Soby, Jeanette M. (2006). Prenatal Exposure to Drugs/Alchol: Characteristics and Educational Implications of Fetal Alcohol Syndrome and Cocaine/Polydrug Effects, 2nd ed. Reviewed by Beth R. Handler, Minnesota State University, Mankato

Soby, Jeanette M. (2006). Prenatal Exposure to Drugs/Alchol: Characteristics and Educational Implications of Fetal Alcohol Syndrome and Cocaine/Polydrug Effects, 2nd ed. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas. Pp. 188     ISBN 0-398-07634-0     Reviewed by Beth R. Handler Minnesota State University, Mankato January 31, 2007 Prenatal Exposure to Drugs/Alcohol: Characteristics and Educational Implications of Fetal Alcohol Syndrome and Cocaine/Polydrug Effects, 2nd ed., is a book which, according to the author, “describes the characteristics of youngsters affected by prenatal drug/alcohol exposure and explores strategies to circumvent this damage in order to maximize the individual’s remaining strengths” (p. v). Within the 145 pages of text, the author attempts to present the social problems that facilitate the occurrence of Fetal Alcohol Syndrome (FAS) and cocaine/polydrug effects in children, an overview of the psychological, physical, learning and behavioral characteristics of affected children, and to suggest educational interventions service providers might use in working with these children. As one might expect, the result is a superficial gloss that fails to offer much of value to the reader. With the exception of the section on the characteristics of children with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome (FAS), the material in this book fails to demonstrate a quality of scholarship or skill in communication that permits any confidence in its content. The terminology included is dated and does not accurately reflect current definitions or categorical labels associated with FAS and related disorders. For example, the term Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders (FASD), introduced by the Institute of Medicine (IOM) in 1996, represents the entire spectrum of disorders associated with prenatal alcohol exposure. Soby fails to make clear that this is an umbrella term and indicates through her use of it that FASD is interchangeable and/or equivalent to FAS and FAE (Fetal Alcohol Effects). This use represents an inaccurate understanding, communicates inaccuracies to an unsuspecting audience and is considered to be inappropriate based upon current practice in both the educational and clinical fields. On its face, the work seems to have been updated from its original edition in 1994, as the author has clearly integrated support from work published within the past six years. On careful examination, however, the bulk of supportive literature cited—almost two-thirds of the cited works—predate the year 2000. A great number of the works cited are from the 1980s and do not represent the current trends or knowledge evident in the relevant literatures. Further interrogation of the literature cited indicates weak or inappropriate attribution of concepts to works exist throughout the book. One of the many examples of this weak or inappropriate use of the literature is given here; others are evident throughout the book. In discussing the prevalence rates of FASD among Native Americans, the author includes the statement “this may add to the misperception that American Indians drink more alcohol (only 42% of adult Navajo Indians drink alcohol) than other ethnic groups” (p. 6). The author then cited Carney and Chermak, 1991 as support for this claim. Upon examination of the Carney and Chermak article, it becomes clear that Soby’s use of this work as support for this statement is flawed as the Carney and Chermak work focused on language development of Native American children with FAS as demonstrated by a single testing instrument. Carney and Chermak did not study alcohol consumption rates of Native Americans. Moreover, the prevalence rates cited in this discussion reflected 1989 data and only FAS cases, not all cases that fit under the umbrella of FASD as is suggested by the phrasing in the text; again, demonstrating misapplication of data and inaccurate communication of current knowledge of the field. These kinds of weaknesses are evident throughout the book and present a potential for communication of misinformation to the readers. In addition, there is a great inconsistency in this book in terms of the level of support provided for claims made. Some sections include copious, if dated, citations, while many contain no citation support for content presented across many pages. Although it seems to follow American Psychological Association formatting, the book fails to meet fully the formatting requirements of any of the major editorial styles. For example, citations following quotations do not indicate page number references. The author justifies her failure to use adequate citations, and presumably attempt to forestall potential allegations of plagiarism, by making the claim that, “articles I have read and conversations that became so much a part of me, I no longer recognize an idea is not my own” (p. vii). [Note: this sentence is taken verbatim from the text with all grammatical errors intact]. Soby also covers her tracks by warning readers to be skeptical of research. She states: “Although I advise the reader of research to be skeptical, I, too, may have accepted as factual only possibilities” (p. 14). Again, this sentence is taken verbatim from the text. Poorly written as it may be, her caution suggests that she fails to understand the true nature of the research process and its goals, that is, to suggest possible or probable relationships between variables and not to “prove” something to be “true.” To an academic reader, these types of comment as well as her inadequate description of the “research” activities through which she obtained the anecdotal material she includes, suggest that Soby does not have an advanced understanding of research practice or reporting. Overall, the book is full of underdeveloped concepts that are not well connected through quality prose. Inclusion of tangential content, such as the section with the heading “Never Shake Baby” (p. 74), occurs throughout and detracts substantially from the presumed topic of the text. Rhetorical questions fill a fair amount of space and generally demonstrate overgeneralization or random speculation. The tone of much of this questioning indicates a negative bias, pity, and a paternalistic attitude by the author. The true function of these embedded questions remains unclear as they do not function well either as a means of transition or summation. Coverage of the second major topic is incomplete. The author fails to present clearly the varying degrees of the effects of cocaine/polydrug exposure or how professionals might recognize and respond appropriately to children so exposed. The content focused on educational interventions is too general and inadequately developed to be of much value. Much of this content is not directly associated with children with prenatal exposure to drugs or alcohol and reflects characteristics that are common to many children in public schools or who demonstrate behavioral and learning problems not specific to those