| | |
Reviewed by Barbara Slater Stern June 16, 2008 Throughout the history of the United States, a country founded on the principle of individual liberty and freedom, there has been continuous tension between individual rights and the needs and rights of the larger community. As I scan page one of the morning newspaper, I read the headline “Rising Public Health Risk Seen as More Parents Reject Vaccines” and I read the quote “I refuse to sacrifice my child to the greater good” (NY Times, March 21, 2008, p. 1). This parent goes on to say “I cannot deny that my child can put someone else at risk” (p. 19). The parents in this article believe that vaccinations for standard childhood diseases have the potential for complications and choose to exempt their children—despite overwhelming scientific evidence that these beliefs are, for the most part, scientifically unfounded. Do these parents have the right to put the general population in jeopardy because of their beliefs? On a more abstract but equally important level, one could segue to the “health” of the state, in this case, democracy in the United States and the principles upon which it was founded and continues to hold dear. What are the requirements for “vaccinating” future citizens in the values of our system of government? Where do the rights of individuals leave off and the rights of the broader community of citizens begin? In a pluralistic, democratic society such as the United States, how does one balance the rights of the individual vis a vis the state when it comes to the education of its children? focuses on parents’ rights to completely control the education of their children. The idea of the community having needs and rights that are equally legitimate and appropriate is not considered a viable position. Since the U.S. Constitution does not mention education, it has been generally accepted that education is a power reserved to the states under the Tenth Amendment. Public interest in education hearkens back to the Massachusetts Education Act of 1647. While this law is commonly known as the “Old Deluder Satan Act,” given the religious nature of the colony’s settlers, it did establish the precedent for state control of education. It mandated that “all Massachusetts towns with more than fifty households ‘appoint one within their town to teach all such children as shall resort to him to write and read’…” (New Hampshire Historical Society). The Founders believed in the necessity of an educated populace to further the new American democracy. One of the few successes of the government under the Articles of Confederation was the Land Ordinance of 1785 that required land to be set aside for schools in the territories as they were settled. Benjamin Franklin called for a national university although the Congress refused to authorize such expenditures. Part of Franklin’s concern appears to be over the influx of German speaking immigrants into Pennsylvania and his fears about their lack of assimilation into the larger American society (National Review, 2007). In referencing the purpose of public schools, the authors of The Dissenting Tradition in American Education acknowledge as much by citing Mead, a defender of public schools stating “. . .the public school, the conserver of democracy, brings the divergent elements of American society together (Carper and Hunt, 2007, p. 58). Thus, Carper and Hunt understand that the state has an abiding interest in the education of its future citizens. However, despite this acknowledgment, in The Dissenting Tradition in American Education, James Carper and Thomas Hunt take the position that the government, should have little to no input in educational matters beyond requiring that parents provide for some sort of education for their children. They hearken back to an earlier time when schools were established in localities by private groups, a time in Colonial America when several colonies had established churches that oversaw the education of the children and parents were free to choose among them or to home school their children. To these authors, this conglomeration of private schools that drilled the religious moral values of the community was destroyed when Horace Mann’s common school morphed into the established church in America. Carper and Hunt make this case by citing Warren Nord’s belief that “Public schools became the cultural factories of Americanization, transforming material of foreign culture into good American Citizens” (p. 77). The common school or free public school, the authors maintain, was not originally a huge problem as the majority of American citizens were Protestant and the schools were awash in this “generalized” Protestantism with daily prayer and Bible reading standard features of the school day. Sunday school, or similar religious education of that time, would be enough to inculcate the specific details of any particular branch of Christianity chosen by the parents for the family’s affiliation. And, of course, in those days, education was not compulsory. Later, as public schooling continued to expand both in terms of the number of required years of attendance and the population served, problems with a curriculum that can serve everyone’s needs naturally arose. The authors argue that it is the attempt by the public schools to design a curriculum that will be acceptable to all that causes dissenters to rise up and call for alternate forms of education that will be acceptable to their beliefs. The amount of regulation the state might have for these educational options ranges along a continuum but it is clear that the solution that goal these authors are striving towards is the disestablishment of public schools in America (p. 272). They support this as a necessary step for several reasons summarized in their last chapter, “Final Thoughts,” as the lessons from the dissenters highlighted in the book are recapitulated. First both Roman Catholic’s in the late 1800s and evangelical Christians in the 20th century believe that education cannot be value free. Second, deeply held beliefs should never be compromised. Third, the state is often not willing to compromise with parents on alternative educational plans. Fourth, when the state does accept alternative plans, the economic cost to parents is often quite high, and the authors believe that this amounts to double taxation. For all these reasons, they assert, a viable solution could be the complete separation of schools from state regulation. It is necessary to go back through the arguments to understand how the authors reach both these conclusions and the praise they heap on the dissenters who defend them. The book is generally divided into two halves with the first five chapters focusing on Catholic dissenters and the next four honing in on evangelical Christian dissenters. The last chapter summarizes the main ideas as stated above. Rather than concentrate on the specific chapters or the names of the dissenters profiled, I will examine the arguments the book is making as they seem more pertinent to the issue at hand—the rights of individuals versus the demands of the state. Historically, the problems begin to surface as demographic changes in the expanding United States occurred, particularly with large scale Catholic immigration in the late 1800’s. The first half of this volume focuses on the impact this immigration had on the general curriculum of public schools. From the point of view of Catholic dissenters, the exact problem is the generalized Protestant overtones of the public schools (see chapters 2-5). From the daily readings that used the King James rather than the Douay version of the Bible to the specific issues of authority and faith, the Catholic Church had problems with the public school curriculum. The solutions to these problems follow two trajectories: one would remove religion from education—in other words, the complete separation of church and state in the public school curriculum. The other would establish a parallel school structure for Catholics where the curriculum would be in accordance with Catholic theology. Each of these plans had its attendant problem. In terms of a parallel parochial school system, the problems were mainly financial. Schools are expensive to erect, staff and maintain. Parents already pay taxes for public schools and, with limited exceptions (the Lemon test), the U.S Constitution bars the expenditure of tax dollars on religious institutions. For the Catholics dissenters profiled, the duty of parents must be, according to the Catholic leadership from the Pope down, to pay whatever necessary to place their children in Catholic schools—even at the threat of the parents’ own salvation! When reading these chapters it frequently seems that there is a political as well as a religious battle for the hearts and minds of parents and their children. Powerful clergy exhorting, and in some cases threatening parents, about their duty which not only will keep the expensive, new parochial school classrooms full but also ensure full church pews as these students mature, marry and start their own families. It was hard for me, as reader, to understand how the educational issues were separated from the financial and political considerations of the Catholic clergy lobbying for parochial schools. That was especially true as some of the dissenters under discussion were also arguing for German traditions and language in their new parochial schools when the state was trying to mandate English language curriculum. The other concern, the separation of religion from the school curriculum, or the teaching of what Catholics descried as false or incorrect doctrine, is a more complex issue and links to the sections of the book dealing with evangelical Christianity. Again there are multiple sides to this problem. First, the complete separation of religion from the school curriculum yields what these believers see as secular humanism. They do not even accept deistic approaches to morality and they descry any concept of natural law that would leave God as the source of all moral behavior out of the picture. No morality, they maintain, can exist without Christian theology and, therefore, to leave religion out of the curriculum (prayer in school and Bible reading being only the tip of the iceberg) means that children cannot be properly educated in