsolete. Teachers used to be the deliverers of a body of knowledge; but now according to the “postmodern prototype,” the concept of a “body of knowledge” does not exist. Citing Deleuze and Guattari, the author argues that knowledge is like “a body without organs,” constantly changing in shape and form. The postmodern university is characterized by a new space: a “knowledge space” — a space that is shaped by the affordances of information and communication technologies. This space shares the nature of a “rhizome” (another term that the author introduces from Deleuze and Guattari’s A Thousand Plateaus). In other words, there is no beginning and no end. Raschke, Chair of the Department of Religious Studies at the University of Denver, argues that we are experiencing “the third knowledge revolution” and as a result we have “the coming of the hyperuniversity.” The rapid expansion of digital technologies has led to the third knowledge revolution. The first knowledge revolution came with the invention of language and the second with the invention of writing. Raschke argues that: … the coming of so-called “computer mediated communications” that rely on digitized representations that can be disseminated easily and cheaply … —the technical description of what is conventionally known as the “the internet” — are rapidly and ineluctably reshaping our prototypes of what it means to “know” something. (p. 15) Based on this view, everyone with access to the Internet can be a part of the knowledge space and the communities formed online. Such developments will shift the emphasis from diplomas, degrees, and courses to accreditation of knowledge gained at the workplace and competency based exams. Anyone can study independently online, complete exams, and submit work to receive accreditation. This point of view is held by several other scholars, and it is indeed a valid observation. Anyone with access to the Internet will have opportunities to learn that are independent of place and time. Several points Raschke makes stand out as important for those interested in how higher education might be affected by these radical changes in technology. Readers are likely to find the book more helpful with respect to describing these changes and celebrating the advantages of the inevitable reform of higher education. However, the book is less helpful in pointing out how current structures in higher education limit the influence of the technological revolution that Raschke celebrates. The text will disappoint readers who want to find evidence for its claims. One of the limitations of the book is that often the author makes unsubstantiated arguments. For example, at one point he argues that “the learning styles and orientation of the primary college customer are swinging 180 degrees because of the online revolution” (p. 19). There is no evidence in the research literature that “learning styles” are indeed changing. Indeed, teenagers now use the internet frequently and definitely are more technologically savvy than their parents, but that does not mean that within 10 years—since the invention of the internet—humans have experienced a “180 degree change” in learning styles, something that took thousands of years to develop in the first place. Also, in Chapter 3, Raschke argues that research shows that students learn more and faster in the online classroom. To say the least, research on the effectiveness of technology-mediated education and online education is inconclusive (Clark, 2001; Phipps & Merisotis, 1999). A review of hundreds of comparison studies of face-to-face and technology mediated education showed no significant difference in outcomes (Russell, 1999; Twigg, 2001). In a discussion of the Western Governors University (www.wgu.edu), the author commits another fallacy by arguing the following: “The elimination of ‘contact hours’ and ‘seat time’ as the measure of academic progress, which the WGU foresees, will inevitably compel students to take more responsibility for their education, not less” (p. 20). The illusion that all students placed in a situation in which they will have to take greater responsibility for their education will do so is fundamentally flawed. Unfortunately, the author here shows a lack of understanding of the field of distance education. Most of the research in this field shows that only those students with characteristics such as internal locus of control and high self-regulatory skills are more likely to succeed in a distance education setting (McIsacc & Gunawardena, 1996). Those who cannot take charge of their own learning are likely to drop out. Unless students are provided with the support and skills needed, merely offering them distance education courses will not make them more responsible nor raise their level of skill. On page 21 (Chapter 2), the author presents a table comparing the traditional knowledge paradigm with the emerging revolution. Although some of the observations are correct, some others are not. For example, the author argues that under the emerging knowledge revolution, the knowledge space that is created is more democratic whereas the traditional paradigm is more aristocratic. Such arguments, praising the democratic nature of the new knowledge revolution and the hyperuniversity, are common throughout the book. Again, the author seems to ignore a whole line of criticism that technologies and the online environment are not ipso facto more democratic (Hawisher & Selfe, 2000; Noble, 1998; Zembylas, Vrasidas, & McIsaac, 2002). One has to acknowledge that online education has several advantages and offers opportunities that are often not available to a large number of people. However, the frequent overly optimistic claims about technology and online education and their contribution to a more democratic world are problematic to say the least. Fabos and Young (1999) argued that we should be skeptical of the fact that “just as telecommunications technology is credited with promoting multiculturalism, it has also been blamed for increasing existing inequalities on a broader scale” (p. 233-234). It is disappointing that the author does not address the issue how exactly the Internet can promote social justice and democracy when the gap between the “have” and the “have-nots” is constantly growing (Lelliot et al., 2000). Comments such as “digital learning is the true bulwark of a global democracy” or “the worldwide use of the new digital communications is steadily growing, even among the so called electronic ‘have-nots’” (p. x) sound simplistic and unfounded. The book provides other examples of simplistic points. For instance, the position that “In the long haul it is about the dissolution of structures and the true freedom of the mind, a freedom that was impossible in the ‘age of education.’” (p. 61, added emphasis). What exactly is this “true freedom” and how can one achieve it given some postmodernist claims that such a thing does not really exist? Foucault, in particular, in the three volumes of The History of Sexuality argued for a view of power so pervasive that there is no space left for an individual to look for a “true freedom.” All aspects of an individual’s life are subject to disciplinary formation, in Foucault’s view; the very experience of being a subject is an outcome of discursive practices. Any claims about “true freedom” especially in a postmodern context—one which the author aspires to use in his book—are problematic. Furthermore, the author makes the argument that “Our answer to how we can reform the university, henceforth, may be disarmingly straightforward: ‘collaborative groups plus digitization’” (p. 60). If it were only so simple! Although the author may want to be somewhat playful here and emphasize the importance of collaborative groups and e-learning, educational research and theory in the last two decades have shown that there are no simple formulas when