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 c19999999azu 000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a E11-00125
Educational policy analysis archives.
n Vol. 7, no. 13 (April 11, 1999).
Tempe, Ariz. :
b Arizona State University ;
Tampa, Fla. :
University of South Florida.
c April 11, 1999
Contextualizing homeschooling data:a response to Rudner / Kariane Mari Welner [and] Kevin G. Welner.
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 7issue 13series Year mods:caption 19991999Month April4Day 1111mods:originInfo mods:dateIssued iso8601 1999-04-11
1 of 13 Education Policy Analysis Archives Volume 7 Number 13April 11, 1999ISSN 1068-2341 A peer-reviewed scholarly electronic journal Editor: Gene V Glass, College of Education Arizona State University Copyright 1999, the EDUCATION POLICY ANALYSIS ARCHIVES. Permission is hereby granted to copy any article if EPAA is credited and copies are not sold. Articles appearing in EPAA are abstracted in the Current Index to Journals in Education by the ERIC Clearinghouse on Assessment and Evaluation and are permanently archived in Resources in Education Contextualizing Homeschooling Data: A Response to Rudner Kariane Mari Welner University of California, Los Angeles Kevin G. Welner University of PennsylvaniaAbstractRudner (1999) presents the results of a survey and testing program, administered by Bob Jones University (BJU), for hom eschooling students. In this response, we applaud Rudner's con tribution to building a greater understanding of the homeschooling movement However, we also voice a strong concern that what Rudner contri buted with one hand, he took back with the other. We contend that Rudner 's analysis of the BJU data fails to offer a straightforward explanati on of important and striking limitations. The unfortunate result is an inaccurate portrayal of homeschoolers as a white, Christian, monolithic pop ulation. Although the results of Rudner's analyses are likely valid f or the particular population he studied, his insufficient attention t o the data's bias has led to an erroneous picture of homeschooling. At a time when most educational researche rs pay little or no attention to the homeschooling movement, we appreciate Dr. Rudner's (1999) work as well as the
2 of 13decision of EPAA to give that work a platform. Although Rudner's ar ticle does not vary far (either in methodology or in findings) from muc h of the body of the homeschooling research already in print (e.g., Gustavsen, 1981; M ayberry, 1987; Ray, 1990, 1997; Wartes, 1988), keeping this research current and ex panding the sample size contributes greatly to the limited assortment of currently-publ ished studies. We believe that the questions asked of the data in this study are impor tant; these issues need to be further explored. However, the data that Rudner analyzed ar e derived from only one section of the homeschooling population. And here lies the art icle's weakness: it fails to explain this limitation in a way that adequately alerts rea ders. While we do not disagree with Rudner's te ntative conclusions concerning homeschoolers' performance on standardized tests, w e do think there is a need to offer several cautions to the readers of this study. The data employed in this study were taken from parents who used the Bob Jones University (BJU ) standardized testing program. Rudner's article only briefly, and inadequately, ad dresses the fact that this may not be a cross-section of the homeschooling population: "... it should be noted that it was not possible within the parameters of this study to eva luate whether this sample is truly representative of the entire population of home sch ool students" (this quotation is from the article's "Discussion" section). Rudner does no t explain the relevance of this potential limitation as regards the demographic and achievement information that constitute the heart of these analyses. Nor does he offer the obvious reason why the BJU data may not be representative of the larger popula tion: The University's image, at least partially deserved, is of racial intolerance and re ligious orthodoxy. Accordingly, some of Rudner's conclusions (e.g., that homeschoolers are overwhelmingly white and Christian) should instead be read as limitations on some of hi s other conclusions (concerning, e.g., median income, marital status, and achievement leve ls on standardized tests). A related caution, which we would have li ked Dr. Rudner to have offered, is that the data base drew a non-random, twopercent sampl e (even by the most conservative estimates) of the homeschooling population. (Note 1 ) Given that Rudner's sample involves 20,760 students, this sample then constitu tes anywhere from 1.28% to 2.08% of the homeschooling population. Because the sample wa s biased in favor of a population associated with BJU, extrapolations from that data are very unreliable. Yet Dr. Rudner, in his abstract, states t hat his article seeks to answer the following questions: Does home schooling tend to work for those who chos e to make such a commitment? That is, are the achievement