Janesick, Valerie, J. (2006). Authentic Assessment Primer. Reviewed by Kristin Stang, California State University, Fullerton

Janesick, Valerie, J. (2006). Authentic Assessment Primer. NY, NY: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc. Pp. 125     $19     ISBN 0-8204-7648-X Reviewed by Kristin Stang California State University, Fullerton January 5, 2008 In the current educational and political setting, the assessment of student learning and student outcomes in our K-12 schools has become a critical discussion. New legislation for school accountability has led to increased standardized assessment as well as increased school and district accountability through mandatory reporting of student scores to district and school stake holders. There are concerns that this type of assessment (standardized testing) is not the most authentic and accurate measure of student learning or of teacher effectiveness. Other concerns include the fact that standardized testing results rarely guide future teaching, as it is a snapshot approach to measure what a student has learned. Janesick’s (2006) text Authentic Assessment Primer is designed to provide an introduction to assessment tools and techniques that can be used as an alternative to standardized high stakes testing. The author describes authentic assessment as that assessment that “requires authentic tasks that show students’ abilities. Students receive feedback and redirection to allow for growth; students have a part in the process and the outcome” (p. 1). This, in her view, is in sharp contrast to the process of standardized testing which she describes as a “corporate model of profiteering.” The main text of the brief primer is 107 pages, which is further divided into five primary chapters. Following each chapter there is a chapter summary and glossary with definitions and key terms. This end-of-chapter information provides a useful resource for the novice teacher wanting to use authentic assessment in his or her classroom. A 20 page “Resources and References” section follows the five chapters. This section includes contact information and descriptions of organizations, state contacts for testing reform as well as website and video lists that provide information about how to use authentic assessment. The first chapter titled “Introduction and Overview,” represents 54 pages and constitutes over half of the entire text. While background information and a strong foundation in the history of assessment are important to understand Janesick’s (2006) point of view and basis for the text, the important part of the chapter is lost in the political and historical discussion. Readers who are practitioners, the audience for whom the book is supposedly written, would be better-served if the second half of the chapter, where Janesick describes types of authentic assessment in detail, stood alone as a single chapter. In fact, although the Peter Lang Primers are reportedly designed to provide brief summaries of important topics for course content, it is difficult to discern if the purpose of this text was to introduce readers to the political history and societal implications of standardized assessment as a justification for authentic assessment, or if the true purpose was to help better prepare pre-service teachers to participate in authentic assessment with their students. Nonetheless, the resources describing various types of authentic assessment (including rubrics and portfolios) are valuable tools for pre-service and in-service teachers. In the opening to Chapter Two, “Standards, Assessment, and Critical Thinking”, Janesick (2006) describes the purpose of the text as “in part to argue that we would be better served as a society if we allowed our students to take responsibility for their learning” (p. 55). Janesick states that the movement toward a standards based education is unethical by providing 11 specific ethical challenges, and that standards-based instruction is driving the emphasis on high-stakes standardized assessment. Using specific examples from the Texas state assessment system, issues related to teaching to the test, and suggested teaching alternatives are outlined. According to Janesick, the NCLB act, while signed into law during the George W. Bush administration, has “historical roots” in Reagan policies and that politics do not belong in the classroom. She makes her point with 16 detailed items that she feels are a direct result of NCLB policy, and that in her opinion are negatively impacting our K-12 schools and subsequently, student learning. Janesick repeatedly promotes an organization in Florida that is designed to publicize problems associated with the law and with high-stakes testing. Much of this chapter is based in Janesick’s opinion with few formal references to research and literature. The introduction to Chapter 3 “Issues Related to Assessment” opens with a strong statement that “when speaking of authentic assessment, there is agreement on one of its outstanding characteristics: authentic assessment is ethical and fair” (Janesick, 2006, p. 75). While I certainly agree with this statement in principle, Janesick’s argument would be greatly strengthened by citations to those researchers and theorists who agree that authentic assessment is ethical and fair. The author continues by stating that there is agreement that high-stakes testing is unfair and unethical, but again provides no substantive references or data to support to the claim. In fact, the author tells the reader that the research literature documents ethical challenges to standardized testing, yet she only cites a single author that supports the case she is making. The chapter ends with a discussion of the SAT and the “greed” of corporations like the College Board and Educational Testing Services (ETS). Janesick even provides salary, benefit, and bonus information for the officers of ETS in order to support her claim that the large company’s financial gains, and in particular the financial gains of the top officials, continue to drive the standardized testing movement. In the fourth chapter of the Authentic Assessment Primer, the author details movements in key states against NCLB and standardized testing (Janesick, 2006). She summarizes lawsuits filed at the state level that challenge the ethics of standardized testing. Janesick includes a sample letter that parents can use to gain testing information from their states. In the chapter summary, the author tells the reader that “the point here is that there are existing models for the reader to access and possibly use in the future” (p. 98) if the reader is interested in working toward assessment reform in their own state. Again, while this information is certainly valuable to those looking to start their own “grassroots” effort for assessment reform, I am concerned that this does not match the purpose of the book. If the purpose is to inform in-service and pre-service teachers to better understand and use authentic assessment in their classrooms, why is the emphasis upon the grassroots efforts for assessment reform and letter guidelines for parent activists? In a four-page concluding chapter, Janesick (2006) presents what she feels is the “major idea” for thinking about authentic assessment, and that is that authentic assessment “ensures that students are not bystanders but actual participants in the educational process” (p. 101). While this is certainly one of the appealing aspects of authentic assessment, the text does little to substantively document the efficacy of such an approach. To be a valuable resource for “undergraduate and graduate classroom use” the Authentic Assessment Primer should focus more upon how teachers can use authentic assessment to involve students in their own education. It is obvious that Janesick’s expertise is in the area of assessment and that she is challenging practitioners to think beyond the use of standardized tests. However, the text misses the mark in terms of its purpose. While the references and resources provided in the final section appear to be valuable, the author should have discussed some of these resources within the text and should have provided more research-based support for her ideas and claims. Overall, in order to best meet the needs of pre-service and in-service teachers for whom the primer is reportedly designed, the text should include less about the political history and how to participate in reform and more about how to design and include authentic assessment as a valuable teaching and assessment technique in K-12 classrooms. About the Reviewer Kristin Stang, Ph.D. is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Special Education, College of Education at California State University, Fullerton. Her teaching interests include assessment and special education law. Dr. Stang’s research interests include teacher ratings of student learning and behavior as well as the training of pre-service teachers.

Mantero, Miguel. (Ed.) (2007). Identity and Second Language Learning: Culture, Inquiry, and Dialogic Activity in Educational Contexts. Reviewed by Holly Hansen-Thomas, Binghamton University, State University of New York