it comes to the design and implementation of e-learning (Vrasidas & Glass, 2002). Also, in our view one of the most flawed analogies that Raschke proposes is that “distance education is to education what mobile homes are to homes” (p. 24). Distance education grew initially from the need for certain people to obtain an education. These were people who the traditional education system failed to serve. However, the assumption that traditional education is “the model” for all kinds of contents, contexts, goals, teachers and learners is unconvincing. Certain learners benefit more from traditional education; others benefit more from distance education. Therefore, the argument that traditional face-to-face education “will remain the dream of parents for their children” is highly problematic and reintroduces a dichotomy between face-to-face education and distance education that we assume the “postmodernist” spirit of this book tries to “deconstruct.” Another issue that leaves many more questions than answers is the author’s effort to compare “Hegelian thinking” to “digital thinking” (pp. 47, 74 and 76). While it is interesting to make such an attempt, the lack of development of this idea leaves one wondering how Hegelian thought is compatible with postmodernist thought. The author himself recognizes that “All metaphysical systems of representation throughout Western history, from Aristotle to Hegel, have rested on the notion that there were certain conceptual anchors,” as opposed to “postmodern philosophy” which “is characterized by a refusal to ground what we know in certain unshakable ‘positions’” (p. 74). How can Hegel’s insistence on Absolute Knowing be matched with the postmodern refusal of the absolute? Given that the author frames digital thinking within a postmodern context, it is hard to understand the purpose of this comparison. The author alludes to the social and historical process of Hegelian thinking (p. 47) but does not make explicit its possible connections to postmodern thinking and most importantly to the question “So what?” Finally, in Chapter 5, the author discusses five archetypes and places more emphasis on the transactive archetype of teaching and learning. One needs to acknowledge that the idea of education as a transaction, is not new, but something that was proposed by several philosophers. In particular, Dewey (1938) argued that education is based on the interaction of an individual’s external and internal conditions. Interaction and the situation during which one experiences the world cannot be separated because the context of interaction is provided by the situation. He pointed out that, “An experience is always what it is because of a transaction taking place between an individual and what, at the time, constitutes his environment....” (p. 43, added emphasis) The idea of transaction suggests the intersubjectivity between the individual herself, other people, and her surrounding environment. This transactional nature of education has also been discussed by several scholars (Chen, 2001; Garrison, 2000; Vrasidas & Glass, 2002). Furthermore, the author’s attempt to “sum up” Dewey’s approach “in a few simple propositions” (p. 31) runs the danger of misrepresenting some of Dewey’s ideas, if evidence is not provided regarding where these ideas are coming from. The three propositions on p. 31, standing there as they do without context or explication, may be attributed to a number of pedagogues, philosophers and psychologists including Skinner, Tyler and Bloom’s learning for mastery model! For example, consider the references to “task-defined,” “goal-oriented,” learning, and the “feedback loop.” This book is not the end of the story, of course, but it is an attempt to engage some critical issues that will be on center stage for this new century. That alone and the author’s commitment to meaningful change make the book useful for those concerned with the future of higher education. References Burbules, N., & Torres, C. A. (Eds.). (2000). Globalization and education: Critical perspectives. New York: Routledge. Castells, M. (1996). The rise of the network society. Oxford: Blackwell. Chen, Y. J. (2001). Dimensions of transactional distance in the World Wide Web learning environment: A factor analysis. British Journal of Educational Technology, 32(4), 459-470. Clark, R. E., Ed. (2001). Learning from media: Arguments, analysis, and evidence. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing, Inc. Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1987). A thousand plateaus: Capitalism and schizophrenia. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Fabos, B., & Young, M. D. (1999). Telecommunications in the classroom: Rhetoric versus reality.Review of Educational Research, 69(3), 217-259. Garrison, R. (2000). Theoretical challenges for distance education in the 21st century: A shift from structural to transactional issues. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 1(1). Retrieved on March 20, 2002 from http://www.irrodl.org/content/v1.1/garrison.pdf. Hawisher, G. E., & Selfe, C. L. (2000). Testing the claims. In G. E. Hawisher & C. L. Selfe (Eds.), Global literacies and the World-Wide-Web (pp. 1-18). London: Routledge. Lelliott, A., Pendlebury, S., & Enslin, P. (2000) Promises of access and inclusion: Online education in Africa. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 34, 41-52. Levy, P. (1997). Collective intelligence: Mankind’s emerging world in cyberspace. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books. McIsaac, M. S., & Gunawardena, C. N. (1996). Distance Education. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of Research for Educational Communications and Technology (pp. 403-437). New York: Simon & Shuster Macmillan. Noble, D. D. (1998). The regime of technology in education. In Beyer, L. E. &Apple, M. W. (Ed.), The curriculum: Problems, politics, and possibilities (pp. 267-283). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Phipps R. & Merisotis J. (1999). What's the difference? A review of contemporary research on the effectiveness of distance learning in higher education. Institute for Higher Education Policy at the behest of the American Federation of Teachers and National Education Association. Russel, T. L. (1999). The no significant difference phenomenon. Retrived on January 7, 2004 from http://teleeducation.nb.ca/nosignificantdifference/. Twigg, C.A. (2001). Innovations in Online Learning: Moving Beyond No Significant Difference. Center for Academic Transformation, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. Vrasidas, C., & Glass, G. V. (2002). A conceptual framework for studying distance education. In Vrasidas, C. & Glass, G. V. (Ed.), Current Perspectives on Applied Information Technologies. Volume I: Distance Education and Distributed Learning (pp. 31-56). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing, Inc. Zembylas, M., Vrasidas, C., & McIsaac, M. S. (2002). Of nomads, polyglots, and global villagers: Globalization, information technologies, and critical education online. In Vrasidas, C. &Glass, G. V. (Ed.), Current Perspectives on Applied Information Technologies. Volume I: Distance Education and Distributed Learning (pp. 201-223). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing, Inc. About the Reviewers Charalambos Vrasidas is Associate Professor of Learning Technologies and Head of the Department of Education at Intercollege, Cyprus. His research interests include distance education, technology-mediated interaction, and evaluation of educational technologies. Michalinos Zembylas is Associate Professor at Intercollege, Cyprus, and adjunct professor of teacher education at Michigan State University. His research interests are in the area of emotions in teaching and learning science and technology, science and technology studies, curriculum theory, and philosophy of education.

