Evans, R. W. (2004). Social Studies Wars: What Should We Teach the Children? Reviewed by Reese H. Todd, Texas Tech University

Evans, R. W. (2004). Social Studies Wars: What Should We Teach the Children? New York: Teachers College Press. Pp. 226 $24.95 (Paperback)   ISBN 0-8077-4419-0 Reviewed by Reese H. Todd Texas Tech University December 5, 2005 Reports in the media show that U. S. high school students cannot name the first president of the United States, locate Viet Nam, or differentiate between terms such as race, ethnicity, nationality, and citizenship. Social studies teachers are the first line of attack for not adequately educating our children. Yet, decisions of what to teach our children under the umbrella of social studies education often shifts and is dependent on the influence of political and social interest groups. The review identifies Ron Evans’ position on the question of what to teach in social studies and considers the implications for current practice. It begins by tracing Evan’s work and contributions to the field. The chapter summaries that follow describe the ideological conflicts among various camps in the context of different historical eras. The reviewer then gives a brief definition of each camp and discusses the role of the work in relation to future social studies education projects. Ronald W. Evans, author of the Social Studies Wars, is a long-time social studies educator and spokesman for issues-centered instruction. His early work focused on teacher and student conceptions of history. He then turned his efforts toward investigating the development of social studies curriculum and raising questions about including social issues. Evans often found himself in the midst of controversy and responded to opposing voices in his publications. With colleagues, he edited the Handbook on Teaching Social Issues(NCSS, 1996) and continues research on the challenges teachers face in engaging students in critical thinking about current issues. Social Studies Wars describes the philosophical positions he has identified in his research and the influences they had in determining what we teach the children. Evans uses the structure of the book to show the development of social studies both historically and pedagogically. He begins with historians, a group he associates with traditional education and moves toward the more liberal, visionary social change proponents. The chapters detail the changes in curriculum materials with the fluctuation of the influence of each group. Evans identifies major world events, such as the Great Depression, World War II, and Sputnik that contribute to the political climate supporting the different camps. The emergence of power within different camps follows eras in the history of the United States, so I have divided the review of the chapters into three parts. Chapters 1, 2, and 3 recall the development of social studies education in the 19th and the early 20th century. Chapters 4 and 5 follow the development of social studies through the war years and cold war, and chapters 6 and 7 investigate the changes from the 1960s to the present. In each of these time periods other voices exist. The tensions and compromises are continually interwoven into the decision-making processes that effect American schools. Chapter Summaries Early chapters. In Chapter 1 Evans reviewed the historical roots from which social studies emerged. The array of courses students were expected to master had grown out of control. A hodgepodge of courses in the mid 1800s included twenty-two fields of history, eleven of geography, six of civics, and an array of philosophy and religious education courses (quoting Roorback 1937 in Evans p. 5). By the beginning of the twentieth century, curriculum committees of the American Historical Association recommended a chronological sequence of courses in secondary schools to bring order to the chaos. With a strong rationale for the value of history instruction, the association established for itself a position of influence in future decision-making processes. Changes in elementary school organization followed (1909) with further emphasis on the traditional history in opposition to a curriculum centered in the child and his environment. The dominance of history in the social studies and the goals of “transmitting culture, patriotism, and good citizenship” (p. 5) lasted into the first two decades of the twentieth century and furthered the political agenda of “conservative nation –building” (p. 19). Chapter 2 focused on the beginning of the Social Studies as a field of study. The National Educational Association (NEA) report of the social studies committee (1916) proposed “a new synthesis of social studies subjects”. Debates continued over questions of making schools more efficient for disseminating content knowledge through traditional history or a more functional, “social efficiency” history preparing students for working and maintaining the social conventions. Historians maintained a position of primacy, but others proposed courses of community civics or problems of democracy with a vision of integrated issues-centered study. The alternatives were closely linked to the progressive movement and were clearly not part of mainstream curriculum; at least no reference to the proposed Problems of Democracy was reported in the history journal for six years. By the mid 1920s organizations representing secondary principals and political science educators joined the various camps. These included the issues of content centered on history or in social sciences, the issue of knowledge acquisition versus the student interest, and the issue of the integration of courses across disciplinary boundaries. Evans notes that several strands of the progressive education movement “emerged from a general culture of protest”. The NCSS (1921) identified itself as a “consensus organization” (p. 37) with proposed curriculum plans directed toward “raising questions and investigating issues” (p. 44). The third chapter shifted to the era of hard times and turmoil of the 1930s. During the depression years the economic crises in the democracy affected all aspects of the social fabric of the nation, including education. Each of the major camps was present “in this struggle to determine the direction of social studies” (p. 47). Attention to the social problems of the Great Depression strengthened the social change and issues-oriented camps. Progressive education gained influence in the social and political climate. A research project of the Progressive Education Association translated an experimentalist attitude of practice into integrated curricula “centered around issues, social problems, and students’ personal problems” (p. 49). The reconstructionist camp found additional support for social change within the social and political climate of the period. The conflicts continued with Charles A. Beard advocating a disciplines-based curriculum for the social studies while Harold Rugg’s books were “built around an issues-centered vision” (p. 60). Critics from the history camp feared a lack of traditional teaching was undermining American patriotism. Issues of academic freedom arose when educators voiced dissenting views. This era of social change soon encountered the challenge of a new force. Middle Chapters. In Chapter 4 the rumblings of war again changed the social and political landscape for social studies education. A return to a safe, traditional history curriculum supported the development of patriotic values in classrooms. Instead of pursuing an uncertain path into social issues and the questions students might raise, the nation needed to encourage loyalty and unity. The wartime commitment toward making the world safe for democracy extended from the battlefield into social and political policies at home. The task of education was to socialize students into this climate. The impact on curriculum was both “immediate and long lasting . . . leading to the long term death of progressive education as an organized force” (p. 70). Critics said a problems approach raising questions about the ideals of democracy and capitalism was inappropriate in a time of war. Some cited lack of history being taught in schools as an attack on patriotism and conflicts between historians and social studies educators burned in the media and in professional journals. Headlines in the New York Times (1943) read, “Ignorance of U.S. History shown by college freshmen” (p. 89). The fifth chapter looked at the prosperity of the post war years along with growing fears of the Cold War conflicts. The battlefield had been relocated from military campaigns to ideological struggles between communism and capitalism. Competition between the Soviet Union and the United States set a “tone of confrontation, secrecy, and self-righteousness” along with an atmosphere of “restraint, and censorship” (p. 97). Amid the attacks on diversity and individual expression, NCSS published kits to help teachers respond to critics. They were too little and too late to turn back the tide against any kind of progressive, reflective, or issues-centered social studies education. In the fervor to counter communism, Evans says, illustrated the potential dangers to free expression and free thought, “creating a one-dimensional curriculum” (p. 97). Another threat to diversity at this time was Life Adjustment Education, an official program of the U.S. Office of Education. Teaching students to adjust to social norms replaced efforts to promote high academic achievement among all students. Many students who were trained for work in the society were left with inadequate education and unequal opportunities for success in the American system. Critical thinking and issues-centered curriculum continued to lose support. Classroom teaching returned to the traditional disciplines and history. Later Chapters. Chapter 6 chronicled the “most innovative and influential commodities ever produced for use in the social studies classrooms” (p. 127) during the 1960s and 1970s. With federal funding available for curriculum development in the aftermath of the cold war and Sputnik, issues-oriented curriculum and problem solving projects challenged high achieving learners. Analysis, critical thinking skills, and the investigation of people, places, and events characterized social studies education. The new, and newer, social studies curricula responded to civil rights issues within the society and the newly emerging voices of multicultural education. It was an era of broad influence for progressive education. The last chapter is entitled the “Runaway Train of Standards Reform”. In it Evans questions the manufactured crisis in education that led to reports of a nation at risk and re-established a conservative, traditionalist philosophy of social studies. The social studies pendulum swung toward content mastery and away from issues of society. The content favored traditional Euro-centric perspectives and factual knowledge that could be easily assessed with new standards and tests. Proponents of this camp found support from the political right and its leadership, including foundations that supplied funding for projects. Public education suffered from negative image, inadequate resources, low enrollment, and lack of trust. A new era of conformity ignored the increasing numbers of students whose history was not included in euro-centric curriculum. Addressing the social issues in the society remained outside the classroom. Evans summarized his work with this statement, “The key question haunting social studies remains the issues of its definition and its vision and of the approaches to the field that will be practiced in the schools” (p. 178). Participants in the Struggles Indeed, the current struggle for inclusion of social studies instruction in public schools reaches beyond the classroom teacher and curriculum requirements of local districts. It begins with a definition which is “vague, murky, and too all-inclusive” (Keller, 1961 quoted in Evans p. 125) and fails to arrive at a common vision. The vision is fragmented by five philosophical camps — traditional historians, social scientists, social efficiency educators, social meliorists, and social reconstructionists — that vie for control of what should be practiced in the schools. Additionally, the adoption of national standards and rigorous testing assessments value particular perspectives and curriculum materials. The struggle among interest groups, according to Evans, has escalated from “battles over the purposes, content, methods, and theoretical foundations of the social studies curriculum” (p. 1) into war against progressive education. The five philosophical camps, plus a sixth group promoting social studies as an “umbrella” organization, have emerged since the National Council of Social Studies (NCSS) organized in 1916. Each has had some effect on social studies education. 