Mantero, Miguel. (Ed.) (2007). Identity and Second Language Learning: Culture, Inquiry, and Dialogic Activity in Educational Contexts. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. Pp. v+387     $73.95 (Hard cover)     ISBN 978-59311-540-1 Reviewed by Holly Hansen-Thomas Binghamton University State University of New York January 11, 2008 This wide collection of essays addresses identity and second language learning in a broad sense. Composed of eighteen chapters, this volume explores topics ranging from the teaching identity of international T.A. s in the southeastern U.S., to English language teaching advertisements in Japan and Korea, to education and language rights in Mayan communities in Mexico, to identity portrayed by South Korean television entertainers, to a conceptualization of Québéquicitéas defined by the Quebec Hip Hop community. It is a highly diverse and divergent compilation of topics, methods, perspectives, that loosely maintains the common thread of identity and language learning throughout the eighteen separate chapters. Originally conceptualized out of ideas presented at the 2004 International Society for Language Studies in Montreal, Canada, this edited volume represents an international perspective. The introductory chapter by the volume’s editor, Miguel Mantero, introduces the contributions that follow with a discussion of identity, ecological pedagogy, and language education within a post-structuralist framework. Mantero provides a review of the literature on identity and links identity development of language learners to the approaches used to teach the target language. In this way, the author situates identity squarely within a pedagogical setting. In a brief chapter on the pragmatics of discourse, Said Shiyab defines pragmatics and reviews Grice’s well-known maxims-- otherwise known as the ‘cooperative principle’ (1975). Shiyab then draws a link between language interpreters and Grice’s maxims, citing the need for interpreters to be trained in the pragmatics of discourse. While Grice’s maxims are useful for understanding how pragmatics can be used, Shiyab’s argument is not as convincing as is needs to be. This could be due to the fact that the essay resembles a conference talk much more than a book chapter. And while this essay is in itself interesting, it does not seem to fit in with the broader purposes of the edited volume. Entitled “Identity Puzzles: Am I a course instructor or a non-native speaker”, chapter three is a cogent and insightful perspective on language and identity from the perspective of an online Chinese tutor of English. Xuemei Li attempts to answer the question she poses in the title of her piece as she “construct(s) or reconstruct(s)” (p. 40) her identity as a non-native teacher of English. Chapter four examines racial membership with a specific focus on Whiteness and ESOL teacher identity. Informed by feminist and antiracist literature, Tonda Liggett illustrates ways in which White ESOL teachers minimize race in the classroom. Consequently, Liggett calls for “an approach for better understandings of race” (p. 60) that includes an awareness of race and White privilege and its relationship to ESOL students; knowledge about race in school and institutions and an analysis of social stratification; and an understanding of the pervasive “ideology of consensus” that allows issues of race to go unnoticed in the U.S. today. Karen Ogulnik’s well-written and informative chapter on popular education and language rights in Mayan communities describes the educational options for Mayan children of Chiapas. She provides historical background and describes how the Mexican government, as well as specifically Mayan organizations, have worked to promote the survival of Mayan language and culture. In chapter six, Julie Byrd Clark draws on Bourdieu’s theory of symbolic domination (1991) as well as research on language ideology and multilingual citizenship to understand the role of language and identity by Italian Canadians in a French-speaking community. She illustrates how Italianità identity is negotiated with La Francité through interviews with Giorgio, an Italian Canadian attending a francophone school. While the semi-structured interviews provide rich data for this study, it is hard to comprehend how interviews conducted over only two weeks can provide a thorough picture of Giorgio’s identity development. Elizabeth Miller’s chapter seeks to understand how adult immigrant learners of English position for power in the ESL classroom. In particular, Miller uses rich classroom language data to show how Laotian and Chinese students are positioned—through language-- as good or poor language learners. She concludes chapter seven with a call to teachers and researchers to be aware of issues of power and positioning in the classroom. Chapter eight reads like a descriptive history. It describes the Concordia Language Villages (CLV), where language learning participants become members of “language specific communities where things are done in culture specific ways” (p. 147). Tove Dahl, Donna Clementi, Garett Heysel, and Allison Spenader trace the history of the CLV, and detail the principles, standards, and instructional framework that grounds the language learning environment that forms the CLV at Concordia University in Minnesota. Nelson and Malinowski’s chapter on “Hegemony, identity, and authorship in multimodal discourse” draws on Barthes’ (1972) concept of mythology to analyze multimodal communication. An innovative examination of Japanese and Korean advertisements that depict images of idealized native speakers of English, along with data from a digital storytelling, illustrate how damaging stereotypes and hegemonic ideals can be perpetuated and replicated. In chapter 10, Heather Allen, Veronica Dristas, and Nicole Mills examine cultural learning outcomes as a result of short-term summer study abroad programs. This quantitative study reflects careful research design. Using instruments including the Linguistic Self Assessment Profile, the Sociocultural Adaption Scale and the Acculturation Scale, the authors report a significant change in study abroad participants’ self assessment of their linguistic ability and anticipated degree of cultural difference before and after the experience. Authors thus found that the experience helped participants “move toward a more hybrid understanding of identity” (p. 209). Peter De Costa’s essay describes the conflict that students from Singapore experience when writing in first person in English. Citing literature that claims many Chinese write with the perspective of a collective identity, De Costa find that the Singapore Chinese in his study also faced difficulty with using personal writing. “The Chasm Widens” concludes with implications for teaching English writing that include explicitly teaching identity, engaging with students in dialogue about potential cultural differences in writing, and finally, working to develop critical awareness by students when writing (and learning) in a second language. In chapter 12, Amy Beth Rell and Jason Rothman explore the structure and discourse use of Spanglish. In line with that which is generally accepted in the literature, Rell and Rothman report that use of Spanglish is a choice for language users, rather than as a result of a linguistic deficit. Data revealed that second generation Mexican-Americans hold positive attitudes towards Spanglish “as a functional and culturally revelant language” (p. 249). Not surprisingly, Mexican nationals living in the U.S. reported holding negative attitudes toward Spanglish. The essay concludes with a discussion of the disparate opinions on the use of Spanglish by Mexicans and Mexican-Americans. Although the authors touch on the fact that variants exist within Spanglish, what is lacking from this paper is clarification on how Spanglish may differ from other nonstandard variants of the integration of English and Spanish used by Mexican-Americans, such as Tex-Mex, Cal-Mex or Pocho. Since the notion of Spanglish is itself problematized, a more in depth fleshing out, and problematizing of the term Spanglish would be useful in this chapter. Chapter 13 focuses on perspectives of heritage language speakers of Japanese who return to their ancestral homeland of Okinawa by way of kenpi(heritage) scholarships. This essay provides a concise history of the Okinawan diaspora as well as the kenpi scholarship program. Reviewing research on study abroad participants, authors Katsuyuki Miyahira and Peter Petrucci highlight the fact that women and minorities face particular challenges when studying abroad. Tracing seven students’ journey to the ancestral homeland, Miyahira and Petrucci provide rich qualitative data that tells a compelling story of how identity is constructed. An innovative contribution to the discussion of identity and second language learning, Jamie Shinhee Lee explores ways in which South Korean entertainers construct identity as pop culture icons and as English as a foreign language speakers. An analysis of scripted discourse collected from television programs reflects the ways in which South Korean actors are “crossing” (using Rampton’s (1995) terminology) into the world of English. Chapter 15 investigates the influence on the teaching identity of international teaching assistants (ITAs). Gwendolyn Williams used narrative analysis to analyze interviews she conducted with 20 ITAs. One notion she explored in her study was personal identity versus teacher identity. One very interesting finding that Williams reports is that some ITAs expressed surprise that there could be a difference between both personal and teaching identity. A rushed discussion and conclusion, unfortunately, leaves the reader somewhat disappointed and wondering how the pieces of this study fit together. Élisabeth Le examines identity through foreign policy editorials in two important daily newspapers. A critical textual analysis of Le Monde and the New York Times reveal interesting insights on media discourse. A notable finding of the study is that France and the U.S. hold similar attitudes towards Russia. Although this chapter reveals new and important insights regarding national identity and foreign policy, it is not overtly clear why this piece is included in a text which examines identity in second language learning and educational contexts. The final chapter by Mela Sarkar, Bronwen Low, and Lisa Winer is titled “Pour connecter avec le peeps: Québéquicitéand the Quebec Hip-Hop community.” Through interviews and an analysis of Hip-Hop music lyrics by Quebecois rappers, this work reveals how young people are “forging a set of hybrid identities that contrast with the historically established notions of identity in Francophone Quebec” (p. 352). This innovative and groundbreaking study effectively characterizes the challenge of identity negotiation by multilingual and multicultural youth. Chapter 18, “Future perspectives and research on identity in educational contexts” by editor Miguel Mantero serves to recap the varied insights provided in the previous 17 chapters. Overall, while the integrity of the collection is loosely maintained throughout the 18 chapters, there are some chapters that diverge significantly from the volume’s overarching theme of identity and second language learning. Organizing the contributions in topics would likely have helped to provide the structure that this volume lacks. Alternatively, more selectivity in accepting chapters for this volume would have resulted in a cleaner, and more productive edited book. There is a lack of consistency in terms of quality of writing and research design throughout the chapters. Some chapters are innovative, tight, and groundbreaking, while others are disorganized, and even a bit sloppy. Further, some of the chapters appear to not have been revised from their original manifestation as a conference talk. On a minor, but highly important note, there are a considerable number of editing and mechanical writing flaws that distracted from the authors’ messages. A more polished final product would better reflect the importance of this volume’s topic. That said, there are some useful and extremely interesting cases presented in this text. The unusual topics addressed in the book contribute to the literature on language learning and identity. If used as a reference book, this volume will serve a useful purpose. Researchers and educators looking for a specific, up to date article regarding language learning and identity can use this book selectively to fill that need. References Barthes, R. (1972). Mythologies. New York: Hill and Wang. Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and symbolic power. MA: Polity Press. Grice, H. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole and J. Morgan (Eds.). Syntax and semantics, Vol. 3: Speech acts. (Pp. 41-58). New York: Academic Press. Rampton, B. (1995). Crossing: Language and ethnicity among adolescents. London: Longman. About the Reviewer Holly Hansen-Thomas Assistant Professor TESOL and Literacy Education, School of Education Binghamton University, School of Education State University of New York Holly Hansen-Thomas holds a PhD in Culture, Literacy, and Language from the University of Texas at San Antonio.