Rowling, J. K. (2003). Harry Potter and The Order of the Phoenix: Year Five at Hogwarts. Reviewed by Eric Margolis, Arizona State University

	Rowling, J. K. (2003). Harry Potter and The Order of the Phoenix: Year Five at Hogwarts. New York: Scholastic Inc. 870 pp. $29.99     ISBN 0-439-35806-X Reviewed by Eric Margolis Arizona State University January 19, 2004 Hogwarts Identified As Underperforming School! Ministry Takes Over, Headmaster Replaced Back To Basics Curriculum Imposed Harry Potter and The Order of the Phoenix: Year Five at Hogwarts is a big book with many themes including death, loyalty and adolescent sexuality. In my reading, J. K. Rowling has written a scathing critique of the current politics of schooling. She rips the veil of illusion from Hogwarts, showing it to be the pawn of political agendas. Educators, especially those imbued with notions of teacher and student agency may be especially discomforted by Rowling’s deconstruction of a number of cherished beliefs: that schools have autonomy, that teachers have authority in their classrooms, that truth and rationality win over brute force, and that one who is brave should “speak truth to power.” As everyone knows by now, Harry Potter is a magical child raised by cruel foster parents who are the non-magical folk called Muggles. At age 10 he was rescued from his little hovel under the stairs at the Dursley’s and transported to the Hogwarts School for Witchcraft and Wizardry where he makes friends and finds people who share his abilities and interests. School was a magic place that opened his eyes to the world, gave him a sense of his own power, and offered community and belonging. Of course there were nasty partisan teachers like Snape, and student bullies like Draco Malfoy and his gang Crabb and Goyle who tried to make Harry’s life miserable – there were even evil monsters masquerading as teachers who did their best to destroy young Harry. But all in all school was a wondrous place and he hated his enforced summer vacations back at the Dursley’s house on Privet Drive. That is, until his fifth year. School is no longer a refuge from the world. As with Muggle children leaving the elementary grades, the magic is gone. At the end of the previous book the villain, Voldemort, returned; Harry fought for his life and saw one of his schoolmates killed by “He-who-must-not-be-named.” But over the summer the Daily Prophet, a sort of official newspaper that reports the Ministry of Magic line, has conducted a campaign to discredit Harry and deny the return of Voldemort. As the fall term begins, the Ministry reaches out to exert control over Hogwarts. A new teacher, Dolores Umbridge, is sent by the Ministry to teach “Defense against the Dark Arts.” In the past dark arts teachers have been motley crew: one was under the control of the Dark Lord who popped out of the back of his head shortly before Harry dispatched him, one was a werewolf, one lost his mind, and one was a complete imposter. On the other hand, the curriculum was practical and students, empowered by practice, learned important spells to resist evil influence. In fact with one exception, a history of magic teacher who drones everyone to sleep, all the teachers at Hogwarts use constructivist techniques: Snape, teaches “Potents” (chemistry) by handing out recipes and supervising lab work; Hagrid teaches “Care of Magical Creatures” (biology) as animal husbandry; and Trelawney, the “Divination” (psychology) teacher encourages crystal gazing and the interpretation of dreams. Classes were student-centered and project-based. Umbridge is from the old school and a political appointee on an ideological mission. She pushes back-to-basics and uses fear, punishment and humiliation as motivators. Her “ministry approved curriculum” is “Defense Against the Dark Arts: A Return to Basic Principles” and on the first day of class, she lists course aims on the blackboard: Understanding the principles underlying defensive magic. Learning to recognize situations in which defensive magic can legally be used. Placing the use of defensive magic in a context for practical use. Students are told to put their wands away and begin reading Defensive Magical Theory, “There will be no need to talk.” When Harry’s friend Hermione objects that there is nothing about “using defensive spells” she is told “Well I can’t imagine a situation arising in my classroom that would require you to use a defensive spell.” And “Wizards much older than you have devised our new program of study.” She discourages questions of any kind, and when, without raising his hand, Harry jumps in to ask what use theory will be if they are attacked, she retorts “Hand, Mr. Potter!” and then ignored him. Other students pick up the issue, pointing out that there is “a practical bit” on the high stakes test, called the O.W.L. exam, that all fifth year students must take. Umbridge silences them: “It is the view of the Ministry that a theoretical knowledge will be more than sufficient to get you through your examination, which, after all, is what school is all about.” As with us Muggles, school has become “about” getting you through the high stakes test and students are warned endlessly that scores on the O.W.L. exam will determine the career choices open to them. The Hogwarts community learns for the first time from a headline on the front page of the Daily Prophet that reads: “Ministry seeks educational reform: Dolores Umbridge appointed first-ever ‘High Inquisitor’.” She is to come to grips with the “falling standards at Hogwarts” (sound familiar yet?), and is given power to “inspect her fellow educators and make sure they are coming up to scratch.” In a series of “educational decrees” Umbridge centralizes authority. She disbands “unapproved” student organizations, curtails student and faculty rights of free speech and assembly, gains power to hire and fire teachers and punish students. When Harry argues with her in class that Voldemort has indeed returned, she assigns him weeks of detention where he is forced to use a magical device that bloodily scratches “I won’t tell lies” deeper and deeper into the back of his hand. Later she banned him for life from playing Quidditch, a sort of wizard soccer and one of Harry’s great pleasures. Most telling is the way Umbridge uses classroom observations to remove faculty who are perceived as supporters of the headmaster. Important long scenes depict her classroom “inspections,” demonstrating how easy it is to spin assessment when one is wielding a political ax under the guise of raising standards. Her notes on Hagrid twist every word and mannerism to the worst possible effect: when he searches for a word, “appears to have poor short term memory” and when he waves his arms “has to resort to crude sign language.” She similarly uses selective student comments to accomplish her pre-determined ends. The firing of the divination teacher, Professor Trelawney is a classic degradation ritual. In front of a crowd of students and faculty, Umbridge announces: “Incapable though you are of predicting even tomorrow’s weather, you must surely have realized that your pitiful performance during my inspections, and lack of any improvement, would make it inevitable that you would be sacked.” Umbridge humiliates people, especially colleagues in public. How are teachers supposed to maintain pedagogical authority when they are subjected to public disrespect? Scenes like this happen metaphorically all to often in Muggle schools, where centralized political regimes hold teachers publically accountable for the performance of students on high stakes tests. Rowling gave us an object lesson and commentary on the current politicization of education. A number of lessons are embedded in the novel. One is that “speaking truth power” is most likely to lead to humiliation, degradation, and solitary punishment as in Harry’s painful detentions. The book argues that a far better strategy is to organize behind the scenes, use subterfuge and strike decisively when ready. Harry organizes a secret student group, Dumbledore’s Army, and teaches them practical spells to use in defense against the dark arts. When the group is discovered by the Ministry of Magic, Hogwarts headmaster Albus Dumbledore first pieces together a patchwork of lies to protect Harry, and then uses magic to render the Ministers senseless while he escapes. There are several instances of the kind of student “resistance” many teachers would find familiar. Students mock professor Umbridge behind her back, circulate forbidden literature, and play pranks. When the Weasley twins turn a corridor into a swamp that cannot be drained they are found out, but rather than become the first students to experience the reinstated whipping policy, they jump on their brooms and drop out of school. This is analogous to Paul Willis’ study of an English Muggle school. In his study “The Lads” a group of working class boys, reject the disciplines and regimes of school and become early leavers. It is significant that in the Harry Potter series the Weasley family, though full blood wizards, are presented as distinctly working class. The children must be content with hand-me-down clothes and the father has a hum-drum low-status job at the Ministry of Magic. The twins drop out in their sixth year, just before the final level of high stakes testing, the N.E.W.T exams. They abandon school for entrepreneurship, opening a joke shop. Eventually, Umbridge is lured away from the school by Hermione who makes up a story about there being a secret weapon (of mass destruction?) designed by Dumbledore and built by the students in the dark forest. Harry and Hermione entice her deeper and deeper into the woods until they are set upon by a group of centaurs angry at wizards and humans in general. In an amusing take on the way schoolish ways play in the real world, the centaurs proclaim themselves a free race, not subject to undersecretaries of magic or headmistresses, and claim the forest as their own. Umbridge makes a nearly fatal error calling them “filthy half-breeds” and creatures with “near-human intelligence” and is last seen by Harry and Hermione being “borne away through the trees.” As in the problem with speaking truth to power the message is unmistakable. School issues cannot be solved internally but must be dragged into the real world political arena dark though it may be. Only there can power be brought to bear sufficient to break down the surveillance, class-based discipline, and racism in the school. Rowling’s books themselves exemplify the best argument for whole language instruction – millions of children around the globe are caught up in the story and learning to read complex texts; there are no trivial phonics rhymes or sanitized story lines here. She also has constructed an adult argument to the current right-wing political attacks on schools and progressive education. She writes of schools as communities where teachers and students work together, play, and struggle with difficult issues. No one has control of the “right” answers. While not attacking high stakes testing directly, she clearly notes that tests do not measure what is most important and will not do a good job predicting real world success. No fan of back-to-basics, the classes she describes are project-based and student-centered (there is no place for competition except on the Quidditch field). She lauds cooperation between students (Hermione always lets Ron and Harry copy her notes) and personal relationships between students and teachers which have become horribly suspect in these days of sexual abuse scandal. In the novel, identification of “underperforming” is a political judgment made by outsiders. Students may suspect that Trelawney is an old fraud and that Hagrid sometimes puts them in danger, but the ministry’s remedy is recognized as a thinly disguised attempt to protect the old guard with outmoded techniques of surveillance and discipline. In the end Rowling offers practical advice; if you would protect and strengthen schools, organize in the political arena and force the minister of magic to recognize the truth. About the Reviewer Eric Margolis The author is a sociologist and teaches the social and philosophical foundations of education at Arizona State University.