1) Traditional Historians: This group holds the strongest and most consistent influence in social studies curriculum. They maintain that the study of history transmits to students factual knowledge, a structure of logical thinking, and an understanding of social values. According to this camp, students are then prepared for further education and to assume their place in the established structure of their society. 2) Social Scientists: Similar to the traditional historians, social scientists also have a strong position of influence. They represent an array of disciplines which focus on studying people and their behaviors. A social sciences perspective provides students with knowledge of processes for learning about current issues and social problems of interest to them. This camp cites the advantage that students gain a breadth of knowledge by studying civics, geography, economics, and sociology. 3) Social Efficiency Educators: Proponents of this position talk about the needs of the students and their interests, so they seem to lean toward the philosophies of the social meliorists and social reconstructionists. In practice, however, their goal is to prepare students for work in maintaining the social structures that exist. The have greater influence in times of crisis such as the Great Depression or the Red Scare of communism. In those times, the public sees a need for the nation to work together. This camp responds with social studies curriculum that fosters patriotism and problem-solving skills to lead the nation to a more secure and prosperous time. Social efficiency in schools is measured in terms of student productivity in the society upon completion of the course of study. 4) Social Meliorists: Members of this group represent a branch of progressive education. They have influence when the political climate turns towards a path of social change but can lose that position as the environment shifts toward restoring traditional values. These proponents encourage reflective thinking and social improvement through issues-centered social studies and analysis of the problems of democracy. 5.) Social Reconstructionists: This camp represents another progressive branch in social studies. They flourish in a climate of social activism and change such as the 1960s but suffer strong criticism at other times. Critical pedagogy and major restructuring of educational practices are the focus of this group. Their work, though often unpopular, is necessary to the process of changing the inequities and injustices in society. Contribution to the Field Evans’ work gives an historical review of the current struggle over the content and process of social studies instruction in the curriculum. It offers insight into the evolution of the current disengagement in social studies education in public school by identifying key events and people from his insider’s perspective. The power of money, influence, and privilege fragment efforts for a common social studies position, both philosophically and pragmatically. Evans tries to bridge some of these differences by a shift in focus. His thesis is that social studies itself is not the target but rather the pedagogy of critical inquiry that is central to learning about historical events, political systems, social institutions, and global interactions that frame the content. With that stance, he is creating space for groups to find common ground for dialogue around issues of pedagogy. He offers multiple examples and descriptions of materials created for social studies education to make this a valuable professional resource. The chronology focuses on the Euro-centric debates that have been the primary voices of the field in the past century. Few women or other minority opinions have played a role in developing policies that have affected dominant theories and practices. Evans acknowledges these limitations and the exclusion of many alternate stories of people, places, and events in current standardized materials. His commitment to restoring issues-centered progressive education and an attitude of critical thinking into the curriculum is also an affirmation of the voices that have been ignored in defining the goals of social studies education. Perhaps it is time for the NCSS to request another committee report to insist on more social studies instruction in the curriculum that balances content knowledge, processing skills, and civic responsibilities for living in a diverse global community. Such a report may contribute to regaining the public trust in education (Meier, 2002). The standards and testing approach provides only one dimension of assessment of learning, and it is the one that currently dominates curriculum policy decisions (Berliner & Biddle, 1995). Further investigation of the many stories of people in our communities adds narrative data (Denzin & Lincoln, 2003) from a growing body of qualitative research to enrich today’s social studies. Implications for Social Studies Educators The beliefs of the camps in Social Studies have been dissected and the distinct differences noted. The next step is for educators to move away from the language of conflict, blame, and fragmentation and change the focus to synthesizing the multiple facets into a shared vision for teaching our children. By understanding how priorities shift over time, educators gain courage to continue to speak out in pursuit of their visions of reform in schools. The challenges go beyond the realm of education. The hope for the future lies in engaging in an inclusive conversation that balances the interests of education and community leaders in creating equitable and just solutions in a democracy. Courage and Hope. Reform in policies and practices within educational institutions is slow. In individual schools, the process may be a little easier. Changes in schools and among teachers are like pieces of a shifting mosaic (Hargreaves, 1994). The pieces frequently change as teachers identify themselves by the work of several groups at the same time. The philosophical camps Evans describes are also shifting. Some people find themselves supporting beliefs and practices from more than one group. Their movement among groups nurtures the seeds of dialogue critical in creating inclusive, meaningful social studies curriculum. The courage of these people in times of change marks a path for compromise and collaboration in the larger community that is home to many divergent camps. Finding a shared vision diffuses public criticism toward a particular group, maximizes access to resources, and invites positive interdisciplinary learning projects. Balance. Deciding what to teach the children is not the task of one camp. In a democracy, it takes the understanding from many perspectives to achieve equity and justice. The book investigates five positions in social studies with influence in the twentieth century. With these as a foundation, curriculum writers can turn attention from the conflicts of the past to the task of creating an expanded global content knowledge for the future (Merryfield, 2004). Critics can go beyond a limited measurement of the progress in our schools based on standards and tests, and begin to listen to the narratives that provide a rich assessment of a student’s education as a whole (Tierney & Lincoln, 1997). New work in diversity pedagogy (Sheets, 2004) contributes yet another dimension to understanding what must be included in the new curriculum. Conclusion Evan’s work puts the current ideological conflicts into historical context. He reminds the reader of the time and energy leaders invested in bringing about reforms of previous eras. Critics cry there is not enough historical information in an issues-oriented curriculum; others say students are unprepared for the workforce if they take a smattering of social science courses; and still others fear the strength of traditional values are undercut by special concerns for equity based on gender, language, race, sexual orientation, ability. Today’s reform-minded educators benefit from previous experiences in responding to the attacks on social studies instruction. The task of dialogue and collaboration among educators is a daunting task, yet that is not enough to reach a truce in the social studies wars. The conversation must also include special interest groups in the political and social environment. In a democracy, the opposition can speak out as Evans has done in this book. What do we need to teach our children for them to live as citizens in an increasingly interdependent world? The question does not have a simple answer, but it is now open for discussion. References Berliner, D., & Biddle, B. (1995). The manufactured crisis: Myths, fraud, and the attack on America's public schools. New York: Longman. Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (Eds.). (2003). Thelandscape of qualitative research: theories and issues (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Hargreaves, A. (1994). Changing teachers, changing times: Teachers' work and culture in the postmodern age. New York: Teachers College Press. Meier, D. (2002). In schools we trust: Creating communities of learning in an era of testing and standardization. Boston: Beacon Press. Merryfield, M. (2004). Elementary students in substantive culture learning. Social Education, 68, 270-273. Sheets, R. H. (2004). Diversity pedagogy: Examining the role of culture in the teaching-learning process. New York: Allyn and Bacon. Tierney, W., & Lincoln, Y. (Eds.). (1997). Representation and the text: reframing the narrative voice. Albany: SUNY. About the Reviewer Reese H. Todd, Ph.D. Department of Curriculum and Instruction College of Education Texas Tech University Copyright is retained by the first or sole author, who grants right of first publication to the Education Review.

