Book Review: Teaching in America by Grant and Murray

Overview of Teaching in America

Grant and Murray's Teaching in America: The Slow Revolution is a book with two faces. On one hand, it is a work of history, covering developments in education over the past century; here it is at times fascinating, at times tedious, but always informative. On the other hand, the book points to one overruling "Slow Revolution" which the authors describe as the solution to America's — and the world's — educational problems. While the former topic is simply a recounting of established history, the latter requires evidence and argument in support of the authors' claim; this evidence comes primarily from interviews with teachers. Hence, the book spans two realms of academia: as the researchers themselves state, "Our research is both sociological and historical" (8).

This review investigates the credibility of the authors' central claim, which is based on a rather isolated set of evidence, yet appears to be supported by a wide variety of educators who have reviewed the book.

The "Slow Revolution" touted by Grant and Murray involves the empowerment of teachers in the educational process. Teachers, the authors claim, are beginning to push for more power in their schools and less external administration; they are seeking the respect and control traditionally granted only to university professors. Accordingly, teachers — including Grant and Murray themselves — are beginning to believe that the path to a good education depends on the teachers, not on the administrators. The key is to allow teachers to create a more collaborative, open environment among teachers and students, a process that only a skilled teacher can bring about.

The Slow Revolution Thesis

Thus, argue the authors, a critical step in achieving a more successful educational system is instituting a comprehensive, trustworthy screening process for potential teachers. Everything, or nearly everything, rests on the competence of the teacher.

The evidence used to support these arguments consists largely of interviews with teachers surveying their personal experiences. In addition, the authors spent considerable time making their own observations in several schools in Upstate New York. Many arguments are also made with the aid of historical information, which puts the "Slow Revolution" in perspective. Numerical data on test scores, graduation rates, and grades are not analyzed as rigorously here as in many other works on education — a characteristic that is both a strength and a weakness, as discussed below.

Research Methods and Evidence

The quantity of interviews conducted and the length of time the authors spent studying these schools both reflect positively on the reliability of their conclusions. Furthermore, many other educators reviewing the book voice agreement with its findings, lending them additional credibility.

Although the book focuses primarily on secondary school, the authors are not themselves secondary school teachers; they are both university professors. Grant is a professor of sociology, and Murray is a professor of education. It might seem preferable for the authors of such a book to have been classroom teachers themselves, with direct personal experience to relate. However, their detachment from the actual practice of teaching gives the book a tone of objective remove that is favorable to a study of this kind. Their position — neither fully immersed in the teaching nor unaccustomed to analyzing education — is in many ways ideal.

In the book, Grant and Murray interview, observe, and research some well-known teachers whose classrooms are generally regarded as successful, such as Vivian Gussin Paley; they also devote considerable attention to lesser-known teachers who are unknown outside their home districts. This combination is important. However, most of the information the authors collected themselves through their "New Roles Study" — which, as firsthand data, is presumably the most reliable information they have — covers less-famous teachers in their home areas in Upstate New York. There is nothing inherently wrong with this, but it should be noted that most of the firsthand information reported in the book involves teachers whose achievements are not easily verifiable by readers in other regions.