Response to Hansen-Thomas's Review of Identity and Second Language Learning. Miguel Mantero, The University of Alabama

Response to Hansen-Thomas’ Review of Identity and Second Language Learning. Miguel Mantero The University of Alabama January 13, 2008 I appreciate the effort expended by Dr. Hansen-Thomas in her review of my volume Identity and Second Language Learning. I always look forward to critical reviews and suggestions from the field, and Dr. Hansen-Thomas is able to grasp some of the more salient points in the volume. Although the appraisal is approving (for the most part) of the volume, I want to clarify some of the theoretical assumptions which she implies throughout her review. Doing so, will hopefully enable readers of the review to re-interpret some of her comments and further illuminate the contributions of each chapter in the volume. The reviewer states that I situate identity “squarely within a pedagogical setting.” I understand why the reviewer, after a cursory consideration of the volume’s contents, may initially suppose this. But, I would like to make sure that the readers understand what I believe is a “pedagogical setting” (the term used by the reviewer – not by me). By “pedagogical settings” the reviewer may be referring only to traditional, school-based classrooms. If so, then I respectfully (but completely) disagree with her interpretation, statement, and stance. For me, the term “pedagogical settings” refers to contexts and educational activities which are informed by and reflect authentic, real world activities. True pedagogical settings extend beyond and include more than classrooms where the traditional roles of teachers and students are prescribed and ascribed to by some. In true pedagogical settings, languages and identities come to life and emerge through meaning-driven discourse. This process clearly extends beyond the limits and walls of traditional language classrooms. Typically, traditionalists with little experience in contemporary language education environments would describe the process of identity development and language learning as taking place in the following atmosphere: the teacher is always right, students are simple, empty vessels to be filled, class is over (as well as any learning or development) in 50 minutes, and language learning equals mimicry. As I clearly say in my volume, which is acknowledged – but, glossed over - by the reviewer, the ensuing chapters encompass the spirit of a post-structural view of identity. Given this, I would hope that the reader does not initially approach the volume from a traditionalist perspective. This would lead to a misinterpretation of the purpose of the volume or some of its contents. As I clearly state in the foreword: “This collection of research has attempted to capture the essence and promise embodied in the concept of ‘identity’ and built a bridge to the realm of second language studies” and that “[t]his volume brings to light the diversity of research in identity and second language studies….” Although I believe the reviewer is (re)acting objectively, she does not fully grasp the purpose of some of the chapters given what I perceive to be the traditionalist inclination of some of her opinions. Her comments on chapters 2, 8, and 15 encompass my concern. As an example, I shall elaborate on chapter 2 below. In some regards, identity development and language learning are highly reliant on the pragmatics of discourse. I believe that by keeping this statement and the aforementioned purpose of the volume in mind, the intention of the chapter is evident: to further prepare and invite the reader to (re)visit established and traditional notions of intercultural and interpersonal communication. I believe the reviewer almost made this connection. However, a traditionalist approach to this volume would handicap even the most avid reader. One needs to be able to envision Grice’s work as foundation for critical thought in order to fully appreciate the chapter. I disagree with the reviewer’s statements that some chapters are “disorganized and even a bit sloppy” and that there are “flaws” in the volume. I see no purpose in these trite observations. I stand behind the volume’s strengths and acknowledge its limitations (as well as any editorial oversights – for example, dividing the volume into sections). The beauty of what we endeavor to do as scholars and researchers lies in creating a dialogue and enabling a lively discussion about issues and not about unjustified opinions. However, some may not be fully able to access the former given one’s limited experiences in language education and present knowledge regarding issues in identity development. The reviewer’s comments as to the studies lacking consistency in the quality of writing and research design are not fully contextualized and perhaps misguided. If nothing else, the process of identity development and second language learning is anything but consistent across cultures, communities, and within individuals. Given this, critical and novel approaches to research designs and original presentations of studies are necessary and crucial to the field. If not, then we may continue to suffer traditions and traditionalists that embrace and champion formulaic and predictable research designs as well as pedestrian perspectives on the complexities of true pedagogical settings.

Hill, Paul T.; Lake, Robin J. with Celio, Mary Beth. (2002). Charter schools and accountability in public education. Reviewed by Dick M. Carpenter II, University of Colorado, Colorado Springs

