This article was downloaded by: [Northeastern University]On: 15 November 2014, At: 15:21Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

Educational Studies: A Journalof the American EducationalStudies AssociationPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/heds20

Historical PerspectivesDeron R. Boylesa, Kathryn Cramer, Timothy Reaganb,Thomas Bakerc, Michele Brennerc, Karen Buchananc,Christine Collingc, Catherine Drinanc, Karen Durbinc,John Farrac, Melinda Galec, Christy Godwinc, GeorgeGostovichc, Leslie Gregerc, Jennifer Howec, AnneLeschc, Carolyn Millerc, Holly Powellc, KayceeTaylorc, Jesse Tepperc, Kelly Wainwrightc, ToddWiedemannc & Kimberley Zacherc

a Georgia State Universityb University of Connecticutc Lewis & Clark CollegePublished online: 01 May 2014.

To cite this article: Deron R. Boyles, Kathryn Cramer, Timothy Reagan, Thomas Baker,Michele Brenner, Karen Buchanan, Christine Colling, Catherine Drinan, Karen Durbin,John Farra, Melinda Gale, Christy Godwin, George Gostovich, Leslie Greger, JenniferHowe, Anne Lesch, Carolyn Miller, Holly Powell, Kaycee Taylor, Jesse Tepper, KellyWainwright, Todd Wiedemann & Kimberley Zacher (1997) Historical Perspectives,Educational Studies: A Journal of the American Educational Studies Association,28:3-4, 260-274, DOI: 10.1080/00131946.1997.10815567

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00131946.1997.10815567

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.

However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

21 1

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

260 BOOK REVIEWS

Historical Perspectives

Philosophy of Education in Historical Perspective. Second Edition. Adrian M. Dupuis and Robin L. Gordon. Lanham, MD: University Press

of America, 1997. Pp. 308.

DERON R. BOYLES Georgia State University

Authors have commented in the past that updating a text is sometimes more work than writing an entirely new book. This claim must certainly hold true for Dupuis and Gordon as they attempt to update Philosophy of Education in Histori­

cal Perspective. The first edition was authored by Adrian Dupuis, alone, and was published in 1966 by Rand McNally and Company. In it, Dupuis wrote about the generalizations between conservatives and liberals and how such generalizations came into being, making sure to trace conservatism to Plato and liberalism to Rousseau, Pestalozzi, and Locke. Dupuis also began the text with a general dis­cussion of the differences between conservatives and liberals and discussed those differences relating to philosophy and philosophical figures . Dupuis posed the standard philosophical questions: " How do we know?" "What is truth?" "What is good?" "What is the purpose of the school?" "What should be taught?" "How

should one teach?" and "How should pupils be evaluated?" Taking each camp in turn, Dupuis compared and contrasted the conservatives with the liberals on every one of the questions for each major historical era.

Chapters in the first edition included "Classical Educational Theory" (Plato, Quintilian, Cicero, early Christian education, Augustine, and so forth ), "Renais­sance Humanism" (Erasmus, Melanchthon, the Jesuits, Vives , and so forth) , "Edu­cational Liberalism" (Rousseau, Locke, Pestalozzi, Herbart, Dewey, and so forth) , "The Neo-Conservative Reaction" (including perennialists like Adler, Maritain, Hutchins, Broudy, and Lodge, and essentialists like Rickover, Bagley, Bestor, and Rafferty), "Early Liberalism Redefined" (actually existentialism, including Sar­tre, Denton, Buber, and Van Cleve Morris), and "Another Solution" (Ayer, Schef­fler, Feigl, and the general notion of logic and analytic philosophy). It was an attempt to clarify for undergraduate students in their first foundations course how to consider important philosophical questions in light of teaching, learning, and schooling. The first edition was what I regard as a classic, i.e. , traditional , recount­ing of the history of philosophy of education. Dupuis recalled previous chapters

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

21 1

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

EDUCATIONAL STUDIES 261

and linked names from different eras to the ideas in later parts of the text, achiev­ing a connected and interrelated study of, essentially, the history of ideas related to the philosophy of education.

The second edition is almost exactly the same in structure. Both editions have twelve chapters. Of the twelve chapters from the first edition, ten are the same. The chapters "Educational Conservatism in the Soviet Union" and "A Proposed Solution" are replaced in the second edition with "Educational Psychologies" and "Postmodernism." Also new to the second edition is co-author Robin Gordon. Unfortunately for the second edition, there are many new mistakes as well.

This review offers two major criticisms of the revised text. Each criticism is different in kind from the other, but each criticism competes for the attention of anyone who might read the book. The first criticism is more difficult to articulate than the second, as it is partly the nature of historical work: "dated" references. The second criticism is, simply, the worst editing this reviewer has ever seen.