levels of home school students comparable to those of public school students? Who is engaged in home schooling? That is, how does the home school popula tion differ from the general United States population? Notwithstanding these broadly worded questions, we note that Rudner acknowledges the fact that his data are not derived from "a controll ed experiment" and must be understood within that context. Yet his acknowledgment fails t o detail the broader contextÂ—namely those issues associated with BJU. He also fails, wh en setting forth these questions that he seeks to answer with this data, to heed his own warning about its limitations. Contrary to his stated aim, this data simply cannot be used to reliably compare homeschoolers' achievement levels with those of the general population or to describe the demographics of homeschoolers. In addition to our concerns about the gen eralizability of Rudner's conclusions, we are concerned that Rudner's relative neglect of iss ues surrounding the selected sample
3 of 13will serve to perpetuate the common view of homesch oolers as a narrow and easily-defined section of the American population. Because of his omission, only those readers who already know about the full scope of ho meschoolers or about BJU's image could raise this red flag. Importantly, the media's coverage of the release of Rudner's study portrayed his conclusions as descriptive of t he broader homeschooling population (see Archer, 1999; Cook, 1999; Mathews, 1999; Schna iberg, 1999; Toomer-Cook, 1999). We found only one article that even mentione d, albeit briefly, the ill fit between the homeschooling population described by Rudner an d the homeschooling population in the area (south Florida) served by the newpaper (Nazareno, 1999).Homeschoolers' Diversity Notwithstanding the picture painted by th e data presented in Rudner's article, today's homeschooling families represent a diverse sampling of the American population. Although many homeschoolers remain whit e and middle-class, the recent upsurge in homeschooling has drawn people from all ethnic and class groups (Knowles, 1988; Nazareno, 1999; Wahisi, 1995). Ideologically, parents who homeschool represent a similarly broad cross-section of American society (Knowles, 1988). While in its recent resurgence homeschooling began as a trend among fun damentalist Christians with primarily religious motivations, homeschoolers now represent a wide array of values and political mores (Bolick, 1987; Mayberry, 1987; Van Galen, 1988). As such, homeschoolers are no longer an easily defined segme nt of the population. (Note 2) Rudner's article, therefore, would have been more c omprehensive and accurate had he acknowledged existing research demonstrating that h is sample was not representative of the broader population.Not All Homeschoolers Give Tests In contrast to what is presented in Rudne r's data, there exists a large and growing portion of the homeschooling population that does n ot administer standardized tests to its children. (Note 3) While some homeschoolers emp loy the "school at home" methodology that Rudner's questions allude to, repl ete with curricula and testing, other homeschoolers avoid these practices. These parents, often referring to themselves as "unschoolers," follow the philosophy of the late Jo hn Holt (see Holt 1981; 1983; 1989). They often choose to homeschool in order to avoid w hat they view as the restrictiveness of set curricula and testing (Franzosa, 1991). They believe in allowing a child's natural curiosities to set the scope and pace of education, even if it means waiting a long time before the child expresses interest in a particular topic (Wartes, 1988a). Feeling that the manner in which schools teach is not the way that c hildren learn, they often view standardized testing as a part of the misguided sys tem that they have left behind, and they put great effort into avoiding such testing in their children's education (Common & MacMullen, 1986; Gibbs, 1994). Notwithstanding the important role that this segment of the homeschooling population plays within the la rger movement, its existence is not noted in Rudner's article.Bob Jones University The data Rudner analyzed was derived excl usively from parents who used the testing services of Bob Jones University, a fundame ntalist Christian institution located in Greenville, South Carolina. The university prohibit s interracial dating and marriage