Hill, Paul T.; Lake, Robin J. with Celio, Mary Beth. (2002). Charter schools and accountability in public education. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution. Pp. xi + 125     $17     ISBN 0815702671 Reviewed by Dick M. Carpenter II University of Colorado, Colorado Springs January 12, 2008 In the present era of accountability in education, one more work on the subject seems, at first consideration, redundant. A search on accountability and education in a typical journal article database produces thousands of sources, and the same search in the Books in Print database yields approximately a thousand titles. But narrowing the search to accountability and charter schools generates surprisingly few—surprising because, as Hill, Lake, and Celio describe in this book, the definition of accountability for charter schools is arguably one of the most important characteristics of the very idea of charter schools. For this reason, the book represents, primarily for the uninitiated, a useful introduction to the issue of accountability and charter schools, particularly since the latter are, as the authors note, one of the “least understood phenomena in American education” (p. 1). This is not to say that accountability enjoys widespread understanding and consensus. In fact, defining accountability and applying such definitions to charter schools remain among the most debated issues in charter school policy. Accountability and Charter School Context In the broadest sense, accountability involves holding individuals and organizations responsible for agreed-upon promises to perform. Typically, the accountability relationship between two or more parties includes structures that track results to determine if the parties involved live up to their agreement (Manno, 2004). In education, accountability has traditionally followed a compliance approach where bureaucrats and/or elected officials create rules and regulations according to which schools are micromanaged by various levels of administrators (Manno, Finn, & Vanourek, 2000), such as deputy superintendents, assistant superintendents, curriculum directors, assessment directors, executive directors, principals, assistant principals, and the like. This model has been referred to as bureaucratic accountability (Darling-Hammond, 1988). With the first charter law in the early 1990s, charter school accountability took a different approach. Manno, Finn, and Vanourek (2000) refer to it as a horse trade: Public charter schools were given operational, financial, and program autonomy in exchange for being held accountable for specified results, a model similar to what Levin (1974) called performance accountability. This approach is primarily results-driven, not resource, input, or rule driven. An additional initial idea of charter accountability focused on marketplaces (Kirst, 1990): A school’s clients and stakeholders reward its successes, punish its failures, and send signals about what needs to change. A vernacular description of such accountability is “voting with their feet” (Stillings, 2005). By the late 1990s and early 2000s, the performance and market accountability models began to receive increasing criticism due to a lack of clear standards or dependable performance data (May, 2006). First, charter schools often designed their own assessment systems customized to their specific contours (Petrilli, 2005)or lacked the capacity to create such systems (Crawford, 2001), which led some to complain of standards that were “vague” or “ill defined” (Olson, 2000). Second, the performance accountability model appeared to fail in its ability to weed out unsuccessful charter schools. By 2000, less than five percent of charter schools had closed and only a few of those due to poor student achievement (Manno et al., 2000). Third, the market model appeared ineffective. While charter parents overwhelmingly felt charter schools provided a more positive experience than the public schools from which they withdrew, May (2006) noted a “perception gap” between the poor or moderate student academic achievement in charter schools and positive reports by parents. Fourth, the rapid expansion of nonclassroom-based charters (see Carpenter, 2005 and Carpenter, 2006 for a description of such schools) raised concern about the ability of any accountability models to provide necessary oversight (Huerta, González, & d’Entremont, 2006). Finally, Rhim (2001) and McLaughlin (2007) highlighted the fundamental philosophical gap between the performance and market accountability models of charter schools and the highly regulated bureaucratic models inherent in educating children with special needs (i.e., those with an IEP). Also during the 1990s and early 2000s, the state standards movement gained strength, and elected representatives decided it was appropriate to expect all public school students, including those in charters, to be held to standards via statewide assessments. Then came No Child Left Behind (NCLB), which further defined charter accountability consistent with mainstream public schools (May, 2006; Petrilli, 2005). Taken together, accountability for charter schools appeared to shift away from the more flexible performance and accountability models of the early 1990s and align more with bureaucratic and stricter performance accountability models. Yet, some have expressed concern that this shift undermines one of the central ideas of charter schools (Stillings, 2005)and may produce a dynamic where standards and choice work at cross-purposes (Shober, Manna, & Witte, 2006). The original philosophy of charter school accountability sought to take bureaucracy out of education via more flexible performance and market models, thereby spurring innovation. Indeed, in the first 11 states to pass charter school legislation, the most common motivation or purpose was to facilitate innovation (Crawford, 2001). But Opfer (2001) and others (Finnigan, 2007; Lipman & Haines, 2007; Stillings, 2005)opine that bureaucratic accountability models only make charter schools more like conventional public schools, crippling their potential for innovation and effectiveness. Charter Schools and Accountability in Public Education It is dynamics like these that Hill, Lake and Celio seek to describe in Charter Schools and Accountability in Public Education, and few are better equipped to write about this topic. Paul Hill is the John and Marie Corbally Professor at the University of Washington’s Daniel J. Evans School of Public Affairs, directs the Center on Reinventing Public Education, and boasts a long list of publications germane to this topic. Robin Lake serves as associate director of the Center on Reinventing Public Education and has been involved in national charter school research and policy development since 1994, also producing numerous works on charter schools. And Mary Celio is a statistical consultant to the Center on Re-Inventing Public Education. In this particular project, they used funds from the U.S. Department of Education and several foundations to “explain how charter school accountability works in practice” (p. 11). They did so by focusing on six states—Arizona, California, Colorado, Georgia, Massachusetts, and Michigan. According to the authors, these states contained the most active charters at the time, represented major differences in state charter school laws, and came from major regions of the country. The study involved 150 schools and 60 authorizing agencies, and the methods included interviews of those involved in charter schools (from parents to legislators and governors’ staff members), extensive case studies of 17 schools, and a nationally representative survey of charter schools. Results from their work encompass four of seven chapters of the book (chapters two through five), followed by a chapter of recommendations and a final chapter on “Learning from Charter School Accountability.” Their results begin with a look at charter laws and the politics that make them, focusing primarily on four theories about the charter school movement that “provide a starting point for understanding the implied accountability methods” (p. 19): The Innovative/Experimentation Strategy: Create new schools to serve as laboratories for successful teaching strategies. The Standards-Based Reform Strategy: Free schools from rules so they can meet higher expectations. The New Supply of Public Schools Strategy: Open the system up to a set of new school providers. The competition/Market Strategy: Let parent choice drive the entire system to improve. The authors develop the theories from a review of the various state charter laws, the latter of which actually contain an amalgam of these different theories. Because of the compromises inherent in politics, charter laws across the states do not necessarily subscribe to one theory exclusively. Table 2-1 in the book outlines the different purposes articulated in the various charter laws, how those purposes align with the four theories, and which state laws contain which purposes and theories. Predictably, such incoherency of purpose makes for disjointed accountability policies. As the authors conclude, “The political process churns out more than mixed signals about the purpose of the law. Accountability provisions of the law are often similarly vague or misaligned within a particular piece of legislation” (p. 21). Internal Accountability Chapter Three then begins the focus on three broad domains of accountability identified from the authors’ research by discussing “internal accountability.” They define this as, “the set of processes whereby teachers apply shared expectations to their own work and to that of their colleagues” (p. 25). In other words, it is a model wherein those working within a school (teachers, administrators, board members) hold each other accountable for the agreed upon vision and expectations that define that school—a social contract of sorts. Of the different types of charter school accountability discussed in the literature, this is one that tends to receive comparably little attention, making Hill et al.’s discussion an important contribution to the larger debate. As idealistic as this type of accountability may sound, it is not without difficulties. The authors rightly note that internal and external accountability can and often are incompatible. As charter accountability evolves from more flexible performance and market models to structures that parallel those of traditional public schools, this incompatibility likely grows even more pronounced. A second issue involves building and maintaining the shared vision and expectations inherent in internal accountability. Due to the daily pressures of opening and running a school, establishing a coherent vision can be difficult. In addition, not everyone who works in the school necessarily begins in the same place in the visioning process. The authors note that it takes approximately three years to establish and regularize internal relationships and structures such that internal accountability takes shape. Hill et al. also note that internal accountability includes families. Because their funding comes directly from student enrollment, charters must attract parents by making, or at least implying some promises. The authors’ research finds that charter principals think often about parents’ aspirations and try to deliver on them. But Hill et al. also acknowledge that this is not always possible, creating its own share of difficulties. Because new charters take a few years to establish coherency, parents can be disappointed in initially unfulfilled promises. Moreover, parents attracted to choice but uninformed about a school’s guiding principles also may hold certain expectations for the school, only to be frustrated and disillusioned. Despite such difficulties, however, the authors believe this relationship between schools and parents created by choice leads to a new form of accountability—“reciprocal accountability”—as parents and schools each attempt to meet the other’s expectations. Hill et al. conclude, “…it is one of the charter school movement’s greatest contributions to public education” (p. 36). Authorizing Agencies Moving outside of the confines of the school building, Chapter Four considers accountability relationships between charter schools and authorizing agencies, such as state and local departments of education, other state agencies, and universities. The official accountability mechanism in these relationships is the charter itself. The authors note, “At their most basic level, school charters are agreements between authorizing agencies and individual schools about goals, basic modes of operation, and performance requirements. In theory, a well-drafted charter could be the quintessential accountability mechanism” (p. 47). Yet, as Hill et al. note, “The reality…is much different than the theory” (p. 48). Whether it be local school boards, universities, or state agencies, most authorizers are “learning on the job” in how to fulfill their accountability responsibilities. Moreover, the authorizers are assuming these accountability duties on top of their routine operations, which means they often lack the staff, time, or resources to devote to systematic oversight of a charter (or charters). Consequently, In our survey, only 27 percent of the chartering agencies surveyed reported having written accountability standards, and an additional 4 percent said they were under development. Similarly, only 38 percent of the agencies surveyed had a formal renewal process. Another 6 percent were developing such a process at the time of our survey. (p. 50). The more typical accountability mechanism for authorizers included a formal report of progress toward goals, a summary report from the school, and a financial audit, particularly the latter. Actual site visits were infrequent, and student achievement data appeared to play only a minor role. Hill et al. conclude the chapter with a typology of authorizers. “The vast majority of authorizers fit into one of four categories: (1) overeager approvers, (2) reluctant authorizers and suspicious auditors, (3) ambivalent approvers and indifferent managers, or (4) professional authorizers and competent stewards” (p. 55). Accountability to Others An additional external accountability audience for charter schools includes organizations not typically present in the public school accountability equation, such as vendors, political interest groups, non-profit agencies, and/or governmental bodies other than the authorizer. These accountability relationships are created as schools seek additional funding and other resources, political support, or goods and services for daily operations of the school. Hill et al. note the following types of voluntary associations charters routinely enter into: Partner organizations (community non-profits such as youth centers) Space and facility providers Groups that donate goods and services Sources of private or government grants Educational management organizations Providers of legal advice and insurance Charter school associations and technical assistance organizations Accreditation agencies Researchers The authors note that in addition to the goods, services, or resources provided by these organizations, the relationships can also create constructive pressure for continuous improvement and additional oversight in fiscal and resource management, areas that contribute most to charter school closure (Manno et al., 2000). Yet, while such voluntary associations can strengthen a school’s performance, they also threaten a school’s ability to remain focused on its core mission (teaching and learning), its distinctive principles, and its other relationships (parents, teachers, and authorizers). Recommendations As Chapters Two through Five demonstrate, charter schools operate in a situation of mixed accountability, with multiple audiences, influences, and expectations. While this inevitably creates some amount of confusion and incoherency, Hill et al. conclude that multidirectional accountability can work. For it to function most effectively schools must develop a strong system of internal accountability in order to respond to the needs of students, teachers, and families, and also to respond to the demands and pressures from outside audiences. Beyond that, the authors also draw a series of more specific recommendations for the various parties involved in charter school accountability. First, charter school boards need to steer, not row. Second, charter school leaders need to establish and maintain good communications with authorizers and others, articulate clear expectations with parents, teachers, and the board, and accept if not embrace various forms of measurement of progress and process. Third, teachers should actively hold leaders and boards accountable but expect to be challenged and work under performance expectations. Fourth, authorizers should establish routine monitoring systems rather than waiting for a school to fall into trouble before paying attention. Fifth, state agencies should hold authorizers accountable for their responsibilities. Sixth, the federal government is too intrusive and needlessly disruptive in the operations of charter schools. Finally, friends of the charter movement should continue to provide resources, tools, and expertise for schools to succeed, but they also should expect schools to measure progress toward goals. Such recommendations align with others who have written about charter accountability. For example, Garn and Cobb (2001) discuss the multidirectional approach and assert bureaucratic, performance, and market models can complement one another and better inform all constituents about the performance of publicly funded schools without sacrificing autonomy or innovation. Manno et al. (2000) and Stillings (2005) also stress that although the standards and assessment movement may exert some level of standardization on charter schools, assessments are an unavoidable part of the accountability picture. Hill et al. also discuss the relationship between standards-based reform and charter accountability, but their view is not as resigned as others seem to be. They state, for example, “Charter schools and standards-based education are different faces of the same reform” (p. 98). Moreover, “With respect to accountability, no conflict exists between standards and chartering; in fact, the two reinforce each other” (p. 100). Although the authors do not discuss explicitly how charters reinforce standards, they state that standards provide a necessary common metric against which charters are judged, which is particularly salient given the aforementioned criticisms of vague and ill-defined accountability standards. Although the authors’ positive portrayal of the relationship between standards-based reform and charter schools is debatable, there are a few other assertions made in the book that are even more questionable. For example, in the final chapter, “Learning from Charter School Accountability,” Hill et al. state, “In general we have shown that charter schools’ multi-directional accountability can work, in the all-important sense of promoting effective instruction for children” (p. 97). Unfortunately, the data and discussion fall short of showing either the effectiveness of multidirectional accountability or the promotion of effective instruction. The authors may possess information that show one or both of these things, but such data are not presented in this treatment. In another example, the authors begin the book by stating, “We think this book has implications outside the charter school world for the national debate about school reform” (p. 2). Perhaps, but other than the final few paragraphs of the book, specific recommendations to that end remain wanting. Conclusion For those already familiar with charters, accountability, and the intersection of the two, Charter Schools and Accountability in Public Education will not provide a tremendous amount of new information. Moreover, as the authors themselves acknowledge, the landscape is evolving such that this book provides merely a snapshot look at accountability, a snapshot that is already dated. For example, the work Hill et al. completed for the writing of this book pre-dated NCLB, the implications of which are briefly mentioned above. Finally, this is not a detailed, comprehensive examination of all the ins and outs of charter school accountability. Instead, this book provides a primer to those unfamiliar with accountability in the charter school context and lays a foundation for those who might be interested in delving further into the policy nuances and other research on this topic. Those interested in doing so will want to consider books by Wells (2002), Miron and Nelson (2002), and Finn, Bierlein, and Manno (1997), and the various journal articles referenced in this review. References Carpenter, D. M. (2005). Playing to type. Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham Institute. Carpenter, D. M. (2006). Modeling the charter school landscape. Journal of School Choice, 1(2), 47-82. Crawford, J. R. (2001). Teacher autonomy and accountability in charter schools. Education and Urban Society, 33(2), 186-200. Darling-Hammond, L. (1988, Winter). Accountability and teacher professionalism. American Educator, 8-13, 38-43. Finn, C. E., Bierlein, L. A., & Manno, B. V. (1997). Charter school accountability: Findings and prospects Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation Finnigan, K. S. (2007). Charter school autonomy: The mismatch between theory and practice. Educational Policy, 21(3), 503-526. Garn, G., & Cobb, C. D. (2001). A framework for understanding charter school accountability. Education and Urban Society, 33(2), 113-128. Huerta, L. A., González, M.-F., & d’Entremont, C. (2006). Cyber and home school charter schools: Adopting policy to new forms of public schooling. Peabody Journal of Education, 81(1), 103-139. Kirst, M. (1990). Accountability: Implications for state and local policymakers. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, Information Services. Levin, H. (1974). A conceptual framework for accountability in education. School Review, 82, 363-391. Lipman, P., & Haines, N. (2007). From accountability to privatization and African American exclusion. Educational Policy, 21(3), 471-502. Manno, B. (2004). Chartering and the idea of accountability consequences: Adding performance value to schooling. Journal of Education, 185(3), 27-40. Manno, B., Finn, C., & Vanourek, G. (2000). Charter school accountability: Problems and prospects. Educational Policy, 14(4), 473-493. May, J. J. (2006). The charter school allure: Can traditional schools measure up? Education and Urban Society, 39(1), 19-45. McLaughlin, M. J., & Rhim, L. M. (2007). Accountability frameworks and children with disabilities: A test of assumptions about improving public education for all students. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 54(1), 25-49. Miron, G., & Nelson, C. (2002). What's public about charter schools: Lessons learned about choice and accountability. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Olson, L. (2000). Redefining public schools: Charter and voucher programs bring lots of choices, little consensus. Education Week, 19, 1-24. Opfer, V. D. (2001). Charter schools and the panoptic effect of accountability. Education and Urban Society, 33(2), 201-215. Petrilli, M. J. (2005). Charters as role models. Retrieved June 11, 2005, from http://www.educationnext.org/20053/56.html Rhim, L. M., & McLaughlin, M. J. (2001). Special education in American charter schools: State level policy, practices and tensions. Cambridge Journal of Education, 31(3), 373-383. Shober, A. E., Manna, P., & Witte, J. F. (2006). Flexibility meets accountability: State charter school laws and their influence on the formation of charter schools in the United States. Policy Studies Journal, 34(4), 563-587. Stillings, C. (2005). Charter schools and No Child Left Behind: Sacrificing autonomy for accountability. Journal of Education, 186(2), 51-70. Wells, A. S. (Ed.). (2002). Where charter school policy fails: The problems of accountability and equity. New York: Teachers College Press. About the Reviewer Dick Carpenter is a 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.