To argue, for the first criticism, that references are "dated" might appear as the antithesis of the project. The book is, after all, one that highlights historical per­spective. Accordingly, citing works of the period is necessary (and laudable). Also necessary and laudable is referencing seminal works of authors from the early to mid-twentieth century. To talk, for example, about neo-conservatives is to require works from the fifties and sixties. But here is where the "dated" criticism will find its justification. In terms of neo-conservatives, an edition published in 1997 must also have works from Bennett, Finn, Ravitch, Bloom, Hirsch, D'Souza, and so forth, not because any or all such works are "newer," per se, but because the title of the chapter ("The Neo-Conservative Reaction") identifies a movement that did not stop with Max Rafferty and Arthur Bestor. In fact, the chapter titled "The Neo-Conservative Reaction" has forty-seven references in the bibliography. Only eight of these are new to the second edition and four of the additions are from 1965 and 1966 (two new references for each year). Again , this is not, de facto, a negative. It might be argued that it is a necessary representation of the "reaction" in context. That is, given the organization of the book, the " reaction" chapter may best represent what historically occurred in response to the period characterized in the previous chapter, "The Flowering of Liberalism." If this is so, there must be another chapter to highlight how neo-conservatives are alive and well in current educational theory, policy, and practice. Perhaps this is the point of using the term "dated." The text reads as though it was written in 1966 (it was!), and the inter­vening twenty years only added psychology and postmodernism to philosophy of education's conversation. Let us be clear. What was written in 1966 was well done. In some sense, it remains well done in 1997, but it still reads as though it is a 1966 text. Adding a few new references to the bibliography (I to chapter I; 2 to chap­ter 2; 6 to chapter 3; 4 to chapter 4; none to chapter 5; I from chapter 6; 8 to chapter 7; 4 to chapter 8; 2 to chapter 9; and 3 to chapter 12) and a name or two within the text does not make reading the text any worse, but it does not make it any better, either.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

21 1

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

262 BOOK REVIEWS

Another way of justifying the "dated" critique is to highlight the lack of diver­

sity represented within the actual history presented. Again, it is a classic work in the sense that it is traditional in its Cubberley-esque, historical focus . Women, people of color, and non-Western cultures are basically non-existent, however, either as subjects of study within the historical periods discussed or as contributors to the writing of and commenting on that history. Differently, but linked, " pupils" (dated-ness?) are always he, as are conservatives, liberals, and virtually every other reference. Because the book is touted as an introductory text, it appears incumbent upon authors of such texts in the nineties to keep the pluralism of their readers in mind. This does not mean "dumbing down" the text or encumbering it with awkward "pc" terminology. It means, rather, making the text more accurate by identifying males as well as females in the narratives on and explanations about

the history of ideas. The second and more easily argued criticism reflects editing. Anyone who has

published work can understand how difficult editing can be. Mistakes happen, and readers overlook the usual few that appear in printed material. This text, however, is an embarrassment. Perhaps it is not the fault of the authors. It might be the fault of the publisher or of those charged with the responsibility of manuscript review or it might be computer gremlins. Did no one from University Press of America read the text? Did the authors not re-read at least sections of the work? Did the support staff and/or students responsible for helping the authors simply goof? Regardless of whom or what should get the blame, the number of mistakes in the second edition is, flatly, unacceptable.

There are multiple ways to characterize the mistakes, and they tend to overlap: spelling (" hut" for "but" and "principal" for "principle" on p. 10; " doe's" for " does" on p. 16; "achieve" for "achieves" on p. 39; "Theatetus" for " Theaete­

tus" on p. 39; " Quintillian" for " Quintilian" on p. 50; " [R. Freeman] Butt" for "Butts" on p. 72; "bad" for "had" on p. 79; [Israel] Scoffer" for " Scheffler" on p. 252), capitalization ( " .. . are rooted in his Concept of truth and the nature of the knowing process" on p. 18; " Such Philosophers as Aristotle" on p. 37; " he undergoes hardships" where "he" begins the sentence on p. 39), wrong words/ missing words ("principal" for "principle" noted before, "prestige" for "presti­gious" on p. 25; "Music, too, is a higher art form than poetry since it further removed from the world of things than poetry" on p. 41 ), punctuation (" ... dis­cipline of the school, Therefore ... " on p. 29; "Those entrusted with the education of youth, Paradoxically, .. . " on p. 34; " ... one can be sure that, a Roman gover-nor's answer . . . " on p. 37; " ... the four cardinal virtues. to state it more bluntly" on p. 40; " . .. these criteria being purely rational. the beautiful , then, should . .. " on p. 41; " .. . for more advanced schooling. the chief criteria ... " on p. 44 ), indenting or extra spaces (pp. 34, 36, 56, 67, II 0, and so forth) . Add to these repeated mistakes the footnotes. In the printing of the book there were overstrikes such that commas have quotation marks directly above them and letters ending

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

21 1

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

EDUCATIONAL STUDIES 263

words have the beginning letters of the next word struck over them (pp. l, 2, 22, 43, 46, 51, 53, 54, 61, 62, 65, 72, 74, 77, 81, 84, and so forth throughout the text). Titles of texts and journals are not always capitalized, authors' names are spelled incorrectly, and punctuation marks are missing. What this means is that there are almost as many pages with mistakes as there are pages in the book. This is, per­haps, a slight overstatement, but it is not an exaggeration to state that the frequent mistakes were a major distraction.

