by Jim Vandergriff

University of Arizona

(Prepared at the request of the publisher)

1. Course Demographics:

a. My course, "Schooling in America," is a three-credit course, offered at the Junior level, and required for certification, though it may also be taken for general education Humanities credit. It is designated by the College of Education as a "writing intensive" course. It is offered in multiple sections (usually 7) every semester and in the summer. Enrollment caps vary by section, but the course seldom has under 30 students during the regular school year; it often has 45.

I currently use Spring, American Education, 8th edition and Ryan and Cooper, Kaleidoscope, 8th ed.

b. My approach is to divide the course material into four unequal chunks: history of education; the students; philosophy and purpose of education; governance, law and reform. Generally, due to the number of students, I lecture on these topics.

My objectives for the course are as follows.

Participants who have successfully completed this course will:

* have a clear statement of her/his philosophy of education and be able to describe that philosophy in relation to major educational philosophies;

* be able to identify the social, political and economic forces that influence the system of education and the lives of those within education; and

* develop ways of managing the social, political and economic forces in the interest of teaching and learning.

2. Text Choice:

a & b. I select textbooks by two criteria. First, Cost. (I won’t even consider books that aren’t available in paper unless I have absolutely no choice.) Second, I look for a text that is compatible with my thinking -- both in terms of "coverage" and perspective. I want a text with a leftist or at least centrist perspective, and one that covers most of the things I think are important. (I consider Spring "centrist.")

c. I use Spring as the core text, which I supplement with a book of readings.

3. Approach and Organization:

a. The book doesn’t really correspond to how I organize my course, but it works okay. I assign the chapters out of sequence.

b. I’m not clear on what you mean by "approach." I’m assuming you mean the divisions of the material. Is it unique? I don’t know. The book’s organization is a bit different than that of some of the others that I’m familiar with -- that is, it is organized around issues instead of chronology. That’s fine with me. I like that.

The only change in organization I can suggest would be to eliminate the "Exercises." I don’t use them because I find them to be a bit "out there" -- inappropriate, unrealistic as assignments for undergraduates But, they don’t take a lot of space, so I don’t mind their being there.

4. Overall coverage:

a & b. The coverage generally seems fine to me, except that I’d like considerably more discussion of the principalship and the superintendency -- their origins, histories, sources of their authority, etc. I would also like more on Federal law and the schools -- more discussion of the laws themselves and how they affect schools.

5. Level:

The book seems fine for my students. I have not heard a single complaint from a student about it. I’d say that speaks rather well for it.

6. Chapters:

Chapter 1:

Coverage: I’d like to see a discussion of the history of "economic purposes of education" in the 1870s and 80s -- The Smith Hughes Act, and the like. To me, the point should be that "economic purpose" is something that was added in during this era and is a very negative thing. I’d like to also have some focus on "gender-tracking" in vocational education (home ec for girls, shop for boys).

Scholarship seems fine; Terms, Concepts, Examples are good; Writing Style and Length are fine. I don’t really know what you mean by "Pedagogy." Overall, I rate the chapter "Good."

Chapter 2:

I’m not going to follow your categories. They don’t really cover the things I want to focus on.

There is an editing problem in the last paragraph on p. 34. Two sentences are repeated: "In this example . . ." "Two teachers volunteer . . ."

On p. 39, I think Spring’s optimism about National Teacher Certification is unwarranted. It is my understanding that National Certification has pretty much been ignored by the states.

On p. 41, I’d like to see some discussion of " . . The real difficulty of defining and evaluating superior teaching." I agree with Spring, but think the problem needs to be discussed for my students in the book.

On p. 43, I’d like to see more discussion of the feminization of teaching and the consequences in salary and status.

On, p. 44, in the paragraph that begins "An important way . . .," there is an error in sentence structure.

Generally in chapter 2, I’d like to see some comparative data on salary and working conditions for teachers in private and/or charter schools with those in public schools. NCES data tells us that private school teachers, on average, earn about 2/3 of what public school teachers earn.

With the above exceptions, I find Coverage, Scholarship, etc., to be fine. This is a GOOD chapter, but would be enhanced by the above additions and corrections.

Chapter 3:

Overall an EXCELLENT chapter. I’d recommend updating to include Al Shanker’s death and whatever the outcome of the merger talks. NEA voted on July 5th; AFT will vote soon.

I guess I’d also like to see this chapter made more "pro-Union," but I guess that’s asking too much.

Chapter 4:

Overall, this chapter is GOOD. On page 95, I’d like to see some statistics to go along with the idea that large corporations are reducing their support. For instance, corporate taxes have fallen from 1/3 of all taxes in 1940 to 1/10 of all taxes in 1994. Show the numbers. (Personally, I’d like some bar graphs.)