hooks, bell. (2003). Teaching Community: A Pedagogy of Hope. Reviewed by Jennifer Adair, Arizona State University

hooks, bell. (2003). Teaching Community: A Pedagogy of Hope. New York: Routledge Pp. xvi + 200 $17.95   ISBN 0-415-96818-6 Reviewed by Jennifer Adair Arizona State University December 5, 2005 Also see the review by Brooke Johnson bell hooks’s latest contribution to education and pedagogy, Teaching Community offers a group of essays aimed at explaining how to achieve a pedagogy that creates a genuine community of people who feel free and hopeful about the future. She insists that such a community must be centered on anti-racist, critical- thinking oriented pedagogy that asserts the world can change for the better, as it has in the past. Reading Teaching Community is an intellectual exercise that can yield beneficial self-critique as well as pedagogical corrections. While some of the chapters seem like journal entries that distract from the larger picture, others should be internalized, even embodied, by teachers and teacher educators as well as by all those who seek social justice elsewhere. Author hooks presents her essays as “practical wisdom,” and the essays taken together appear to center on three principles. First, that racism is a conscious choice, not something embedded in culture or biology. Because racism is a choice, it can be unlearned, overturned, repented of, and dismissed. Viewing racism as a choice, instead of an inevitable societal phenomenon leaves room for people to change. The second principle is that pedagogy has the power to promote critical thinking among students, to help them see their own lives openly and to assure them that they can make responsible and compassionate choices. The third principle maintains that teachers teach the way they live outside the classroom and that their commitment to social justice and racial equity can be measured by those with whom they spend the most time. In “Race and Racism,” hooks argues that fighting racism means enlarging one’s social sphere. She explains: “Rather than simply accept that class power often situates me in a world where I have little or no contact with other black people, especially individuals from underprivileged classes, I as a black person with class privilege can actively seek out these relationships. More often than not to do this work, I must make an effort to expand my social world.”(p. 36). She then observes that many of her white peers, when trying to unlearn white supremacy, realize that they have little or no meaningful contact with non-white people. So, she insists, teachers and teacher educators need to “open their eyes” and see the non-white people around them and bring them into their personal world in a respectful and meaningful way. This is a concrete way to challenge the dominant hierarchy that insists on class and racial boundaries between people and ideas. In the chapter, “Race and Racism,” hooks also comments on the holistic nature of teaching; a teacher’s life is made up mostly of decisions made outside the classroom and that racism cannot be hidden in the classroom if one practices it by omission outside their teaching context. She recounts a class exercise that creates a genealogical map of students’ first recollection of race. Such an exercise could be quite thought-provoking in a number of different circumstances. In the subsequent and equally important essay, “What Happens When White People Change,” hooks insists that all people (not just whites) have to resist the domination of white privilege in their lives. People who make genuine efforts are courageous and need recognition so they can serve as examples to others. Focusing on those who are racist while ignoring those who sacrifice and work hard for social justice only reinforces the inevitability of racism and inequality. When society acts as though white people cannot change, white supremacy continues. Seeing racism and the lack of social mobility as a matter of coincidence, instead of as sexist and racist policies that white (and black) people can work to correct, frustrates the work of equality and obstructs freedom and hope. Maybe hooks’s argument is too simple but the idea is worth pursuing. As hooks explains, when white people do nothing, the idea is perpetuated that racism is coincidence, “merely existing” instead of being the result of something that is consciously created and therefore can be consciously destroyed. Another key point is that white people can and do change their ways but they also make mistakes. In her chapter, “Standards,” hooks uses the example of a group of female black colleagues who judge a close white friend based on one mistake, while discounting all she has done and sacrificed for racial and gender equality. Hooks believes those black women gave into the idea that all white people are racist. Such a mentality only reinforces the normalization and inescapability of racism in America. White people should use these types of misunderstandings and other suffering, not as a ruler by which to judge others but as a bridge to understand other types of suffering, those that come because of a racist society, or even more specifically, a racist education system. In several chapters, hooks discusses the obstacles academia poses to a pedagogy of community centered on hope and freedom. She challenges higher education to be less hypocritical in their “official” efforts to be engaged in gender and racial and economic equity. Those who claim to work for gender and racial equality in admissions and in hiring but happen to work among a largely white faculty are merely assisting the white privileged patriarchy to continue. It is hypocritical, she maintains, to teach that racism is a problem while actively benefiting (without resistance) from policies and practices that make it so. In, “How Can We Serve,” hooks asks educators to look at students as a call to service; to find ways to listen and assist students who are underrepresented and who resist the expectations the hierarchy assigns to them. It is important to listen carefully to multiple perspectives and to use the voice or silence of students’ of color as a way to critique one’s own pedagogy. If the classroom is not a safe space for some students to speak, then it is not a community. Instead it remains a space that tells students of color that they are exceptions or visitors instead of equal participants. “Keepers of Hope” is a dialogue with her white colleague and good friend, Ron Scrapp. The conversation centers on the values progressive educators bring to the classroom and the need to maintain and promote hope even while voicing opposition to dominant ideals that reproduce oppression. The chapter, “Heart to Heart,” encourages teachers to connect with all of their students in an emotional, loving way. Other, less poignant chapters, focus on spirituality as well as the sexual conduct and orientation of teachers, namely in academia. These chapters seem disconnected from the themes central in the other chapters. While much can be made of her somewhat dramatic and unapologetic tone when discussing the patriarchal nature of higher education, I think the most important piece missing is hooks’s own sense of “theoretical genealogy.” For example, in her chapter “Standards,” hooks argues that black students have been socialized to believe that education “will lead them away from blackness.” However, it seems like this would be an important place to cite the work of scholars invested in such research, most notably Signithia Fordham (1986; 1996), an educational anthropologist whose work has led to a better understanding of the potential for black female resistance to white domination in high schools. Asking for a “theory trail,” or a bibliography at the very least, seems appropriate considering some may read Teaching Community, feel empowered to make pedagogical changes, and need additional readings. Arguably, hooks intended to stay far from academic verbiage and instead, chose to engage in public conversation. Her prominence as a public intellectual certainly justifies such a decision. Or perhaps she wanted to avoid being bound by a specific theoretical framework (e.g., feminism, structural-functionalism, Marxism, critical race theory). And we know that chapters and books with long citations and theoretical mapping can discourage students and practitioners from reading them, which in this case would be regrettable. Indeed, it may be hooks’s sophisticated yet uncluttered explanations that have led to her public success. It is obvious that hooks internalizes the world around her in a deeply observant way and that her experiences are critical to the ideas developed in Teaching Community and other works. But we are not privy to her intellectual encounters with current educational discourses and specific areas of research. As a compromise, perhaps chapter endnotes or appendices (in addition to some type of bibliography) could be offered as a way to understand what outside sources are mixing with the world she experiences. My second and final critique is also a tribute to the impact of the book. Often the language seems dramatic and “over-the-top.” Phrases like, “Imperialist, white-supremacist, capitalist patriarchy” can feel so harsh and aggressive that readers, especially university and college students, may turn off from hooks’s larger points. However, there is a powerful teaching moment in such statements. The power of her writing for the education of pre-service teachers is the unavoidable discussion which begins “Why does this make you uncomfortable?” Talking openly about phrases and ideas asserted by hooks in Teaching Community can lead to rich and meaningful dialogue if the three main principles discussed earlier are in place; the acknowledgement that racism is a choice and can be changed, that pedagogy is pursuing critical thinking, and that teachers in the classrooms are reflections of themselves outside the classroom context. In other words, such important discussions are only possible in a community-based, anti-racist, critically-thinking classroom. References Fordham, S. and Ogbu, J.U. (1986). Black students' school success: Coping with the "burden of 'Acting White.'” The Urban Review, 18, 176-206. Fordham, S. (1996). Blacked Out: Dilemmas of Race, Identity, and Success at Capital High. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. About the Reviewer Jennifer Adair is a Ph.D. student at Arizona State University, in the area of Education and Anthropology. Her interests include immigration and young children; the effects of educational policy on family relationships, and the intersection of culture, race, and class in teacher education. Copyright is retained by the first or sole author, who grants right of first publication to the Education Review.