Ayers, William; Dohrn, Bernadine & Ayers, Rick. (Eds.). (2001). Zero tolerance Reviewed by Dick M. Carpenter II, University of Colorado at Colorado Springs

	Ayers, William, Dohrn, Bernadine, & Ayers, Rick. (Eds.). (2001). Zero tolerance. New York: New Press. Pp. 263 $17.95       ISBN 1-56584-666-4 Casella, Ronnie. (2001). Atzero tolerance. New York: Lang. Pp. 232 $29.95       ISBN 0-8204-4996-2 Skiba, Russell J., & Noam, Gil G. (Eds.). (2002). Zero tolerance: Can suspension and expulsion keep schools safe (Vol. 92, Winter, 2001). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Pp. 186 $29.00       ISBN 0-7879-1441-X Reviewed by Dick M. Carpenter II University of Colorado at Colorado Springs January 28, 2004 On Zero Tolerance During an October 22, 1994, ceremony celebrating the authorization of the Gun Free Schools Act, president Clinton stated, “Zero tolerance is a common-sense policy. Why does anybody need a gun in school?” (Cooper, 1994, p. 30). A year later, Clinton again used the same phrase that four years later would become the source of a volatile controversy: “I'm very pleased to announce that our message of zero tolerance has been made a reality around the country” (Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States, 1996, p. 1686). In 2001, three books examined the topic of zero tolerance, but all reached conclusions far different from Clinton’s glowing assessment. The books reviewed herein consider zero tolerance from multiple perspectives, including the legal framework, social and political motivations, the policy’s implementation, and results and implications of zero tolerance. The stories, analyses, literature reviews, and philosophical arguments contained within these books build a case against zero tolerance and argue for a moratorium on its use. While some present compelling evidence and reasoned arguments for looking critically at the use of zero tolerance, others simply offer ideologically or politically laden criticisms, mildly interesting stories, or impassioned but intellectually weak calls for action. The term "zero tolerance" refers to policies that prescribe severe punishment for certain offences, no matter how minor, in an effort to treat all wrongdoers equally and to send a message of intolerance for rule breaking. The phrase first enjoyed widespread national attention during the Reagan administration, which used it to refer to the Custom Agency’s stance toward illegal drugs (Henault, 2001). The Customs Agency halted its zero tolerance policy in 1990; however, just as those zero tolerance policies waned, schools phased them in, primarily targeted toward weapons-related violence. In 1994, the aforementioned Gun Free Schools Act created a national mandate for these policies (Henault, 2001; Zirkel, 1999). Their central feature is the automatic suspension and expulsion of any student who carries a dangerous or deadly weapon to school, which was originally defined as a firearm but expanded in most cases to include knives, explosives, etc. Shortly after national adoption of weapons-related zero tolerance, school districts began extending the policy’s purview to other undesirable behavior, such as drugs, violence, threats, classroom disruptions, hate speech, and fighting (Advancement Project & Civil Rights Project, 2000). Most policies, including the Gun Free Schools Act, granted school leaders discretion in applying suspensions and expulsions, but few appeared willing to use it, preferring to maintain a “tough” stance and “send a message” to would-be violators (McAndrews, 2002). By the mid-to-late-1990s, incidents began to surface about over-zealous applications of zero tolerance, such as a Colorado fifth-grade honor roll student’s expulsion for accidentally bringing a paring knife to school (Romano, 1998). Moreover, newspaper stories reported on “skyrocketing” expulsion numbers due to zero tolerance (Cummins, 1998, p. 27A), and researchers began questioning the policy’s implementation and results, particularly related to minority students (Skiba & Peterson, 1999). These issues, and a few others, came to a head in October 1999, when the Decatur, IL school board expelled six African American high school students who participated in a fistfight at a football game. With charges of racism in the air, the incident, and the issue of zero tolerance, grew into a national story when Rev. Jesse Jackson entered the fray on the students’ behalf. This episode galvanized zero tolerance opponents. Soon after Decatur, The Advancement Project and the Civil Rights Project at Harvard hosted a national summit on zero tolerance, eventually releasing a widely cited report (Advancement Project & Civil Rights Project, 2000), parts of which reappeared in the Ayers, Dohrn, and Ayers book reviewed here. The United States Commission on Civil Rights held hearings on zero tolerance, at which Skiba and Noam met and from which they eventually conceived their book in this review. Finally, all three books under review cite the Decatur story, and the Ayers, Dohrn, and Ayers book features a chapter length discussion of the events. Although all three books share some common messages and one over-arching theme, they approach the topic from diverse perspectives, use different methods, and attempt to appeal to distinct audiences. As such, style, tone, and organization differ markedly. And while each book draws a series of recommendations, those, too, vary. On the continuum from scholarly to popular, Skiba and Noam’s edited volume aims toward the scholarly. In building a case against zero tolerance, the approach is more akin to rational decision-making. Descriptive statistics are utilized throughout; relevant empirical findings are discussed; appropriately placed anecdotes illustrate main findings; and all of it is well documented. The final three chapters consider alternative approaches to school safety by discussing programs in detail. Ayers, Dohrn, and Ayers’s edited work leans more toward the popular. In fact, the editors call it a “handbook for citizens,” direct readers to a website, and frequently spur readers to activism. As such, the book begins with a Foreword by prominent activist and zero tolerance opponent Jesse Jackson. After the Foreword and Introduction, the text begins with a series of “narratives” in which authors share the stories of those involved with zero tolerance. The next six chapters discuss the social context around zero tolerance, followed by three chapters of research findings, three chapters of recommendations, and a final chapter of reflections. Casella’sbook points at the middle of the continuum—the informed or educated but not scholarly reader. His narrative approach weaves in his own ethnographic findings from two schools and a prison with tidbits from relevant literature and his own conclusions. Although not as “structured” as Skiba and Noam, Casella’s style and organization befits his intended audience, and he also thoroughly documents his sources. The meta-theme across all these books is that from conception to implementation to evaluation, zero tolerance is bad. In fact, Michelle Fine and Kersha Smith (in Ayers, Dohrn, & Ayers) warn, “Our youth are under attack” (p. 263). Each book follows a similar pattern of building a case against zero tolerance and suggesting alternatives for addressing violence, drugs, weapons, and various other blights on schools. The common message receiving the most attention is race. As Ayers et al. write, “After all, when everyone keeps insisting ‘this is not about race,’ race is the thing it is most assuredly about” (p. xv). Later in the book