Such problems are indeed unfortunate, inasmuch as the text offers some valu­able insight into the history of ideas. At times, the text is excellent in the way it weaves historical narrative and interpretation together. While contrasting conserv­atives and liberals may be too dualistic (as the text acknowledges in chapter I), the book was successful in peeling back the multiple layers of meaning between " right," "left," "conservative," and " liberal." In so doing, the book provides an interesting beginning study of the history of philosophy of education (including an excellent section on Pestalozzi) and the questions with which future teachers and school personnel (the intended audience for the text) must begin to seriously consider. Ultimately, however, the far-too-numerous mistakes renders this text best left on the shelf. Readers interested in other texts dealing with the history of ideas in a way similar to Dupuis and Gordon might consider G. Max Wingo's Philoso­phies of Education: An Introduction or Howard Ozmon and Samuel Craver's Philosophical Foundations of Education. Wingo's text may suffer as a "dated" text in some respects, but it does not pretend to be an updated version. Ozmon and Carver, differently, have enjoyed multiple editions of their text and have been successful in adding relevant and reliable sources. Dupuis and Gordon have not, unfortunately, been able to succeed in updating Philosophy of Education in His­torical Perspective.

The History of American Art Education: Learning About Art in American Schools. Peter Smith. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, I 996. Pp. x, 252. $59.95.

KATHRYN CRAMER

"What does education often do? It makes a straight-cut ditch of a free,

meandering brook."

- Henry David Thoreau

In this study, Peter Smith examines influential figures in American art educa­tion, as well as some of the circumstances and concepts that have affected how­and why-art is taught in schools. Included are sections devoted to Walter Smith

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

21 1

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

264 BOOK REVIEWS

(implementor of the 1870 Industrial Drawing Act in Massachusetts), Germanic art educators such as Franz Cizek and Victor Lowenfeld, and, happily, a number of women art educators: Margaret Mathias, Belle Boas, Margaret Naumberg and Florence Naumberg Cane, Natalie Robinson Cole, and Jane Betsy Welling. Smith addresses the major movements in American art education, such as the practice of Picture Study and the Chautauqua movement, DBAE (Discipline-based Art Edu­cation), and multiculturalism. He makes clear that most art education histories

focus on art in the school, and that, while this study primarily concerns art in the school as well, he does not ignore the fact that "[e]ducation about art did and does exist outside schools" (p. II). He notes that the standard writings about American art education history have a Eurocentric bent, and generally ignore important con­tributions made by various non-European cultures.

This is an intensely academic book. It has an excellent and extensive bibliog­raphy, and abundant footnotes. Although it was satisfying to view and weigh the arguments in the history of art education, and see what kind of balance results, Smith's book seems heavy on the side of description of the act of historical re­search. Where, I sometimes wondered, is American art education within this em­phasis on research methodology and the role of the historian? He looks carefully at the most important players in art education history, and what-or who-influ­enced each of them, but their effects on teacher practices and student outcomes get relatively less air time. Admittedly, these might be difficult to document and mea­sure, in any but a general sense, but even the anecdotal notes and short descrip­tions of methods in the classroom add a brightness to Smith's self-described "so­often dark study" (p. 218). At points, however, it does become more balanced, containing the elements attractive to this reader-more emphasis on how the theorists have affected art education in the classroom.

I write this review as an artist and elementary school art teacher. I taught art for nine years, in kindergarten through eighth grade, and my interest in the classroom (rather than in academia) will reflect what I notice and write about Smith 's book.

I like a book that opens my eyes and helps me see things differently, or at least increases my awareness. Smith's book had that effect in several ways. First, the apparent thoroughness of his research has inspired me to read in general more cautiously and critically. Smith describes several instances where misunderstand­ing or misinterpretation of another's theory or language affected an in11uential person's work. This, in turn , made a difference in how art has been taught.

A second thing I found myself thinking about as I read this book was how my own art teachers were influenced: who were their teachers, and how were they

taught? Over the years, did differing movements in art education change the way they taught art? It became clear to me as I read Smith that my elementary school art teacher, who taught in a progressive free school, was likely influenced by Franz Cizek, John Dewey, and Victor Lowenfeld. She believed in creative self­expression, felt the link between a well-rounded person and a healthy society, and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

21 1

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

EDUCATIONAL STUDIES 265

had a strong interest in child development and, later, in art therapy. In college, my art education instructor promoted Laura Chapman and DBAE. What was she "into," I now wonder, before those came along?