4 of 13between its African-American and white students. Pr ior to 1971, African Americans were banned outright from attending the university (White, 1982). These racial policies were the subject of highly-publicized litigation be fore the United States Supreme Court in 1983, concerning the question of whether the Uni versity, given its explicit racially discriminatory policies, could maintain its "501(c) (3)" tax-exempt status (Bob Jones University v. United States, 1983; White, 1983). Importantly, the University's racial view s are anathema to many Americans, whether they be Christian or non-Christian, fundame ntalist or non-fundamentalist. While many parents using the BJU testing service ma y not share the University's convictions, many other families have no doubt chos en not to employ the services of BJU precisely because of BJU's racial stance. The r acial distribution of Rudner's homeschooled students showed 0.8% African American and 0.2% Hispanic. These statistics become much more meaningful when grounde d in an understanding of the data source. BJU's religious orientation may also have prompted many homeschoolers to shun a relationship with the University's testing servic e. The BJU web pages trumpet its Biblical grounding, noting that the University is both orthodox and fervent in its evangelistic spirit" (see the Bob Jones University Website, http://www.bju.edu/aboutbju/history/). The religiou s distribution of Rudner's homeschooled students showed almost 58% Independent Fundamentalist, Baptist, or Independent Charismatic and only 6% non-Christian. These statistics, too, become much more meaningful when grounded in an understanding o f the data source.The Article's Perspective Dr. Rudner is an accomplished scholar in the field of assessment. Using this expertise, he has testified on behalf of homeschool ers represented by the funder of this study, the Home School Legal Defense Association (H SLDA). We wish to acknowledge the contributions of the HSLDA in blazing a trail f or the legal rights of homeschoolers. However, it is also important to note that the HSLD A is an advocacy organization. Moreover, while the HSLDA does not exclude from mem bership those who hold non-Christian beliefs, it is an overtly Christian e stablishment with an agenda dedicated to supporting the rights and duties of families as commanded by Biblical mandate. We recognize that Dr. Rudner may have lit tle or no experience with the homeschooling population outside of this Christian context and therefore might not be aware that many homeschoolers do not fit within the segment of the population who would consider employing the services of BJU. Like many Americans, Dr. Rudner may have simply taken for granted that the homeschoolin g population remains very narrow. When an analysis is inaccurately premised on the as sumption that homeschooling is a phenomenon that is almost exclusively limited to co nservative Christian parents, there is less reason to question the representativeness of a sample drawn from BJU. In understanding this article's perspecti ve, we also note that the HSLDA funded this study, at least in part, as a vehicle for gain ing political support on behalf of homeschoolers. Toward this end, the organization di stributed copies of the study to members of Congress. Michael Farris, the president of HSLDA, explained that he "hope[s] that [the study] will help judges and publ ic policy makers make better decisions about our freedom" (Billups, 1999). We share this g oal as well the belief that legislation concerning homeschooling is best based on a complet e understanding of the homeschooling population. Accordingly, the followin g section presents a reconsideration of some of Dr. Rudner's findings in light of the source of his database.
5 of 13The Article's Conclusions As a general matter, we suggest that the data from Bob Jones University add to our understanding of the particular homeschooling p opulation served by BJU and raise interesting questions about the broader homeschooli ng population. But we would stop far short of drawing the more universal conclusions trumpeted by the HSLDA. Consider, for example, Dr. Rudner's analy sis of demographic information, concerning the high levels of formal education obta ined by homeschooling parents and the high median income of homeschooling families. W e caution against drawing firm conclusions from this data, particularly the analys is concerning median family income. Not all states require children to take standardize d tests (and those that do generally provide a way for parents to take the tests without cost to the family). Consequently, those families who elect to pay a testing service m ay be in a higher income bracket than those who do not. Moreover, a 1990 survey of Maine homeschoolers revealed that 70% of respondents had an annual pretax income of less than $35,000 (Lyman, 1993). While this Maine study also had many limitations, it none theless raises the question of the generalizability of Rudner's findings. The analyses concerning homeschooling parents' level of formal education, computer use by students and the amount homeschooling parents spend on school supplies could be tied to t his income data and influenced by these same factors. Also, with regard to expenditur e on school supplies, additional issues are raised (e.g., whether the parents have supplies from an earlier child and whether they can borrow supplies from a friend or family member) Rudner also found that 98% of homeschooli ng students in the BJU data base live within married couple families. This statistic shou ld, we contend, have been presented within a context explaining the conservative nature of BJU and its view of divorce as unbiblical. Further, given the view held by most co nservative