they assert zero tolerance is a tool to restrict education to the “deserving” and call it “today’s fundamental civil rights issue” (p. 87). Other discussions address the disproportionate rates at which minority students are suspended and expelled under zero tolerance, particularly after controlling for representation within the school population. For example, Browne, Losen, and Wald (in Skiba & Noam) write, “In 1998-99, African American students accounted for 33 percent of all those suspended and 31 percent of all those expelled, yet made up only 17% of all students” (p. 74). Skiba (in Ayers et al.) reports similar findings but also asks potentially sensitive yet nonetheless important questions, such as: “Are black students more likely to misbehave?” (p. 181); and “Does minority disproportionality represent racial discrimination?” (p. 177). By asking such questions, Skiba demonstrates critical thinking that separates good research from assumption-laden activism. This is not to say that Skiba shies away from activism—simply read his unequivocal statements about zero tolerance in Phi Delta Kappan (1999) and the New York Times (2000). However, he at least appears willing to test the glaring assumption evident in other authors in these works, specifically: Because school officials are racists, they suspend or expel minority students at greater rates. The second most common message is that zero tolerance simply does not work. For example, Noguera (in Ayers et al.) writes, “…there is little if any evidence that the kinds of punishments most frequently utilized by schools have the effect of deterring or modifying behavior…” (p. 211). Two groups of authors, Skiba and Knesting, and Morrison, Anthony, Storino, Cheng, Furlong, and Morrison (in Skiba & Noam), likewise conclude that disorder and violence in schools appear largely unaffected, and, in fact, some state and local data suggest zero tolerance has caused a dramatic increase in the use of suspensions and expulsions in some school districts. Casella criticizes zero tolerance and related measures, such as security technology, as ineffective and short-sighted. Yet, data from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) and other research appears to indicate otherwise. Reports on the Safe and Gun Free Schools Act indicate a nation-wide decreasing trend in weapon-related expulsions (Gray & Sinclair, 2000; 2002; 2003; 1999; Sinclair, Hamilton, Gutmann, Daft, & Bolcik, 1998). Additionally, Barton, Coley, and Wenglinsky (1998) found that schools with less strict discipline policies experienced higher levels of serious offences. The third common message is the irreparable damage done to students who are suspended or expelled under zero tolerance. Morrison et al. (in Skiba & Noam) assert policies that rely solely on suspending and expelling students do not remedy student misbehavior. Instead, they are believed to exacerbate student misconduct, contribute to academic failure and higher drop-out rates, and leave students vulnerable to anti-social, high risk, and delinquent situations. As Casella describes it, “Zero tolerance…assures the creation of criminals” (p. 66). This occurs because separating students from the educational environment likely removes them from one of the only potentially positive factors in their lives. As Casella and the narratives at the beginning of Ayers et al. describe, students who receive suspension or expulsion most often hail from unstable, violent, and/or low SES environments. Thus, denying an education regularly perpetuates the cycle of violence, poverty, or at-risk behavior. This closely relates to the fourth common message and arguably one of the most important: the causes of behaviors that trigger zero tolerance. All too often, leaders pursue policies without systemically considering variables that contribute to the issue in question. The result frequently is failure in solving the root problem and creation of new problems (Gillon, 2000; Tenner, 1996). Casellabelieves finding the “singular cause of violence is a farce” (p. 62) and instead works from the thesis “that complex and intricate relationships among parts of an organism cannot be explored out of the context of their whole” (p. 11). Likewise, Noguera (in Ayers et al.) asserts: “…responses to violence that do not take into account the ways in which it is rationalized, legitimated, and sanctioned within schools, communities, and society are unlikely to succeed in reducing or eliminating it” (p. 216). In seeking more comprehensive answers, the six chapters in Ayers et al. on “social contexts,” identify a list of causes, including poverty, racism, inadequate education, unequal opportunities, access to guns, childhood abuse and neglect, and familial mental health problems. Casella’s list shares some common causes, such as poverty, and he adds a few that are thoughtful (nihilism, despair, alienation), typical (media violence, modeling by adults), and even unconventional (JROTC military training). Of course, creating such lists is nothing profound, and none of the authors systematicly attempt to examine the interactions of any of these variables. Casella comes closest, by drawing some qualitative conclusions, but it is hardly the stuff upon which to write policy, even though plenty of policy has been based on less. What Noguera and Casella imply, but never explicitly state, is the rather simple (read cliché-ish) but nonetheless true reality: There is no silver bullet. No amount of regression, HLM, structural equation modleing, or various other analyses will neatly tie all of the social and political variables into a bow. However, acknowledging the complex genesis of violence greatly surpasses the myopic view prevalent in America’s legislative chambers, media outlets, and living rooms. Finally, allowing for the Hydra-like roots to weapons, violence, and other undesirable behavior in schools, all three books consider diverse alternatives to zero tolerance. Some advocate specific programs. Gagne and Lenoe (in Skiba & Noam) discuss the “Resolving Conflict Creatively Program (RCCP),” “Project ACHIEVE,” “Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS),” “Positive Adolescent Choices Training (PACT),” “First Step to Success,” and the “Functional Behavioral Assessment (FBA).” As the director, coordinator, and associate program director respectively, Noam, Warner, and Van Dyken (in Skiba & Noam) outline their RALLY program for violence prevention. Others discuss less programmatic approaches to school violence. Sandler (in Ayers et al.) and Osher, Sandler, and Nelson (in Skiba & Noam) advocate structural, environmental, social, and procedural changes, such as instilling caring, peaceful communities, grounding the school in the students’ culture (such as Afro-centrism), or promoting critical thinking about behavior. Additionally, Noguera (in Ayers et al.) advocates the creation of greater social capital to increase school safety. Casellais less specific. He asserts: “Schools have to be worth a student’s time” (p. 182), and calls for interventions that addresses “economic disparities, prejudice, inequitable school structures and organizational features [like tracking], unjust hierarchies, and the culture we create at large” (p. 183). The common threads running through all approaches are disagreement with a “one-size-fits-all” policy and the necessity of prevention over reaction. Any logical reader could hardly disagree, but patently dismissing zero tolerance, which several authors advocate, would deny school officials a useful tool in school safety. Namely, zero tolerance serves