xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader nam a22 u 4500
controlfield tag 008 c19989999azu 000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a E11-00107
Educational policy analysis archives.
n Vol. 6, no. 16 (August 20, 1998).
Tempe, Ariz. :
b Arizona State University ;
Tampa, Fla. :
University of South Florida.
c August 20, 1998
Criticizing the schools : then and now / Benjamin Levin.
Arizona State University.
University of South Florida.
t Education Policy Analysis Archives (EPAA)
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
mods:mods xmlns:mods http:www.loc.govmodsv3 xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govmodsv3mods-3-1.xsd
mods:relatedItem type host
mods:identifier issn 1068-2341mods:part
mods:detail volume mods:number 6issue 16series Year mods:caption 19981998Month August8Day 2020mods:originInfo mods:dateIssued iso8601 1998-08-20
1 of 11 Education Policy Analysis Archives Volume 6 Number 16August 20, 1998ISSN 1068-2341 A peer-reviewed scholarly electronic journal. Editor: Gene V Glass Glass@ASU.EDU. College of Education Arizona State University,Tempe AZ 85287-2411 Copyright 1998, the EDUCATION POLICY ANALYSIS ARCHIVES.Permission is hereby granted to copy any a rticle provided that EDUCATION POLICY ANALYSIS ARCHIVES is credited and copies are not sold. Criticizing the Schools: Then and Now Benjamin Levin The University of ManitobaAbstract Schools in many countries are facing intense and e levated levels of criticism, with much debate over whether the criticism is meri ted. Much of the criticism embodies a view that things used to be better years ago, whe n schools were not prey to the many defects they are alleged to show today. Recollectio ns of the past may hide a mixed reality. In this article, criticisms of education f rom 1957 are compared with contemporary criticisms. Some issues have remained important across forty years, while a few new issues have emerged. Criticisms of forty years ago centered on the dominance of "professional educationists," progressivism, the life adjustment movement, the waning "spirit of competition," lax discipline, the lack of emphasis on classical and modern foreign languages, avoidance of science and math, the neglect of gifted children, the lack of training of children in moral and spiri tual values, and low academic standards. Today's debates introduce the alleged te st score declines, poor performance on international achievement comparisons, the suppo sed enormous increase in funding without positive results, the problem of high dropo ut rates, and the need to connect schooling and work. In addition, modern critics poi nt to economic concerns, whether in terms of funding for education or in regard to the contribution of schooling to economic development. Educators are facing intense and elev ated levels of criticism. Scholars debate whether the criticism is merited. The "pages" of th e Education Policy Analysis Archives have themselves been a site for this debate on a nu mber of occasions (e.g., Vol 1 No. 2; Vol 4 No 10, and the exchange between Lawrence Sted man and David Berliner in Volume 4, numbers 1, 3 and 7). Much of the criticis m embodies a view that things used to be better years ago, when schools were not prey to the many defects they are alleged
2 of 11to show today. However, recollections of the past m ay be subject to a golden glow that hides a mixed reality. A couple of years ago my colleague Ha l May at The University of Manitoba retired after a long and productive career. Hal had amassed an impressive library of material in educational administration which he was busy trying to pass on to others--some to our Faculty library and other items to individuals he thought might make use of them. Among the pieces Hal gave me was a sma ll pamphlet issued by the National Education Association in 1957. It was a Re search Bulletin (Vol. XXXV, No. 4) from December, 1957, entitled "Ten Criticisms of Pu blic Education." The authors were not identified, although the report lists Sam Lambe rt as director of research for the Association. The Research Bulletin was published th ree times per year for a subscription of $3 per year. (Prices are one thing that has chan ged since 1957!) The NEA publication began with these words: Criticisms of public education in lay magazines and other publications have increased many fold in the past 10 years... The i nitial step in counteracting destructive attacks and in utilizing valid criticis ms for the improvement of public education is an objective appraisal of each criticism. (p.1) The report authors selected ten publi shed charges that appeared most frequently in a selection of 30 lay magazines from July 1954 t o June 1957. For each of the ten, it gave a brief description of the charge and cited ev idence and arguments to the contrary. Here are the ten charges that the NEA research grou p identified. Unlike the supposed list from the 1940s of 'ten worst problems of the school s' that Gerald Bracey debunked in the Phi Delta Kappan in 1994 (Bracey 1994), this list does have a docum ented source. Each statement of a criticism began with "some people sa y" or "critics say"; otherwise they are quoted exactly as written forty years ago. ...the public schools are controlled or dominated b y 'professional educationists' of schools of education, school supe rintendents, 'experts' in the state departments of education, 's pecialists' in the US Office of Education, and the national organizations of educationists. 