Education Policy Analysis Archives Homepage Enter the EPAA Archives Enter the EPAA Abstracts Contact the EPAA Editors Visit the EPAA Editorial Board Guidelines for submitting an article to EPAA Guidelines for submitting Commentary on published articles EPAA Volume 1 1993 EPAA Volume 2 1994 EPAA Volume 3 1995 EPAA Volume 4 1996 EPAA Volume 5 1997 EPAA Volume 6 1998 Subscribe to the EPAA listserv for announcements of newly published articles Search EPAA on keywords
This article has been retrieved  times since August 20, 1998.

Education Policy Analysis Archives

Volume 6 Number 16

August 20, 1998

ISSN 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 article provided that EDUCATION POLICY ANALYSIS ARCHIVES is credited and copies are not sold. 
 

Criticizing the Schools: Then and Now

Benjamin Levin
The University of Manitoba

Abstract Schools in many countries are facing intense and elevated levels of criticism, with much debate over whether the criticism is merited. Much of the criticism embodies a view that things used to be better years ago, when schools were not prey to the many defects they are alleged to show today. Recollections of the past may hide a mixed reality. In this article, criticisms of education from 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 spiritual values, and low academic standards. Today's debates introduce the alleged test score declines, poor performance on international achievement comparisons, the supposed enormous increase in funding without positive results, the problem of high dropout rates, and the need to connect schooling and work. In addition, modern critics point 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 elevated levels of 
criticism. Scholars debate whether the criticism is 
merited.  The "pages" of the Education Policy Analysis Archives 
have themselves been a site for this debate on a number of 
occasions (e.g., Vol 1 No. 2; Vol 4 No 10, and the exchange 
between Lawrence Stedman and David Berliner in Volume 4, numbers 
1, 3 and 7).  Much of the criticism embodies a view that things 
used to be better years ago, when schools were not prey to the 
many defects they are alleged to show today.  However, recollections 
of the past may be subject to a golden glow that hides a mixed reality.


               A couple of years ago 
my colleague Hal 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 small pamphlet issued by 
the National Education Association in 1957.  It was a Research 
Bulletin (Vol. XXXV, No. 4) from December, 1957, 
entitled "Ten Criticisms of Public Education."  The authors were 
not identified, although the report lists Sam Lambert as 
director of research for the Association.  The Research Bulletin  
was published three times per year for a subscription of $3 per 
year.  (Prices are one thing that has changed 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 initial step in counteracting destructive 
attacks and in utilizing valid criticisms for the 
improvement of public education is an objective appraisal 
of each criticism. (p.1)
 



               The report 
authors selected ten published charges that appeared most 
frequently in a selection of 30 lay magazines from July 1954 to 
June 1957.  For each of the ten, it gave a brief description of 
the charge and cited evidence and arguments to the contrary.
  Here are the ten charges that the NEA research group 
identified.  Unlike the  supposed list from the 1940s of 'ten 
worst problems of the schools' that Gerald Bracey debunked in 
the Phi Delta Kappan in 1994 (Bracey 1994), this list does have a 
documented source.   Each statement of a criticism began with 
"some people say" or "critics say"; otherwise they are quoted 
exactly as written forty years ago.



    

  1.  ...the public schools are controlled or dominated by 
'professional educationists' of schools of education, school 
superintendents, 'experts' in the state departments of 
education, 'specialists' in the US Office of Education, and the 
national organizations of educationists.
  
     

  2.  ...John Dewey and 'progressive education' have taken over 
the public schools and that this philosophy of education is the 
chief cause of the crisis in education.

     

  3. ...the life adjustment education movement is replacing 
intellectual training with soft social programs in most public-
school systems.

     

  4. ...the spirit of competition, an important incentive for 
learning, has been eliminated by the 100 percent annual 
promotion policy and the multiple-standard report card.

     

  5. ...lax discipline in the public school is contributing to 
the increase of juvenile delinquency.

     

  6. ... the teaching of classical and modern 
foreign languages is disappearing from the secondary schools.

     

  7. ...high-school students, even the bright ones, are avoiding 
science and mathematics; fewer students are taking these courses 
now than 20 or 30 years ago.

     

  8.  ...the public schools are neglecting the gifted children 
because they are geared to teaching the average child.

     

  9.  ...the public schools are neglecting the training of 
children in moral and spiritual values.

