In their book Evolution, Creationism, and the Battle to Control the Classroom, Michael Berkman and Eric Plutzer provide an invaluable contribution to the ongoing conversation regarding the teaching of evolution and creationism in the classroom. Anyone interested in the education of American youth should read this book. Utilizing a unique survey of over 900 high school biology teachers, the book examines a wide variety of themes, including how high school biology teachers structure their classes, and to what extent creationism still finds a way into the high school science curriculum.

The authors begin their discussion by noting the connection between democracy and education policy. Clearly, there is a deep connection between the two, with Americans believing that public opinion should play a role in curriculum decisions (8). The authors demonstrate that public opinion on the issue of creationism and evolution has remained remarkably stable over the years. Additionally, somewhat surprisingly, that opinion has been a relatively well informed one, since Americans have been exposed to a fair amount of information regarding the issue. That is not to suggest, however, that the American public is all together scientifically literate; such is clearly not the case (49 ff). Even so, support for creationism has not been due to scientific illiteracy, but rather to the “cultural, and especially religious features of the United States” (52). Still, the question remains: who should be responsible for setting education policy, the public or the expert? Historically, those decisions have been made by educators serving as quasi-guardians (11–13). The authors examine the crucial role that high school biology teachers play in this process.

Providing challenges to the teacher as the expert have been movements such as a drive toward better and more uniform curriculum standards, as well as a desire for better assessment methods. Each of these — the public, curriculum standards, and assessment — place demands on the teacher and are examined by the authors. Drawing on Lipsky's work on “street-level bureaucracy,” Berkman and Plutzer demonstrate that teachers work as street-level bureaucrats in deciding the science curriculum. While the public voices their opinions, administrators provide direction, and state boards set curriculum standards, teachers decide content.

In describing the teachers who responded to their survey, the authors discovered that teachers divided into three groups: 20% who “champion” evolution, 20% who “undermine” evolution, and 60% who are “cautious” and attempt to uneasily navigate between the two poles of evolution and creationism (220–222). The authors note that the third group may be cautious for two reasons. First, they may feel that they lack the proper training to adequately teach evolution or address questions raised by students. Regarding the educational background of the teachers, the results are quite striking. The authors found that 38% of the sample did not hold any degree in science at all (176). Additionally, only 43% of the teachers had taken a course in evolution. Nevertheless, some of this is mitigated by the fact that only 6% of the sample had taken fewer than 24 credits in biology. Especially important is the greatest predictor of the number of hours that evolution is taught in the classroom: whether or not the teacher had taken a class on evolution (177). The effect is both significant and quite substantial. And it is commonsensical: teachers teach what they know.

A second reason that teachers are cautious is that they often wish to avoid controversy or possible confrontation with students, parents, or administrators (206, 221). Interestingly enough, the authors found little evidence to support that fear since “overt pressure is rare” (207). The authors attribute that to “assertive hiring,” meaning that teachers tend to reflect their communities.

Conflict avoidance, however, manifests itself in ways that serve to undercut evolution. In reviewing teachers' comments, the authors found that some biology teachers present evolution with qualifications. Teachers tell students that it is fine to just learn the information “for the test” or that it is fine “not to believe in” evolution. For Berkman and Plutzer, this approach is startling since “After all, a teacher would never tell students they did not care if they actually believed that light simultaneously have the properties of waves and of discrete particles, or that the movement of massive plates is the cause of earthquakes” (133–134).

The policy prescriptions offered by the authors are unlikely to succeed and are not very practical. Noting the substantial effect that having a class on evolution had on teaching evolution, the authors offer the simple solution of requiring all biology teachers to take a class on evolution. But with education programs already requiring an extraordinarily high number of credits within their programs, it is difficult to see how any more content requirements would be welcomed. Nonetheless, the book is an outstanding contribution to our understanding of how evolution is taught in the classroom and how creationism remains present. At both the undergraduate and graduate levels, the book would be useful in a number of disciplines (for example, education as well as political science).