I, too, have certainly utilized different methods and philosophies in my own teaching, ranging from a child-centered, expressive approach to more formal , skill-based instruction. This book served as a reminder that my approaches to teaching art are a reflection of a larger picture, of theories based in historical movements, and it is no wonder that it is difficult to grasp onto a " best way" or even coherent reasons to teach art when the larger society has been unable to do so. This was perhaps the book's most profound effect on me.

Smith, in his introduction and conclusion, refers to American art education as an orphan. He writes as one who cares a great deal about this orphan but is often discouraged by the lack of coherent care it receives from the education community and the art world. From the introduction: " .. . art in schools, pushed into the margins of the curriculum, the last subject to find a home in the schools, and the first to be cast out in times of adversity, is often the unacknowledged offspring of both the artist and the educator, an orphan whose parents will not acknowledge the existence of their offspring" (p. I). He looks at some of the causes, wisely reminding us that we art educators are responsible in part for the "marginal" place visual art education holds in schools. He also points out that art education is only somewhat connected to the wider world of art, that the " modern art world 's ad­herence to a philosophy of art, formalism ... undercut any hope of convincing the general public that art really had a vital part in modern society" (p. 3). He also blames economics: "The lack of direct connection between making money and doing or liking art has certainly helped to weaken art's place in American schools" (p. 40). He does point out that the popularity of sports proves that " ... importance in earning a living is not a necessary condition for support of an area of education, although it is often an effective rationale" (p. 42).

The strength in Smith's book lies in his effort to examine thoroughly the re­search and writings others have done about key figures in American art education, and to explore the implications of possible misinterpretations and limited access to, for example, writings in German by Victor Lowenfeld or Franz Cizek. Of the latter, Smith exclaims, "I believe this famous art educator is badly interpreted in English-language literature, and the misinterpretations led to American practices not necessarily consistent with Cizek's own notions" (p. 55). He cites N. R. Smith who "pointed out one of the outrageously mistaken areas of theory and prac­tice arising from American ignorance of Kerschensteiner's work and secondary sources' misreading of his book" (p. 52). When Smith went on to write about Natalie Robinson Cole~ he studied, among other documents, a dissertation by F. Belshe, A History of American Art Education in the Public Schools of the United States. Smith notes that " ... when he stated, make it your own way" is practically the only direction Mrs. Cole gives her students (p. 175), he was just

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

21 1

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

266 BOOK REVIEWS

plain wrong. Even a casual reading of Cole 's writings (to say nothing of eye­witness reports) shows a determinedly directive teacher who, from motivation through evaluation, set up strong guidelines" (pp. 112-13).

Victor Lowenfeld's contributions to American art education are described in a section entitled "A Colossus of Sorts." Smith provides enough biographical in­formation to paint a rather clear picture of this influential character, giving particu­lar emphasis to his Germanic and Viennese roots. Smith defends his use of the word "Germanic" when refering to Lowenfeld, acknowledging that although he was Austrian and Jewish, his "Germanic quality" was an essential part of his nature, and affected his teaching style, theories, behavior, and writings . Lowenfeld brought from Vienna beliefs about child art, an interest in psychology, and the influences of expressionism. The question is raised as to how well these fit into America. "He may not have recognized how Viennese his gifts were, nor did Americans see where Lowenfeld's concepts were not all suited to their scene. This lack of examination for congruity has been a contributing factor to the uneasy place for art education in American schools ... Lowenfeld did not originate the lack of congruity, but his Germanic background and assumptions added to the alienation of United States schools and the art world in America" (pp. 167-68). I find this fascinating, if only because (on a smaller level) the distinction between the art world and school art is a gap many teachers feel in the classroom.

As an artist, I was delighted by Smith's description of Lowenfeld 's own art. I had not encountered this before in my readings about Lowenfeld, and it was for me one of the bright spots in the book. Lowenfeld's decorative artistic style, Smjth points out, was at odds with his expressionistic educational rhetoric, and he posits some possible reasons for this divergence.

One of the important movements in art education that gets attention in this book is that of Picture Study, the use of books of art reproductions in the schools, meant to provide appreciation of art masterpieces. Picture Study " .. . was one of the outstanding elements in art education for more than fifty years . . . and yet its practices have led later art educators to look on it with attitudes ranging from skepticism to distaste .... " (p. 79-80). Smith examines this movement in the context of its time, as well as critiquing other studies of it. Oscar W. Neale, of Picture Study fame, was involved in the Chautauqua and Great Books move­ments. Smith writes, "Chautauqua and the Great Books were movements to make what had been elite and exclusive works available to all social classes" (p . 85). In Smith 's book, emphasis is understandably placed on how various figures and events shaped art education, so it was interesting for me to learn of a movement in art education that had a democratizing effect outside of schools-a reminder that art education can and does have power beyond an individual level.