Hargreaves, D. H. (2004). Learning for Life: The Foundations for Lifelong Learning. Reviewed by Louis Lim, York University

Hargreaves, D. H. (2004). Learning for Life: The Foundations for Lifelong Learning. Bristol, UK: The Policy Press. Pp. viii + 114 $28.06 ISBN   1-86134-597-6 Reviewed by Louis Lim York University December 9, 2005 Learning for Life: The Foundations for Lifelong Learning is the culmination of 11 seminars, involving 50 practitioners, academics, and policy makers in Britain. Conducted from May 2002 to October 2003, the seminars addressed, “Shaping Policies for Lifelong Learning: A Radical Approach”. Five major themes emerged and are discussed in this book: learning how to learn; generic skills; projects; importance of mentors; and personalisation. The book is specifically written for policy makers, but can be read by educators and those in the business community. David H. Hargreaves begins with a critique of existing curriculum, assessment, and pedagogical practices in Britain, followed by the need for radical innovation (e.g., due to changes in information, communication, and learning technologies). The aim of lifelong learning posits that students are motivated and capable of adapting to an ever changing world, occurring from “cradle to grave” (p. 1): “equip and motivate individuals to meet the demands and challenges that will face them in managing their lives and their work” (p. vii). The role of education shifts from predominant acquisition of knowledge, to include motivation and learning how to learn. The intent of the book is to provide a framework of “learning for life” as well as to discuss changes that are needed to make that vision a reality. Curriculum, traditionally viewed as knowledge and content that students are to acquire, has been used to socialize people through the transmission of values, traditions, cultures, achievement, and citizenship. Hargreaves envisions curriculum, through major innovations, to link subject knowledge with skills that promote life-long and self-directed learning; that is, concentrate on the learner so curriculum is competency-led rather than solely information-led. Motivation becomes a prominent factor, and teachers are responsible for providing students with opportunities to learn how to learn and to ensure that students are motivated both in and out of school. One dilemma is motivation may be in tension with the transmission of societal values; for example, in promoting the importance of literacy in schools, students may become disinterested through the instructional practices of reading or writing. In a curriculum that promotes life-long learning, skills in literacy, numeracy, and computer literacies are vital, complemented with competencies of “generic skills” such as problem solving, thinking, communication, teamwork, social and interpersonal skills, and developing leadership. Proposed shifts to curriculum also require major changes to assessment. Traditionally, assessment has determined the extent of students’ acquisition of knowledge and facts, rather than their understanding of concepts. The predominant reliance on summative assessments for public accountability (e.g., tests and examinations, external examinations) continues to cause undo stress on students, which can lead to disinterest in learning since its importance is lost to marks (especially if marks are low). Further, external examinations have put tremendous demands on teachers when school results are published in newspapers as league tables, impacting schools’ reputation. Rewards such as merit pay may pressure teachers to teach to the test (rather than the prescribed curriculum) or engage in unethical practices such as cheating. The concentration on low-order thinking through the acquisition of isolated skills and procedures makes the large-scale assessments invalid. Hargreaves states that human beings, beginning at birth, are naturally interested in learning. One issue is why one-third of students in Britain are disinterested in school by the time it is no longer mandatory, yet these same students show positive attitudes in the workplace. One solution is pedagogy, or how teachers teach, with attention directed to students’ individual needs, their desire to want to learn, and to strengthen their metacognitive skills. Howard Gardiner suggests providing students with apprenticeship experiences (e.g., half-day at work, half day at school) so students are actively engaged in learning through real-life experiences. Apprenticeship is especially beneficial for students identified as at-risk, inviting them to bridge school experiences (i.e., acquiring skills and knowledge) with that of the workforce. Another strategy is to design curriculum around a series of projects, or performance tasks, so students can collaborate in small groups, allowing for the development of life-long skills such as thinking and teamwork. Through adult mentors (not necessarily classroom teachers), students solve real-life problems that provide motivation to learn: “Discovering that learning helps you do enjoy and be successful at work is often the first positive step on the path to lifelong learning” (p. 61). These strategies are integrated into existing pedagogy, rather than add-ons. The role of specialized knowledge learned in school (often forgotten after a test or an examination) is deemphasized, in favor of skills that allow students to adapt to a rapidly changing world. Hargreaves believes that skills such as problem solving, communication, thinking, and learning how to learn are crucial since the specialized knowledge learned in school is not often directly applicable in the workforce. Students have diverse needs so personalised learning should occur with teachers spending time with individual students. An example of how one can change and adapt is exemplified through the explosion of information, communication, and learning technologies (ICLT). With 2 billion Internet users by 2005, ICLT is a basic skill since it can be embedded into curriculum, bridging what students want to learn and what they need to learn. ICLT is also a tool to function efficiently in the work force. Consistent with life-long learning, ICLT can enhance students’ ability to learn (e.g., learning how to locate and critique information), and for students to take greater responsibility for their own learning. Teachers can use ICLT to alter teaching practices, by making learning more student-centered; while policy makers can determine what curriculum content should become obsolete. For major shifts to curriculum, assessment, and pedagogy to occur, support for teachers is paramount. Teachers, often products of traditional schooling, may resist change: “People attracted to teaching tend to favor the satus quo…one cannot undo centuries of traditions with a few simple alterations” (Dan Lortie, in Hargreaves, p. 75). Thomas Sergiovanni, (in Hargreaves, p. 85) believes that schools need to transform from organizations to communities, with teachers part of a learning community. Teachers would experience professional development through collaboration. Hargreaves presents two types of capital that are directly related to teachers: intellectual and social. Intellectual capital means hiring the best teachers through their knowledge, skills, expertise, and talents. Social capital involves teachers working in a learning community that is based on trust and support. Through social capital, intellectual capital can be maximized. Like students, teachers need to be committed to life-long learning. Hargreaves also believes that life-long learning requires radical or major innovations to the present school system. Since schools rarely apply to implement innovative practices that are outside current policies, reforms have been top-down. In addition to resistance from teachers, parents and students may also be hesitant with major changes. Students’ voice has traditionally been unwelcome, viewed as too critical and immature. Yet, the criticisms and suggestions offered by students may be beneficial by involving them in the process, rather than allowing them to blame teachers and the system if the outcomes of the innovation are not implemented as planned. Several constraints make the implementation of radical innovation challenging. Chapter 7 focuses on the design and organization of schools. A question is if students grouped in age-appropriate classes (since curriculum is organized that way) actually maximize learning. Schools, as institutions of learning, often do not welcome adults and the community as partners. With adults (other than teachers) in the school, promoting life-long learning can be further realized since the community has a role