1. ...John Dewey and 'progressive education' have take n over the public schools and that this philosophy of education is th e chief cause of the crisis in education. 2. ...the life adjustment education movement is replac ing intellectual training with soft social programs in most publicschool systems. 3. ...the spirit of competition, an important incentiv e for learning, has been eliminated by the 100 percent annual promotion policy and the multiple-standard report card. 4. ...lax discipline in the public school is contribut ing to the increase of juvenile delinquency. 5. ... the teaching of classical and modern foreign la nguages is disappearing from the secondary schools. 6.
3 of 11...high-school students, even the bright ones, are avoiding science and mathematics; fewer students are taking these course s now than 20 or 30 years ago. 7. ...the public schools are neglecting the gifted chi ldren because they are geared to teaching the average child. 8. ...the public schools are neglecting the training o f children in moral and spiritual values. 9. ...the academic standards of schools of education a re low: their programs of study are of questionable value, and th e intellectual qualities of their students are the poorest in the universities. 10. The report went on to try to show how each of the charges was unjustified--not that the public schools were perfect, but that the issues were complex and the situation not nearly as bad as the critics were claiming. The report cited a range of data--for example, scores on college entrance tests--as well as studies by such luminaries as Lewis Terman, Robert Thorndike and James Bryant Conant. M any of the responses in the NEA report seemed similar to those being made today in reply to many of the same criticisms--that achievement levels were better tha n the media reported, that schools were trying to respond to extremely diverse student needs, that the serious problems were relatively few in number, that schools did str ess moral values, that teacher education programs did attempt to impart appropriat e skills, and so on. Struck by the degree to which critici sm of the schools seems unchanged from forty years ago, I decided to look more closely at how the criticisms and responses of 1957 actually did compare with those of 1997. To do this I reviewed some recent sources: the work of Diane Ravitch (1985, 1995; see Apple, 1996, for a review); Chester Finn (1991); E.D. Hirsch (1987); John Chubb and Ter ry Moe (1990). I also reviewed the work of some of the best known defenders of public schools, such as Gerald Bracey (1994, 1997), Richard Jaeger (1992) and David Berli ner (in Berliner and Biddle, 1995) to see what they took to be the main criticisms bei ng made. I made a similar review of Canadian sources--critics such as Mark Holmes (1992 ) and Andrew Nikiforuk (1993) as well as defenders such as Maude Barlow and HeatherJane Robertson (1994). Finally, I examined a number of government and interest group reports on education in both countries, since these often embody criticisms of t he current state of the schools. Looking more carefully at the nature of the criticism of schools and the responses to it raised two issues. First, while som e of the criticisms of schools being made today are very similar to those of 1957, other s are new. The similarities and differences raise questions about the origins of cr iticism of schools. Second, reading criticism of schools over several decades raises qu estions about the nature of the debate over education, and especially the role of evidence If the same issues surface again and again, does evidence matter? Does the debate itself matter? Is anybody listening? Without claiming to have any answers to these quest ions, I offer the following observations.Criticism Then and Now