I was struck that this book is really a history of the history of art education; so much time is spent examining contradictory writings and how those contradic­tions arise. Smith himself questions the influence or usefulness of a study such as

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

21 1

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

EDUCATIONAL STUDIES 267

this. Although this is to his credit, I also found his frequent examination of the processes and purposes of historical research and writing somewhat irritating, as they diverged from the subject of the book. Smith describes the task of writing about Cole: "I faced the problem of trying to shape the materials with artistry ... [m]y form would have to support the reporting of facts and explanations about these facts and provide a coherent interpretive framework for both. The form itself would need to be related to the meaning of the materials" (p. 112). He describes the form he settles on, that of a diptych, which he uses to compare Cole with Franz Cizek. It is an effective model and serves to illuminate these two lives, but it is distracting to read about process when expecting content.

During one of my first years of teaching art, I met with the local high school art teacher to discuss curriculum matters. I asked her what she expected students to know in art by the time they reached high school, and she replied, "I just want them to have open minds." This is one of the great challenges of art education. We do not want to create "a straight-cut ditch of a free, meandering brook," in students or in the world of art education. Smith 's book and his description of art education also echo the theme of water flowing: "The components that flow together to form art education are too diverse to prophesy its eventual shape" (p. 218). Smith makes me feel the responsibility in being an art educator. I feel responsible to question the validity of writings about art education; responsible to see (and try to mend) the disconnection between art education, the art world, and art theory ; responsible to understand why we teach art the way we do. It would have been helpful in college to have read such a comprehensive book about this subject; I would have had more information under my belt, a better understand­ing of my own philosophy of art education, and more power to take into the classroom.

Benedictine Roots in the Development of Deaf Education: Listening with the Heart. Marilyn Daniels. Westport, CT, and London: Bergin & Garvey, 1997. Pp. xvii, 137.$55.00.

TIMOTHY REAGAN University of Connecticut

Benedictine Roots in the Development of Deaf Education is a well-intended and quite readable bad book. I say this with considerable regret, because the history of deaf education is a fascinating one that merits serious scholarly attention. The book seeks to trace the historical development of the education of the deaf from the Benedictine Pedro Ponce de Leon through Bonet, de !'Epee, Thomas Hopkins

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

21 1

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

268 BOOK REVIEWS

Gallaudet, Edward Miner Gallaudet, up to recent innovations at Gallaudet Univer­sity and in deaf education in general. Daniels' thesis, as she states it in her preface, is " When the essence of deaf education is examined, it becomes apparent that there has been a continuum (which is stronger than many would believe) of thought and practice of those who, for religious reasons, sought to improve the ability of deaf human beings to communicate with each other and with their God. There is a direct line in the pedagogy of the discipline that can be traced from the Benedictine roots of education for the deaf to the methods and procedures in place in the United States today" (p. xvii) .

This is an interesting argument, but demonstrably wrong. To be sure, religious inclinations and beliefs have certainly played an important role in the education of the deaf historically, and it would be wrong to minimize the influence of reli­gious conviction in the lives of many educators of the deaf. However, the idea that there is "a direct line in the pedagogy of the discipline" is true, at best, only in a very trivial sense. Although it is not Daniels' argument, perhaps the strongest element in such a "direct line" is the profoundly paternalistic approach to deaf­ness and the deaf found through nearly all of deaf educational hi story. The desire, often religiously inspired, to "do good for the poor deaf" is an obvious and sig­nificant aspect in the history of deaf education. Indeed, it is precisely thi s pater­nalistic desire that was the focus of Harlan Lane's masterful work, The Mask of Benevolence: Disabling the Deaf Community, 1 as well as numerous other recent works dealing with the hi story of the deaf as an oppressed community both in the United States and elsewhere.

Related to the paternalistic drive of many educators of the deaf has been the focus on language, and on spoken language in particular, as the primary goal of deaf education. Indeed, as Safford and Safford have noted,2 the success of Ponce de Le6n "had significant, although indirect, influence as the 'schools ' of oral edu­cation evolved" (p. 29). The fact that Ponce de Le6n utilized gestures, signs, and a manual alphabet in his teaching in no way makes him an early advocate of manualism, as Daniels seems to imply, nor were his attitudes toward the natural signing of the deaf as open and positive as she suggests. Further, by trying to argue for the continuity of pedagogical practices in deaf education, Daniels distorts not only the significant tensions between nineteenth century oralists and manualists, but, of even greater contemporary concern, presents recent efforts to legitimize the use of American Sign Language (ASL) in deaf education as simply "more of the same." While it is true that a common core of beliefs about deafness and sign language has been shared by manualists and oralists hi storically,3 it is also the case that the rejection of these very core beliefs has been at the heart of recent efforts to promote ASL and deaf culture.•