in shaping students’ education. Of particular note is these adults do not replace classroom teachers, rather they are complementary with diverse experiences. Another concern is the need for formally trained guidance counselors who provide direction and advice to students for career planning: “Only a third of the teachers who have the status of the careers coordinator have a recognized qualification in the field and about half are insufficiently trained” (p. 37). A further issue is administrators as managers. With the need for accountability (e.g., through external test scores) and school improvement, their responsibilities have been to improve test scores, conduct teacher appraisals, and budget. Bennis (1989), in Hargreaves, describes the manager as having a short-term vision, responsible for implementing the initiatives of the government (school is a unit) through control and acceptance of the status quo. A leader, on the other hand, is an innovator who has a long-term vision, encouraging others to take a prominent role in setting the direction of the school. The leader does what is right for the school, often challenging the status quo. Through high trust, collaboration can result with personal and system excellence, maximizing the intellectual and social capital of the school. Hargreaves proposes that management and leadership complement each other. The school shifts from an organization to a community that promotes pupil learning, adult learning, leadership, school-wide learning, school-to-school learning, and network-to-network learning. One specific example of radical innovation is the Royal Society of Arts (RSA) 3-year project consisting of grade 7 classrooms from 5 schools. By switching the essence of curriculum from subject specific learning to skills such as citizenship, working with other people, and increased group work, greater attention to students resulted. To sustain the innovation, a learning community should exist, allowing for the exchange of ideas, successes, and challenges. Unfortunately, 10-15 years is needed to determine the impact on student learning with factors such as improved test scores on external examinations and measuring the extent of student motivation. As an educator in Toronto, Canada, I found this thin, yet packed and readable book thought-provoking and forward thinking. I am astonished by the similarities between the British and Ontario education systems. The grades 1-12 curricula in Ontario were revamped in the late 1990s and are currently undergoing revisions. For the revised mathematics curriculum (implemented in September 2005), 7 mathematical processes have been identified: problem solving; reasoning and proving; reflecting; selecting tools and computational strategies; connecting; representing; and communicating. These were adapted from the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM)’s Principles and Standards for School Mathematics (2000). Other subject disciplines, like mathematics, now focus on the “generic skills” in addition to the importance of content. The importance of learning skills (works independently, teamwork, organization, work habits, initiative) are reflected in the provincial report card through separate reporting from academic achievement using a continuum of descriptors ranging from excellent to needs improvement. I believe Hargreaves’s book will be relevant to many jurisdictions that are in need of a framework to shift from predominant acquisition of knowledge in school to include skills needed for life-long learning. As I read the book, I said, “This makes so much sense!” Hence, I highly recommend this book to those interested in the future of education – especially policy makers and educators. Governments now need to take the framework for life-long learning discussed in this book to produce radical innovation. The RSA is one such example but much more are needed. An entire chapter near the end of the book devoted to the RSA exemplar would have been beneficial. In particular, how did the schools go about initiating such a profound change? How did the various stakeholders (e.g., administrators, teachers, students, parents, community) come on board? What changes to school design were needed? What are the initial results of student achievement on the external tests? Have students’ attitudes and motivation to learning improved? What are schools doing to sustain the innovation? What are the costs involved? I am pleased that students’ voice is discussed, although briefly. I think that students cannot be ignored since they are the ultimate benefactors in the reform. I would have liked to read more about the role of parents in radical innovation. Also, what does a learning community for teachers look like? Further, what pressures are exerted by post-secondary institutions which continue to value skill and knowledge acquisition? Unfortunately, in an age of accountability, the deciding factor whether or not the innovation is successful may be based on external test results. Consistent with the flavor of this book, I believe the success of the innovation should be based on students’ learning experiences – do they leave with a positive attitude to learning and have the motivation to want to learn? We must prepare students for an ever-changing society in which they will hold several jobs during their careers. The Internet changed society (unexpectedly?) back in the mid-1990s. What will be next? Reference National Council of Teacher of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: NCTM. About the Reviewer Louis Lim is a PhD student in the faculty of education at York University in Toronto, Canada. He is interested in classroom-based assessments; in particular, the role of written communication in the teaching and learning of mathematics. Copyright is retained by the first or sole author, who grants right of first publication to the Education Review.

Lee, S. (2005). Up Against Whiteness: Race, School, and Immigrant Youth. Reviewed by Paula McAvoy, University of Wisconsin, Madison

Lee, S. (2005). Up Against Whiteness: Race, School, and Immigrant Youth. New York: Teachers College Press. Pp. vii +141 $21.95 (Paperback)   ISBN 0-8077-4574-X $46.00 (Hardcover)   ISBN 0-8077-4575-8 Reviewed by Paula McAvoy University of Wisconsin, Madison Stacey Lee’s provocative, ethnographic study of first- and second-generation Hmong-American students examines how they transform their cultural and personal identities in response to experiences with the dominant, White, middle-class culture of one of America’s top high schools. In the home, students from this little-known refugee group are taught to uphold tradition and resist “negative” American influences such as questioning parental authority, participating in unsupervised dating and identifying with pop culture. At school they confront economic inequality, racism and cultural prejudice all of which impede their ability to succeed academically and socially. Lee’s work identifies the ways in which schools perpetuate White hegemony while simultaneously examining how these immigrant students respond to conflicting messages about how to be Hmong in America. Lee observed and interviewed sixty Hmong students in a Midwestern high school and at community events over an eighteen month period. In addition, she spent time with the “University Heights” staff, conducted semi-structured interviews and examined school publications. Divided into five parts, the book begins by placing her research within the larger discussion of race, gender, immigration and Americanization, giving the reader a thorough overview of relevant literature. Lee also provides us with a compelling history of the Hmong people beginning with their flight from China, settlement in Laos and finally cooperation with the United States during the Vietnam War, resulting in resettlement to various parts of the United States. This background highlights the unique experiences of the Hmong who have historically lived as outsiders within another country and now enter the United States not as voluntary immigrants, but political refugees. Lee next places these students within the context of their high school experience, painting a critical picture of how the school privileges whiteness and marginalizes the Hmong as culturally deficient. Lee adds complexity with each chapter and differentiates between the experiences of the more traditional, “good” Hmong who find shelter within the ESL program and the “Americanized” second-generation students who have adopted the “bad” characteristics of gang/hip hop culture. Lee argues that defiance against traditional Hmong culture and school authority through identification with urban youth works to “blacken” Hmong