Explore the vast range of titles available.

Meeting students' basic needs – including ensuring they have access to nutritious meals and a sense of belonging and connection to school – can positively influence students' academic performance. Recognizing this connection, schools provide resources in the form of school meals programs, school nurses, and school guidance counselors. However, these resources are not always available to students and are not always prioritized in school reform policies, which tend to focus more narrowly on academic learning. This book is about the balancing act that schools and their teachers undertake to respond to the social, emotional, and material needs of their students in the context of standardized testing and accountability policies. Drawing on conversations with teachers and classroom observations in two elementary schools, How Schools Meet Students' Needs explores the factors that both enable and constrain teachers in their efforts to meet students' needs and the consequences of how schools organize this work on teachers' labor and students' learning.

The Bush Administration, sex and the moral agenda considers White House policy towards issues such as abortion, sex education, obscenity and same-sex marriage. The book suggests that although accounts have often emphasised the ties between George W. Bush and the Christian right, the administration's strategy was, at least until early 2005, also directed towards the courting of middle ground opinion. This study offers a detailed and comprehensive survey of policy-making; assesses the political significance of moral concerns; evaluates the role of the Christian right, and throws new light on George W. Bush's years in office and the character of his thinking. The book will prove invaluable for those taking social science courses as well as as well as anyone with a general interest in the Bush presidency.

The Bush Administration, sex and the moral agenda considers White House policy towards issues such as abortion, sex education, obscenity and same-sex marriage. The book suggests that although accounts have often emphasised the ties between George W. Bush and the Christian right, the administration's strategy was, at least until early 2005, also directed towards the courting of middle ground opinion. This study offers a detailed and comprehensive survey of policy-making; assesses the political significance of moral concerns; evaluates the role of the Christian right, and throws new light on George W. Bush's years in office and the character of his thinking. The book will prove invaluable for those taking social science courses as well as as well as anyone with a general interest in the Bush presidency.

In this powerfully argued book, Ian Shapiro shows that the idea of containment offers the best hope for protecting Americans and their democracy into the future. His bold vision for American security in the post-September 11 world is reminiscent of George Kennan's historic \"Long Telegram,\" in which the containment strategy that won the Cold War was first developed. The Bush Doctrine of preemptive war and unilateral action has been marked by incompetence--missed opportunities to capture Osama bin Laden, failures of postwar planning for Iraq, and lack of an exit strategy. But Shapiro contends that the problems run deeper. He explains how the Bush Doctrine departs from the best traditions of American national-security policy and accepted international norms, and renders Americans and democratic values less safe. He debunks the belief that containment is obsolete. Terror networks might be elusive, but the enabling states that make them dangerous can be contained. Shapiro defends containment against charges of appeasement, arguing that force against a direct threat will be needed. He outlines new approaches to intelligence, finance, allies, diplomacy, and international institutions. He explains why containment is the best alternative to a misguided agenda that naively assumes democratic regime change is possible from the barrel of an American gun. President Bush has defined the War on Terror as the decisive ideological struggle of our time. Shapiro shows what a self-defeating mistake that is. He sets out a viable alternative that offers real security to Americans, reclaims America's international stature, and promotes democracy around the world.

The senior Bush, who turned 80 yesterday, presided over one of the largest deficit reduction plans in American history; the junior Bush, who is 57, has overseen one of the fastest deficit increases. The senior Bush refused entreaties to remove Saddam Hussein from power because Iraq was a sovereign nation and he would lose the international coalition that backed the removal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait; the junior Bush invaded Iraq with only Britain as his major international partner. Given [Brent Scowcroft]'s very close relationship with the senior Bush, the piece was widely viewed as a tacit statement by President Bush's father against the war. Indeed, as the pair's book makes clear, the senior Bush viewed the Gulf War not just as the ouster of Iraqis from Kuwait, but also as a turning point in history in which it would be shown that international coalitions would work together to stop such invasions. It was a central element of what the senior Bush envisioned to be a new world order -- an element that some critics say has come undone as a result of the current war in Iraq. Mary Matalin, who played a major role in the senior Bush's reelection bid and is an adviser to President Bush's campaign, said the difference in foreign policy between the two Bushes stems from their views about the impact of stability in the Middle East. The senior Bush, Matalin said, wanted stability as the post-Cold War era began and didn't want to rattle the international coalition he assembled to kick Iraq out of Kuwait. President Bush, by contrast, \"does not want to go to stability, because the stability philosophy in that region has spawned all these terrorists, created these failed states.\" Thus, President Bush describes his prodemocracy policy for the Middle East as an effort to \"change the world,\" a more dramatic desire than his father had.