an operational purpose by temporarily separating a dangerous or potentially dangerous student from the rest of the school population (Ewing, 2000). When a student carries a truly dangerous weapon to school, removal of the offender from the school setting is necessary for the physical protection of other students. School leaders should assess the student’s needs and disposition, the reasons for the infraction, and requisite sanctions, if any are required, but only after concern for the safety of all students and staff is addressed. Thus, those who seek the policy's elimination would do no favors to schools and those who populate them. For academicians, particularly of the quantitative bent, it is likely that none of these books will prove satisfying. To begin, for all their criticisms about the “lack of data” or “lack of evidence” surrounding zero tolerance, all three books largely suffer from the same shortcoming. Despite Jesse Jackson’s claim (in Ayers et al.) that “[t]he authors unequivocally demonstrate that ‘get tough’ policies do not work” (p. ix), no one presents compelling evidence to that affect. Moreover, the “evidence” presented on the deleterious effects of zero tolerance is overwhelmingly anecdotal. No quantitative data beyond descriptive or secondary, and precious little good qualitative data, is presented to convince a critical reader that America is “eating her young,” “attacking our youth,” or perpetrating any other equally widespread scandalous injustice. The strongest argument along these lines remains the disproportionate discipline of minority students, a phenomenon present prior to the advent of zero tolerance, but only Skiba’s chapter in Ayers et al. proves compelling. Further research is required before we should accept Sandler’s claim (in Ayers et al.) of “institutional racism” (p. 222). Indeed, Skiba (in Ayers et al.) concludes, “Taking such data seriously does not demand that we vilify teachers as conscious racists for the overreferral of black students” (p. 184). Of course, two of the books (Ayers et al. and Casella) are not necessarily written for academic readers, and their style, in addition to content, clearly indicates that. For example, bold, evaluative, and/or unsupported statements are evident throughout, including: “Fear of our children is at the heart of zero tolerance policies in our schools.” --Jesse Jackson (in Ayers et al., p. vii); “If we must have zero tolerance, let it be for our gun makers, gun dealers, and gun owners who encourage or allow youth access.” (Ayers, et al., p. xiii); “Zero tolerance is the link between schools and prisons.” (Casella, p. 6); and “[Zero tolerance] is an almost uncontrollable response by adults to cast blame and to take out their own frustrations and fears on young people” (Casella, p. 20). It is likely that the zero tolerance summit by the Advancement Project and the Civil Rights Project, the report released after the conference, and these three books were designed, in part, to foment public sentiment against zero tolerance. Indeed, after describing zero tolerance as “the triumph of a narrow, authoritarian view of children and youth,” Ayers et al. charge, “We can do better. We can resist” (p. 164). Of course, widespread resistance never materialized. Instead, zero tolerance policies enjoyed unprecedented public support throughout the 1990s and into the new century. In 1997, 93% of a Gallup sample supported weapons-related zero tolerance policies for schools (Gallup/Phi Delta Kappa, 1997). Even during the Decatur, IL imbroglio, public support for zero tolerance never dropped below 50% (Fox News/Opinion Dynamics, 1999), and in 2001 an Associated Press (2001) poll found the number was still as high as 83%. Such strong support by no means demonstrates the policy’s fecundity or equity. Indeed, as Schiraldi and Ziedenberg (in Ayers et al.) opine, it could more reflect the media’s skewed coverage of idiosyncratic events of school violence. However, until public sentiment changes or until solid research clearly demonstrates either the ineffectiveness of zero tolerance and/or its unjust, ruinous consequences, support will likely remain strong. These books ask some important questions and introduce notable issues surrounding zero tolerance, but none prove particularly compelling either as research or as activism. References Advancement Project, & Civil Rights Project. (2000). Opportunities suspended: The devastating consequences of zero tolerance and school discipline. Retrieved December 19, 2003, from www.civilrightsproject.harvard.edu/research/discipline/call_opport.ph p Associated Press. (2001). Poll, July 27-July 31. Retrieved January 8, 2004, from www.ropercenter.uconn.edu Barton, P., Coley, R., & Wenglinsky, H. (1998). Order in the classroom: Violence, discipline, and student achievement. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. Congressional Record. (1994). Gun-Free Schools Act of 1994. Washington, DC: Office of the Federal Register. Cooper, K. J. (1994, October 23). Clinton toughens ban on guns at schools. Chicago Sun-Times, p. 30. Cummins, C. (1998, June 14). Zero-tolerance actions may still spur outrage. Rocky Mountain News, p. 27A. Ewing, C. P. (2000). Sensible zero tolerance protects kids. Retrieved December 19, 2003, from http://www.edletter.org/past/issues/2000- jf/zero.shtml Fox News/Opinion Dynamics. (1999). Poll, November 17-November 18. Retrieved January 8, 2004, from www.ropercenter.uconn.edu Gallup/Phi Delta Kappa. (1997). Poll of public attitudes toward the public schools. Retrieved January 8, 2004, from www.ropercenter.uconn.edu Gillon, S. M. (2000). That's not we meant to do. New York: Norton. Gray, K., & Sinclair, B. (2000). Report on state implementation of the Gun-Free Schools Act-school year 1998-99. Rockville, MD: Westat. Gray, K., & Sinclair, B. (2002). Report on state/territory implementation of the Gun-Free Schools Act-school year 1999-2000. Rockville, MD: Westat. Gray, K., & Sinclair, B. (2003). Report on the implementation of the Gun-Free Schools Act in the states and outlying areas-school year 2000-2001. Rockville, MD: Westat. Henault, C. (2001). Zero tolerance in schools. Journal of Law and Education, 30(3), 547-553. Kohl, H. (1995, May 9). Guns in schools: Congress can't just turn its back. Washington Post, p. 19. McAndrews, T. (2002). Zero tolerance policies (pp. 5). Eugene, OR: ERIC. Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States. (1996). Bill Clinton. Washington, DC: Office of the Federal Register. Romano, M. (1998, May 9). State no. 1 in expulsions. Rocky Mountain News, p. 5A. Sinclair, B. (1999). Report on state implementation of the Gun-Free Schools Act-school year 1997-98. Rockville, MD: Westat. Sinclair, B., Hamilton, J., Gutmann, B., Daft, J., & Bolcik, D. (1998). Report on state implementation of the Gun-Free Schools Act-school year 1996-97. Rockville, MD: Westat. Skiba, R. (2000, January 14). No to zero tolerance. New York Times, p. 27. Skiba, R. J., & Peterson, R. (1999, January). The dark side of zero tolerance. Phi Delta Kappan, 80, 372. Tenner, E. (1996). Why things bite back. New York: Knopf. Zirkel, P. A. (1999). Zero tolerance expulsions. NASSP Bulletin, 83(605), 101-105. About the Reviewer Dick Carpenter is an Assistant Professor of educational leadership at the University of Colorado in Colorado Springs. His diverse background includes experience as a public school teacher, administrator, a public policy analyst for a national non-profit organization. His research focuses on educational policy, leadership, communications, school reform, and the U.S. Presidency.