4 of 11 Certainly some of the criticisms on t he 1957 list are still current. For example, reforms to governance in England and New Zealand we re justified in part on the basis of excessive influence by professional educators; what is now called "provider capture." Teacher unions are often accused today of having un due influence and stifling reform because of self-interest. Another variant on this t heme has to do with the supposedly baneful influence of school district bureaucracies, as argued by Chubb and Moe, or as a motive for the Chicago reforms of a few years ago. School-based management in some of its variants is also defended as moving authorit y to parents and/or teachers in the school, where real knowledge about problems and sol utions is thought to reside. Other points on the NEA list also con tinue to resonate in current debates. Progressivism remains a point of attack for many, s uch as Diane Ravitch (1985) in the U.S.A. or Mark Holmes (1992) in Canada, who argue t hat the move to child-centered education has resulted in lower standards. A number of critics--such as Diane Ravitch and E. D. Hirsch--are strong proponents of a purer academic mission for the school and less focus on "soft social programs". Despite stron g evidence that retention in grade is ineffective, social promotion remains a controversi al issue, and retention is still frequently supported by parents and teachers (Oakes 1992). While the phrase "juvenile delinquency" has gone out of use, concerns about le vels of violence in and around schools are high. A Nation at Risk cited low rates of enrolment in foreign languages, science and mathematics as very serious concerns, a nd concern about science and mathematics achievement has continued to be a promi nent issue, taken up in many policy reviews and reform programs. Recent Canadian curriculum reforms have included greater time allocations for these subject s. Attention to the gifted also remains an issue. The U.S. Department of Education has rece ntly issued reports dealing with this issue (Department of Education, 1996) and with the importance of science and mathematics (Department of Education, 1997). Finall y, debate about teacher education continues, with many efforts in the U.S.A. on this front such as the work of the Holmes Group and efforts to create various state or nation al standards and licensing vehicles. Several provincial governments in Canada have also identified teacher education as a reform issue (though their proposals tend to be rat her vague as to what the problems are). England also made dramatic changes in teacher education, moving much of the activity away from post-secondary institutions and placing it under the control of schools.How Consistent Is Criticism of Schools? In many respects, then, the issues of 1957 are also the issues of 1997, suggesting that criticism is eternal--and perhaps, by implication, not very meaningful. Those who think that the golden age was forty years ago (when they were young?) would surely be disappointed by the NEA's report. O ne suspects that the NEA authors little thought that their research would be as rele vant in 1997 as it was four decades ago. have made the same point; Bracey and Berliner (in B erliner and Biddle, 1995) have both cited many earlier instances of criticism of school s going back to the early years of this century. But that continuity is not the full s tory either. The debate in 1997 also includes some issues that were not on the agenda four decade s ago. These include, most prominently, alleged test score declines, poor perf ormance on international achievement comparisons, the supposed enormous increase in fund ing without positive results, the problem of high dropout rates, and the need for a s tronger link between schooling and
5 of 11work. These issues feature prominently in current d ebates and are absent or muted in the 1957 NEA list. The criticisms of the 1990s also have some very different preoccupations from those of the past, even when some of the specific m anifestations are the same. Economic concerns, whether in terms of funding for education or in regard to the contribution of schooling to economic development, are central toda y and were much less so, it appears, forty years ago. Arguments for more language study or science education seemed then to be framed in terms of an image of the classically e ducated person; today they are framed in terms of the need for economic competitiveness. The Argentinian writer Jorge Borges o nce wrote a story ("Pierre Menard") about a man in Argentina in the 1930s who had writt en a book that was word for word the same as Don Quixote Borges wrote in the story that the two texts are "verbally identical but the second is almost infinitely riche r." When Cervantes wrote such and such a phrase in the Spain of the sixteenth century it had one meaning whereas when it was written in Buenos Aires in the 1930s it clearly carried associations from Neitzsche or William James or Bertrand Russell, who of course could not have influenced Cervantes! Borges was anticipating, perhaps, the po stmodern view that a text takes on a new meaning when read in a new context. It does see m that concerns about such matters as the state of the gifted or the importance of val ues education can have quite a different significance in the current climate of economic