public schools. There is no such thing as value free education. For example, the authors discuss a Southern Baptist convention in 2006 where delegates called on “Southern Baptists to exert a ‘godly influence’ on public schools” (p. 272). This encompasses more than just teaching about religion in school. Many of us who teach history, literature, art history or music know it is impossible to teach without explanations of religious beliefs in these subjects. Several Christian groups believe in a doctrine of supercessionism, that theirs is the one true religion which surpasses all others. Thus, teaching about religious beliefs without reinforcing the correct belief, in other words, teaching moral relativism of any sort, is an anathema. In following this argument throughout the book, I kept recalling a session at an Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD) annual meeting in 1994 where a speaker discussing prayer in school explained that any prayer that would be acceptable to everyone should be acceptable to no one—it would violate their specific understanding of God. Thus, we are caught in a conundrum. If we remove Christian theology or specific denominational theology from the curriculum, we are left with some form of deism or humanism which is antithetical to the believers. This of course permeates not only literature, history, and the arts but also, and most pointedly, science curricula. Since it is now legally established that the First Amendment prohibits the generalized Protestantism that originally permeated the schools with daily nondenominational prayer and Bible reading the problem is what the dissenters regard as value free education—an impossibility to their belief structure. As the discussion of the Southern Baptist quoted above continues, the authors state: Nevertheless, a movement clearly is afoot in the largest Protestant denomination, particularly among neo-Calvinists, to forsake attempts to reform public education by, for example, checking the ‘homosexual agenda’ or countering Darwinism in science classrooms, and to opt for an exit from the government school system. (p. 272) For these parents, the mission of public schools to create curricula that teach tolerance and understanding, is not acceptable as it conflicts with their value systems. Further, there is the purpose of education. While most Americans would concur on the face of it that the goals of the common school—the forging of a tolerant, active and participating citizenry—are good and important, many of the dissenters in this book see the main purpose of education as ensuring salvation. From this viewpoint the goal of schooling is to create loyal Christians who will be assured of life in the hereafter and the mundane concerns of forging an American citizenry in a democratic society are not the major concern of these believers. Thus, the book builds a case not only for separation of church and state in the realm of education but also for the disestablishment of public schools under the aegis of a higher law—God’s law and absolute parental right to control the education of their children. After all the authors argue, God, not the state, gives children to their parents. God, as evidenced in their beliefs, controls where they go to school, when they go to school and what they are taught. That means that among the dissenters in this book are those who believe the state has no right to interfere by imposing ANY regulation as to curriculum, teacher qualifications, hours/days/years of attendance, etc. Carper and Hunt argue that tax dollars would be better spent by removing the entire public school system and replacing it with a completely decentralized system where parents would be responsible for their children’s education. Tax dollars they would have paid for that education would, instead, remain in the hands of parents who would use these monies to pay for the education that they value for their children. Where would this leave us in terms of the stated goals of the common school and the beliefs that there are benefits to using the public schools to inculcate values of a pluralistic, democratic society that might balance the concerns of these parents? After all, in the original plan for common schools, the authors make the case that there was always a belief that religious and/or cultural education would take place during non-school hours. In other words, common schools were never meant to replace the morals and traditions established by parents in their families and localities. It was always assumed that children would continue their religious and moral instruction outside of school hours. The problem is that many parents do not appear to follow through with this outside instruction and this, according to the dissenters has led to a society with significant social problems including substance abuse, high divorce rates, violence, disrespect, pre-marital sexual relations, etc. Christian schools are supposed to be the solution despite the fact that research reveals, for example, that divorce rates among conservative Christians were significantly higher than for other faith groups, and much higher than Atheists and Agnostics experience. Thus the “panacea” that religious education is supposed to provide, may not be the cure its advocates propose. There is still the larger question of the needs of the society vis a vis the parents that forms the basis of this critique. As I watch the evening news I am bombarded with genocide in Darfur, ethnic tensions in the Balkans, battles between the Shia’ and the Sunni, ethnic violence in Kenya, etc. I wonder how the U.S. with its diverse population will continue to enjoy peace and prosperity if we allow our public schools with their mission of tolerance, respect and common core values to wither away only to be replaced with sectarian education. If I return to my original analogy -- How do we vaccinate our future citizens into our values as a democratic, pluralistic society? -- where do the rights of parents leave off and the rights of the state in a civilized society begin? I respectfully choose to disagree with these authors and the dissenters this book so admires. I believe the rights of parents should be limited by the goals of the common school and a free, high quality education for all children in the United States—that is what it will take to keep our society from fragmenting into the types of political crises that sectarianism has led to around the world. That should be our greatest fear. I do believe that we can encourage parents to step up and educate their children in the moral and cultural values of their heritage without disestablishing public schools and their purposes. I believe this is a dangerous book because the mission it preaches is a separatism that I believe is antithetical to future peace and prosperity in these United States. References Ben Franklin & Public Education. (2007, June, 13) The National Review. Carper, J.C. and Hunt, T.C. (2007). The Dissenting Tradition in American Education. New York: Peter Lang. Massachusetts Education Act of 1647. New Hampshire Historical Society. “Rising Public Health Risk Seen as More Parents Reject Vaccines” NY Times, March 21, 2008, p. 1 U.S. divorce rates for various faith groups, age groups, & geographic areas. Religious Tolerance. Org.About the Reviewer Barbara Slater Stern has taught a variety of social studies courses at the high school level including United States History, World History, European Culture Studies, African-American History, and A.P. U.S. History. She has been an A.P. Reader for the U.S. History exam. She is an active member of the National Council for the Social Studies (NCSS). She has served on the NCSS Research and Instruction committees. She has a B.A. from the University of Rhode Island in Social Sciences and Secondary Education, an M.A. from the University of Louisville in Higher Education, and an Ed.D. in Curriculum and Instruction from the University of Central Florida. She is currently an associate professor at James Madison University in the Secondary Education Program where she teachers Methods of Teaching Social Studies in Secondary Schools, Curriculum and Foundations of Education courses. |
Sunday, June 1, 2025
Carper, James C. and Hunt, Thomas C. (2007). The Dissenting Tradition in American Education. Reviewed by Barbara Slater Stern, James Madison University
Glass, Gene V. (2008) Fertilizers, Pills, and Magnetic Strips: The Fate of Public Education in America. Reviewed by Pepi Leistyna, University of Massachusetts, Boston
| | ||
University of Massachusetts, Boston June 17, 2008
In the spirit of Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies by Jared Diamond, which explains the history of the West’s geopolitical hegemony within a complex dialectic of technological advancements, Gene Glass’s new book Fertilizers, Pills, and Magnetic Strips: The Fate of Public Education in America examines how over the past 100 years advancements in agricultural and medical technologies and the implementation of non-money-based credit systems have played a critical role in provoking social and educational change in the U.S. Regents’ Professor at Arizona State University, a member of the National Academy of Education, and the brains behind the widely used research methodology meta-analysis, Glass sets the stage for understanding the history of educational reform in the U.S. in Part 1 of the book, The Drumbeat of Reform, which consists of two chapters: “The Endless Narrative of Education Reform,” and “Transforming Education: Ordo Ab Chao.” Here, the author reveals how the conservative education reform movement over the past 50 years has concocted and maintained the idea of a national crisis in order to give credence to its own preconceived ideological and economic agenda. Through extensive analysis, he exposes how the strategy of “If you want to fix it, declare it broken” (p. 21) has been realized over the past few decades through the politicization of testing agencies like NAEP, and the manipulation of domestic and international test score data to make it appear that public schools in this country have been failing. He argues that conservatives have created general hysteria around what has been described as a nation at risk, and then used Ordo ab Chao—order out of chaos—as a response in “deceptive and manipulative