Christians that a woman's primary commitment is to her husband and her childr en, Rudner conclusion that 77% of homeschool mothers in this data base do not partici pate in the labor force is, we believe, also better understood within the BJU context. (Not e 4) Rudner notes that homeschooled students w atch much less television than do most students nationwide (with 65% of homeschooled stude nts in the BJU data base watching one hour or less per day compared to 25% nationally ). But again, conservative Christians tend to have strong moral objections to the quality of television programmingÂ—much more so than the general population. Accordingly, i t may be a certain set of moral standards rather than homeschooling that drives thi s result. The article further states that the "prim ary focus of many home schools is on religious and moral values." But, while many homesc hoolers do see this as their primary focus and purpose, many do notÂ—recall the "unschool ers" described above. Van Galen (1988) describes a group of parents, whom she label s as "Pedagogues," whose motivation is decidedly secular. These parents: ... teach their children at home primarily for peda gogical reasons. Their criticisms of the schools are not so much that the schools teach heresy, but that the schools teach whatever they teach ineptly. ... While diverse in other aspects of their lives, they share a respect for th eir children's intellect and creativity and a belief that children learn best wh en pedagogy taps into the child's innate desire to learn (p. 55). While these parents may have religious beliefs, the reason they chose to homeschool was
6 of 13not religiously motivated, and the focus of these h omeschools is not the teaching of "religious and moral values." Other demographic characteristics that Ru dner ascribes to homeschoolers could also be a result of the population sampled, a possi ble conflation of almost his exclusively Christian population with the trait of homeschooling. For example, it may be simply that Christian families are larger than thos e in the general population, not necessarily that most homeschooling parents have mo re children. Likewise, the fact that almost one in four homeschooled students in this st udy have a certified teacher as a parent may also be tied to the overwhelmingly Chris tian population, since many young Christian women see teaching as one of the few appr opriate areas of employment and as a field where they can develop skills useful in bot h family and church life. Finally, as mentioned previously, the fact that the demographic s reported by Rudner showed an almost exclusively white, Christian population coul d also be an artifact of the data source. As Dr. Rudner noted, family income is str ongly correlated with children's test scores. However, we do not know whether the general population of homeschoolers has the same high level of income as the families in th e BJU data base. Further research is needed to demonstrate whether or not this differenc e in test scores would hold up if a lower income sample of homeschoolers were tested. T hat said, we do believe that homeschooled students can attain a significant bene fit from the one-on-one learning experience, and this could be a powerful factor in driving higher test scores. (Note 5) Rudner concluded by stating that "these c omparisons between home school students and students nationwide must be interprete d with a great deal of caution," and that "the reported achievement differences between groups do not control for background differences in the home school and gener al United States population and, more importantly, cannot be attributed to the type of school a child attends." Some researchers, in fact, would say that the test score s have nothing to do with how the children were schooled and simply show the results expected for children that come from this demographic groupÂ—households that are ove rwhelmingly white, well educated, two-parent, and middle class (see Coleman et al., 1966; Ogbu, 1987). This is not to say that these parents did not do a good job teaching their children, it is only to say that a comparable sample within the public or p rivate schools may have scored just as well.Our Conclusions The actual analyses conducted by Dr. Rudn er are important. Our critique is offered as a cautionary supplement, rather than as an objection, to his contribution. We feel that a more thorough explanation of the data's source and context helps us to build a better understanding of America's homeschooling pop ulation.NotesPatricia Lines conservatively estimates the number of homeschooled children at approximately 1 million (Lines, 1998). Less conserv ative appraisals among homeschooling associations and researchers place th e number of homeschooled students at more than 1.2 million students (Hawkins 1996; Kennedy, 1995; Ray, 1997). Newsweek recently estimated that number at 1 .5 million (Kantrowitz & Wingert, 1998), a figure that the Home School Legal Defense Association Â—the sponsor of RudnerÂ’s studyÂ—also circulates in its li terature. Others estimate that 1.