     

  10.  ...the academic standards of schools of education are low: 
their programs of study are of questionable value, and the 
intellectual qualities of their students are the poorest in the 
universities.


                        


                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. Many 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 
than 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 stress moral values, 
that teacher education programs did attempt to impart 
appropriate skills, and so on. 
 

              Struck by the 
degree to which criticism 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 Terry 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 Berliner (in Berliner and Biddle, 1995)
 to see what they took to be 
the main criticisms being 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 Heather-
Jane Robertson (1994).  Finally, I examined a number of government and 
interest group reports on education in both countries, since 
these often embody criticisms of the 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 
some of the criticisms of schools being made today are very 
similar to those of 1957, others are new.   The similarities and 
differences raise questions about the origins of criticism of 
schools.  Second, reading criticism of schools over several 
decades raises questions 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 questions, I 
offer the following observations.  


Criticism Then and Now



                 Certainly some of the 
criticisms on the 1957 list are still 
current.  For example, reforms to governance in England and New 
Zealand were 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 undue influence and stifling reform because of self-interest.  
Another variant on this theme 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 authority to parents 
and/or teachers in the school, where real knowledge about 
problems and solutions is thought to reside.


                 Other points on the 
NEA list also continue to resonate in 
current debates.  Progressivism remains a point of attack for 
many, such as Diane Ravitch (1985)  in the U.S.A. or Mark Holmes 
(1992) in Canada, who argue that 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 strong evidence that retention 
in grade is ineffective, social promotion remains a 
controversial 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 
levels 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, and concern about 
science and mathematics achievement has continued to be a 
prominent issue, taken up in many policy reviews and reform 
programs.  Recent Canadian curriculum reforms have included 
greater time allocations for these subjects.  Attention to the 
gifted also remains an issue.  The U.S. Department of Education 
has recently issued reports dealing with this issue (Department 
of Education, 1996) and with the importance of science and 
mathematics (Department of Education, 1997).  Finally, 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 national standards and licensing 
vehicles.  Several provincial governments in Canada have also 
identified teacher education as a reform issue (though their 
proposals tend to be rather 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.  One suspects 
that the NEA authors little thought that their research would be 
as relevant in 1997 as it was four decades ago. have made the 
same point; Bracey and Berliner (in Berliner and Biddle, 1995)
 have both cited many earlier 
instances of criticism of schools going back to the early years 
of this century.  


                        But that 
continuity is not the full story either. 
The debate in 1997 also includes some issues that were 
not on the agenda four decades ago.  These include, most  
prominently, alleged test score declines, poor performance on 
international achievement comparisons, the supposed enormous 
increase in funding without positive results, the problem of 
high dropout rates, and the need for a stronger link between 
schooling and work.  These issues feature prominently in 
current debates 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 manifestations 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 today 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 educated person; today they are framed in terms of 
the need for economic competitiveness.          


               The Argentinian 
writer Jorge Borges once wrote a story 
("Pierre Menard") about a man in Argentina in the 1930s who had 
written 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 richer."  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 postmodern view that a 
text takes on a new meaning when read in a new context.  It does 
seem that concerns about such matters as the state of the gifted 
or the importance of values education can have quite a different 
significance in the current climate of economic insecurity 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 being insufficiently traditional, while others 
regard them as insufficiently modern.  Some think that schools 
should emphasize traditional academic pursuits while others seek 
a greater focus on specific workplace skills.  Various 
commentators on the changes in education in England under 
Margaret Thatcher, for example, all note that the Conservatives  
themselves did not agree in their analyses of what was wrong 
with schools and what should be done to improve them (Lawton, 
1994).   Some were free-enterprisers who advocated market-based 
solutions while others were traditionalists who wanted a return 
to supposedly successful policies of an earlier era.  Similarly, 
traditionalist critics such as E.D. Hirsch have quite a different 
analysis than do those focused on the economy, such as Marc 
Tucker or Willard Daggett.  Are Christian conservatives really 
expressing a similar view to the National Governors' Association 
when each talks about the problems of standards in education?  


                   Schools have also 
been subject to criticism from the left, 
or from non-conservative positions.  For example, schools have 
been criticized for promoting or sustaining inequality, for 
failing to pay enough attention to diversity, and for inadequate 
concern for issues of social justice.  A powerful example that 
affected my own early perceptions of schooling was work done in 
Toronto arguing that students from particular ethnic or economic 
backgrounds were being tracked into low-achievement programs.