Swanson, J. L., & Fouad, N.A. (1999). Career Theory and Practice: Learning Through Case Studies. Reviewed by Kimberly Hendry, The Ohio State University

	Swanson, J. L., & Fouad, N.A. (1999). Career Theory and Practice: Learning Through Case Studies. CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. 220 pp. $80.95     ISBN 0-7619-1142-1 Reviewed by Kimberly Hendry The Ohio State University January 30, 2004 Utilizing an interactive approach, Swanson and Fouad have developed a text to systematically engage the master's level student or the inquiring practitioner in career theory and practice. Collectively, they work diligently to effectively bridge theory and practice. Five theoretical approaches and two distinct practical approaches to career counseling are reviewed, supplemented by the recurring case study of “Leslie” in each chapter to serve as a working framework for implementation of each respective theory and/or career counseling approach. The extensive case study of Leslie is presented initially in chapter one to provide us with career counseling content information and assessment findings to most successfully integrate the theoretical and career counseling approaches in each subsequent chapter. Following a conceptualization of Leslie's current situation based on each chapter's theoretical or career counseling approach, the text provides directions and implications for career counseling at the conclusion of each chapter. This section of each chapter is comprehensive, describing the goals of counseling, appropriate interventions, discussion questions, and additional cases provided for review. This is particularly helpful as the reader can fully ingest each approach and immediately receive feedback on the implementation of the theory and approach into practice. Chapter three begins the theoretical discussion of Holland's Theory of Vocational Personalities and Work Environments. This theory is identified as a person-environment fit, in that people influence their environments, and environments influence people (Walsh, Price, & Craik, 1992). This theory is commonly used in the practice of career development professionals. It is quite popular to use Holland's first two working assumptions in describing vocational choice. This popularity is enhanced through the convenient application of Holland's six-category typology, in which personality types and environments are described as realistic, investigative, artistic, social, enterprising, and conventional. Swanson and Fouad go on to discuss Holland's third and fourth working assumptions, which are, respectively, that "people search for environments that will let them exercise their skills and abilities, express their attitudes and values, and take on agreeable problems and roles" (Holland, 1997, p. 4) and that personality and environment interact to produce behavior. The text examines the case study of Leslie in conjunction with Holland's theory, primarily focusing on personality, environment, and other external factors in describing the client's occupational choices. “The Theory of Work Adjustment”, chapter four, has also been identified as a theory of person-environment fit, although the emphasis is placed on vocational adjustment. Swanson and Fouad eloquently provide that the Theory of Work Adjustment, similar to Holland's theory, uses the same dimensions to describe people as are used to describe environments. The Theory of Work Adjustment focuses on two sets of common dimensions to evaluate occupational fit: an individual's ability in relation to his/her job and an individual's needs and work values in relation to the awards available on the job. A counselor working from this theoretical approach needs to thoroughly examine an individual's abilities, needs, and values to assess congruency with those of his/her occupation. In the case of Leslie this theory is quick to highlight her dissatisfaction in administration and the change in her rewards. Primarily, this theory works well in working with job adjustment issues. Theory focusing on the decision making process and the incorporation of developmental tasks brings us to the discussion of developmental theories. Chapter 5, “Developmental Theories”, highlights Super's life span approach and Gottfredson's theory of circumscription and compromise. In addition to Super's theory of decision-making, self-concept, and vocational choices, Super's five distinct life stages are reviewed. Gottfredson's theory examines the variance of vocational expectations based on sex, race, and social class. According to Swanson and Fouad, "Gottfredson differs from Super in that she views vocational choice first as an implementation of the social self and only secondarily as an implementation of the psychological self"(p. 86). As each theorist applies his/her developmental theory to the case of Leslie, decision making and developmental stages across the life span are of critical importance in determining a working hypothesis and implications for career counseling. Krumboltz's Social Learning Theory of Career Choice and Counseling is focused on interacting with the environment in making career decisions, with the emphasis on the learning resulting from those interactions. The text describes the Learning Theory as employing two types of learning: instrumental and associative. Outlined are four factors influencing the career paths of individuals: innate genetic endowment and special abilities, environmental conditions and events, learning experiences, and task approach skills. Chapter 6 provides that these four factors interact and result in the formation of generalizations about self and world. It is only then that individuals identify interests, skills, work values, etc. Career decision-making is affected as one begins to internalize interests, skills, and work values, and, as a result, initiates career decisions. According to Swanson and Fouad, in conceptualizing Leslie's case, social learning career theorists would "examine her innate abilities, learning experiences, task approach skills combined with environmental events to influence her decision making and choices" (106). Comparatively speaking, “Social Cognitive Career Theory”, Chapter 7, is new to the field of career development. Self-efficacy and career choice is described in the chapter as first being acknowledged by Hackett and Betz. This theory recognizes self-efficacy to be of critical importance in career decisions and choices. A social cognitive framework developed by Lent, Brown, and Hackett (1994) is used to explain and predict career behavior in a three-part model linking interests, choices, and performance (126). A specific overview of the framework is provided throughout the remainder of the theoretical description with complete figure analysis. Demographic variables and background and contextual variables are noted in the chapter as affecting self-efficacy expectations and career interests, respectively. Swanson and Fouad provide comprehensive examples to illustrate the tenets of social cognitive career theory. In reviewing the case of Leslie, social cognitive theorists would focus on Leslie's learning experiences, her self-efficacy beliefs, and her outcome expectations. Chapters 8 and 9 bring specific career counseling approaches to our attention. These two chapters embrace gender-aware and feminist approaches and culturally appropriate approaches to career counseling. Swanson and Fouad attempt to heighten awareness through interactive descriptions from an extensive literature review. Three counseling orientations are reviewed that take gender into account: nonsexist counseling, gender-aware counseling, and feminist counseling. Assessment is reviewed as well as noting four major sex biases in testing. Swanson and Fouad provide an extensive basis on which to evaluate Leslie’s case from a gender aware and feminist approach. According to Swanson and Fouad, Leslie received mixed messages about careers for women, lack of interest with regard to career choice as pressure mounted to maintain strong familial commitments, and gender isolation in advanced math courses. In chapter 9, the emphasis is on acknowledging race and ethnicity in a career counseling approach. The text reiterates the responsibility of counselors to become multiculturally competent professionals. Swanson and Fouad substantiate this assertion on a variety of occasions with statements such as, "Clients are shaped in part by factors such as their gender, racial identity and background, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, or disability, all of which help to form their environments and their responses to it"(p. 172). The chapter describes three models to assist the student and/or practitioner in conceptualizing ways to incorporate culture into career counseling. Figures are included to enhance a more comprehensive understanding of each model. Five central tenets of career counseling are outlined to enhance an awareness of the importance of multicultural perspective in practice. In reviewing the case of Leslie, practitioners working from a culturally appropriate career counseling approach examine Leslie’s behavior and values from multiple cultural contexts(184). Ultimately, this would provide them with a framework to assess and deliver culturally appropriate interventions. Career Theory and Practice: Learning Through Case Studies serves as an excellent text to bring theory into practice. It allows for the examination of specific theoretical approaches, yet reminds students and practitioners of the eclectic use of theory in practice. Chapter 10, “Summary and Integration”, provides the reader with a summarization of all the theories discussed in chapters 3-7. It integrates all the theoretical approaches and career counseling approaches as the chapter discusses individual contributions in discussing the case of Leslie. Further, it provides two additional cases for the student and/or practitioner to review and on which to apply theoretical and career counseling approaches. Certainly, the text enhances learning through this use of interactive case conceptualization exercises. However, some limitations are to be considered by the reader. Extensive theoretical knowledge is not provided, although a practical amount is provided for a useful understanding. Some knowledge of assessment is assumed. As a result, an awareness of career assessment is significant for a comprehensive understanding of the text, especially in conceptualizing cases. Additionally, limited discussion on career clients with disabilities may foster a lack of knowledge of this special population. In light of this information, supplemental materials on theoretical approaches, assessment, and disabled clients may be appropriate, depending on student and/or practitioner knowledge. Overall, though, the text is an outstanding contribution to the field of career development. It provides an interactive approach to learning and conceptualizing career development theories and career counseling approaches. The text encourages practitioners and students to examine theory and incorporate theory into practice, a luxury not often afforded in a classroom setting. Swanson and Fouad have developed a text that remains useful, both in the classroom and as a tool for career development practitioners. About the Reviewer Kimberly Hendry is a doctoral student in Counselor Education with a school counseling focus at The Ohio State University. Her research interests include: services provided for students in urban school districts, allocation of educational funding and resources, and career exploration and assessment opportunities with students from a variety of social classes. Ms. Hendry can be reached via e-mail at hendry.3@osu.edu.