The "direct line" that Daniels seeks to identify in the history of deaf educa­tion is a far more positive one than that of paternalism, however. She argues that "From its acknowledged commencement with Pedro Ponce to its present form at

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

21 1

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

EDUCATIONAL STUDIES 269

Gallaudet University, the nature and quality of instruction for the education of deaf individuals has been shaped by common behavioral attitudes and ideals .. . . All of these teachers have believed that before anything else people who are deaf are human beings. They are 'whole' people. Beyond this single conviction, they had confidence in a deaf person's innate intelligence. In the majority of circumstances, these educators honored and respected deaf people's personhood, their language, and their culture" (p. 97). To be sure, educators of the deaf have, in general, ac­cepted the humanity of the deaf, but this is a far cry indeed from the kind of cultural and linguistic toleration and respect that Daniels is claiming. The histori­cal evidence, including much cited by Daniels herself, simply does not support such a view.

Benedictine Roots in the Development of Deaf Education also suffers from poor historical scholarship. The reliance on primary source material is scanty at best, even when such material is in fact readily available (as in the case of nineteenth century deaf educators). Further, Daniels' knowledge of recent historical scholar­ship in the field appears to be somewhat limited. For instance, in recent years, a number of historical works have been published that contribute in important ways to our understanding of the history of deafness and disability. Among these works, the best are John Vickrey Van Cleve's edited collection, Deaf History Unveiled: Interpretations from the New Scholarship; 5 Renate Fischer and Harlan Lane's ( 1993) edited Looking Back: A Reader on the History of Deaf Communities and Their Sign Languages; 6 Douglas Baynton's (1996) Forbidden Signs: American Culture and the Campaign Against Sign Language, 7 and Philip and Elizabeth Safford's ( 1996) A History of Childhood and Disability. It is, unfortunately, char­acteristic of Benedictine Roots that only one of these three outstanding works is cited.

In short, Daniels has both misunderstood contemporary developments in what might be called "critical deafness studies" as well as the historical complexity that characterizes deaf education. Her oversimplification of the historical devel­opment of deaf education, grounded in what is almost a hagiographic view of Benedictine educational thought and practice, offers no real contribution to the literature in the history of deaf education.

References I. Harlan Lane, The Mask of Benevolence: Disabling the Deaf Community (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1992). 2. P. Safford and E. Safford, A History of Childhood and Disability (New York: Teachers College Press, 1996). 3. T. Reagan, "Nineteenth-century Conceptions of Deafness: Implications for Contempo­rary Educational Practice," Educational Theory 39 (I 989), 39-46.

4. See Harlan Lane, The Mask of Benevolence: Disabling the Deaf Community. (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1992); Harlan Lane, R. Hoffmeister, and Ben Bahan, A Journey into the Deaf-World. (San Diego, CA: Dawn Sign Press, 1996); C. Padden and T. Hum-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

21 1

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

270 BOOK REVIEWS

phries, Deaf in America: Voices from a Culture (Cambridge, MA, and London: Harvard University Press, 1988); T. Reagan, "The Deaf as Linguistic Minority: Educational Con­siderations," Harvard Educational Review 55 (1985): 265-77; T. Reagan, "A Socio­linguistic Understanding of Deafness: American Sign Language and the Culture of Deaf People," International Journal of Intercultural Relations 19 ( 1995): 239-51; S. Wilcox, ed., American Deaf Culture: An Anthology (Burtonsville, MD: Linstok Press, 1989).

5. J. Y. Van Cleve, ed., Deaf History Unveiled: Interpretations from the New Scholarship (Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press, 1993). 6. Renate Fischer and Harlan Lane, eds., Looking Back: A Reader on the History of Deaf Communities and Their Sign Languages (Hamburg: Signum, 1993).

7. Douglas Baynton, Forbidden Signs: American Culture and the Campaign Against Sign Language (Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 1996).

City Teachers: Teaching and School Reform in Historical Perspective. Kate Rousmaniere. New York: Teachers College Press, 1997. Pp. viii, 179. $20.95 (Paper).

THOMAS BAKER, MICHELE BRENNER, KAREN BUCHANAN, CHRISTINE COLLING, CATHERINE DRINAN, KAREN DURBIN, JOHN FARRA, MELINDA GALE, CHRISTY GODWIN, GEORGE GOSTOVICH, LESLIE GREGER, JENNIFER HOWE, ANNE LESCH, CAROLYN MILLER, HOLLY POWELL, KAYCEE TAYLOR, JESSE TEPPER, KELLY WAINWRIGHT, TODD WIEDEMANN, and KIMBERLEY ZACHER Lewis & Clark College

Writing a collective book review has been a challenge both to our intellects and to our group collaboration skills. We tested our minds and our emotions as we read, discussed, and wrote about Kate Rousmaniere's book City Teachers. As members of Jim Wallace's class, "The City in Modern America," we examined, through field trips, guest speakers, readings, videos, and discussions, our own perspectives on cities. We looked back to histories of cities, and ahead to possible urban futures . We brought these experiences and perspectives to our consideration of City Teachers.