ins ecurity and fear.Diverse Critics Lists of criticisms also distract us from the important observation that the critics are not all of one view. Some attack schools as bei ng insufficiently traditional, while others regard them as insufficiently modern. Some t hink that schools should emphasize traditional academic pursuits while others seek a g reater focus on specific workplace skills. Various commentators on the changes in educ ation in England under Margaret Thatcher, for example, all note that the Conservati ves themselves did not agree in their analyses of what was wrong with schools and what sh ould be done to improve them (Lawton, 1994). Some were free-enterprisers who adv ocated market-based solutions while others were traditionalists who wanted a retu rn to supposedly successful policies of an earlier era. Similarly, traditionalist critic s such as E.D. Hirsch have quite a different analysis than do those focused on the eco nomy, such as Marc Tucker or Willard Daggett. Are Christian conservatives really expressing a similar view to the National Governors' Association when each talks abo ut the problems of standards in education? Schools have also been subject to cri ticism from the left, or from non-conservative positions. For example, schools ha ve been criticized for promoting or sustaining inequality, for failing to pay enough at tention to diversity, and for inadequate concern for issues of social justice. A powerful ex ample that affected my own early perceptions of schooling was work done in Toronto a rguing that students from particular ethnic or economic backgrounds were being tracked i nto low-achievement programs. In fact, many of the present defender s of schooling spent substantial earlier portions of their careers criticizing schools (Powe r, 1992). Many of the critics of neo-conservative education policies, who now defend schools as vital to maintaining equity, were themselves at one time highly critical of schools for failing to address social and economic inequities. In fact, there continues t o be a vocal group of commentators who focus on the failure of schools to address prob lems of poverty and racism, although
6 of 11their voices are often lost in the much louder crit icisms over standards and morals. Perhaps lists of criticisms actually hide a great d eal of variability in the critics' analyses of schools. If so, such lists do not help us think clearly about the situation of and prospects for schools.The Nature of Debate and the Role of Evidence A second concern that grows out of an historical look at the debate over schooling has to do with the role of evidence in sh aping our thinking. The 1957 NEA report marshaled a consi derable amount of empirical data in its attempt to refute charges against the schools. But the 1997 debate is much more evidence intensive. Not everyone relies on empirica l evidence, of course. Where criticism of schools arises primarily from a religi ous or other value orientation, empirical data may play a much smaller role. But in reading t he work of the critics and defenders of schooling, one cannot but be struck by the wideranging use of data. To take just one example, the debate about whether or not achievemen t levels in the United States have actually declined has featured many sophisticated c ompeting analyses of several different data sources (e.g., Bracey, 1997; Stedman 1996, 1997). Similarly, the argument about the impact of resources on achieveme nt has involved a great deal of analysis of a large number of studies (Hanushek, 19 94, 1997, also see the review by Gintis, 1995; Burtless, 1996). All the evidence, however, does not s eem to have resolved the arguments. In fact, more extensive evidence can have the effect o f contributing to even more cynicism, as some people find the seemingly endless argument about the numbers reminiscent of the old saw that there exist prevaricators of three types: "liars, damn liars, and statisticians." Teachers and policy-makers may wond er whether research can ever inform policy and practice since even with much more evide nce, the disagreement remains as heated as ever. Does research help? Does it matter? Does anyone really care about the data, since the same conclusions seem to be repeate d by the same actors whatever evidence may be adduced? The role of evidence in re solving policy debates is a much-examined question (e.g., Anderson & Biddle, 19 91: Stone, 1988). The consensus of current opinion would seem to be that evidence i s only one factor in such matters--that issues of values and ideology are at least as important as evidence and may well shape what people are able or willing to see a s evidence in the first place. But we should not be too discouraged by this analysis. Empirical evidence may not answer all the questions for us, but it can hel p us answer some of them and think more deeply and more clearly