in the eyes of the school and community. As with many students of color, the Hmong must choose the side of America’s Black and White divide on which they are going to land, a decision that carries long lasting academic and personal consequences. What teachers and administrators often fail to realize is that adopting an urban aesthetic is not a simplistic desire to resist authority, but an attempt by marginalized students to express feelings of injustice and regain a sense of control in a situation in which they feel powerless. Lee uses the voices of her subjects to show that they are both aware of and frustrated by the fact that their class and race relegates them to the lower rungs of the school hierarchy. Gender adds another layer of complexity to the Hmong experience. Lee argues that the “hegemonic masculinities and ideal femininities” within high schools reward whiteness, affluence, academic success and participation in high status activities. She explains that, “in” boys at University Heights High are tall, athletic, loud, and take up figurative and literal space in the school, while “ideal” girls are stylish, socially popular and viewed by the staff as “smart, trustworthy and sweet” (90). These gender norms are reinforced in the media, shopping malls and widely read romance novels. Lee shows that Hmong students internalize these racialized and gendered characteristics as “American,” placing them, and other Asian students, as the “perpetual foreigner.” Most interesting in this chapter is how Lee exposes the divergent ways that each gender and generation makes sense of these many messages. Hmong girls are often viewed by the school staff as victims of cultural sexism, and respond by trying to “save” them from marrying in their teens, making girls either ashamed or resentful of their culture. At the same time, this concern and extra attention contributes to girls becoming more academically successful than their male counterparts. Some are caught between a desire to be “good” Hmong girls and wanting to delay marriage and parenthood until after graduation, others rebel against authority and risk being labeled as “bad” by the school and community. Hmong boys seem to face obstacles in all spheres. Those who stay “traditional” may be rewarded at home, but struggle academically because they are either not seen or feminized by the school staff and also have trouble asking female teachers for help. Further, these boys often feel the sting of “Americanized” Hmong girls who chide them for not being tall, and therefore, unattractive. Those who try to Americanize “the bad way” become hyper-masculine in an attempt to be seen and gain social status, but then face generational conflict at home and are considered troublemakers at school. Lee unfolds the layers of race, class and the immigrant experience to expose the multiple gendered experiences that these young people must interpret. We are left with a deeper appreciation for the experiences of the Hmong specifically, and youth of color in general. Lee concludes by asking us to reexamine what we consider to be a “good school.” Schools like University Heights High look to college entrance indicators such as SAT scores and acceptances to the Ivy League as signs of success, but Lee’s research shows that this approach allows schools to ignore, or marginalize, students who do not contribute to this image. For the good of all students, Lee outlines prescriptions for challenging White hegemony and moving schools away from the tendency to simply replicate society’s injustices. Lee calls for a multicultural curriculum that acknowledges and examines racial hierarchy, confronts economic inequality and incorporates Southeast Asian history, especially where it intersects with American history. Schools must also recognize that immigrants are particularly vulnerable to manipulation by the media and take many of their cues about “being American” from TV and music. As a counterbalance, classrooms should consciously help young people to interpret these images and become critical consumers of popular culture. The ethos of the school in general needs to be one in which teachers learn about the challenges facing refugee children and families and respond with compassion, not contempt. Schools as a whole also must work to ease immigrant students’ transition into the American educational system by providing parents with explicit information about the process through high school and beyond. Finally, Lee challenges the school staff to confront White privilege and its role in reproducing inequality. Lee’s curricular recommendations make good sense for a pluralistic society as they embody the values of individual autonomy and critical thinking needed for the creation of a just, democratic community. Good institutions should challenge students’ assumptions about race, class and gender and work to disperse social, political and economic power. Less clear is whether or not this is the best curriculum for the Hmong. It is not obvious, for example, how Lee’s program would address the issue of boys being resistant to help from women, nor does she comment on how schools should respond to married fifteen-year-old girls. The Hmong are not only confronting norms of whiteness, but they are also a formerly isolated, patriarchal, community coming into contact with the value of individualism. If Hmong adults are working to raise their children as “Hmong” and understand the values and beliefs of their people, exposing children to the critical, multicultural curriculum that Lee describes is likely to undermine their sense of community, which in turn, as her data show, causes considerable generational conflict. Lee cites research that argues immigrant students are more successful when they selectively acculturate by maintaining cultural traditions and social capital within the community while acquiring certain aspects of the dominant culture. With the Hmong, this often occurs within the sheltered environment of ESL classes where students are buffered somewhat from the larger, more individualistic, commercial school culture. This suggests that if schools want to help students Americanize in the “good” way, there is more that the teachers and administrators can do more to assist this particular group. They could, for example, give Hmong boys male teachers whenever possible and assign them to male counselors. They might also create transitional course/s for second-generation and ESL graduates drawing from all groups on campus, taught with an eye toward cultural sensitivity and addressing issues specific to the immigrant experience. Some are sure to argue that this is far too much accommodation for a school to undertake and that such practices violate the mission of public schools to prepare students for life in a pluralistic, democratic society. However, Lee’s research shows that immigrant cultures have little choice but to change in response to life in the United States, and simply walking onto a high school campus and observing how students behave at lunchtime will cause cultural reflection. While Lee’s analysis is focused on the construction of race within high schools and how they perpetuate inequity, her data suggests that future research ought to look at whether or not an effective accommodation for new immigrants might be slowing down, rather than speeding up, Americanization. Lee’s work is an important addition to, and departure from, other educational ethnographies that have focused on the experiences of youth of color within America’s low-income schools. By researching an immigrant group in a school with a reputation for academic excellence, she asks us to reflect upon what we consider a “good” school, and recognize the ways in which privileging whiteness creates barriers for minority students. This provocative position coupled with her clear, no-nonsense style makes this book a powerful read for public school teachers and administrators. More generally, this research gives the reader a glimpse into the organic nature of culture and the ways in which it resists and accommodates when confronted with the opposing values of a larger, racialized, consumer-driven society making it an important contribution to those interested in anthropology, gender studies and multicultural education. About the Reviewer Paula McAvoy is a graduate student in Educational Policy Studies at University of Wisconsin, Madison. She studies the philosophy of education and is currently researching how public schools in a liberal society ought to respond to students from deeply communitarian cultures. Copyright is retained by the first or sole author, who grants right of first publication to the Education Review.