    
                    In fact, many 
    of the present defenders of schooling spent 
substantial earlier portions of their careers criticizing 
schools (Power, 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 to be a vocal group of 
commentators who focus on the failure of schools to address 
problems of poverty and racism, although their voices are  often 
lost in the much louder criticisms over standards and morals.  
 Perhaps lists of criticisms actually hide a great deal 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 
shaping our thinking.  

   
                The 1957 
   NEA report marshaled a considerable 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 empirical evidence, of course.  Where 
criticism of schools arises primarily from a religious or other 
value orientation, empirical data may play a much smaller role.  
But in reading the work of the critics and defenders of 
schooling, one cannot but be struck by the wide-ranging use of 
data.  To take just one example, the debate about whether or not
achievement levels in the United States have actually declined 
 has featured many sophisticated competing analyses of 
several different data sources (e.g., Bracey, 1997; Stedman, 1996,  
1997).    Similarly, the argument about the impact of resources 
on achievement has involved a great deal of analysis of a large 
number of studies (Hanushek, 1994, 1997, also see the review by Gintis, 1995; 
Burtless, 1996). 


               All the evidence, 
however, does not seem to have resolved 
the arguments.  In fact, more extensive evidence can have the 
effect of 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 wonder whether 
research can ever inform policy and practice since even with 
much more evidence, 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 
repeated by the same actors whatever evidence may be adduced?
  The role of evidence 
in resolving policy debates is a much-examined question 
(e.g., Anderson & Biddle, 1991: Stone, 1988).  
The consensus of current opinion would seem to be that evidence 
is 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 as 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 help us answer some of them and think more deeply and 
more clearly about others.  The ability of physically disabled 
students to learn in regular classrooms is no longer debated, 
largely because of conclusive evidence.  In Canada, French 
Immersion programs (in which Anglophone students do almost all 
their schooling in French) were hotly debated in the 1970s and 
1980s, but have been shown to be successful in developing 
academic skills in both languages.  
 

                Other issues 
are more controversial and thus less likely to 
be resolved by evidence.  But here, too, over time evidence 
helps frame 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 comparative 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 the importance of additional funding in 
promoting achievement, but there is growing acceptance that 
gross disparities in funding across schools and districts are 
undesirable.  In almost every area of education policy, ideas 
have changed at least in part because of evidence.


                Moreover, the 
search for evidence is itself a valuable 
activity, and one which reinforces the best ideals of education.  
Indeed, evidence-based arguments about policies are one of the 
main ways in which a society can learn, 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 evidence to support their position can be 
regarded as a step forward--a recognition that dogma 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 viewpoint 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 
human achievement.  In another context, Nicholas Burbules and 
Suzanne Rice (1991) have written eloquently about the importance 
of "dialogue across difference."  Nobody should be surprised 
that fundamental differences in values are not quickly resolved 
through evidence, but we should all be pleased that evidence is 
seen to be important 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 
ambitious.  In an important sense, schooling is about 
perfection.   We hope that our schools can do everything--shape 
young people who are thoughtful, productive, articulate, 
considerate, knowledgeable, patriotic, worldly, idealistic, 
realistic, challenging, accepting, critical, loyal.  We expect 
our schools to teach our children knowledge, skills, and values, 
but also to overcome the same social problems that we as adults 
have been unable to solve--to reduce poverty, to build the 
economy, to save the environment, to include the excluded, to 
look after oneself and care for others, to overcome materialism.


              Second, people 
do not agree about which 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 emphasize traditional academic learning and others 
want to focus on the emerging needs of the economy.  Some may 
value most patriotism and loyalty while others give priority to 
independent thought and critical thinking.  It is no accident 
that most lists of goals 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 importance of diversity, makes the challenge steadily 
greater as we struggle to develop a common institution that is 
also able to accommodate difference (Levin & Riffel, 1994; 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 schools 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 that 
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 help 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 schools unimportant, 
they would not take the time to argue about their achievements 
and shortcomings.  