Shumacher, Donald & Queen, J. Allen. (2007). Overcoming Obesity in Childhood and Adolescence: A Guide for School Leaders. Reviewed by Carolyn Vander Schee, Northern Illinois University

Shumacher, Donald & Queen, J. Allen. (2007). Overcoming Obesity in Childhood and Adolescence: A Guide for School Leaders. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Pp. vii + 146     $25     ISBN 9781412916660 Reviewed by Carolyn Vander Schee Northern Illinois University January 14, 2008 Donald Shumacher and J. Allen Queen’s book, Overcoming Obesity in Childhood and Adolescence: A Guide for School Leaders is designed to assist school leaders, namely principals, in creating and implementing school health-related interventions for the purposes of reducing overweight and obesity among students, faculty and staff. In this review I will describe the book’s main thesis by providing a very brief overview of each of the five the chapters. I will then describe come concerns I have with this book, specifically my fear that the book may be used as a means to justify the segregation of the fit from the unfit and the healthy from those who seemingly care little for their health. While perhaps unwittingly, the authors have contributed to a growing trend in school health discourse that is crisis-oriented, presents itself as ideologically neutral and natural and overlooks and/or downplays the human consequences of health-related policy decisions. Substantively, the book is written with two fundamental purposes in mind. First, the authors seek to encourage and inspire school leaders to become role models by making health a personal priority. More specifically, the authors recommend that school leaders make their commitment to health visible by shedding excess pounds through increased physical activity and decreased consumption. The second purpose of the book is to provide school leaders with assistance in developing curricular and policy recommendations to encourage students, faculty, and staff to make weight management a priority and a reality. At the heart of their curricular and policy approach is the authors’ ‘tongue in cheek’ (I think) recommendation to amend the 1918 Cardinal Principles of Secondary Education; principles created by a National Education Association committee to determine the objectives of high school curriculum. The committee’s report named seven curricular objectives fundamental to secondary education: health, academic skills, worthy home membership, vocation, citizenship, worthwhile use of leisure time, and ethical character (Urban & Wagoner, 2000). Shumacher and Queen (2007, p. 107) would like to see an eighth principle added: the “intentional and active practice of preventing childhood obesity.” With five chapters in total, the book begins by describing the problem of overweight and its associated personal, social and economic consequences. In chapter one, “Childhood Obesity, Schools and Society” the authors reveal the multifarious problems associated with overweight, or what they describe as the “obesity epidemic.” As evidence to support their claim that issues related to overweight have reached “global epidemic” proportion, the authors provide the reader with rather grim statistics on the subject. For example, the authors reveal that between 16 and 40 percent of children are considered overweight or seriously overweight. They use this data to make the claim that childhood obesity is the number one public health concern in modern society. The authors also present data to show that being overweight interferes with social, psychological and physical health as well as academic achievement and economic productivity. This chapter also outlines the factors that have contributed to childhood overweight; factors such as, limited physical activity in schools and the rise of low cost, highly accessible convenience foods. Chapter two, “The Principal’s Role as an Agent of Change” outlines Shumacher and Queen’s belief that school leaders must display their commitment to the school-wide weight-loss initiative by first losing weight (if necessary) themselves. The premise of this chapter is that modeling is the best instructional strategy. The theme of modeling appropriate behavior carries throughout the book. It is believed that children will not be inspired unless they can see that school personnel have embraced such dictums themselves. This chapter reads much like a self-help guide, offering school leaders life lessons and tips such as, set personal goals, never go to the grocery store hungry, decrease snack consumption and pack your own lunch. Chapter three, “The Barriers We Face” describes barriers that might arise for principals attempting to implement the suggested interventions. Barriers might be classified as personal, institutional and structural. Institutional barriers include parental resistance and student or staff retaliation to the changes. Structural barriers might include existing policies regarding available foods at the school or physical education requirements. Personal barriers include overeating in response to stress. Chapter four, “School Principal Action Plans” and chapter five, “Maximizing Principal, Teacher and Student Plans” offer principals specific recommendations for making health a priority via curricular and/or policy changes. Specifically, the authors suggest implementing an “integrated unit,” or a set of subjects taught around a particular theme- in this case health. The authors provide examples of what a health-related integrated unit might look like for the subject areas of art, geography, nutrition, math and science. The ideal audience for the book is a principal or school leader, particularly someone who has the authority to enact the kinds of curricular initiatives and policy changes that the authors recommend. In terms of presentation style, the book is well written and objectives are presented clearly. The authors did a good job at making medical information accessible to someone who might lack expertise in that area. The book also features set-off boxes that help highlight important pieces of text. In terms of the content, Shumacher and Queen’s book fits very nicely with kind of curricular and programmatic resources available to school personnel regarding the treatment and prevention of overweight and obesity. By relying on a crisis-oriented discourse the book presents the problem of childhood overweight as yet one more consequence of modernity. The contemporary ills of overindulgence, laziness and absentee mothers (in particular, mothers who have entered the workforce and are subsequently not home to cook nutritious meals for their family) are to blame for this public health crisis. With few exceptions Shumacher and Queen’s book follows this basic template. What makes this book unique however, is the authors’ emphasis on modeling health as a primary instructional strategy and fundamental component of a successful program. I found the authors’ belief regarding the importance of and their focus on modeling particularly problematic. The book lacked an essential discussion regarding the consequences of creating a school environment where modeling or ‘looking the part’ is a core value and central to the school’s culture. The authors failed to take into account the ways in which a school climate such as this might foster a negative work environment for many teachers and/or school personnel, particularly those who find themselves labeled as overweight. As an educator of future teachers and school leaders, I am concerned what the book’s message (intentional or otherwise) sends to all those desiring to work in schools. Does the book, for example, discourage certain individuals to work in schools believing that they may be negatively influencing students’ health? Moreover, might this book be used by school leadership to advocate for hiring certain body types over others? I am concerned that the focus on personal weight and role modeling health might make some vulnerable to stigmatization based on their assumed health status. While the authors do offer a cautionary note on the subject of discrimination, these rather brief remarks are overshadowed by the bulk of the text. For example, early in the book we are told that, “skinny people are not better people, they are luckier than those with a weight problem” (Shumacher and Queen, 2007, p.5). Certainly in this sentence there is an attempt to disconnect morality from weight issues. This is eclipsed however by the majority of text that works to (re)connect morality and weight via discourses of Puritanism, health values and saving lives of children. At best Shumacher and Queen’s book suggests that school leaders labeled as overweight should be actively working on improving their bodies. At its worst the book might be used to set new criteria for which types of bodies are allowed to become school leaders. And I am concerned that there is not much to distinguish the two. I am bothered then that the book’s rather singular focus on modeling creates certain targets of blame, namely overweight school leaders. If, for example, appropriate health modeling is critical to the success of curbing childhood overweight and obesity, then are school leaders to blame if obesity rates do not decline, particularly if the school leader did not embrace the necessary changes to model appropriately? Further, I would have liked the authors discuss in much greater detail and complexity the role of marketing, branding and incessant media messages directed at students to consume. Lacking this discussion sends the message that corporations bear no culpability but that overweight school leaders do. Throughout the book the authors make the argument that reducing overweight and obesity among students has a number of added benefits, beyond the more obvious health-related advantages. For example, they write: What if we could show educational leaders how to significantly increase student achievement; save millions of dollars in student expenditures; improve the health and wellness of principals, teachers, and staff; and, most important, save the lives of millions of K-12 students… would you be interested? Of course you would, as would all dedicated leaders or teachers as well as parents and concerned citizens for the overall success of America’s children and youth. (p.25) While I do not necessarily agree with the above claims, the claim itself is not my primary concern. From a policy standpoint, I question why the authors are positioning academic achievement as a positive gain of school-sponsored health initiatives. In many ways the argument to expand school health services (aside from just obesity prevention efforts) in schools is a compelling one. It seems commonsensical to assume that sick, hungry or neglected (in this case, overweight) children have difficulty functioning in a classroom environment, socially, physically or psychologically. The fact that these authors are positioning obesity prevention programs in the context of educational achievement (defined primarily by the standardization movement) rhetoric is salient. By establishing an interior affiliation with school reform, the authors’ health and physical education initiatives become subservient to the standardization movement, defaulting to an involuntary position of legitimizing and validating this initiative. In creating such collaboration the authors send policy makers the explicit message that supporting school health services is a prudent economic and national investment rather than an altruistic effort to remedy existing health issues. Further, future funding of health service programs is left to the mercy of policy makers who use standardized criteria such as achievement scores to determine the effectiveness of the program. Shumacher and Queen often use words like “national obesity crisis” and “global epidemic” to describe the contemporary situation. On one hand, using such hyper-cataclysmic evaluative statements presents the authors’ dismal diagnosis of reality as fact, or in the words of the authors’ “essential truths.” Importantly however, and a point not made by Shumacher and Queen, is that not all scientists believe that society is in the midst of an obesity epidemic. Researchers Jan Wright and Michael Gard (2005) for example, believe that the obesity epidemic has been largely manufactured. These authors urge individuals to examine the scientific sanctity that obesity discourses seem to enjoy and evaluate whether “obesity talk has more to do with preconceived moral and ideological beliefs about fatness than sober assessment of existing evidence” (Gard and Wright, 2005, p. 3). Instead of being understood as scientific fact, Gard and Wright (2005, p. 3) claim that the obesity epidemic should be “seen as a complex pot-pourri of science, morality, and ideological assumptions about people and their lives.” On the other hand, using such intense phrases also invokes a kind of ideological neutrality. If, for example, overweight and obesity is such a pressing national issue that threatens personal and social health and economic viability, then the responsible school leader should take part in any initiative to stop it. I believe there is danger in using such crisis-oriented phrases to invoke action and policy in schools. School health projects in particular have long been depicted and justified as being politically and morally neutral and often urgently necessary. Historical analysis reveals however that running alongside these seemingly altruistic endeavors were more insidious motivations. How the eugenics movement infiltrated itself within school health programs provides just one example. To be sure, claims of ideological neutrality escapes even the noblest of intentions. In conclusion, I do believe that the authors make a compelling case when they argue that personal health and wellness are important and should be represented in the curriculum and in school policy. I also believe that this book could be used to help principals understand how the school environment, defined as, the kind of food offered in the cafeteria, the food sold in vending machines and/or corporate omnipresence in schools, might influence students’ health. In this sense the book does further the dialogue of school health programming by discussing schools’ obligations to students’ health and school leaders’ responsibilities in light of these. Perhaps it is not necessary to revise the 1918 Cardinal Principles or to (re)remind teachers and staff who happen to be labeled as overweight or obese that their bodies are contributing to the obesity epidemic and worse that they are exacerbating the global crisis by failing to be proper role models for students. Perhaps what we might do however, is to offer students, faculty and staff alternative visions for understanding health and wellness; eclectic visions that utilize critical thinking to explore health inequities, social responsibility, and/or analyze the role of commercialism. These issues could easily be incorporated into Shumacher and Queen’s notion of an integrated curriculum. While integrated curriculums are not new per se, what could be new and exciting is to complicate contemporary notions of health and wellness by investigating intersections between science and morality and/or analyzing the media’s role in manufacturing singular definitions of health. References Gard M. & Wright J. (2005). The Obesity Epidemic: Science Morality and Ideology. London: Routledge. Urban W.J. & Wagoner, J.L. (2000). American Education: A History. Boston: McGraw Hill. About the Reviewer Carolyn Vander Schee is Assistant Professor of Educational Foundations at Northern Illinois University in DeKalb, IL. Her research interests include the intersections of educational policy studies, sociology of education, and school health issues. Carolyn received her Ph.D. in Educational Policy Studies from Georgia State University.