ways in order to seize power” (p. 21) and to introduce and sustain support for large-scale privatization of public education as the solution to our national “crisis.” Glass is convinced that the end game here isn’t about excellence in education; rather, he contends that this is actually about relegating the poor to under-funded, over-burdened, and devalued public schools, while granting tax breaks and private educational privileges for the more economically advantaged—an interesting form of class warfare that funnels public monies into private pockets, leaving the public sector virtually empty handed. Throughout his analysis, Glass provides copious footnotes to help the reader further investigate his claims. Part 2, Fertilizers, Pills, and Magnetic Strips begins to dissect these three elements and their societal influence. As a theoretical lens, Glass uses cultural materialism á la anthropologist Marvin Harris, which combines Karl Marx’s focus on the means of production and Thomas Malthus’ exploration of demographics to explain fundamental transformations in society. This section of the book consists of four chapters. The first, Chapter 3, “Fertilizers and Tractors: The Rural to Urban Migration” explores how food production at the turn of the century was dramatically increased due to chemical advancements in fertilizers and the invention of motorized tractors. However, mechanization also decreased the demand for agricultural workers and as a consequence, coupled with poor federal agricultural policies, rural labor on a mass scale was forced to migrate to urban industrial centers. As part of government efforts to meet the needs of such dramatic demographic shifts, public schools were undergoing fundamental change and their charge was heavily influenced by industrialists. As the author describes:
The comprehensive high school that emerged in the early decades of the 20th century sought to train children from the middle and lower economic classes in how to be factory workers. Schools began to teach industrial education, a type of training that provided factories with pretrained workers at public expense. During this period and subsequently, the National Association of Manufacturers became a powerful player in setting education policy. (pp. 67-68) Nowadays, the National Association of Manufacturers and organizations like the Business Roundtable, the National Alliance of Business, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the American Business Conference continue to lobby heavily to support their own interests, often to the detriment of the American people. And why all this talk about helping to give the children of the United States a fighting chance to compete in a global economy? In spite of all the rhetoric about national security and lending a hand to the youth of this nation by fighting for a better system of public education, U.S. corporations are huge fans of outsourcing jobs and exploiting cheap semi-skilled labor both domestically and internationally. Meanwhile, back at home most of the jobs in what is now a predominantly service economy don’t require a sophisticated education. Chapter 4, “Pills…That Prevent Conception or Extend Life,” explains how technological advancements in medicine have prolonged human life and increased the population size. Worried about today’s dwindling public resources and support for public schools, Glass projects that the stakes are getting higher as “The aging of the U.S. population can be expected to impact public education through competition for funds between medical care and other sectors of the public economy” (p. 82). Chapter 5, “Magnetic Strips: Easy Credit and the American Economy,” offers insight into how big banking, through the invention of the credit card, has created a colossal personal/family debt in this country that currently exceeds $800 billion. The author emphasizes the simple equation that when people are deep in debt they are much less willing to financially support public facilities and institutions such as schools. For Glass, “The crisis in elementary and secondary education is not a crisis in achievement, but rather a crisis in cost, or more properly, a crisis in the willingness of the middle class to support a long-standing institution” (pp. 119-120). Chapter 6, “America is Growing Browner, Older, and Deeper in Debt,” looks at changes in racial demographics in the U.S. Glass pays particular attention to increases in the Hispanic population as a result of U.S. foreign policy, economic dealings like NAFTA that have destroyed local economies in Mexico and pushed people across the border, and higher birth rates in part influenced by religious beliefs about birth control. The author points out that what’s also different about the growth of the Latino/a population is the average age therein, which is younger as compared to the rest of the population. As public schools get browner, Glass ponders what will happen when
Older, White Americans entering their retirement years with diminishing assets and the prospect of continued work will be asked to support the public institutions that increasingly will be serving a younger, browner clientele. One may hope for a generous spirit among these older Americans; however, no one should be surprised if they demur. (pp. 115-116) Within the current racist, classist, xenophobic climate where the public supports building walls along the southern border between Mexico and the U.S. and there is enormous anti-immigrant sentiment, there’s little chance for such solidarity and support. Part 3, What Accountability Means, is made up of three chapters: “Robots, Cars, and 4BR/2.5B,” “Reforming the Schools: Making Some Cheap and Others Private,” and “Accountability and Ethnicity.” Here, the author elaborates on some of his earlier arguments about technological advancements, material acquisition, and comfort. The most intriguing question presented in this section deals with accountability in education management and evaluation which, like many other progressive scholars, he deplores as “an attempt to embarrass educators and discredit public education” (p. 203). But what’s new here is that Glass focuses on the variance in severity of accountability from state to state:
I wish to advance the hypothesis that accountability pressures are adopted and applied selectively across the U.S. in response to the growth of racial and ethnic minorities in the populations of individual states…. The severity of education accountability measures varies in relation to the percentage Hispanic or Non-White population growth in the state. (p. 208) The book provides a comparison between Maine, a low stakes predominantly white state, and Texas, a high stakes racially diverse state, and how racially and ethnically subordinated groups are affected by these different programs. This micro-study begs serious questions about the inherent racism in educational policy and, as the author suggests, merits more investigation. Part 4, Looking Forward, closes with a chapter entitled “What is the Fate of Public Education in America?” In a tone that he embraces as a healthy cynicism, but not pessimism, Glass predicts that contemporary education policy around school choice, high-stakes testing, tuition tax credits, privatization and commercialization proposals, and English-only practices will be the lay of the land for the foreseeable future as the private sector will continue to hold the reins of the prevailing reform movement and reap the lion’s share of the federal and state monies directed towards public education. That is, unless a critical public steps up. This is what’s particularly interesting about Glass’s analysis: he doesn’t simply rely on revealing the greed of smash and grab capitalism; ultimately, this is a book about how the general public responds politically to technological advances and demographic shifts in society. Clinging to the possibilities of a real participatory democracy, Glass leaves open the question of whether peoples’ self interests—which obviously are always influenced but not necessarily determined by larger structural and ideological forces—will continue to be complicit in dismantling what’s left of a national sense of community, or whether we will begin to support in the name of liberty the kinds of equality and public sphere that make us all free. That’s surely an easier contradiction to reconcile than leaving citizenry, democracy, and the unpredictable influences of innovation in the hands of very predictable private financial institutions and interests. Optimism requires awareness, so if you’re looking for a place to begin to understand so as to be able to transform the underlying forces that have been shaping public policy as it pertains to education in the United States, Fertilizers, Pills, and Magnetic Strips: The Fate of Public Education in America is a great place to start. About the Reviewer Pepi Leistyna is Associate Professor of Applied Linguistics Graduate Studies at the University of Massachusetts Boston, where he coordinates the research program and teaches courses in cultural studies, media literacy, and language acquisition. He speaks internationally on issues of democracy, public education, and social justice, and he is the North American representative of the Association for Cultural Studies. His forthcoming book is entitled Public Schooling: A Battleground for Class Warfare; his recent documentary film with the Media Education Foundation, "Class Dismissed: How TV Frames the Working Class," was recently honored with the Studs Terkel Award by the Working-Class Studies Association. |
McCluskey, Neal. (2007). Feds in the Classroom: How Big Government Corrupts, Cripples, and Compromises American Education. Reviewed by Jonathan Anomaly, University of Virginia
Jeynes, William, & Martinez, Enedina. (Eds.). (2007). Christianity, Education, and Modern Society. Reviewed by Terence Beck, University of Puget Sound
| | |