We are all candidates for master's degrees in Lewis and Clark's Graduate School of Professional Studies. The School has a program of Core courses that deal with personal , professional, and social issues that face students in all of our Graduate Programs. Some of us took the course for Core credit, some for Educa­tion credit, and some for Social Science credit. Five of us are studying to become counselors, six to become newly licensed teachers, five are experienced teachers acquiring advanced licenses, and four are teachers preparing to be school admin­istrators. With this range of backgrounds and aspirations we questioned whether we could review fairly a book for which we were not necessarily the intended

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

21 1

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

EDUCATIONAL STUDIES 271

audience, but decided that our varied perspectives might be of interest to the au­thor and to other readers.

In this class we read books with content that ranged from very broad to nar­rowly focused. Some looked at general historical patterns in American cities and explored how the cities took on their modern character. By contrast, City Teachers

examined in a focused way a specific occupational group during one historical period: New York City public school teachers in the twenties. The book explores a number of issues from the perspectives of these teachers: patterns of instruction, relationships with students, ineffective supervision, inadequate classrooms and buildings, teacher activism, school reform, and the challenge of being women or minority teachers.

After reading and responding in writing to the book as a whole, we wrote indi­vidual and small group responses to specific chapters. Varied reactions and intense discussions occurred as we met in chapter groups, as these reported to the class, and as we had our first general discussion of the book. We liked the fact that the book, in addition to more conventional historical sources, was based on inter­views with retired teachers. Their specific recollections of teaching enriched the book. While working on this review, some of us interviewed grandparents and other elders and saw for ourselves how much we and they can learn from such interviews.

In our individual and group responses to various chapters we noted the book's emphasis on the dramatic historical shift from local school control to centralized, bureaucratic management. One result of this shift was the alienation of teachers from their communities and from administrators. In response, teachers learned that to deal with an organized bureaucracy, they had to organize themselves. Working through teacher unions which were themselves evolving and consolidat­ing, teachers gradually acquired decent salaries, benefits, and pensions. Women teachers were no longer required to resign when they married. In spite of such progress, Rousmaniere noted that "teachers were channeled to certain corners of the occupation based on their gender, class, or ethnic background" (p. 53). None­theless, feminizing the profession also opened doors for some women. Few other professions in the twenties had women in positions of power, as education occa­sionally did.

In the twenties many observers perceived a deterioration in the social fabric of the United States and blamed it on war, immigration, industrialization, and urban­ization. As one limited response, educators evolved a social efficiency curriculum intended to train students for future life careers. Teachers' work was extended as they were pushed beyond their traditional instructional roles into acting as social workers, nurses, vocational counselors, nutritionists, and psychologists. This ex­pansion of the demands placed on teachers, without added resources to support their efforts, created frustration and feelings of failure. Overcrowding in New York led to the construction of a few new schools, some of which resembled fac­tories. Teachers served as foremen for the worker-stude.nts, with principals acting

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

21 1

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

272 BOOK REVIEWS

as industrial supervisors, organizing efficient output from complacent teachers and students.

Rousmaniere described vividly how the mania for efficiency influenced admin­istrators' supervision and evaluation of teachers. In the process of "deskilling," teachers found their workdays intensified. Bureaucratic work rules made teaching

resemble assembly-line work. Administrators dictated to teachers how they should teach and evaluate students, while teachers consistently pointed to ineffective su­pervision as the worst part of their experiences. One teacher described herself and colleagues as "highly paid clerks who are capable of teaching when the reports and other things give us the requisite leisure" (p. 109). In response to these pres­sures, teachers developed a supportive work culture that helped them feel more connected to one another. Thus, teachers, in the author's words, "surreptitiously defended their expertise, resisting what they believed to be misguided regulation and negligent management" (p. II 0).

This sometimes sad story reminded us of today's popular images of the city teacher. In films like "Dangerous Minds" and "Stand and Deliver," overworked teachers sacrifice life outside the classroom to save some of their unruly students from the cold reality that awaits them. The myth of the "teacher-saint" emerged in New York schools in the twenties as society hoped that at least some teachers could fulfill the responsibilities that schools had placed on them. Conversely, the portrait of the ineffectual city teacher as a passionless, traumatized clock-watcher developed during this time as well. Parts of the book read as a depressing litany of the stress faced by both yesterday's and today's teachers. Books like City Teach­

ers may encourage contemporary educators to develop realistic ways of resisting some of the more negative "reforms" which we now face .