about others. The abil ity of physically disabled students to learn in regular classrooms is no longer debated, l argely because of conclusive evidence. In Canada, French Immersion programs (in which Angl ophone students do almost all their schooling in French) were hotly debated in th e 1970s and 1980s, but have been shown to be successful in developing academic skill s in both languages. Other issues are more controversial a nd thus less likely to be resolved by evidence. But here, too, over time evidence helps f rame the debate. So, while debate continues about the value of tracking and streaming the disproportionate placement of minorities in less challenging streams is agreed to be an aspect of the debate that requires attention. While arguments rage about comp arative achievement levels, there is broad agreement that the simple tests of years ago are inadequate to assess the things that really matter. There may be no agreement on th e importance of additional funding in promoting achievement, but there is growing accepta nce that gross disparities in funding
7 of 11across schools and districts are undesirable. In al most every area of education policy, ideas have changed at least in part because of evid ence. Moreover, the search for evidence is itself a valuable activity, and one which reinforces the best ideals of education. Indeed, ev idence-based arguments about policies are one of the main ways in which a society can lea rn, and so are especially important to encourage (Lindblom, 1990; Majone, 1989). The fact that critics and defenders of schools alike feel that it is vital to marshal evid ence to support their position can be regarded as a step forward--a recognition that dogm a is not enough and that there is at least the possibility of subjecting disparate ideas to a test whose legitimacy is widely upheld. For much of human history, disputes in view point have been resolved through isolation or through violence--we avoid or conquer those who disagree. Debate, even if it is acrimonious, can be seen as an important huma n achievement. In another context, Nicholas Burbules and Suzanne Rice (1991) have writ ten eloquently about the importance of "dialogue across difference." Nobody should be surprised that fundamental differences in values are not quickly r esolved through evidence, but we should all be pleased that evidence is seen to be i mportant and at least in principle accepted as a basis for bridging differences.Conclusion Schools will always be the subject of intense criticism for at least two reasons. First, society's goals for schools are extremely am bitious. In an important sense, schooling is about perfection. We hope that our sch ools can do everything--shape young people who are thoughtful, productive, articulate, considerate, knowledgeable, patriotic, worldly, idealistic, realistic, challenging, accept ing, critical, loyal. We expect our schools to teach our children knowledge, skills, an d values, but also to overcome the same social problems that we as adults have been un able to solve--to reduce poverty, to build the economy, to save the environment, to incl ude the excluded, to look after oneself and care for others, to overcome materialis m. Second, people do not agree about whi ch of these goals are most important or about how any given goal is best accomplished. Some want to stress individual excellence and others, social equity. Some emphasiz e traditional academic learning and others want to focus on the emerging needs of the e conomy. Some may value most patriotism and loyalty while others give priority t o independent thought and critical thinking. It is no accident that most lists of goal s for schools contain a large number of items that are not always mutually consistent. And the growing diversity in our society, coupled with the growing recognition of the importa nce of diversity, makes the challenge steadily greater as we struggle to develo p a common institution that is also able to accommodate difference (Levin & Riffel, 199 4; Riffel, Levin & Young, 1996). Schools cannot achieve all the things we want from them, and they cannot satisfy all the expectations we have of them. They will inevitably be the objects of criticism. And the more important our goals for sch ools are, the more intense the criticism is likely to be. The paradox here is that criticism is actually a sign of respect. I've had occasion to remind school administrators t hat the increased willingness of parents to challenge school policies and practices is an indicatioin of the success of education. After all, we hope that schools will hel p people learn to define, articulate and work for what they hold to be important. We should be pleased when they do so, even if it makes our lives harder. If people thought school s unimportant, they would not take the time to argue about their achievements and shortcom ings.