Reviewed by Terence Beck July 3, 2008 I feel compelled to begin with a disclaimer. I stopped attending evangelical churches when Jerry Falwell began using his “Moral Majority” to conflate evangelical Christianity with conservative political ideology. More than 20 years later I have been working with issues around religion in U.S. schools. When the chance came to review the book, Christianity, Education, and Modern Society, I jumped at it, hoping to find in its pages a balanced and considered examination of Christianity in modern society and schools. After finishing the book, my reaction was such that I wondered if I should write the review. I decided to write because I believe this book would be of interest to those who seek some academic basis for conservative Christian views on modern society and to those who seek to better understand such views. And my identities as one who regularly attends church and as an academic interested in democratic citizenship may lend a particular salience to what I have to say. The following quotation from the introduction sums up concisely Christianity, Education, and Modern Society: “The issues that these authors address in this book are some of the most salient in American society. It is imperative that Americans today address these issues and establish an appropriate worldview” (p. xi). The chapters in this text often address issues that are indeed important to life in the United States. And with a few exceptions the authors are set on convincing readers that there is a single, “appropriate” view on any given question. The text is organized in four parts, 1) The need for education to return to its Christian roots, 2) Issues and practices confronting Christians in modern society, 3) Creationism and Darwinism, and 4) Christian solutions to social problems and educational challenges. In this review I summarize each section before providing a general critique of the scholarship and arguments of the text. The first section of the book claims that America is going to hell in a hand basket and the solution lies in returning to the days when the hegemony of Protestant Christianity was unquestioned in public schools. In Chapter one, William Jeynes argues that social problems in America took off in 1963, the year that Bible reading and prayer in schools were declared unconstitutional. Jeynes contends that this relationship is causal—forbidding prayer and Bible reading brought about the removal of Christianity from the schools and that resulted in a removal of moral education, causing the increase in school shootings, violence against teachers, and a general moral decay of American society. He uses this cause and effect relationship to suggest that moral (i.e. religious) education and prayer need to be returned to the public schools. In chapter two, Enedina Martinez examines the writings of 17th century Czech religious and education writer John Amos Comenius and 18th century Methodist founding figure, John Wesley. Martinez uses the philosophies of these religious leaders from the past to argue for a modern Christian education for all students—an education integrating “morals, virtues, and ethics across the curriculum” (p. 63). Based in the work of these thinkers, she asserts that the purpose of education is to remedy the sinful state in which individuals find themselves. Thus, education must be “founded on the grace of God” (p. viii). Chapter three blames Dewey for the demise of the classical Christian model of education in the United States. The move away from religion is, according to this argument, a move away from morality in education. The author contends that the virtues of Christian education produced, “the kind of citizen envisioned by the American Founders. It is the kind of mind that created the best in Western culture” (p. 87). A return to a form of public Christian education is the way that American culture might be transformed. Part Two tackles a variety of education-related issues. This section begins with a chapter examining Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, the 2004 Supreme Court case that considered Michael Newdow’s contention that the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance violate the establishment clause of the U.S. Constitution. After examining the arguments and the decision, the author reflects on the negative consequences of a “radical secularism” that would remove God entirely from the public square. Fred W. Beuttier’s chapter considers civic education from a conservative Christian perspective, concluding that the Center for Civic Education’s We the People curriculum has some minor but important errors when it comes to church-state issues. Beuttier would place a greater stress on limiting the state’s “monopolies of truth” (p. 115) by emphasizing religious freedom and limited government to a greater degree. He would shift the current focus in We the People away from the need to separate religion from government. James M. M. Hartwick’s chapter examines the role of religion and prayer in the lives of public school teachers in his Wisconsin survey. The teachers in Hartwick’s sample are quite religious and they view their religious beliefs as important and helpful in their professional lives. Hartwick suggests that voluntary spiritual education courses would be appropriate for both pre-service and in-service teachers as would educational retreats that focus on religion and spirituality. He advocates for the creation of sacred spaces inside of schools. In Part Three, an evangelical Christian perspective on evolution is rendered. The three chapters in this part contend that 1) evolution cannot address the question of the origin of the universe because the question is a historical one, not a scientific (i.e., replicable) one; 2) evolutionary theories are inherently racist and contribute to institutionalized racism in American society; and 3) the scientific evidence about the earth’s age may be a stumbling block to the acceptance of Christianity by some. But, the scientific evidence may not in fact conflict with literal teachings of the Bible. Part Four makes the case for Christianity as a social good. In this section, the authors present a variety of research suggesting that religion reduces student participation in ‘at risk’ behavior and increases their chances of success in school. In these chapters we learn that students attending private and Christian schools report a slight reduction in some risk behavior but these reductions are rarely statistically significant. The research suggests that the family has a greater influence in this area than do schools. We learn that students who profess some measure of faith tend to commit fewer crimes, and that religiosity seemed to correlate positively with academic achievement among a sample of Puerto Rican students. I found most credible the research included in parts two (Issues and practices confronting Christians in modern society) and four (Christian solutions to social problems and educational challenges). These sections tend to report research undertaken around issues of particular interest to conservative Christians (e.g. the impact of a private school education on the “at-risk behavior” of students). In general, the articles in these sections appear to report findings fully and are careful not to overreach as they consider the implications of their findings. One interesting example is James M. M. Hartwick’s chapter on the religious and prayer lives of public school teachers. Hartwick’s sample is made up of public school teachers from Wisconsin, but he is careful to connect the findings of his survey to similar surveys of the general population. Hartwick’s results suggest that teachers are far from irreverent, irreligious individuals working at cross purposes with religion. Instead, 88.3% of the teachers in Hartwick’s study reported that they identify as Christian and 91.5% reported that they pray. The teachers report that prayer comforts them in difficult times, enhances their reflectivity, reduces their feelings of stress, and enhances their relationships with students. Hartwick calls for actions that are likely to be Constitutionally defensible (e.g., voluntary courses for teachers on the relationship between spirituality and education). Many of the chapters in part four illustrate the good that come from students engaging in faith-based organizations outside of school. D. M. Carpenter II’s chapter testing the influence of school type on risk behavior among Christian teens suggests that the type of school makes little difference in adolescent behavior. Johnson’s chapter on youth crime and Antrop-González, Vélez, and Garrett’s piece on religiosity and academic achievement among Puerto Rican students seem to mirror Shirley Brice-Heath’s (Heath & McLaughlin, 1993)contention that voluntary programs outside of the school can have dramatic positive outcomes for youth. The research presented here tends to assume that positive findings come as a result of religion, failing to tease out how much of the positive can be attributed to the fact that the youth are engaged in voluntary programs beyond the school day. Still, the articles in parts two and four appear generally more concerned with reporting their findings accurately than promoting a particular agenda. Sadly, this is not the case for many chapters in parts one and three. Parts one and three contain chapters that are thoroughly agenda-driven. There is little question that the purpose of the editors is to challenge American culture from a conservative Christian perspective, especially as it relates to school prayer, evolution, and church-state separation. The editors write that no less is at stake than the “future of civilization” (p. xi). In their acknowledgements the editors thank individuals and “our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” (p. xiii). The religion in these chapters is always Christian (except when Islam is mentioned disparagingly as a religion of submission p. 118) and the Christianity is always conservative and evangelical. This emphasis on promoting a particular point of view (as opposed to considering multiple perspectives) enforces an ideology on each chapter that is unfortunate and unnecessary. That said, it is surprising (and refreshing) in this day and age of religious politics centered on attacking abortion and gay rights, that neither subject is even casually mentioned in the book. The agenda of returning American schools and society to another time can result in analytic leaps that caused me to dismiss, rather than sympathize with this point of view. In the first chapter, William Jeynes argues for a return of a more explicitly Christian moral framework to schools. Jeynes contends that 