After writing about and discussing specific chapters, we then wrote responses to the book from our varied perspectives as individuals preparing to work in dif­ferent professional occupations. We met in "role-alike" groups, discussed our responses, and drafted collective paragraphs. Not surprisingly, the counselors had the most difficulty connecting with the book, while prospective administrators­the most experienced group-had undergone much of what the author described, saw many cyclical patterns, and reported that similar events were still happening today. The youngest, least-experienced group-the preservice teachers-found the book's style challenging and wanted more specific examples and quotations.

Those of us preparing to be counselors derived helpful insights from City Teachers. As members of a younger profession, we related to the struggles for identity and unity faced by teachers in the twenties. We understood the pattern of enormous demands in exchange for minimal salaries and benefits. Teachers and counselors both continue to face the challenges of balancing the needs of those we serve with the responsibility to advocate for ourselves as professionals. We could think of no comparable book dealing with the history of counselors, and hoped that someone would undertake the interviews and other research required to write such a book.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

21 1

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

EDUCATIONAL STUDIES 273

The six of us who are prospective teachers gained from this book an appreci­ation and understanding of some of the events that produced today 's urban teach­

ing environment. However, City Teachers is very focused in one locale and one decade, and it is a challenge to generalize insights to quite different places and periods. We would also have appreciated more of the conversational style that comes through occasionally in material from the author's interviews.

Several of us who are experienced teachers have taught in Portland, San Fran­cisco, New York, and other cities. The longer our experience of teaching in ur­

ban classrooms, the greater our feeling of connection with City Teachers. But

we realized that the experience of urban teaching can vary tremendously. One of us, who had taught and been a union member in New York City for several years, noted the author's statement that collective bargaining agreements exclude " teacher unions from contributing to those areas that directly shape teachers' working conditions, such as class size, selection of materials, and methods of evaluation" (p. 134 ). This teacher had experienced the good work that teacher unions can do in spite of contract limitations. She reported that "the union fought and succeeded in forcing the administration to break my class of forty-eight bilin­

gual U.S. History students into two sections, and helped me to exempt my students from culturally inappropriate New York Regents tests." As we observe current changes in the American Federation of Teachers and the National Education As­

sociation, we see increasing evidence that organized teachers can go beyond sala­ries and benefits, resist authoritarian "reforms," and promote the transformation

of schools into democratic learning communities. Those of us becoming school administrators asked: Is this book about the twen­

ties or about the modern state of the teaching profession? If the text had included no dates, we would have had a hard time telling what era various events came from. While many particulars have changed, most of the struggles that teachers engaged in during the twenties are still with us . The difficult conditions that teach­ers faced then , and those encountered by current teachers, have their ultimate im­

pact on the children we are teaching. We encourage both new and experienced teachers to read this book, which gives a clear picture of what urban teaching was like in the twenties and which presents useful perspectives on current education. The conditions which demanded reform early in this century continue to plague urban schools as this century comes to a close. The message that we take from this book is that teachers, administrators, counselors, and other school personnel have a continuing responsibility to work together to make positive differences in the lives of children.

After hearing from our different professional groups, we returned to the whole­class discussion of the book. We observed that the physical environment of many schools has improved, and that most children no longer sit in dank, smelly cellars to eat their lunches. But it has obviously been easier to make material improve­

ments in schools than to make substantive advances in instruction, supervision, evaluation, and administration. From reading this book we have a strong sense

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

21 1

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

274 BOOK REVIEWS

that much top-down school "reform" has been, and still is, awkward and ill­

advised. Teachers have rarely been consulted or allowed input on needed changes. One powerful message we derive from City Teachers is that only with the active, democratic involvement of teachers can we hope to truly reform and transform

the way our students learn. In our final discussion of the book Jim identified himself as a representative

of a group that had not been heard from : social and educational historians. From their perspective, City Teachers is a significant contribution to a growing body of scholarship that helps us interpret history through the voices of previously silent groups. Like most history, educational history has traditionally been written from the perspective of those in power. City Teachers gives a strong, clear voice to urban teachers, and particularly women teachers, who have been insufficiently represented in historical accounts. The author shows how, through organization, teachers have gained greater power to improve their lives and those of their students.

We ended our study of City Teachers with questions that we will continue to explore, and which we invite our readers to consider with us: Why have many school characteristics changed so little? What are the persistent social, political, and economic forces that have kept schools in such dismal conditions over the decades? Why do we tolerate the inequities which persist in education and other public services? Who benefits from our low-tax ideology, and from the under­

funding of our social and educational systems? These are questions to struggle with as we move on to the next stages of our professional lives, and we are grateful

to City Teachers and its author for the historical information, insights, and under­standings that give these questions their relevance and significance.

International Studies

Expansion and Structural Change: Higher Education in Germany, the United States, and Japan, 1870-1990. Paul Windolf. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1997. Pp. xiii, 278. $55.00.

MALCOLM B. CAMPBELL Bowling Green State University

At a time when member nations of the European Union are simultane­ously calling for further expansion of their higher education sectors and closer

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

21 1

5 N

ovem

ber

2014