Ogbu, John (2003). Black American Students in an Affluent Suburb: A Study of Academic Disengagement. Reviewed by Yovonda Ingram, College of Notre Dame of Maryland

	Ogbu, John (2003). Black American Students in an Affluent Suburb: A Study of Academic Disengagement. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Pages: xx + 320 $32.50   ISBN 0-8058-4516-X Reviewed by Yovonda Ingram College of Notre Dame of Maryland November 14, 2006 The achievement gap between minority and majority students has been studied for years as it relates to societal and school factors. However, community forces have not received as much attention in the quest to close the minority achievement gap. Community forces include the ways minorities interpret and respond to schooling: these interpretations and responses extend to cultural and language differences (p. vii). In this book, the author completes an ethnographic study on community forces in an attempt to explain why the Black students in the Shaker Heights school district are not performing academically like their white counterparts. Shaker Heights is an upper middle class suburb located outside Cleveland Ohio. The school system is one of the best in the nation; however, a wide gap in academic achievement existed between White and Black students. As ethnographers, the author and his team lived in Shaker Heights and interacted on a daily basis with African Americans in the community and at school. For eight months, they collected data using group and individual discussion, formal documents, and participant observations. They also conducted individual interviews with students, school personnel, and community members. This research was conducted using four elementary schools, one middle school and the community’s high school. I believe that this study is valuable on developing a framework for understanding the Black-White achievement gap. Ogbu begins the book by discussing historical facts that largely impacted the way in which black minorities were educated. Cases such as Brown v. Board of Education were mentioned to provide some foundational information that may have contributed to the causes of the gap that exists today. I believe that the author referenced this historical case because it is hard to explain the gap that exists between blacks and whites without facing the brutal facts that unequal education did legally exist. Although the author mentions historical cases as a factor that may have contributed to the academic disenchantment, he does not focus the study on this information. Ogbu continues his study with an exploration on academic disengagement. He talks about factors such as intelligent quotient (IQ), social class status, teacher expectation, social differences and sociolinguistic differences. The idea that the lower school performance of Black students is due to inadequate IQ has persisted throughout the history of American education (p. 33). However, in the context of Shaker Heights Blacks, the inadequate-IQ explanation is inapplicable because their performance on IQ tests did not predict their academic achievement. Ogbu found that low teacher expectations coexisted with students’ unwillingness or refusal to do class work or homework (p. 37). Findings from this study also indicate that students suffer from social and sociolinguistic differences. While the author recognizes that schooling in the United States is based on White culture, he challenges us to move away from this viewpoint and to consider school as an institution that prepares students for their future adult cultural task and roles in society. After Ogbu explains some causes of the achievement gap, he discusses societal and school factors. In this section, he looks at race relations, Pygmalion or internalized White beliefs and expectations, leveling or tracking, and the roles of teachers, counselors, and discipline. He describes how cultural racism and hegemony are manifested in the attitudes and actions of White school authorities toward Black students (p. 39). The conversation on hegemony is particularly important, because through conversations with Black students, they express how they feel inferior to white people. For example, one middle school student noted that no Black American has ever been elected President of the United States, thus making him feel as if Black people will never reach that status (p. 251). Another example evolved from a conversation with a high school student who noted that “sometimes in the classroom, black kids seem to think that Blacks are inferior to Whites and I think that takes a toll on some Black students. They unconsciously act like society believes Blacks will act because they are inferior” (p. 78). The author further explains that both the hegemonic practices of the school and the interpretations leading to the feelings of inferiority of the Black community must change in order for the achievement gap to narrow. Teachers must maintain high expectations for all students, black and white, and students must put forth the effort needed to succeed. The last section of this book focuses on community forces. These final chapters are about the educational impact of opportunity structure, collective identity, cultural and language or dialect frame of reference in school, peer pressures, and the role of the family. Some major findings from this section indicate that Black students feel compelled to work twice as hard as their White peers. However, even though Black students recognized the importance of working hard to make good grades, they had not developed the habit of working hard to make good grades or making it a priority. Another finding shows that Black students identified sports, athletics, entertainment, and drug dealing as alternative mechanisms for achieving the “American Dream.” Other findings from the research on community forces identify a Black child’s resistance to “acting White” and how ambivalence has impacted the attitudes of the community. Lastly, the findings from the family research indicates that Black families lack a close supervision of children’s homework, poor coaching for effective time management, lack of shielding negative peer pressures, and ineffective methods for motivating children to engage in schoolwork. In this section, Ogbu does an excellent job of bringing to the forefront the community issues that largely impact academic disengagement. The book “speaks” the “silent truths” that exist in the minds of the Shaker Heights community. Through group and individual discussions, individual interviews, formal documents, and participant observations, the author was able to extract the ingredients that make up the perceptions that lead to the achievement gap. Ogbu is to be commended for not placing blame on the community or the school. He does, however, identify factors and truths that contribute to the achievement gap. One major finding from his research is that the Black community and the school system are both responsible for the academic disengagement of Black students. Recommendations from this study are based on this joint responsibility and the belief that the community and the school system should also share the responsibility for solving the problem collectively. Ogbu recommends that the community and school authorities read and critically discuss the research findings from this study, followed by conversations with all stakeholders (p. 274). The hope is that the discussions will lead to changes in the community and in school policy that will lead to the closing of the achievement gap. A major recommendation for the school system is to enhance the effectiveness of the Minority Achievement Committee (MAC) program in the school because it “integrated Black collective identity with academic identity” (p. 282). The author also advocated increased parent involvement by providing workshops on leveling and tracking and other structural features within the school that assist parents in helping their children make more informed academic decisions. For the Black community, Ogbu suggests the following: enhance academic orientation with supplementary educational programs; develop a cultural context to increase the value of academic success and the visibility of academically successful Blacks as role models; distinguish the affective from the pragmatic value of education; develop and institutionalize appropriate and effective parental educational strategies; and teach children how to work hard and persevere to make good grades. Many African American families are moving into affluent suburbs with the idea that their child will receive a better education. However, the fact remains that an achievement gap exists between the blacks and whites even in these communities. Ogbu's research can benefit Black families in these affluent neighborhoods as well as families in less affluent black communities. About the Reviewer Yovonda Ingram is a doctoral student in Education at the College of Notre Dame of Maryland.