1963 was a turning point for changes in the kinds of issues with which schools must deal. He makes the claim that, “juvenile crime skyrocketed after the Supreme Court removed the expression of prayer and Bible readings in public schools” (p. 19). While this claim may in fact be true, Jeynes creates a causal argument that the Supreme Court decisions actually caused the skyrocketing of juvenile crime. The impossibility of this claim should be clear to the reader of any introductory textbook in the social sciences—that two events coincide cannot be taken to mean that one caused the other without considerably more evidence. Yet, reading Jeynes, one might believe that the only things of import in 1963 were two Supreme Court cases. From the Cold War and the U.S. involvement in Vietnam, to the assassination of President Kennedy, to the struggle for civil rights legislation, 1963 was a part of a decade of sweeping cultural change that goes unmentioned lest it complicate what is presented as a straightforward and obvious argument. In the name of an agenda, John Dewey gets caricatured. Dewey is cast as someone who did not believe in the importance of subject matter, a philosophy that fathered, “a prevailing relativism and individualism that, on the one hand, claims to allow free thinking among individuals while, on the other demands that a students affirm every new attack upon traditional and Christian culture” (p. 68). There is no question that Dewey argued for learning that considered the child not just the subject matter (Dewey, 1900/1990). However, Dewey argued that subject matter was important and that it needed to be meaningful to the learner (Provenzo, 2005). As presented, Dewey makes a convenient scapegoat for what’s wrong with American education. But, the attacks have little basis in fact. Conservative stereotypes of Dewey stand in for scholarship. Darwin and his followers do not fare much better. An interesting and provocative case is made in chapter eight that Darwin’s theories were evoked in racist ways as they were applied to explaining the various types of human beings. So far, so good. Yet, the author takes his case too far. The fact that Darwin and others used evolution in the service of racism is interpreted to indicate that evolutionary theories are “inherently racist” (p. 197). The author contends that teaching the theory of evolution in schools, means that, “racism will be highly institutionalized in the way that the nation’s children are instructed. It is largely for this reason that so many people are convinced that Whites are superior to African Americans on an intellectual level and African Americans are superior to White (sic) athletically…” (p. 196). Claiming that a system of belief has been used to accomplish racist ends does not mean that the system cannot be used for more egalitarian means or that a given theory is inherently racist. If that were the case Christianity would not fare much better than evolution. As the author correctly notes, the Bible was a source of argument for the abolitionists. But, the author ignores the fact that abolitionist had to use the Bible carefully because the Bible was also used to justify slavery (Finkelman, 2003; McKivigan & Snay, 1998). Supporters of slavery were aware that nowhere in the Bible is slavery critiqued while the New Testament book of First Peter instructs slaves to obey their masters. More recently the South African system of apartheid was based in part on a particular reading of the Noah story in the Old Testament. The author’s own reasoning condemns his case—if using a system of belief to promote racism makes that system inherently racist, then Christianity must also be inherently racist. The data in the chapter is interesting and could be used to illustrate how both science and religion can be manipulated to fit the prejudices of the day—this seems to be a logical implication of the data as it is presented. But, the apparent need to forward the argument that conservative Christianity is the solution to America’s problems seems to get in the way of careful scholarship. In a chapter that relies totally on Bible passages, Christopher Ullman writes that, “[e]very believer is endowed with a capacity for certainty …” (p. 264). Ullman’s sentiment seems to permeate and ultimately undermine Christianity, Education and Modern Society. The book, taken as a whole, is long on certainty and short on humility. Claims are made that are academically unsupported and unsupportable. That people from other religious traditions and Christians of various stripes might adamantly disagree with the perspectives offered here is never entertained. This kind of certainty without humility is likely to convince only those who seek to have their own opinions and prejudices validated.
References Dewey, J. (1900/1990). The child and the curriculum. In P.W. Jackson (Ed.), School and society and the child and the curriculum. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Finkelman, P. (2003). Defending slavery: proslavery thought in the old south: a brief history with documents. New York: Bedford/St. Martin's Press. Heath, S. B., & McLaughlin, M. W. (1993). Identity and inner-city youth: beyond ethnicity and gender. New York: Teachers College Press. McKivigan, J. R., & Snay, M. (Eds.). (1998). Religion and the antebellum debate over slavery. Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press. Provenzo, E. F. J. (2005). Critical literacy: what every American ought to know. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers. About the Reviewer Terence Beck is an associate professor in the School of Education at the University of Puget Sound in Tacoma, Washington. His professional interests center on educating a democratic citizenry. He works largely in the area of Social Studies education focusing on teacher preparation, classroom discourse, and issues relating to fostering democracy in a pluralistic society. |
Stern, Barbara Slater (Ed.) (2007). Curriculum and Teaching Dialogue. Reviewed by James L. Moseley, Wayne State University
| | |
| |
Reviewed by James L. Moseley July 3, 2008 Have you ever been invited to a colleague’s home for dinner and you notice the beginnings of a jigsaw puzzle in a secluded area in the library inviting you to put the pieces together? Have you ever picked up a kaleidoscope and been fascinated by the mosaic parts as you adjust them to a variety of light surfaces? The jigsaw puzzle and the kaleidoscope are analogous to Barbara Slater Stern’s superb work in tying together twenty-one separate and very different chapters for Curriculum and Teaching Dialogue, the journal of the American Association of Teaching and Curriculum (AATC). The volume begins with a brief AATC presidential message. The editor then adds her notes on teaching, research, service, and learning. The volume is divided into two parts: Part I is comprised of eleven chapters on teachers and researchers. Part II, with its emphasis on problems, challenges, and opportunities in the field, has ten chapters. The chapters, bound and published in both hard and soft book form, consist essentially of open submission papers, an occasional selected conference paper and, for the first time, a book review with the requirement that its focus is on a topic related to teaching and/or curriculum. I am fascinated by the jigsaw puzzle seeking meaning from disconnected ideas ranging from the state of curriculum studies and research to teacher education and college teaching; from intergenerational topics, multicultural education, to implementing curriculum reform, legislation, and technology. Each chapter is kaleidoscopic in vision, each a stand-alone mosaic piece on curriculum and teaching helping theorists and practitioners see facts and issues from different perspectives. There are chapters that provide a global perspective with emphasis on multicultural education. There are chapters that report research studies on areas of interest. One reports on university faculty thoughts on online instruction. Another chapter talks about cultivating novice teachers’ technology competencies. And still another focuses on virtual literature circles. In my estimation, however, two chapters are “must reads”. Hansen’s Chapter 12 sheds light on John Dewey’s concept of moral knowledge. Curriculum planners need to be reminded of the balance between academic subjects and skills and the consequences of knowledge on human life and well-being. Ellis’s Chapter 15 presents a critical analysis of the No Child Left Behind Act. The social impact of the act is well-defined. One thing that definitely stands out in this volume is the editor’s ability to weave the separate chapters into a colorful fabric of teaching, research, service, and learning. It would be fascinating to engage in dialogue with the chapter authors and push them to further discussion, clarification, and modeling, as they reflect on policies, procedures, and practices that define the world of curriculum and teaching, research, and service in elementary, mid level, and high school, in college and university teaching, and in the myriad other settings where curriculum and teaching are practiced. Would a themed volume have been appropriate? Certainly. There could be many emergent themes generated from this volume. With today’s emphasis on intergenerational studies we could profit from research and curriculum teaching practice in this area. Another emergent theme suggested by volume chapters is implementing curriculum reform in traditional and non-traditional cultures and settings. We need to have a broader perspective of our global surroundings and reach out to people in other parts of our globally-diverse world. Teacher education and college teaching are also fertile areas for curriculum research. Do we focus on curriculum foundations, curriculum theory, curriculum design and development, curriculum implementation, curriculum evaluation, something else? Does the lack of a theme volume detract from making this a quality volume? Do a series of independent articles lessen its value? Certainly not. Each chapter is rich in substance and in concrete examples. And, of course, jigsaw puzzles are fun. The volume is user-friendly, certainly informative and engaging, and competently written on topics and issues of concern in the field of curriculum and instruction. About the Reviewer James L. Moseley, EdD, Associate Professor, Instructional Technology, Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan. Moseley@wayne.edu. |
