Search results

Discusses the restructuring of the food production, processing and retailing sectors in the USA. Describes different methods of vertical and horizontal integration that have occurred. Goes on to discuss the consolidation of business in retailing in particular. Refers to the relationships that are being formed between the supermarket chains, for example Wal‐Mart and Kroger, and dominant food‐chain clusters. Considers whether or not smaller retail chains and wholesalers should feel threatened by this consolidation. Takes the dairy sector in the USA as a case study in the restructuring of the retailing and processing sectors.

Randall W. Eberts, Ph.D., is the executive director of the W. E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research, Kalamazoo, Michigan.Mary Hatwood Futrell, Ed.D., is president of Education International (EI), headquartered in Brussels, Belgium, and dean of the Graduate School of Education and Human Development at George Washington University, Washington, DC.Bob Harris, M.A., Dip.T (Sec.), (Australia), advanced study at the Institut Universitaire des Hautes Etudes Internationales, Geneva, is a former EI executive director and current senior consultant based in Nyon, Switzerland.Ronald D. Henderson, Ph.D., is the director of the Research Department at the National Education Association, Washington, DC.Rachel Hendrickson, Ph.D., is the higher education coordinator in the Membership and Organizing Department at the National Education Association, Washington, DC.Kevin Hollenbeck, Ph.D., is a senior economist and director of publications at the W. E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research, Kalamazoo, Michigan.Susan Moore Johnson, Ed.D., is Carl H. Pforzheimer, Jr., Professor of Teaching and Learning at the Harvard University Graduate School of Education, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Charles T. Kerchner, Ph.D., is Hollis P. Allen Professor of Education at the Claremont Graduate University, Claremont, California.Julia E. Koppich, Ph.D., is president of Koppich & Associates, an education policy research and consulting firm, in San Francisco, California.Carrie M. Lewis, J.D., is a senior writer-editor in the Government Relations Department at the National Education Association, Washington, DC.Christine Maitland, Ph.D., is a former higher education coordinator for the National Education Association who now works on higher education issues with the NEA’s Pacific Regional Office in Burlingame, California.Christine E. Murray, Ph.D., is a professor in the Department of Education and Human Development and dean of the School of Professions, State University of New York College at Brockport.Diane Shust, J.D., M.S.Ed., is the director of the Government Relations Department at the National Education Association, Washington, DC.Joe A. Stone, Ph.D., is W. E. Miner Professor of Economics at the University of Oregon, Eugene.Wayne J. Urban, Ph.D., is Regents’ Professor of Education in the Department of Educational Policy Studies at Georgia State University, Atlanta.Fred van Leeuwen is the general secretary of Education International, Brussels, Belgium.Maris A. Vinovskis, Ph.D., is Bentley Professor of History, senior research scientist at the Institute for Social Research, and faculty member of the Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.Paul Wolman, Ph.D., is a senior policy analyst in the Research Department at the National Education Association, Washington, DC.

The public has long been led to believe that the connection between teacher unions and quality education is negligible or even a contradiction in terms. For an example of that view, one barely needs to go beyond the title of a 1996 U.S. News & World Report cover story, “Why Teachers Don’t Teach.” The story essentially tells the public that the teacher unions bear most of the blame, that they have used their money and muscle to preserve their own privileges and to stave off efforts at reforms aimed at improving educational quality. The two major teacher unions, the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) and the National Education Association (NEA), are the main targets of this criticism.

The purpose of this study is to compare the life cycle environmental impacts of the University of Cincinnati College of Engineering and Applied Sciences' current printed annual report to a version distributed via the internet.

Life cycle environmental impacts of both versions of the report are modeled using the online environmental input‐output life cycle assessment (EIO‐LCA) tool. Most monetary model inputs were obtained from the University of Cincinnati and the others were estimated. Results are presented for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, energy use, water use, and human and ecosystem health impacts. Alternative scenarios reflecting different reader behaviors were evaluated.

The electronic report reduces economic costs and all categories of environmental impacts so long as the recipients do not print the report at home. Impacts of the printed report were higher than the electronic report due to impacts associated with paper production and disposal and to a lesser extent differences in the impacts of mail versus electronic distribution. The environmental preferability of the options is heavily influenced by the number of users who choose to print the electronic report at home; if more than 10 percent print at home, it offsets the benefits of the e‐report.