Committee on Prospering in the Global Economy of the 21st Century. (2007). Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future. Reviewed by Kurt J. Bauman

Committee on Prospering in the Global Economy of the 21st Century. (2007). Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future. Washington, DC: National Academies Press Pp. 592     $54     ISBN-10: 0-309-10039-9 Reviewed by Kurt J. Bauman Independent Scholar January 20, 2008 In Spring 2005, an oversight committee at the National Academies of Science expressed concern about the future of the “science and technology enterprise” in the U.S. With the additional prodding of two committees of Congress, the Academies quickly put together a committee (CEO’s of major corporations, university presidents, leading researchers) and took but a few months to complete a set of recommendations for major increases in science, technology, engineering and mathematics education and research. The recommendations, projected to cost up to $15 billion per year by 2010, gathered wide attention in the press, inspired new budget initiatives from the White House, and fostered legislation supported by the leaders of both parties in Congress. Given this stellar record, it would almost seem beside the point to review the report of this committee as if it were a mere book. Yet we are confronted with the book, 564 pages of text, tables, figures and footnotes, and a cover depicting an American flag jutting upwards as if to pierce through a swirling cauldron of red and purple clouds. What can we make of it? Like most such books from the National Academies, this one starts with an executive summary focusing on the policy proposals. These focus on four areas: strengthening K-12 math and science education, increasing federal research funding in the physical sciences and engineering, supporting university-level math and science education, and providing incentives for private sector research. The first three chapters attempt to provide motivation for the proposals. A fourth chapter describes the work of the committee. Chapters 5 through 8 discuss the policy proposals in detail. The final chapter concludes by describing “what might life in the United States be like if it is not competitive in science and technology.” The first chapter, entitled “A Disturbing Mosaic,” provides a collection of facts that have the feel of unrelated “bullet points” from a presentation. Did you know that there were almost twice as many physics bachelor’s degrees awarded in 1956 than in 2004? Did you know that 93% of students in grades 5 to 9 were taught physical science by a teacher without a degree or certification in the physical sciences? The chapter and the book as a whole are crammed with items such as this, along with graphs, tables and charts illustrating the state of science and science education in America. In chapters two and three, the authors address broad question about national competitiveness, the role of science and technology, and the American education system. The authors argue, like Thomas Friedman (2004) in The World is Flat, that other countries are emulating the U.S. in scientific research, and that we must increase our investment to avoid being overtaken economically. They are concerned that the U.S. education system is falling behind in production of scientists and engineers. They admit that differences of opinion exist on many of these matters by use of text boxes describing “Another point of view.” However, these opposing viewpoints are never fully engaged. Most of the $15 billion they would spend is targeted towards government, university and corporate research, rather than education. Nonetheless, the education proposals would make a large impact. At the K-12 level the focus is on teacher training. The committee proposes ten thousand scholarships for college students who combine the study of math or science with teaching and commit to five years in K-12 schools. They propose a massive continuing education program for current math and science teachers, involving summer institutes, math and science master’s programs, and related programs. At the same time, they propose monetary incentives to schools and students to expand AP/IB testing. At the college level, they would support both undergraduate and graduate study of science, math and engineering: 25 thousand competitive undergraduate math and science scholarships and 5 thousand graduate fellowships. They are also very concerned about improving visa processes for international students, and reform of the “deemed export” provision of technology export control laws. While many of these proposals are appealing, they are less well-developed than might be expected, given their provenance. A basic problem with the education proposals is that they would either educate too many or too few to achieve the comittee’s stated goals. To benefit the U.S. economy, only a small percentage of students need to be given intensive training, given that science and engineering occupations make up only 3 percent of the labor force (National Science Foundation, 2005). On the other hand, the committee’s concern for bringing more women and minority students into the sciences and improving the poor overall performance of students on national and international tests doesn’t match up with its proposals to target advanced students with AP testing and merit scholarships. Their target group is broader than the slice of students headed for scientific careers, but too narrow to improve overall scores. This is not the place to engage all of the arguments and ideas contained in this volume. Needless to say, there are many controversies here, and while some have been confronted, many have been ignored or glossed over. Importantly, the case is never made that, given $15 billion to spend, theirs would necessarily be the best way to spend it. Those who are trying to understand the role that science, math, and engineering ought to play in our current education system and economy will find this volume raises more questions than it answers. Those who have already made up their minds may find this an extremely useful book. References Friedman, Thomas L. (2005). The world is flat: A brief history of the twenty‑first century. New York : Farrar, Straus and Giroux. National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources Statistics. (2005). Scientists, engineers, and technicians in the United States: 2001, NSF 05-313, Project Officer, Richard E. Morrison with Maurya M. Green (Arlington, VA). About the Reviewer Kurt J. Bauman is a demographer and sociologist focusing on trends in educational attainment and measures of household well-being. His current research interests include measurement of high school dropout rates, GED recipiency, and homeschooling.