Nolan Jr., James, & Hoover, Linda A. (2007). Teacher supervision and evaluation (Updated edition). Reviewed by Scott A. Fellows, Housatonic Valley Regional High School, Falls Village, Connecticut
| | |
Reviewed by Scott A. Fellows July 3, 2008 Nolan and Hoover begin this outstanding text by suggesting that their goal was to produce “a manuscript that will equip educators with the knowledge and skills needed to transform teacher supervision and evaluation into a powerful vehicle for maximizing teacher growth and enhancing student learning” (p. v). In the twelve chapters that follow, the authors skillfully outline a supervision and evaluation process that combines current literature with classic works. The authors make clear and consistent distinctions between supervision and evaluation and define supervision and evaluation systems that are differentiated based on the experience level of the teacher. The authors begin with a discussion of their beliefs about supervision and evaluation. Drawing on their experience as teachers, researchers, and consultants, Nolan and Hoover describe supervision and evaluation as separate but complementary functions that are designed to “enhance the educational experiences and learning of all students” (p. 4). They recognize, however, that the processes of supervision and evaluation are complex and should be driven by regular data collection and supported by professional development. Moreover, the authors acknowledge the need for differentiated programs for teachers at various stages in their careers, noting, “a one-size-fits-all approach to teacher supervision and evaluation makes no more sense than does a one-size-fits-all approach to teaching children and adolescents” (p. 6). Finally, the authors posit a view that all educators be involved in the evaluation and supervision process, stating, “All educators, therefore, have two roles to play,” (p. 8), first in determining their own professional growth and second working with colleagues to foster their growth. The authors do not limit their belief about the need for inclusion to supervision, and suggest, “… the teacher should have significant responsibilities within the evaluation process” (p. 9). The first two sections of the book are devoted to the supervision process. The authors include chapters describing strategies and processes for five supervisory models: classroom observations, peer coaching, self-directed teacher growth, action research, and collegial development groups. In each chapter, the authors provide a rationale for including the strategy in a supervision model, guidelines for effective implementation of the strategy, and examples of teacher work product from each strategy. Throughout the text are reflective questions and exercises that help the reader to focus on prior conceptions of the material in preparation for learning new information. Two of the supervision strategies rely on classroom observation: the classroom observation model and peer coaching. A complete and thorough description of both strategies includes a discussion of the need for building trust and using positive communication. Additionally, the authors describe a number of data collection procedures that would allow a supervisor to obtain non-judgmental data about the classroom experience. According to the authors, the purpose of the observation is to encourage teachers to engage in continuous reflection and inquiry into their classroom behaviors; peer coaching is an effective way for colleagues to work together to encourage such reflection. The authors suggest that peer-coaching systems allow school administrators to focus their attention on those teachers needing more direct and formal assistance (p. 95). Three supervision strategies, designed for “tenured, experienced educators who have consistently demonstrated teaching competence over time” (p. 111) are self-directed teacher growth, action research, and collegial development groups. The authors argue that self-directed teacher learning, which is a form of job-embedded learning, “is directly associated with supervision” (p. 112). In all three supervisory strategies, the authors encourage teachers to take the lead role in determining learning needs, implementing the learning, and evaluating the efficacy of their changes. This discussion is congruent with the collective learning and the application of that learning tenet of the Professional Learning Community model proposed by Hord and Sommers (2008) and Eaker, Dufour, and Dufour (2002). Nolan and Hoover recommend that the principal’s role in such supervisory situations be that of providing access to training and resources and monitoring teachers’ participation in the supervision. The authors argue strongly for significant and structured professional development for those teachers electing these alternative supervision models. They note that without continuing support from trained advisors and access to peers with whom to discuss questions or concerns and with whom to celebrate success, teachers cannot obtain the full benefit of these strategies. Moreover, they assert that common training allows administrators to have common expectations for participation. Following a set of case study documents designed to supplement the material in the text, Nolan and Hoover include two sections (eight chapters) in which they discuss teacher evaluation models. The authors include a brief history of teacher evaluation in the United States, noting “Historically, teacher evaluation in the United States has been the search for the perfect, research-based model of teaching that could serve as a benchmark for evaluating the performance of individual teachers” (p. 210). They conclude by noting that although experts have developed standards of teaching that could guide teacher evaluation, they recommend that standard be developed locally. The authors argue that local development helps to increase the likelihood of buy-in by staff and helps to develop shared meanings of the language in the document. The four chapters thoroughly describe the development and implementation of a teacher evaluation model that includes significant input from the teacher being evaluated. A variety of data sources are recommended, including observations, teacher artifacts, videotapes, student and parent input, and student learning data. The authors provide clear examples of questions that could be posed by an evaluator, artifacts that a teacher could collect, and recommendations for making the final summative evaluation. Recognizing that teachers at different stages in their careers have different evaluation needs, the authors propose differentiated models for pre-service teachers, novice teachers, and marginal teachers. The authors suggest that teachers in each of these categories requires more direct and formal evaluation (and supervision) and data collection activities that allow judgments for continued employment to be made. The final chapter “serves as a blueprint for combining and translating [the material in the rest of the book] into a fully functioning system of teacher supervision and evaluation” (p. 323). Again recognizing the importance of teacher involvement in the process, the authors suggest convening a task force to investigate the existing model and the needs for change. The authors note, “the next step is to collaboratively develop a strategic plan for [overhauling the existing system]” (p. 328), and provide suggestions for the development and implementation of the plan. This text appears to be designed for use in a course on teacher evaluation for individuals seeking administrative certification. The pedagogical components, including guided questions for pre-reading reflection and journaling, discussion questions, individual activities, and theory-into-practice application questions, make the text ideal for this purpose. Moreover, the inclusion of relevant references to current literature would allow a student to pursue topics of interest with ease. The text could also serve as the main text in an administrative collegial development group interested in improving the current status of teacher supervision and evaluation in a school or district. References Eaker, Robert, DuFour, Richard, & DuFour, Rebecca. (2002). Getting started: Reculturing schools to become professional learning communities. Bloomington, IN: National Educational Service. Hord, S. M., & Sommers, W. A. (2008). Leading professional learning communities: Voices from research and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. About the Reviewer Scott A. Fellows, Ed.D. |
Tuesday, May 20, 2025
Welner, Kevin G. & Chi, Wendy C. (Eds.) (2008). Current Issues in Educational Policy and the Law. Reviewed by Robert C. Knoeppel, Clemson University and Deborah A. Verstegen, University of Nevada, Reno
| | |
Reviewed by Robert C. Knoeppel, Clemson