Yinger, J. (Ed.) (2004). Helping Children Left Behind: State Aid and the Pursuit of Educational Equity. Reviewed by Mary P. McGuire, SUNY Cortland

Yinger, J. (Ed.) (2004). Helping Children Left Behind: State Aid and the Pursuit of Educational Equity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 392 pp. $40 (Hardcover)   ISBN 0-262-24046-7 Reviewed by Mary P. McGuire SUNY Cortland December 13, 2005 Helping the Children Left Behind, edited by John Yinger, is an excellent review of state level school financing and financing reform. It offers the reader a concise guide to the myriad variable and complex approaches to school funding in the United States. The authors provide a fascinating look at efforts to achieve educational equity through funding reform. This is a well edited collection of papers in which the authors’ distinct voices are heard, but are well unified into a coherent book. It is, however, a highly technical scholarly work and not easily accessible to the reader who lacks a background in economics and statistics. The book is divided into two parts. Part One, “General Analysis of State Aid Reform,” approaches broad issues in educational financing common to all states. Types of funding formulas are defined and analyzed, court cases raising challenges to educational funding under state constitutions are explained, and the political values equity and accountability are discussed through an educational financing lens. Part Two, “Analysis of State Aid Reforms in Individual States” provides in depth analysis of the reform efforts of five states in which the state courts have found the educational funding formula to be in violation of the state constitutions—Texas, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, and Vermont. Part One is a valuable resource for the policy-maker or academic interested in acquiring an in depth understanding of school funding. It provides a definition and an evaluation of the types of school aid formulas in use. The reader comes away with a clear understanding of the difference between a foundation formula and a guaranteed tax base formula, for example. The use of such equalizing techniques as caps on wealthy district spending is also explored in depth. Lukemeyer’s chapter “Financing a Constitutional Education: Views from the Bench,” was particularly helpful in clarifying the judicial reasoning that has underscored the lack of financing equity in the 18 states where state funding distribution systems have not survived constitutional challenges. The state court decisions in this area are of high interest as the U.S. Supreme Court has found that unequal school aid is not a violation of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution (San Antonio v. Rodriguez, 1973). This chapter was among the most accessible and could be used in an upper division undergraduate educational policy course. Nechyba’s chapter is sobering in that it offers stark evidence of the limitations on state aid as a vehicle for providing educational equity. It requires the reader to accept that even with reasonably fair funding formulas, the road to a truly level playing field in education is long and rough. Part Two consists of five case studies from states that have made radical reforms in response to court decisions on educational funding equity. The case studies are valuable for their evaluation of five different approaches. The reforms are clearly defined. The extent to which they have been implemented, and their current levels of success are evaluated. The reader is left with not only a thorough understanding of the state reforms themselves, but also an important practical example of the concept of states as the “laboratories of democracy.” The appendices at the end of the book provide a useful research tool. They are presented as guides to state court decisions on education finance, state operating aid programs for elementary and secondary education, and state building aid formulas for elementary and secondary education. Each appendix offers an excellent starting point for research in its respective area. Helping the Children Left Behind is a valuable resource for academics and policy-makers with an interest in educational funding and equity. It is also an excellent piece of work on state and local finance. While it would be too difficult for most undergraduates, it would work well in a graduate level course. About the Reviewer Mary P. McGuire is Assistant Professor of Political Science at SUNY Cortland. Copyright is retained by the first or sole author, who grants right of first publication to the Education Review.

Biddle, B. J., & Saha, L. J. (2002). The untested accusation: Principals, research knowledge, and policy making in schools. Reviewed by Ruth Rees, Queen's University

Biddle, B. J., & Saha, L. J. (2002). The untested accusation: Principals, research knowledge, and policy making in schools. Westport, CT: Ablex Publishing. P. xvi + 302. $71.95   ISBN 1-56750-622-4 Reviewed by Ruth Rees Queen’s University December 19, 2005 The purpose of this book is to address the concerns that the public has raised against educational research, with its supposed deficiencies and alleged lack of impact. This book documents a comparative study of 120 schools principals, representing different types of schools in Australia and the United States, about their use of educational research knowledge: the techniques they employed to acquire their knowledge how they evaluated it, and what they know about it, and how that knowledge might have been used in their schools, if at all. To explore whether research knowledge use differs among various types of schools or experiences that impinge on the lives of principals in both countries, qualitative and quantitative data collection help to answer the general question: Does research on education have an impact? First the authors, Bruce J. Biddle and Lawrence J. Saha, reviewed related research on educational research. They defined ‘research’ as empirical investigations only, focusing either on education or having implications for educational practice. Second, they also distinguished between two forms of understanding: salient ideas, in which elements of knowledge are ‘up front’ and appear readily in the thinking of the person; and ‘latent ideas, where such elements are ‘further back.’ Salient ideas are said to reflect recent experiences and matters of current concern to the individual, but latent ideas are said to include both thought elements that were once salient and others the individual has perceived from the beginning to be peripheral to his or her interests. The authors contend that answers volunteered in response to open-ended questions are assumed to reveal salient ideas whereas responses to closed-ended structured questions may reveal both salient and latent thoughts. (pp. 9-10) Through research on principals, they investigated: the ways principals acquire knowledge from research bearing on education; the opinions they hold about that knowledge; the research knowledge they are familiar with, as well as the depth and breadth of their understanding of that knowledge; and how they use that knowledge in their professional lives. The authors chose principals in the United States from the state of Missouri; in Australia, the principals came from the Australian Capital Territory and the state of South Australia. Both groups represent schools of diverse populations, according to the authors. The schools from which the principals were selected represented public schools, parochial schools (Roman Catholic), and independent schools (e.g., private schools). In the United States, the sample came from metropolitan, suburban, small-city, and rural communities. In Australia, the sample came from metropolitan and rural communities. They represent 37 primary schools (46%), 44 secondary (54%) in US schools, totaling 81; in Australia, the sample was from 16 primary schools (41%), and 23 secondary schools (59%), totaling 39. All principals had to be in their jobs for at least 12 months (i.e., to have had some experience) in order to be selected. The demographics revealed that the Australian principals are older, more experienced, and have less formal education than American principals, but work less hours than their American counterparts. These points come up over and over again in the writing. The one demographic variable that I do not understand the reason for including was the sex of the principals: the US principals were comprised of 43 women (53%); in Australia, 12 women (31%). I fail to understand the reason for including this demographic: are these proportions representative of the state or region, or of the two countries? The authors in their final chapter claim that their comparative findings could be applied to principals in either the United States or Australia. Yet before this can be done, I would suggest that a more thorough discussion about the representativeness of the samples be provided. The authors developed their own questionnaire, or rather two versions of the questionnaire adapted for relevance from principals from either the US or Australia, comprised of six sections. Section one explored research-associated knowledge that was salient in the thinking of respondents. Respondents were to provide examples of research knowledge that they had found useful in some aspect of their job as a principal. Section two was designed to explore whether respondents were expected to innovate or to resist innovations as principals. Section three asked participants to describe a recent event in which a decision had been made about policy issues in their schools, the role that they played, and whether that decision had been influenced by research knowledge, and if so how. In Section four, respondents were asked about their recent involvement with sources that can provide access to research-based knowledge (from a given list of ten such sources) which were put into Appendix A3. Principals were then asked to provide details of their access to these sources, to volunteer examples of research knowledge they had recently acquired (if any) from each source, and to judge the usefulness of each source for acquiring research knowledge. Section five explored the range of respondents’ latent familiarity with a number of different phrases representing example of important research traditions: phrases denoting technical concepts with which they might be familiar, phrases individual some theoretical explanation they might know about, and phrases alluding to a theoretical explanation they might understand. Finally, Section six explored opinions about principals’ research knowledge: their attitudes about the value of research knowledge, whether research generates knowledge useful for educators, and how they characterize their own professional use of research knowledge. As well, the participants were asked to complete a document about their background and experiences. Variables between groups were considered statistically significant if there was a difference of at least 2.0 between results. Six following chapters explored the findings from the different sections in the questionnaire. Detailed descriptions of the data analysis methods are described in each of those chapters, complete with discussions of how the data categorizations were developed. Overall results were provided in each chapter, and then presented again in the final chapter. Some interesting findings are documented below, followed by the entire list of findings quoted from that final chapter. It was interesting to me that principals reported that they received their research knowledge most commonly from a variety of journals. Interestingly, US principals reported workshops by others as their next most common source; Australian principals said post-secondary courses. The Australian principal participants cited The Australian Journal of Education and