8 of 11 Rather than frustration and despair o ver criticism, then, we might benefit from seeing criticism as an opportunity--a chance to cre ate discussion about things that are important, to help us achieve the vital educational task of learning to live together even with all our differences. Certainly criticisms can be unfair, mischievous, or even malevolent. Defenders of public schools should cont inue to speak out and to bring to bear arguments and evidence in support of their vie ws. But we will all benefit insofar as we can see debate as having the potential to move u s in a desirable direction. What do we learn, then, from looking at criticisms of education today and forty years ago? We learn that some issues remain importa nt and new issues emerge. We learn that our ability to define, understand and debate i ssues is imperfect. We learn that the schools probably face an impossible task. But we al so learn that people care about education, that evidence and reason can make a diff erence, and that the struggle for better education remains a vital enterprise.ReferencesAnderson, D. and Biddle, B. (Eds) (1991). Knowledge for Policy: Improving Education Through Research London: Falmer Press. Apple, M.W. (1996). Being Popular About National St andards: A Review Of Ravitch's National Standards in American Education: A Citizen 's Guide. Educational Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 4 No. 10. (Available online: http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v4n10.html). Barlow, M. & Robertson, H-J. (1994). Class warfare: The assault on Canada's schools. Toronto: Key Porter.Berliner, D.C. and Biddle, B.J. (1995). The Manufactured Crisis: Myths, Fraud, and the Attack on America's Public Schools Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Berliner, D.C., and Biddle, B.J. (1996). Making mol ehills out of molehills: Reply to Lawrence Stedman's review of The manufactured crisis. Educational Policy Analysi s Archives 4 (February 26). (Available online: http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v4n3.ht ml). Bracey, G.W. (1991). Why can't they be like we were ? Phi Delta Kappan 73: 104-17. Bracey, G.W. (1992). The second Bracey report on th e condition of public education. Phi Delta Kappan 74: 104-8, 110-17. Bracey, G.W. (1993). The third Bracey report on the condition of public education. Phi Delta Kappan 75: 104-12, 114-18. Bracey, G.W. (1994). The fourth Bracey report on th e condition of public education. Phi Delta Kappan 76: 115-27. Bracey, G.W. (1995). The fifth Bracey report on the condition of public education. Phi Delta Kappan 77: 149-60. Bracey, G.W. 1996. The sixth Bracey report on the c ondition of public education. Phi Delta Kappan 78: 127-38.
9 of 11Bracey, G.W. (1997a). The seventh Bracey report on the condition of public education. Phi Delta Kappan 79: 120-36. Bracey, G.W. (1997b). Rejoinder: Comparing the inco mparable: a response to Baker and Stedman. Educational Researcher 26(3), 19-26. Burbules, N. and Rice, S. (1991). Dialogue across d ifferences: Continuing the conversation. Harvard Educational Review 61(4), 393-416. Burtless, G. (Ed) (1996) Does money matter? The eff ect of school resources on student achievement and adult success. Washington: Brooking s Institute. Chubb, J. E. & Moe, T. M. (1990). Politics, markets, and America's schools. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.Finn, C.E. (1991). We must take charge: Our schools and our future. New York: Free Press.Gintis, H. (1995). Review of Eric A. Hanushek's Making Schools Work Educational Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 3 No. 7. (Available online: http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v3n7.html). Hanushek, E.A. (1994). Making Schools Work: Improving Performance and Cont rolling Costs. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institutions. Hanushek, E.A. (1997). Assessing the effects of sch ool resources on student performance: An update, Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 19(2), 141-164. Hirsch, E.D. (1987). Cultural literacy: What every American needs to kno w. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.Holmes, M. (1992). The revival of school administra tion: Alasdair MacIntyre in the aftermath of the common school. Canadian Journal of Education 17(4), 422-436. Jaeger, R.M. (1992). World class standards, choice, and privitization: Weak measurement serving presumptive policy. Phi Delta Kappan (October), 118-128. Lawton, D. (1994). The Tory Mind on Education 1979-1994 London: Falmer Press. Levin, B. and Riffel, J.A. (1994). Dealing with div ersity: Some propositions from Canadian education Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 2, No. 2. (Available online at http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v2n2.html). Lindblom, C. (1990). Inquiry and Change New Haven: Yale University Press Majone, G. (1989). Evidence, Argument and Persuasion in the Policy Pro cess New Haven: Yale University Press.Nikiforuk, A. (1993). School's out: The catastrophe in public education a nd what we can do about it. Toronto: McFarlane Walter Ross. Oakes, J. (1992) Can tracking research inform pract ice? Technical, normative, and