I’d also like to see Spring tie the idea expressed in the paragraph beginning "From this perspective . . ." (p. 96) to the notion of economic purposes in chapter 1.

My students respond very hotly to this chapter -- it’s a real eye-opener for them -- so I recommend keeping it as is, but adding the above.

Chapter 5:

I’d recommend a definition of "tracking" at the beginning of the chapter.

I’d also like to see the chapter include a fairly extensive history of Native American education, including Alaska Natives. My students know nothing of boarding schools or BIA schools. Neither do they understand the state of Indian education under self-determination. I recommend adding several paragraphs.

I also think the section on Mexican-Americans would be enhanced with some discussion of the conditions before 1945.

On p. 140, I think some discussion of the economic benefits to districts of full inclusion is needed. The fact is that full inclusion is cheaper to deliver than self-contained or pull-out programs. Some schools push it because it’s cheaper, not better.

Chapter 6:

On p. 150, Table 6.2 has an error in the headings.

Beyond that, I think the chapter is fine. I’m not very expert in this area.

Chapter 7:

Table 7.1 has an error. It says Milwaukee spent $4.6 million in 1965. 1965????

Generally, I think the section on choice needs to be updated quite a bit.

On p. 182, Spring says, "Milton Friedman assumed that choice would provide the opportunity for the poor urban child to escape city school systems. It appears that just the opposite is happening." First, what does that mean? What is happening? Secondly, I’d like a citation. What source is he referring to for "just the opposite"?

In Table 7.2, there needs to be another subcategory under "Financing" for "startup" grants. Arizona, for instance, gives charter schools a $100,000 startup grant -- and a possible second $100,000 iF that proves to not be enough.

I’d also like to see some specifics on exactly what rules and regulations charter schools are exempted from.

On p. 186, I’d like to see more discussion of what we know so far about For-Profit and Privatization. We know that several efforts have failed (many of those Edison Project babies).

A new edition might also want to mention the new $200,000,000 John Walton thing.

Overall, it a GOOD chapter.

Chapter 8:

I rate this chapter FAIR.

I’d recommend, in the section on compulsory attendance, a discussion of the history of compulsory attendance, including the arguments advanced in Mass. in support of the 1852 compulsory attendance law, and including mention of the fact that the only time compulsory attendance laws were repealed was in the 1950s and 60s in some southern states that didn’t want to integrate their schools. I think it is important to put that alongside Erickson’s arguments. I believe his purpose is as nefarious as that of the segregationists.

Chapter 9:

Okay. Chapter is GOOD.

Chapter 10:

Okay. Chapter is GOOD.

Chapter 11:

Good overall, but I have a real problem with how case citations are done (or not done in this case). For instance on p. 269, what is the case in which "Initially Judge Brevard Hand ruled that secular humanism was indeed a religion . . ."? Is Spring perhaps confusing this with Justice Frankfurter’s footnote # 11 in Torcaso ? All in all, I think the chapter needs to use standard legal citation form so we can look up the cases.

Also, either in the section on "secular humanism" or the section on "Evolution and Creationism," Spring needs to discuss Peloza v. Capistrano Unified School District (37F. 3d 517, 9th Cir. 1994). That case held that secular humanism is NOT a religion and that, therefore, it is not a violation of the First Amendment to require teachers to teach it. The U. S. Supreme Court denied certiorari, so the decision stands. That case is of major importance on this issue. I assume that it is newer than the text, but I think it now needs to be included.

I also think the 1998 decision on schools’ lack of liability in sexual harassment cases should also be included.

7. Market and Competition:

This book is different from all the others I’m familiar with by being organized around issues instead of chronology.

8. Cycle:

a. The two-year cycle hasn’t really affected me. I find it fairly easy to supplement. Of course, the less of that I have to do, the better I like it.

b. I’d prefer a three-year cycle. I prefer not to have to redo the page numbers on my syllabus any more often than I just have to. On the other hand, by the end of three years, there’s quite a bit of supplementing to do.

And, I do like for my students to be able to sell their books back.

c. No -- the cycle wouldn’t affect my adoption decision.

9. Bottom-Line:

a. The text’s main strengths are its philosophic stance (centrist to left), its price, and its organization. If either of those changes significantly, I’ll quit using it. Its weakness is that it’s a bit too centrist/rightist for my taste. For instance, the book often feels anti-union. And it isn’t anti-choice enough.

b. Probably what would improve the book as a whole is to eliminate the "Exercises." (I don’t mean to harp: I just think they’re pretty bad.)

c. If I teach this course again -- or a similar one -- I will probably use this text. I’m not slated to teach it Fall semester, though.