with FASDs or prenatal drug exposure. Moreover, it is inadequately supported with citations to warrant much credence. Finally, this portion of the book fails to demonstrate current information as most of the works that are cited are more than twenty years old. This failure to differentiate specifically the important characteristics of students with FASDs from others and to clearly connect the unique strategies demonstrated to be effective for this particular population from those used with other students with other disorders fails in one important respect. Readers are not provided a clear understanding that the cognitive features of students with FASDs create conditions that undermine behavioral and instructional strategies that are typically employed. A novice or uninformed educator reading this book would be unlikely to understand that many standard interventions applied in special education practice do not work for students with FASDs. The material on cocaine/polydrug effects offers the reader even less information. Another troubling aspect of this text is the interjection of content said by the author to be the results of a research study. The use of personal research in a text such as this is not generally problematic except when, as in this case, the author does not clearly describe the study, establish the data collection and analyses applied, or discuss the findings in the context of the larger body of research literature. The author acknowledges that information contained in the work was derived from her “experiences from [her] work in the field of special education, from [her] service on the citizen Review Board for the Oregon Justice Department, from interviews with medical foster moms, teachers, social workers, nurses, other service and care providers together with parents” (p. viii). She further indicates that she is including knowledge she gained while “working with the Juvenile Justice System and the Children Services Division” (p. viii). Soby goes on to list the names of individuals whom she interviewed and identify that they were employed by the Portland Public Schools (p. ix). One can only hope she secured permission before making their names public since she does not indicate such permission was given. Ms. Soby fails to demonstrate basic scholarship in her discussion of this “research” aspect of this work or the integration of material acquired “in the field” into the text. She refers to individuals, adults and children, by proper name, but fails to make clear who they are, if indeed they are real people at all, and under what circumstances the material was collected or statements made. It is not clear whether an actual, well-designed study was carried out or if the content reported is simply reflections from her life experiences. Potentially more worrisome, is Soby’s complete failure to indicate that she had permission for the collection and communication of the information she transmits in this text. She says that she retrieved some of the data during her employment in several jobs that allowed her access to case materials and juvenile crime and foster care reports. She does not make clear which data she collected from those sources nor if that collection was done with appropriate permission by all subjects involved. Although the integration of field-based data potentially provides grounding for other content within non-clinical settings, the misuse of such data potentially undermines the veracity of content and can endanger the field-based participants. Since Soby fails to describe clearly the nature of or procedures under which the data were collected, nor makes clear that proper human subject protections of privacy were employed, the identification of individuals and use of their statements are arguably unethical. Moreover, the random interjection of quotations or paraphrased responses by “participants” is so haphazard and so frequently placed without contextual descriptors that they fail to enhance the work and only result in adding to the disjointed flow of ideas. According to both the author and publisher, this text is intended for a practitioner audience, but that intention does not preclude an expectation of excellence in scholarship and academic practice. Whether this indicates a limitation in skill level or is an artifact of the poor compositional construction of the text itself is hard to say. In many ways, this text fails to demonstrate marginally acceptable levels of scholarship and academic practices. It certainly fails to meet expectations for the reporting of research using human subjects from vulnerable populations. Finally, the language choices used to describe children with FAS, the descriptions of home environments and parental choices that may contribute to this disorder, and the role of service providers in dealing with this disorder create an extremely negative, paternalistic, and bigoted tone. Soby uses terms like “damaged children” and “bad family” throughout and makes generalizations about the parents and life conditions that foster FASD. Soby does not adequately make clear that prenatal exposure to alcohol and drugs cuts across racial and socioeconomic groups. Although she is correct in suggesting that such exposure is more frequent in families of low socioeconomic status, her choice of words and inattention to this phenomena in middle and upper class families indicates an bias that further undermines the credibility of the content of this book. Prenatal Exposure to Drugs/Alchol: Characteristics and Educational Implications of Fetal Alcohol Syndrome and Cocaine/Polydrug Effects, 2nd ed. by Jeannette Soby is not simply badly written with poor grammar and disjointed content. This book presents dated and unsubstantiated content. Additionally, content is inadequately supported to allow for much confidence; many errors of fact are clearly evident to an informed reader. The work fails to demonstrate deep and current knowledge of the various fields it presents and demonstrates a poor model for the use and reporting of research. Moreover, the tone of this book is that of pity, paternalism, and classism, and puts forth ideas that have the potential tosupport stereotypes. After reading this book, one is left to wonder how a book of this poor quality was published in the first place, let alone reissued as a second edition. One might allow that in 1994 this book was one of the few that dealt with this topic; in 2006, it is not. As such, it is recommended that anyone interested in this topic avoid this text and seek another source for information. Reference Charney, L. J., & Chermak, G. D (1991) Performance of American Indian Children with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome on the Test of Language Development [Electronic version]. Journal of Communication Disorders, 24, no. 2, 123-134. About the Reviewer Beth R. Handler,PhD. Assistant Professor at Minnesota State University, Mankato. I teach classes in research, academic writing and special educational foundations. My research interests are in educational history and disability studies. My current research projects focus on segregated special education programs and the affects of curriculum content on the perceptions of disability of pre-service teachers