7 of 13the number is as high as 1.6 million (see Yarnall, 1998). There are also many resources directed at homeschoo lers that are not characterized by the demographics provided by Rudner (see the fol lowing web pages: "Bnos Henya Project: Jewish Orthodox Homeschooling"; "AlMadrasah Al-Ula: The Magazine for Muslim Home Schoolers"; "Native Americ an Homeschool Association Web Site"; and "Pagan Homeschool Page") 2. Of course, if they are required to do so by law, th en they comply with the stateÂ’s requirements (these requirements for homeschoolers vary from state to state). However, these parent engage in the testing merely to satisfy their legal obligation, not because they believe testing to be an education ally worthwhile practice. 3. It is true that generally, in order to homeschool, one of the parents must possess the ability to remain at home throughout the day, t hus allowing that parent to teach and supervise the children. However, homeschooling parents may have jobs permitting them to also supervise their children Â—e ither through a flexible schedule, a home-based business, or a job allowing for on-site supervision of their childrenÂ—with the result that both parents become p art of the labor force. 4. Further, many important forms of knowledge, which h omeschooling parents may emphasize in their childrenÂ’s education, may not be assessable by standardized tests. 5.References Hyperlinks to some of these documents Al-Madrasah Al-Ula: The Magazine for Muslim Home Sc hoolers. [online] Apple, M. (1982). Education and power London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Archer, S. (1999, March 24). New evidence supports home schooling: Students perform better than those in classrooms. WorldNetDaily. [online] Billups, A. (1999, March 24). Students in home scho ols perform better on tests. The Washington Times p. A8. Bnos Henya Project: Jewish Orthodox Homesc hooling. [online] Bob Jones University v. United States. (1983). 461 U.S. 574. [online] Bob Jones University Website. [online] Bolick, C. (1987). The home-schooling movement. The Freeman: Ideas on Liberty 37(3), 84-89.Coleman, J. S., Campbell, E. Q., Hobson, C. J., Mac Partland, J., Mood, A. M., Winfeld, F., and York, R. (1966) Equality and educational opportunity Washington, DC, Office of Education, US Government Printing Office.Common, R. W. & MacMullen, M. (1986). Home schoolin g...a growing movement. Education Canada 26(2), 4-7. Cook, S. (1999, March 25). "Report card on home sch ooling in US: Study finds children taught by parents perform above national average." The Christian Science Monitor
8 of 13 [online] Franzosa, S. (1991). The best and wisest parent: A critique of John Holt's philosophy of education. In J. Van Galen's (Ed.) Home Schooling; Political, Historical, and Pedagogical Perspectives (pp.121-135). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing. Gibbs, N. (1994). Home sweet school: Seeking excell ence, isolation, or just extra "family time," more and more parents are doing the teaching themselves. Time 144(18), 62-63.Gray, S. (1992). Why some parents choose to home school Dissertation. Los Angeles, CA: UCLA.Greene, S. (1984). Home study in Alaska: A profile of K-12 students in the Alaska centralized correspondence study program. ERIC Document Reproduction Service 255(494).Gustavsen, G. (1981). Selected characteristics of home schools and parent s who operate them Doctoral Dissertation, Andrews University. Univer sity Microfilms International No. 8205794.Hawkins, D. (1996). Homeschool battles: Clashes gro w as some in the movement seek access to public schools. U.S. News & World Report 120(6), 57 Holt, J. 1981. Teach Your Own: A Hopeful Path for Education New York, NY: Delta/Seymour Lawrence.Holt, J. 1983. How Children Learn (revised ed.) New York, NY: Delta/Seymour Lawrence.Holt, J. 1989. Learning All the Time Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing. Kantrowitz, B. & Wingert, P. (1998, October 5). Lea rning at home: Does it pass the test? Newsweek n. 40, p. 64. Kennedy, J. G. (1995). Home schooling grows up: Tea ching at home moves to the cutting edge of education. Christianity Today 39(8), 50. Knowles, J. G. (1988). Introduction: The context of homeschooling in the United States. Education and Urban Society 21(1), 5-15. Lines, P. (1987). An overview of home instruction. Phi Delta Kappan 68(7), 510-517. Lines, P. (1998, Spring). Homeschoolers: estimating numbers and growth National Institute on Student Achievement, Curriculum, and A ssessment, Office of Education Research and Improvement: U.S. Department of Educat ion. Lyman, I. (1993). Better off at home? National Review 45(18), 62-63. Mahan, B. M. & Ware, B. J. (1987). Home schooling: Reasons parents choose this alternative form of education and a study of attitu des of home-schooling parents and public school superintendents toward the benefits o f homeschooling Master's Project,
9 of 13University of Dayton. ERIC Document No. ED286624.Mathews, J. (1999, March 24). A home run for home s chooling: Movement can point to high test scores in national study. The Washington Post p. A11. [online] Mayberry, M. (1987). The 1987-1988 Oregon home scho ol survey: And overview of findings. Home School Researcher 4(1), 1-9. Native American Homeschool Association Web Site: Sa ving Our Culture For Our Children Through Our Children. [online] Nazareno, A. (1999, March 24). Home schools effecti ve, group says after study. The Miami Herald Oakes, J. (1985). Keeping track: How schools structure inequality New Haven: Yale University Press.Ogbu, J. U. (1987). Variability in minority school performance: A problem in search of an explanation. Anthropology and Education Quarterly 18(4), 312-334. Pagan Homeschool Page. [online]. Available at:http://members.aol.com/Barbooch/index.html.Ray, B. (1990). Home schools: A synthesis of resear ch on characteristics and learner outcomes. Education and Urban Society 21(1), 16-31. Ray, B. (1997). Strengths of their own: Academic achievement, famil y characteristics, and longitudinal traits Salem, OR: National Home Education Research Insti tute Publications.Rudner, L. M. (1999). Scholastic achievement and de mographic characteristics of home school students in 1998. Education Policy Analysis Archives 7(8). [online]. Available at http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v7n8/.Schnaiberg, L. (1999, March 31). Study finds home s choolers are top achievers on tests. Education Week 18(29), 5. [online] Shepherd, M. S. (1986). The home schooling movement : An emerging conflict in American education [abstract]. Home School Researcher 2(1), 1. Toomer-Cook, J. (1999, March 24). Home schoolers ar e making the grade, national study says. Deseretnews.com [online] Van Galen, J. (1987). Explaining home education: Pa rents accounts of their decisions to teach their own children. The Urban Review 19(3), 161-177. Van Galen, J. (1988). Ideology, curriculum, pedagog y in home education. Education and Urban Society 21(1), 5268. Wahisi, T. T. (1995, October). Making the grade: Bl ack families see the benefits in home-schooling. Crisis 102(7), 14-15. Wartes, J. (1988). The Washington home-school proje ct: Quantitative measures for
10 of 13 informing policy decisions. Education and Urban Society 21(1), 42-51. White, E. (1982, October 20). Racial policies, reli gious rights square off as high court hears tax-exemption case. Education Week [online] White, E. (1983, June 1). Court bars tax breaks for discriminatory schools. Education Week [online] Williams, D. D., Arnoldson, L. M., & Reynolds, P. ( 1984). Understanding home education: Case studies of home schools. Paper pres ented at the annual meeting of the American Education Research Association, New Orlean s. Yarnall, L. (1998, October 29). Online businesses t ap home-schooling market. New York Times v. 148, p. D1.About the AuthorsKariane Mari WelnerUniversity of California, Los AngelesGraduate School of Education & Information Studies405 