University & July 8, 2008 What is the purpose of public education? In an era of standards-based education reform, many would argue that the purpose of public education is to afford equality of educational opportunity as measured by student achievement. A more focused reading of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 reveals that the goal of public schooling is to “ensure that all children have a fair, equal, and significant opportunity to obtain a high-quality education” (20 U.S.C. §6301). It is this interpretation that is explored by the editors and contributors to Current Issues in Educational Policy and the Law as they offer several thought provoking chapters that explore five issues relevant to public education: No Child Left Behind, School Finance and Adequacy, School Choice, Equal Opportunity, and Student and Teacher Rights. Each chapter includes a review of legislation and relevant case law from both the federal and state levels as the authors explore how these issues both contribute to and work against the goals of public education. In the introduction to the book, Welner and Chi (Eds.) argue that while education policy issues in the United States may be examined from myriad perspectives, the law holds a unique position because of its influence both historically and in the current context of public education. Redfield (2003) wrote that the relationship between the fields of law and education has become increasingly intertwined since education received its own title in the Code of Federal Regulations. As such, this new text examines education policy through a legal lens with each section bridging issues of law and policy, illustrating interactions and highlighting contexts. Specifically, the editors note that policy and law are entwined by the common theme of equality of educational opportunity. The book is largely successful in achieving its stated purpose. The combination of historical perspective, legal interpretation, and expert opinion on the part of the authors provides an intriguing mix of questions for the reader to ponder. The lead issue in the volume, the federal No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), is highlighted in Section I. The thesis of Chapter 1, “Tipping the Balance—Examining the Federal-State Relationship Through No Child Left Behind and the Future of Public Education Governance,” is contained in its title. The authors (Badoloato, Bucholz and Drake) contend that the historic shift to control by the federal government in educational governance is at a “critical juncture” as NCLB is slated for reauthorization. Trend information based on legal challenges to the law, reauthorization hearings and midterm elections is used to examine current educational governance arrangements, all suggesting “some level of control will be returned to the states even while larger trends point to a continuation of enhanced federal authority" (p. 13). This conclusion is given strength by an analysis using the Borrowing Strength Model of federalist theory developed by Manna (2006). The chapter includes a short history of federal aid and useful lenses to use in considering the current and future role of the federal government in educational governance. “Reconsidering a Fundamental Right to Education in Light of No Child Left Behind” continues the focus on NCLB by examining the tenuous nexus of whether the federal NCLB provides a fundamental right to education (FRTE)--“holy grail of lawsuits attempting to providing full educational opportunity to all students." The authors (Ruckdeschel, Silverstein, and Rabin) trace litigation related to the right to an education and its underpinnings in state constitutions, noting that while 48 states guarantee education in some form, 15 states have established education as a fundamental right. While the expansion of the federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act under NCLB contains a great deal of rhetoric about educating all children to proficiency, the authors point out this language sets up an expectation rather than a guarantee. Yet, they contend the law could open up new avenues for legal challenges based on adequacy or negligence—interesting food for thought. They conclude that students “in the United States have no federal FRTE, but they do have NCLB” and encourage lawmakers to extend and strengthen those aspects of the law during its reauthorization that promote FRTE (p. 39). Section II, School Finance and Adequacy” addresses a key issue across the states and the top problem in public education identified in the recent Phi Delta Kappa poll of the public’s attitudes towards the public schools. Chapter 3, “Funding Public Schools: Striving for Substantive Adequacy (Krebs, Tappert, and Van Iwaarden) posits a new overarching framework for courts to use in addressing adequacy that the authors contend “provides guidance and is well grounded in [Equal Educational Opportunity] EEO jurisprudence (p. 46). It is drawn from the 14th Amendment and a Fifth Circuit case, Castaneda v. Pickard (1981), that evaluated the effectiveness of an educational program for removing linguistic barriers to EEO. The authors modify its three-part framework and adopt it to school funding policies. School finance litigation is briefly reviewed by “wave” with each of the three waves evaluated using the authors' adequacy framework. First- and second-wave litigation relied on equity arguments and equal protection analysis, using federal or state constitutions in wave one or two, respectively. Funding equity was the key focus. Wave three, commencing with the historic Kentucky decision, Rose v. Council of Better Education (1989), ushered in the reliance on adequacy in addition to equity issues. Adequacy assures each child has a fair and meaningful opportunity to reach high outcomes. The authors point out that beginning in the 1990s, states developed curricular and performance benchmarks related to what all children should know and be able to do upon graduation from high schools. These could be costed-out to determine the sufficiency of the funding system, a rational basis for analysis of adequacy. While the discussion involving the framework suggested is heuristic and yet to be tested, the authors provide an interesting discussion and consideration of some key issues related to the groundswell of school finance litigation that has enveloped the states. Silverstein, Anderson and Chance, in “Breaking the Nexus: Four State’s Experiences with Reforming School Finance to Increase Student Achievement of Students from All Backgrounds” provide case study data to examine policies and programs designed to address increasing outcomes for at-risk, poor and minority children. The conceptual rational is drawn from the National Research Council’s book, Making Money Matter (1999). After a brief review of school finance policy and litigation, the NRC’s contention that money needs to matter more in bringing all children to high standards by using research evidence in the context of adequacy litigation is reviewed and used to assess how revised school finance policy interacts with school reform to break the nexus in outcomes and student background characteristics. Particularly cost adjustments to funding formula, facilities, technology, early childhood education, class size and teacher quality policies are reviewed and then assessed in the context of four state case studies where litigation has occurred: Maryland, Arkansas, Kansas, and Oregon. The authors conclude with “final thoughts” and state: As more states face litigation or choose to proactively address issues of school finance through legislative action, close attention should be paid to the 1999 NRC report that recommends research-based school reforms. There is no silver bullet…but states should give careful consideration of how additional funding, when carefully allocated, can help meet the challenges in our schools. (p. 91) The third section of the book examines school choice in public schools. Each author chronicles the growth of school choice in American public schools from “a general store’s worth to an entire shopping mall of educational options” (p. 128). They note that an analysis of current rulings by the judiciary reveals a shift from rulings that ensure equal rights through state control to the protection of parental liberties through school choice. This fundamental change in philosophy regarding school choice and the role of parents lead the authors to pose poignant questions with regard to parental decision making and equality of educational opportunity, student self-determination and charter school liability. In criticizing the expansion of school choice, Yettick, Wexler Love and Anderson state that equality of educational opportunity is hindered when parents are either not equally willing or able to access educational opportunity. Their review relies heavily on earlier criticisms of school choice, most notably lack of information to make rational choices, limited parental engagement in the decision making process, and language barriers associated with the interpretation of policy. The authors note that these barriers are prevalent among underrepresented populations and may in effect eliminate the opportunity that the law was intended to provide by causing greater segregation of schools. While not stated explicitly, the chapter infers that although there are documented benefits as a result of increased school choice, many children are left behind in failing schools. A fundamental flaw in this policy is that those children left behind are from underrepresented populations. School policy options that are not aimed at helping all students are counter to current state and national goals. Bondurant, Tappert, and Yettick ask a fascinating question in regard to student rights with regard to school choice. The authors argue that historically, school choice has centered on state vs. parental rights with regard to decisions about education. They note that both “attempts by the state to indoctrinate students” and “instances of strong parental influence” impact student self-determination and in effect deny children the opportunity to access curriculum and to engage in discussions that present views that may be different than those espoused at home or those that may be necessary to survive in the workforce (p. 125). The authors argue for a shift in policy from the “dichotomous parent-state balance” to a “trichotomous parent-state-child balance” that enables students to take a more active role in school choice (p. 125). This opinion, while counter to the present political will, certainly raises important questions and is worthy of continued conversation. Finally, Callahan, Krebs, and Bondurant explore liability issues in charter schools. The authors note that the relationship between charter schools and their authorizing agencies have not been fully developed in legislation or the legal system, thus creating several questions in regard to where legal liability rests in multiple areas. The disconnect between charter schools and authorizing agencies is found in the fact that the authorizing agency has little or no supervisory authority over the charter school. As such, the authors question where liability rests. Their review includes such things as personal injury, violations of teacher employment contract (both by the teacher and the charter school), and legal challenges to the process by which states and districts grant charters. The authors provide a brief review of existing charter legislation in the various states in an attempt to frame their review of this emerging topic. The authors note that case law regarding