10 of 11 political considerations. Educational Researcher 21(4), 12-21. Power, S. (1992) Researching the impact of educatio n policy: difficulties and discontinuities. Journal of Education Policy 7(4), 493-500 Ravitch, D. (1985). The Schools We Deserve (New York: Basic Books, 1985). Ravitch, D. (1995) National Standards in American Education: A Citizen 's Guide. Washington: The Brookings Institution.Riffel, J., Levin, B. and Young, J. (1996). Diversi ty in Canadian education. Journal of Education Policy 11(2), 113123. Stedman, L.C. (1996a). The Achievement Crisis is Re al: A Review of The Manufactured Crisis Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 4, No. 1. (Available online at http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v4n1.html). Stedman. L.C. (1996b). Respecting the Evidence: The Achievment Crisis Remains Real. Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 4, No. 1. (Available online at http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v4n7.html). Stedman, L. (1997). International achievement diffe rences: An assessment of a new perspective. Educational Researcher 26(3), 4-15. Stone, D. (1988). Policy Paradox and Political Reason New York: HarperCollins. U. S. Department of Education (1996). National Exce llence: A Case for Developing America's Talent. Washington: U.S. Department of Ed ucation. U. S. Department of Education (1997). The Condition of Education 1997. Washington: U.S. Departrment of EducationAbout the AuthorBenjamin LevinThe University of Manitoba Email: email@example.com Benjamin Levin is professor of educationa l administration and Dean of Continuing Education at The University of Manitoba. His main academic interests are in education politics, policy and economics. He is a l ong-time participant on the Education Policy Analysis Archives editorial board.Copyright 1998 by the Education Policy Analysis ArchivesThe World Wide Web address for the Education Policy Analysis Archives is http://olam.ed.asu.edu/epaa
11 of 11 General questions about appropriateness of topics o r particular articles may be addressed to the Editor, Gene V Glass, firstname.lastname@example.org or reach him at College of Education, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287-2411. (602-965-26 92). The Book Review Editor is Walter E. Shepherd: email@example.com The Commentary Editor is Casey D. Cobb: firstname.lastname@example.org .EPAA Editorial Board Michael W. Apple University of Wisconsin Greg Camilli Rutgers University John Covaleskie Northern Michigan University Andrew Coulson email@example.com Alan Davis University of Colorado, Denver Sherman Dorn University of South Florida Mark E. Fetler California Commission on Teacher Credentialing Richard Garlikov firstname.lastname@example.org Thomas F. Green Syracuse University Alison I. Griffith York University Arlen Gullickson Western Michigan University Ernest R. House University of Colorado Aimee Howley Marshall University Craig B. Howley Appalachia Educational Laboratory William Hunter University of Calgary Richard M. Jaeger University of North Carolina--Greensboro Daniel Kalls Ume University Benjamin Levin University of Manitoba Thomas Mauhs-Pugh Rocky Mountain College Dewayne Matthews Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education William McInerney Purdue University Mary McKeown-Moak MGT of America (Austin, TX) Les McLean University of Toronto Susan Bobbitt Nolen University of Washington Anne L. Pemberton email@example.com Hugh G. Petrie SUNY Buffalo Richard C. Richardson Arizona State University Anthony G. Rud Jr. Purdue University Dennis Sayers Ann Leavenworth Centerfor Accelerated Learning Jay D. Scribner University of Texas at Austin Michael Scriven firstname.lastname@example.org Robert E. Stake University of Illinois--UC Robert Stonehill U.S. Department of Education Robert T. Stout Arizona State University