the Journal of Educational Administration, primary sources of research, as the most popular journals. The others were secondary sources, to include the American journal Phi Delta Kappan. The American principal participants sited secondary resources as being most common, with the two most popular journals being Educational Leadership and Phi Delta Kappan. No single journal or group of journals has a monopoly on providing these principals with their research information. They all indicated that they read at least one professional book per year. Another finding suggested that principals in both countries tend to have more command of salient research knowledge when they are regular readers of professional books, have more scholarly interest, and lead a school where teachers have more academic qualifications. Moreover, principals in both countries tend to have greater command of the auxiliary details of salient research knowledge when they have acquired the detailed habits of scholarship and spend more time in settings where those details are discussed, but the Australian and American principals differ, in part, in the degree to which they are in command of this knowledge. While principals are more often familiar with salient research knowledge when they read professional bulletins regularly, the kinds of bulletins varied. In the US where schools are structured by districts, principals read district and system bulletins regularly. In Australia, where it is state-run, the Australian Council for Educational Research distributes broadly educational research reports called SET which are said to have been widely read by Australian principals. (Note. I went to the ACER website to try to locate some examples of these SET reports, but was unsuccessful finding reports with that overall name. Perhaps they are only available to principals within Australia. I only mention this because the authors referred to these reports many times.) I reaffirm the authors’ contention that the results of the study indisputably indicate that the accusation that educational research has little or no impact on those educational practitioners is incorrect with respect to “typical principals” in both United States and Australia. Their many findings as quoted from the authors (pp. 223-241) are reported under the following headings provided by the authors: A. Educational research truly feckless? Most principals are frequently exposed to information sources where knowledge from research is regularly displayed and discussed. Most principals also learn about research knowledge from the sources to which they are exposed. Most principals hold positive opinions about research on education; surprisingly few think that it is valueless or are hostile to its use. Most principals are rarely concerned about supposed serious flaws in educational research; rather, they are more often concerned with problems associated with the transmission and use of the knowledge that research generates. Most principals find it easy to volunteer examples of useful educational research knowledge that are salient in their thinking. Most principals are also familiar with a surprising range of educational research topics that are latent in their thinking. Most principals serve in schools where research knowledge has an impact on policy decisions and educational practices. B. Secondary sources and depth of knowledge. Most principals are not regularly exposed to primary sources for research knowledge; rather, the sources…are secondary. Most principals retain details about salient research knowledge examples that are appropriate for a user population. Most principals do not retain other details about salient research knowledge examples that are more useful for researchers or scholars concerned with creating and interpreting that knowledge. Most principals retain fewer details for research knowledge examples that are latent in their thinking than for research knowledge examples that are salient for them. C. Breadth of research knowledge and its effects. Most principals are in regular contact with many types of information sources that provide access to research knowledge about education. Most principals retain various examples of salient research knowledge in their thinking that cover different realms of their responsibilities. Most principals retain many examples of research knowledge, covering multiple topics that are latent to their thinking. Most principals serve in schools where research knowledge affects policy decisions and educational practices for many types of events. D. Forms of utilization. Most principals do assimilate and ponder the implications of research knowledge that may (or may not) be directly and immediately applied. Most principals also believe that research knowledge is used directly in their schools, particularly to affect professional colleagues and target persons. In some cases, principals play key leadership roles when research knowledge is used directly, whereas in others, complex event histories appear in which key roles are played by other actors, particularly authorities and other professionals in the schools. E Principals’ opinions about innovation Most principals favor educational innovation, an active role for themselves in innovative processes and shared decisions concerning innovations. Most principals’ opinions about innovation are not tied closely to their opinions about research knowledge and its application in any simply way. Next the difference findings between the Australian and US principals are detailed below: F. Effects of national context. The ways the principals learn reflect the structure of education in their country: U.S. is state-wide education and through school districts; Australia has no school districts. By comparison, Australian principals are more likely to learn about research knowledge through face-to-face contact; Americans are more dependent on secondary sources. By comparison, Australian principals are more likely to be thoughtful about research knowledge and its application than are American principals. By comparison American principals retain more details about and examples of research knowledge in their thinking than do Australian principals. By comparison, American principals retain more details about and examples of research knowledge in their thinking than do Australian principals. G. General effects of environment and experience. Principals who read professional books more often favor the use of research knowledge, know more about that knowledge, and are more likely to serve in schools where that knowledge is used. Principals who have higher levels of professional education and who desire to obtain a university position more often know about examples of salient research knowledge and are more likely to serve in schools where that knowledge is used. Principals who attend religious services frequently are less likely to know about the auxiliary details of research knowledge. H. Effects of environment and experience that appear in one country. Australian principals who are younger are more likely to know about examples of salient research knowledge. Within American schools where teachers hold high levels of academic qualification, principals are familiar with more examples of salient research knowledge, and applications of research knowledge more often appear. American principals who make use of district/system bulletins more often know about examples of salient research knowledge and the auxiliary details of latent research knowledge. The authors close with three strategies for improving research impact. They are, and I quote: Improve user understanding. If principals play a key role about educational policy and policy making in school, they should be made aware that they have a responsibility in keeping up ad using educational research. Moreover, their training should include, among other things, assessment in the quality of educational research and how to best disseminate that information to staff. Promote better tertiary reports on and reporting of educational research. Journalists and members of the media have a key role to play in this regard. Revise the knowledge distributing system particularly in the United States, to try to emulate something like the Australian/New Zealand SET (with the understanding that they did not think the SET idea would work within the US, and indeed seemed to be on the decline in Australia, but not in New Zealand). I have some suggestions for improvement for this book in its second edition. First, the references should be updated. Most of the references are in the 1990’s, when the bulk of the literature review for this study took place; to ensure its applicability well into the twenty-first century. Second, I also suggest eliminating such words as “recently published…study” to work that is now ten years old; this was in reference to Weiss’s 1995 study of principals. It is especially annoying when it is mentioned not once, not twice, but several times. Third, another revision of this book should attempt to eliminate redundancy as well; it is quite repetitious in parts, unnecessarily so. Four, the authors should consistently present the data both in figures and in the body of the writing in the same order. For example, all but the first two figures have presented the data for Australian principals first, followed by American principals. I would suggest reversing this for consistency sake in figures 4.1 and 4.2. Five, while I like the title of the book, I think that it would make more sense if the title was changed to something for explicit such as: The untested accusations about educational research. One, there are many accusations or fallacious assumptions in the public purview about educational research, many of which addressed in this book. Two, adding the words ‘educational research’ to the title would allow it to be more easily accessed through general topic searches, and hence increase the probability of its being used. I have two more suggestions. Six, the word ‘feckless’ is overused in this book. I’d suggest using synonyms such as ‘weak,’ ‘inconsequential,’ ‘ineffectual,’ as a few examples. Finally, my seventh and last suggestion is for the authors to rethink sentences starting with the word “And.” Too many sentences starting this way, and I for one find it unnecessary and inappropriate. All that aside, this is a very informative book to read. The book is well-written, very clear in both its structure and content, with lucid introductions to and summaries of the book in its entirety, and of each chapter. It should be useful to both academics and practitioners in education. Much thought and care have been taken in developing the different response categories. It is these categories themselves that could be open to criticism because they force responses from participants. However, the authors have remained open to emergent categories, and have provided some explanations which should anticipate and then minimize others’ criticism about how the research was carried out. Indeed, two of the main responsibilities for academics should be to ensure that what research we carry out is carried out properly but also is disseminated broadly to the correct target audiences. While many researchers focus on the first responsibility, we are said to neglect the second. Yet, as was pointed out by Biddle and Saha, the utilization of our research in schools is what really demonstrates it impact. Both researchers and practitioners take note! About the Reviewer Ruth Rees, PhD, is a Professor in the Faculty of Education at Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada. Her expertise is in the area of school leadership, and specifically principals’ training in Ontario, Canada. She is a regular reviewer for Education Review. Copyright is retained by the first or sole author, who grants right of first publication to the Education Review.