Hilgard AvenueLos Angeles, CA 90095-1521 Email:email@example.com Ph.D. UCLA, in progressM.A. UCLA, 1996B.A. UCLA, 1995 Kariane Mari Welner is a doctoral candidate at UCLA Her specializations include homeschooling and issues of sociology and democracy in education. Kevin G. WelnerUniversity of PennsylvaniaGraduate School of Education3700 Walnut StreetPhiladelphia, PA 19104-6216(215) 898-5355 firstname.lastname@example.org Ph.D. UCLA, 1997J.D. UCLA, 1988B.A. UC Santa Barbara, 1985 Kevin G. Welner is a visiting researcher and lectur er at the University of Pennsylvania. His specializations include program evaluation and educational policy issues, particularly those concerning organizational change and school law. His personal homepage is at http://www.gse.upenn.edu/welner/
11 of 13 Copyright 1999 by the Education Policy Analysis ArchivesThe World Wide Web address for the Education Policy Analysis Archives is http://epaa.asu.edu General questions about appropriateness of topics o r particular articles may be addressed to the Editor, Gene V Glass, email@example.com or reach him at College of Education, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287-0211. (602-965-96 44). The Book Review Editor is Walter E. Shepherd: firstname.lastname@example.org The Commentary Editor is Casey D. Cobb: email@example.com .EPAA Editorial Board Michael W. Apple University of Wisconsin Greg Camilli Rutgers University John Covaleskie Northern Michigan University Andrew Coulson firstname.lastname@example.org Alan Davis University of Colorado, Denver Sherman Dorn University of South Florida Mark E. Fetler California Commission on Teacher Credentialing Richard Garlikov email@example.com Thomas F. Green Syracuse University Alison I. Griffith York University Arlen Gullickson Western Michigan University Ernest R. House University of Colorado Aimee Howley Ohio 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 MauhsPugh Green Mountain College Dewayne Matthews Western Interstate Commission for HigherEducation 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 firstname.lastname@example.org 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
12 of 13 Michael Scriven email@example.com Robert E. Stake University of Illinois--UC Robert Stonehill U.S. Department of Education Robert T. Stout Arizona State University David D. Williams Brigham Young University
13 of 13 EPAA Spanish Language Editorial BoardAssociate Editor for Spanish Language Roberto Rodrguez Gmez Universidad Nacional Autnoma de Mxico firstname.lastname@example.org Adrin Acosta (Mxico) Universidad de Guadalajaraadrianacosta@compuserve.com J. Flix Angulo Rasco (Spain) Universidad de Cdizfelix.email@example.com Teresa Bracho (Mxico) Centro de Investigacin y DocenciaEconmica-CIDEbracho dis1.cide.mx Alejandro Canales (Mxico) Universidad Nacional Autnoma deMxicocanalesa@servidor.unam.mx Ursula Casanova (U.S.A.) Arizona State Universitycasanova@asu.edu Jos Contreras Domingo Universitat de Barcelona Jose.Contreras@doe.d5.ub.es Erwin Epstein (U.S.A.) Loyola University of ChicagoEepstein@luc.edu Josu Gonzlez (U.S.A.) Arizona State Universityjosue@asu.edu Rollin Kent (Mxico)Departamento de InvestigacinEducativaDIE/CINVESTAVrkent@gemtel.com.mx firstname.lastname@example.org Mara Beatriz Luce (Brazil)Universidad Federal de Rio Grande do SulUFRGSlucemb@orion.ufrgs.brJavier Mendoza Rojas (Mxico)Universidad Nacional Autnoma deMxicojaviermr@servidor.unam.mxMarcela Mollis (Argentina)Universidad de Buenos Airesmmollis@filo.uba.ar Humberto Muoz Garca (Mxico) Universidad Nacional Autnoma deMxicohumberto@servidor.unam.mxAngel Ignacio Prez Gmez (Spain)Universidad de Mlagaaiperez@uma.es Daniel Schugurensky (Argentina-Canad)OISE/UT, Canadadschugurensky@oise.utoronto.ca Simon Schwartzman (Brazil)Fundao Instituto Brasileiro e Geografiae Estatstica email@example.com Jurjo Torres Santom (Spain)Universidad de A Coruajurjo@udc.es Carlos Alberto Torres (U.S.A.)University of California, Los Angelestorres@gseisucla.edu