Greenhaus, Jeffrey H. & Callanan, Gerard A. (Eds.) (2006) Encyclopedia of Career Development. Reviewed by Rhonda Wood, Lincoln University

Greenhaus, Jeffrey H. & Callanan, Gerard A. (Eds.) (2006) Encyclopedia of Career Development. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Pp. 992     $325 (hardcover)     ISBN 9781412905374 Reviewed by Rhonda Wood Lincoln University January 22, 2008 In Encyclopedia of Career Development, Greenhaus and Callanan have stayed true to the very definition of “encyclopedia” by providing us with an extensive reference work on career development. The editors specify their over-arching goal for the work as becoming “the premier reference tool for students, scholars, practitioners, and others interested in gaining knowledge or conducting research on career development-related topics” (p. xxxv). Toward this goal, they make three assertions: 1. the entries are to the point, easy to read, and free of pretentious or technical language, while remaining reflective of the most recent research and thinking on the topic of interest; 2. the entries are directly related to career development and are not tangential to the field; and 3. the entries are composed by leading experts on their topics who are well-respected in the field of career development. In regard to the three assertions made by the editors, the first (entries are free of jargon, concise, easy to read, and reflect current views in the field) has been admirably met. The entries are indeed easy to read and the authors of the entries have made efforts to keep technical jargon at a minimum. Obviously, keeping all technical jargon out of their entries was often impossible (for example, Cognitive Information Processing, Obsolescence of Knowledge and Careers, and the Strong Interest Inventory). When entries did contain a good deal of jargon the authors did a nice job of making sure they defined the terminology for the lay reader. Making the Encyclopedia even more user-friendly, Greenhaus and Callanan made finding entries relevant to topics a researcher or practitioner might want to explore as straightforward as possible. Although, as is common with encyclopedias, the entries are arranged alphabetically, the editors provide a Reader’s Guide that groups the entries into 10 themes relevant to career development. These themes are: 1. theoretical perspectives; 2. social context of careers; 3. evolution and development of careers; 4. decision-making; 5. variations in career patterns and career success; 6. career development initiatives; 7. legislative and regulatory mandates; 8. assessment areas and techniques; 9. job search and organizational recruiting; and 10. professional associations. Also, at the end of each entry, sections entitled “See also” and “Further Readings” assist the reader in identifying related entries and additional sources of information. The Encyclopedia also reflects the current emphasis on contextual factors impacting career development. Accordingly, the theme of social context of careers has the most entries of any other theme. These entries demonstrate attention to diversity variables such as race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, age, socioeconomic status, and disability, and address current concerns such as outsourcing, globalization, telecommuting, and work-life boundaries, to name only a few. The second assertion (entries are directly related to career development and not tangential to the field) proves to be a bit more problematic. Although the editors state that terms, concepts, and practices that characterize the career development field were identified with the assistance of the Editorial Board, they do not elaborate on the procedures used to determine which terms, concepts, and practices were deemed appropriate for inclusion. Most entries do indeed fit the domain of career development, but there are a few entries with questionable relation to the field. This problem seemed most evident in the area of Assessment. While most entries in this area fit the domain, the inclusion of entries pertaining to the Butcher Treatment Planning Inventory (BTPI), Locus of Control, Machiavellianism, and the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2) seemed out of place. The entry for the BTPI does not even mention its use in career development (Butcher & Perry, 2006). Given its apparent intent as a treatment planning tool for outpatient clinical settings, inclusion of the BPTI in an encyclopedia devoted to career development without some explanation of its usefulness to the field seems to be a stretch at best. Similarly, in his entry on Locus of Control, O’Driscoll (2006) suggests that concerns over the measurement of this particular construct remain and that research on its applicability to career development has been “relatively sparse” (p. 482). And, Bolino and Nyberg (2006) indicate that research on Machiavellianism has been declining since it’s peak in 1982 and that continuing research on this concept has shifted focus to clinical psychology’s research on psychopathology and evolutionary psychology’s research on the importance of manipulating others as an adaptive trait for human evolution. Clearly the applicability of all three of these entries to the field of career development is questionable. Personality assessment has a well-established place in the domain of career development. However, the vast majority of these assessment instruments were developed using relatively healthy (i.e. “nonclinical”) populations. This is not the case with the MMPI-2. In addition, in their entry on the MMPI-2, Butcher and Perry (2006) seem to stretch the connection between the assessment and the career development field by suggesting its usefulness for screening candidates for high-risk employment positions. Graham (2000) reminds us that the MMPI was originally developed using psychiatric inpatients. He further stresses “there has been only limited research concerning the use of the MMPI-2 for personnel screening” (p.241). Thus, to find the MMPI-2 in an encyclopedia pertaining solely to career development seems misleading. The third assertion (entries are composed by leading experts in the field) also appears to have been met, although not without a few difficulties. Recognizing the term “career development” as being viewed differently by different disciplines, Greenhaus and Callanan elected to use a multidisciplinary approach to constructing the Encyclopedia, including experts from the fields of psychology, sociology, education, counseling, organizational behavior, and human resource management. Their commitment to this endeavor can be seen by the composition of the Editorial Board and by the list of over 350 contributors. While the editors are both from the field of Industrial/Organizational psychology, the Editorial Board consists of professors in psychology, sociology, management, organizational psychology, behavioral science, counselor education, and international business. In addition, the list of contributors includes professionals from business, sociology, law, counseling psychology, organizational psychology, human resource management, education, developmental psychology, economics, and related fields. Collin (2006) aptly stresses “there are several types of stakeholders in career and they all view the construct from their own perspectives and use it for their own purposes” (p. 62), and that the very term “career” seems to be taken for granted by whoever is using it, especially as the term is used as a descriptor for another construct such as “career development,” “career guidance,” and “career counseling.” Although informative to learn how these terms are viewed by other disciplines, this difference in how the constructs of career, career development, and career counseling are defined leads to difficulty with consistency in terminology throughout the Encyclopedia. One example of this inconsistent use of terminology across disciplines is seen in the way the term “career counseling” is used by different disciplines. Chung (2006), coming from the stance of counseling psychology, refers to career counselors as professionals who have received advanced degrees in the areas of counseling or counseling psychology. However, Baruch (2006), with a background in Human Resource Management, defines career counseling as involving “two-way communication between the employer and employee” and suggests that the direct manager, with first-hand knowledge of the employee’s dispositions and skills, or the human resource manager are the “main sources …. for conducting the counseling” (p. 576). Can they really both be correct? The National Career Development Association (2007) describes career counseling as a deeper involvement with the career counseling client “based on the establishment of a professional counseling relationship” and as potentially “assisting clients with career and personal development concerns beyond those included in career planning” (NCDA, 2007, A.1.b.). As a Counselor Educator I come from a background more closely aligned with Chung and consider the activity Baruch describes as advising or mentoring rather than counseling. Interestingly, although entries for the constructs of “career” and “career counseling” are included, there is no entry for the very term, namely “career development,” that defines the Encyclopedia itself. This, along with differing uses of common terminology such as that discussed above, highlights a need for the various disciplines to come together and work toward consensus about the meaning of the terms “career,” “career counseling,” and, of course, “career development.” Coming from the field of counseling, I strongly agree with Brown and Lent (2005) that “[f]ully informed career counseling … requires that counselors know and use findings from relevant fields such as personality and industrial-organizational psychology” (p. x). After reading the Encyclopedia of Career Development, I would like to add sociology, human resource management, business, economics, and law to the list of fields to include. As I read through the entries, I learned a great deal from these other fields and I appreciate their contributions to the field of career development. As indicated earlier, Greenhaus and Callanan specified their main goal for the Encyclopedia as becoming “the premier reference tool for students, scholars, practitioners, and others interested in gaining knowledge or conducting research on career development-related topics” (p. xxxv). I can certainly attest to its usefulness and versatility for the counseling profession. Although the target audience appears to be Industrial/Organizational Psychology, I found myself using the Encyclopedia in several of my counseling classes, including Counseling in a Pluralistic Society, Advanced Human Development, the Advanced Practicum for School Counselors, and, of course, the Career Development class! The information contained in the various entries has broad applicability and the Encyclopedia would be an asset to any program, practitioner, or researcher concerned with the topic of career development. Finally, I congratulate Greenhaus and Callanan for their multidisciplinary approach to a topic of interest to several disciplines. Although there is currently difficulty due to inconsistency of terminology, I am convinced that the field of career development will be strengthened by implementation of an interdisciplinary approach to theory, research, and practice. References Baruch, Y. (2006). Organizational career management. In Greenhaus, J. H. & Callanan, G. A. (Eds.) Encyclopedia of Career Development. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Bolino, M, & Nyberg, T. (2006) Machiavellianism. In Greenhaus, J. H. & Callanan, G. A. (Eds.) Encyclopedia of Career Development. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Brown, S. D. & Lent, R. W. (Eds) (2005). Career development and counseling: Putting theory and research to work. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Chung, Y. B. (2006). Career coaching. In Greenhaus, J. H. & Callanan, G. A. (Eds.) Encyclopedia of Career Development. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Collin, A. (2006). Career. In Greenhaus, J. H. & Callanan, G. A. (Eds.) Encyclopedia of Career Development. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Graham, J. R. (2000). MMPI-2: Assessing personality and psychopathology (3rd ed.). NY: Oxford. Hiebert, B. (2006). Career counseling competencies. In Greenhaus, J. H. & Callanan, G. A. (Eds.) Encyclopedia of Career Development. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. National Career Development Association (2007). Code of ethics. Retrieved August 07, 2007, from http://ncda.org/. O’Driscoll, M. (2006). Locus of control. In Greenhaus, J. H. & Callanan, G. A. (Eds.) Encyclopedia of Career Development. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. About the Reviewer Rhonda Wood is an Assistant Professor of Counselor Education at Lincoln University, Jefferson City, Missouri. She is also an Online Adjunct Instructor for the Department of Psychology at University of Central Missouri, Warrensburg, Missouri and working toward counseling licensure at Wakonda Family Center and Wakonda Family Institute, Columbia, Missouri. She can be contacted via email at woodr@lincolnu.edu.