                Rather than 
frustration and despair over criticism, then, 
we might benefit from seeing criticism as an opportunity--a 
chance to create 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 continue to speak out and to bring to bear 
arguments and evidence in support of their views.   But we will 
all benefit insofar as we can see debate as having the potential 
to move us 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 important and new 
issues emerge.  We learn that our ability to define, understand 
and debate issues is imperfect.  We learn that the schools 
probably face an impossible task.  But we also learn that people 
care about education, that evidence and reason can make a 
difference, and that the struggle for better education remains a 
vital enterprise.



        References


Anderson, D.  and Biddle, B.  (Eds) (1991).  Knowledge for 
Policy: Improving Education Through Research.  London: Falmer 
Press. 


Apple, M.W. (1996).
Being Popular About National Standards: 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 molehills out of 
molehills: Reply to Lawrence Stedman's review of 
The manufactured crisis. Educational Policy Analysis Archives 4 (February 26).

(Available online: http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v4n3.html). 


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 the 
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 the 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 condition of 
public education. Phi Delta
           Kappan 78: 127-38.


Bracey, 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 incomparable: a 
response to Baker and Stedman.  Educational Researcher, 26(3), 
19-26.


Burbules, N.  and Rice, S.  (1991).  Dialogue across 
differences: Continuing the conversation. Harvard Educational 
Review, 61(4), 393-416. 


Burtless, G. (Ed) (1996) Does money matter? The effect of school 
resources on student achievement and adult success.  Washington: 
Brookings 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 Controlling Costs. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institutions.
 


Hanushek, E.A. (1997).  Assessing the effects of school 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 know. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
 


Holmes, M.  (1992).  The revival of school administration: 
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 diversity: 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 Process.  New Haven: Yale University Press.



Nikiforuk, A. (1993).  School's out: The catastrophe in public
education and what we can do about it.  Toronto: McFarlane Walter
Ross.




Oakes, J. (1992) Can tracking research inform practice? 
Technical, normative, and political considerations.  Educational 
Researcher.  21(4), 12-21.


Power, S.  (1992)  Researching the impact of education 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). Diversity in 
Canadian education. Journal of Education Policy, 11(2),  113-
123.


Stedman, L.C. (1996a). The Achievement Crisis is Real: 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 differences: 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 Excellence: A 
Case for Developing America's Talent. Washington: U.S. 
Department of Education.


U. S. Department of Education (1997). The Condition of Education 
1997. Washington: U.S. Departrment of Education









About the Author



Benjamin Levin

The  University of Manitoba



Email:
        levin@electra.cc.umanitoba.ca 



          
Benjamin Levin is professor of educational 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 long-time participant on the Education Policy Analysis 
Archives editorial board. 

     
















Copyright 1998 by the Education Policy 
Analysis Archives





The World Wide Web address for the Education Policy Analysis
Archives is 
http://olam.ed.asu.edu/epaa



General questions about appropriateness of topics or
particular articles may be addressed to the Editor, Gene V Glass,
glass@asu.edu or reach him at
College of Education, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287-2411.
(602-965-2692). The Book Review Editor is Walter E. Shepherd:
 shepherd@asu.edu . The Commentary
Editor is Casey D. Cobb: 
casey@olam.ed.asu.edu .






EPAA Editorial Board








 

  Michael W. Apple

   University of Wisconsin		
  Greg Camilli

   Rutgers University


 

  John Covaleskie
Northern 
   Michigan University		
  Andrew Coulson

   a_coulson@msn.com


 

  
   Alan Davis 

   University of Colorado, Denver		
  Sherman Dorn

   University of South Florida


 

  Mark E. Fetler

   California Commission on Teacher Credentialing		
  Richard Garlikov

   hmwkhelp@scott.net		

 

  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 Kallós

   Umeå 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

   apembert@pen.k12.va.us		
   Hugh G. Petrie

   SUNY Buffalo

   
 

  Richard C. Richardson

   Arizona State University		
  Anthony G. Rud Jr.

   Purdue University

 
 

  Dennis Sayers

   Ann Leavenworth Center
 for Accelerated Learning		
  Jay D. Scribner

   University of Texas at Austin

 
 

  Michael Scriven

   scriven@aol.com		
   Robert E. Stake 

    University of Illinois--UC 


 

  Robert Stonehill

   U.S. Department of Education		
  Robert T. Stout

   Arizona State University











   

archives 
  |   

abstracts 
  |   

editors 
  |   

board 
  |   

submit 
  |   

comment 
  |   

subscribe 
  |   

search