this issue is sparse and suggest more structure to help guide the decision making process in the creation and maintenance of charter schools to avoid future litigation. Equality of educational opportunity is explored in section four of the book with Rabin, Saenz and MacGillvary exploring how recent court rulings and educational policy have brought the nation back to a state of separate but equal. Their review relies heavily on the recent ruling in Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District but draws on the historical context of Brown and Plessy to articulate the point that segregation in American schools is accepted as a given while current education policy focuses solely on student achievement. The authors make use of three values to examine current education policy: liberty, achievement, and integration. Integration is discussed not just in terms of the racial composition of schools but as a value to be celebrated due to its ability to create positive student outcomes such as the acquisition of tolerance, critical thinking skills, and preparation for life in a diverse society. The authors truly cause the reader to pause and consider the real nature of equality of educational opportunity. Is it merely the acquisition of skills that are defined in state-mandated curricula or is it the ability to effectively communicate, problem solve, and work collaboratively in a society that is increasingly diverse? Their review questions the current political context and contends that policies such as tracking, No Child Left Behind, school choice, weighted per pupil formulas, site based management, and a focus on ethnocentric curricula have in effect re-segregated America’s public schools. The authors conclude by introducing economic integration as a possible remedy to the solution of segregated schools due to the lower judicial standard associated with socioeconomic status, but they recognize that this solution may not provide the needed change. In a slightly more politically controversial chapter, Love, Bucholz, and Chance consider the issue of equality of educational opportunity by examining access to higher education for undocumented aliens. The authors attempt to use the dual lens of Plyerv. Doe and the proposed federal Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act to argue for equity of access to higher education for children of illegal aliens. More than any other chapter in the text, this chapter devotes much attention to both case law and federal legislation to provide the historical context for the author’s argument that access to education should not be limited to K-12. Their argument is premised on the notion that a college degree is a prerequisite to fully participate in both the economy and civic life in much the same way that a high school diploma was a requirement for past generations. That statement is slightly flawed and not supported by labor statistics that would suggest that some training is certainly required beyond high school to compete in today’s economy. However, that training need not be in the form of a college degree. While the chapter does begin with some degree of bias, the authors fairly recognize both sides of the argument. For example, the authors first rely on the tenets of Plyer in advocating that children of undocumented aliens should not be punished for the illegal actions of their parents in arguing for increased access to higher education. However, they also fairly report that this standard may not apply to college aged students since they are now adults and are aware that they are residing in the United States illegally. The chapter begins by strongly endorsing the notion of increased access to higher education, but the authors conclude that this goal may not be achieved in the foreseeable future due to the political climate in the country. The final section of the book explores student and teacher rights with chapters devoted to zero tolerance policies, teacher speech and the relationship between church and state in public education. MacGillivary, Medal, and Drake provide an extensive review of the development of zero tolerance policies in American public schools. They briefly recognize the benefits of zero tolerance policies such as clearly defined expectations, compliance with due process laws, and a downward trend in weapons violations on school campuses nationwide. However, the authors devote the vast majority of the chapter to the unintended consequences of these policies such as increased suspensions and expulsions, negative changes in the climate of schools, and severe consequences for minor violations. The chapter rightly states that there are tremendous racial disparities in the way that zero tolerance policies are implemented that mirror patterns in the justice system. These patterns certainly have severe consequences in the long run for students who are dismissed from school for violations of zero tolerance policies that include delinquency, incarceration, failure to complete high school, and limitations for economic success. While clearly establishing the deleterious effect that zero tolerance policies have on underrepresented populations, the authors fail to provide the other side of the argument with regard to improved conditions for other children so that they may have better access to a quality education. Little or no case law exists, according to the authors, with regard to zero tolerance policies which limits the effectiveness of the chapter. The authors conclude by offering alternatives to zero tolerance policies that would enable children to complete their education. The most promising would appear to be an increase in alternative education. Teacher freedom of speech rights are examined by Van Iwaarden, Medal and Callahan in a fascinating chapter on how the requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act for increased teacher professionalism may actually impede rights of free speech. The authors compare case law from Pickering and Hazelwood to distinguish teacher roles as practitioner and citizen and chronicle how speech inside the classroom and outside the classroom has historically been regarded by courts. They introduce the current opinion in Garcetti which they argue may muddle the distinction between in-school and out-of-school speech and very effectively use this ruling to consider new roles required by teachers in an era of increased teacher professionalism and site-based management to postulate how these new roles combined with the court ruling may actually lead to more teacher reprimands, dismissals, and a decrease in teacher speech rights. It is ironic, according to the authors, that at a time when we expect teachers to be more active participants in school reform initiatives, the courts may have limited what they can say in these discussions. Lastly Saenz, Badolato and Ruckdeschel examine the “eroding” separation of church and state in the final chapter of the book. The authors conclude that the court now allows a closer relationship between religion and public schools than at any other time in our history. Unlike earlier chapters in the book that focus on one topic, the authors make their point by examining six policy initiatives that they state may provide “contentious constitutional and political battlegrounds”: faith-based organizations, school vouchers, scholarships, curricular issues (such as religion and science and abstinence), pledges and prayers, and religious displays. The broad scope of the chapter prevents it from having the same focus as earlier chapters in the book and the questions posed by the authors are not nearly as poignant. However, the authors do provide an analysis, albeit biased, of the costs and benefits of these policies. They form similar conclusions with regard to school choice and the unintended consequences of segregation and isolation of minority students, and a decrease in exposure to a broad curriculum. The authors caution that it is important for practitioners to focus on previous Supreme Court interpretations of the difference between the teaching “of religion” and the teaching “about religion.” The consequences of the latter are that this practice may lead to greater isolation, favoritism of Judeo-Christian interests, and state funding of religious indoctrination. Overall the book presents an important contribution to debate and discussions about the future of education in the United States. The authors challenge the readers to consider new directions, review the past and posit new theory for the future, while raising interesting and formidable issues related to key topics in policy and law. References Manna, P. (2006). School's In: Federalism and the National Education Agenda. Washington D.C.: Georgetown University Press. National Research Council (1999). Making Money Matter: Financing America's Schools. Committee on Education Finance, Helen F. Ladd and Janet S. Hansen, editors. Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Redfield, S.E. (2003). The convergence of education and law: A new class of educators and layers. Indiana Law Review, 36, 609-643. About the Reviewers Rob Knoeppel is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Educational Leadership Studies at Clemson University. His research interests include bridging school finance, education policy, and the practice of educational leadership to achieve equality of educational opportunity. Deborah Verstegen is Professor in the Department of Educational Leadership at the University of Nevada, Reno. She served as visiting O'Leary Chair in Financial Management at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign in 2006-07. Her research focuses on equity, adequacy and equal opportunity. |
Hess, Frederick M. (ed.) (2008). <cite>When Research Matters: How Scholarship Influences Education Policy</cite>. Reviewed by Mark Oromaner
Hess, Frederick M. (ed.) (2008). When Research Matters: How Scholarship Influences Education Policy . Cambridge, MA: Harvard Edu...
-
Chomsky, Noam. (2000). Chomsky on MisEducation , (Edited and introduced by Donaldo Macedo). New York: Rowan and...
-
Ravitch, Diane. (1996) National Standards in American Education: A Citizen's Guide. Washington: The Brooki...
-
Macedo, Donaldo and Bartolomé, Lilia I. (1999). Dancing with Bigotry: Beyond the Politics of Tolerance . N.Y., N...