Tierney, William G. (2006). Trust and the public good: Examining the cultural conditions of academic work. Reviewed by Barbara S. Smith, Mansfield University of Pennsylvania

Tierney, William G. (2006). Trust and the public good: Examining the cultural conditions of academic work. NY, NY: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc. Pp. vii + 207     $30     ISBN 0-8204-8650-7 Reviewed by Barbara S. Smith Mansfield University of Pennsylvania January 23, 2008 William Tierney begins his captivating study of organizational trust by sharing an e-mail question from his budding-scholar niece who is considering graduate school and possibly the professorate: “Hi, Uncle Bill. I’ve been thinking about what you wrote, about graduate school. I actually might consider it! But tell me, what’s it like being a professor anyway? Really.” Uncle Bill, who received his Ph.D. in administration and policy analysis from Stanford University and who is now endowed chair and Director of the Center for Higher Education Policy, has a multifaceted 207-page response. It is a powerfully enlightening educational explanation of where we are in higher education (case studies), how we got here (brief and accurate views of competing ideologies), and where we are going (which in large part depends on our own collective understanding and communication with one another within universities about the topics he raises). Neophytes such as William’s niece are well-served by this thoughtful explanation, and future studies and new conversations among scholars will be a natural result of the work. At the outset, Tierney explains that even though the Carnegie classifications have remained relatively stable over the last 50 years, we are seeing, and are going to be seeing, changes to the internal structure of colleges and universities, particularly to the department “building block” that currently empowers faculty (p. 7). This new wave can be seen in other works about innovative universities wishing to further “John Dewey’s dream” both at the university level (Benson, Harkavy, & Puckett, 2007) and in local area schools (Knowles, Raudenbush, & Webber, 2007), this new wave can be seen. Tierney shows that universities have begun already to be much more flexible with their structure to accommodate projects where individuals come together around an idea or problem, rather than work as conventional departments, with the expectation that faculty with multiple perspectives will work together (both studies cited above are examples). Of course a common concern with such an approach to new problems is that faculty will lose their power. This change, or risk, inherently involves trust, and thus begins the multifaceted definition and discussion of trust. Tierney’s views go beyond the usual psychological and sociological explanations around organizations and trust. While not neglecting these, he is more interested in and illuminates anthropological perspectives. It becomes apparent that the notions of cultures of trust within organizations and surrounding organizations is more important to understand now than it has even been. Tierney’s groundbreaking definitional work I have been describing here consumes the first half of the book. Those familiar with Megan Tschannen-Moran’s (2004) research on trust for K-12 school leaders will find Tierney’s book a wonderful addition that specifically addresses higher education. Both K-12 schools and universities are known to be complex organizations in their own ways. While there are many striking similarities, there are just as many profound differences. Both are profoundly shaped by the degree to which a culture of trust exists or can exist. Part Two of the book, “Enacting Trust,” presents case studies from a year of research at four fictitiously-named universities: Prairie Home University, Dysfunctional University, Salon University, and Congenial University. In rare inside glimpses of how each university is perceived by faculty, administrators, board members, students, and others; in a chapter on each he presents the data he gathered, then focuses on how it highlights the relationship of social trust to social capital, institutional networks, and culture. The case studies alone are interesting enough to merit the purchase of the book. Having worked as an insider at three universities, I found them to be illuminating as a working schema for organizational trust. It becomes quite clear how trust is built or depleted on many levels at public universities, and all of them are important. The last and possibly most important section of the book, “Trust and the Public Good,” explains briefly how “public good” means different things to different people. Tierney acknowledges Powell and Clemen’s (1998) notion that the public good has always been an unsettled and contested democratic idea because it is part of the unsettled and contested nature of politics itself. However, Tierney adds that, commonsensically, it also refers to communal interests: “Although self-interest remains central to a democratic polity, so too does the notion that individuals have common bonds that enable them to support philosophical and economic public goods such as national defense, the environment, and postsecondary education” (p. 186). Finally, Tierney adds that higher education remains a public good, but in a much more competitive atmosphere than heretofore. As a result postsecondary, public education must make the case about why it is a public good and what it will do that others cannot. The polity will not have blind faith and trust for institutions to do whatever they desire in ways that they have in the past. On multiple levels we will have to win trust for a public good to be enacted. Not surprisingly, for professors the work begins on campus where trust among faculty across departments becomes an even more prized, if rarely found, commodity. Where this occurs, positive community leadership becomes possible. There is a multiplicity of strategies for building civil societies, Tierney explains. We need to begin with what is public and what is good. We will also have to ask whose good and whose public we are serving. The polity will not be left out of this conversation, nor should it be. While there has been a loss of faith and an increase of cynicism, we must begin the complex work of restoration and maintenance of trust for public, postsecondary institutions. Tierney’s book does much through his case studies and theorizing to show how it is both done and undone. He is more concerned about the restoration of trust than he is the structure or form of participation in university affairs. Taking care of and building networks at all levels inside and outside our institutions is an important key. “A university in the best sense is a conduit for communication; it needs to help the polity decide the directions it takes. I suggest that for a civil society, what higher education now needs to be is more communicative, more engaged, and by doing so, more likely to develop trust” (p. 192). Dewey’s work (1937) advocated this process for building a more democratic society, not just more democratic schools. Tierney adds substance for today on how to go about doing it specifically in higher education. The University of Pennsylvania is taking this theory seriously and applying it to their internal structure as well as in commitments to the Philadelphia public schools (Benson et al., 2007). University of Chicago is also beginning a similar project (Knowles et al., 2007). Hopefully Dewey and Tierney will find them and many more of us attempting to develop and use trust to build more civil, democratic spaces for individuals and communities to realize more of their dreams. References Benson, L., Harkavy, I., & Puckett, J. (2007). Dewey’s dream: Universities and democracies in an age of reform: Civil society, public schools, and democratic citizenship. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Dewey, J. (1937). Democracy and educational administration. In J. Boydston (Ed.). The later works. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press. Knowles, T., Raudenbush, S., & Webber. H.S. (2007). John Dewey for today: Chicago refines the role of the research university in urban schools. [Electronic version.] Education Week, 26(43), 32,34. Powell, W.W. & Clemens, E.S. (Eds.). (1998). Private action and the public good. New Haven: Yale University Press. Curriculum guidelines for advanced programs in educational leadership for principals, superintendents, curriculum directors, and supervisors. National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education Guidelines. Alexandria, VA: Educational Leadership Constituent Council. 1995.Tschannen-Moran, M. (2004). Trust matters: Leadership for successful schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. About the Reviewer Barbara S. Smith, Ph.D. is an associate professor at Mansfield University of Pennsylvania in the in the Education and Special Education Department. Her scholarly interests lie in the organization and leadership of schools. Before becoming a professor, she was a classroom teacher (5 years) and principal (8 years).