Using the EIO‐LCA tool limited the accuracy of the results by using average US data for a specific supply chain. It was limited by assumptions about reader behavior with the e‐report.

This case study demonstrates how a screening level life cycle assessment (LCA) might be used by a university administrator to make decisions supported by quantitative environmental information.

The screening level LCA‐based approach can provide grounding for environmental decision making within a reasonable time period and cost while maintaining sufficient accuracy for guiding purchasing or product decisions.

History-based trade books are an essential classroom option for social studies and English teachers. Professional organizations in history, social studies, English, reading and literature promote these engaging, age-appropriate secondary sources. Research suggests that misrepresentations appear often within history-based curricula, yet the majority of empirical studies have been completed on textbooks. The purpose of this paper is to examine the historical representation of Thomas Jefferson within trade books.

The data sample included trade books targeting various ages to make comparisons within and between grade ranges; the authors selected books published in distinctly different years to examine how Jefferson’s historical representation changed over time. The mixed methods content analysis used both open coding and axial coding.

Findings included sanitized versions of slavery at Monticello and omissions of his relationship with Sally Hemings. Date of publication, particularly those published after 1999 as new scientific evidence emerged linking Hemings and Jefferson, and intended audience shaped patterns of representation about Jefferson’s privileged social position, authorship of the Declaration of Independence, political philosophy and involvement in the American Revolution, to mention a few. Heroification, a common historical misrepresentation, did not appear.

Limitations included: uneven portions of the data pool as children’s and young adult trade books were not common in early and mid-twentieth century; organization of books by grade range is problematic due to inexact nature of ranking narratives’ complexity; and definitive conclusions cannot emerge from a single study. Future research should consider how trade books represent other historical figures, particularly slave-owning American presidents.

Practical suggestions, such as how to address misrepresentations using primary sources, are offered.

Thomas Jefferson, undoubtedly an impactful American, is frequently included in elementary, middle level and high school curriculum. The authors examined Jefferson’s historical representation within trade books.

The following annotated list of materials on providing library orientation to users and instructing them in library and information skills is the tenth annual review of this literature and covers publications from 1983. A few items have not been annotated because the compiler was unable to secure a copy of these items.

What is it about academia anyway? We profess to hate it, spend endless amounts of time complaining about it, and yet we in academia will do practically anything to stay. The pay may be low, job security elusive, and in the end, it's not the glamorous work we envisioned it would be. Yet, it still holds fascination and interest for us. This is an article about American academic fiction. By academic fiction, I mean novels whosemain characters are professors, college students, and those individuals associated with academia. These works reveal many truths about the higher education experience not readily available elsewhere. We learn about ourselves and the university community in which we work.

The following classified, descriptive list of titles is intended to provide reference librarians with a current checklist of new reference books, and is designed to supplement the RSR review column, “Recent Reference Books,” by Frances Neel Cheney. “Reference Books in Print” includes all additional books received prior to the inclusion deadline established for this issue. Appearance in this column does not preclude a later review in RSR. Publishers are urged to send a copy of all new reference books directly to RSR as soon as published, for immediate listing in “Reference Books in Print.” An additional copy of any title specifically requested by Mrs. Cheney should be sent directly to her for review. A decision to review any unsolicited title appearing in this column will then be made by Mrs. Cheney at her own discretion.

Greater attention to and anxiety about farm animal welfare emerged at the end of the 20th century, as worries over food safety and food quality (connected to the BSE, FMD, avian influenza and other epidemics) pushed farm animal welfare into public discourse and political debate. This chapter looks at one of the ways in which consumers’ concerns and anxieties about animal welfare are addressed by the Soil Association (the United Kingdom), whose standard is based on a scheme of production that endorses animals’ natural life in the case of certification of organic eggs in the United Kingdom. Drawing on STS approaches it addresses the processes of producing ‘naturalness’ as food ‘attribute’ (to borrow from economics) and how ‘the natural life of hens’ is achieved in the context of eggs’ production.