On December 12, 2000, the Supreme Court of the United States illegally stopped the presidential election and handed the presidency to George W. Bush.¹ Much of the anger about the 2000 election has been directed at the five conservatives on the Supreme Court. But it is important to remember that the Supreme Court would not have had the opportunity to intervene if there had not already been an equally serious problem of legitimacy on election day—massive black disenfranchisement in the crucial state of Florida. There is already enough evidence to suggest that Florida state officials violated the Federal Voting

Journalists find it easy to say that a Supreme Court decision is “conservative” or “liberal.” When the Supreme Court divides narrowly over whether the Constitution allows Congress to make states pay damages to employees who were fired because they were thought to be too old for the job, people write of the Court’s “conservative majority” and “liberal dissenters.” These characterizations are not simply descriptions; they also attribute cause: the majority ruled as it didbecauseits members are conservatives, and similarly for the dissenters. Political scientists have developed a formal model for what they think happens on the Supreme Court.

I was taken aback. Although I have long admired the way [Pat Buchanan] makes his points, I have not admired many of the points. He is tough, smart and principled and has the Irish gift for the language, but he sits in the nosebleed seats of the American right. Still, he offered to send me a copy of his new book, so the least I could do was read it. It arrived, inscribed \"from an old Globe- Democrat editorial writer (1962-1965),\" just in time to read during the boring parts (which was most of them) of C-SPAN's coverage of the Republican National Convention. The title tells you pretty much where Buchanan is coming from: \"Where the Right Went Wrong -- How Neoconservatives Subverted the Reagan Revolution and Hijacked the Bush Presidency.\" In many ways, it merely updates the positions Buchanan took during his Quixotic presidential runs in the 1990s: narrowly defining American interests, both militarily and economically, and restoring traditional cultural values. \"The party has embraced a neo-imperial foreign policy that would have been seen by the Founding Fathers as a breach of faith. It has cast off the philosophy of Taft, Goldwater and Reagan to remake itself into the Big Government party long championed by the Rockefeller Republicans whom the conservative movement came into being to drive out of the temple. Many Republicans have abandoned the campaign to make America a colorblind society, and begun to stack arms in the culture wars.

George W. Bush has launched a revolution in American foreign policy. He has redefined how America engages the world, shedding the constraints that friends, allies, and international institutions impose on its freedom of action. He has insisted that an America unbound is a more secure America. How did a man once mocked for knowing little about the world come to be a foreign policy revolutionary? In America Unbound, Ivo H. Daalder and James M. Lindsay dismiss claims that neoconservatives have captured the heart and mind of the president. They show that George W. Bush has been no one's puppet. He has been a strong and decisive leader with a coherent worldview that was evident even during the 2000 presidential campaign. Daalder and Lindsay caution that the Bush revolution comes with significant risks. Raw power alone is not enough to preserve and extend America's security and prosperity in the modern world. The United States often needs the help of others to meet the challenges it faces overseas. But Bush's revolutionary impulse has stirred great resentment abroad. At some point, Daalder and Lindsay warn, Bush could find that America's friends and allies refuse to follow his lead. America will then stand alone-a great power unable to achieve its most important goals.

From this point on, [George W. Bush]'s presidency becomes more interesting -- and [David Frum]'s memoir less so. The perspective shifts from fly-on-the- wall to pundit-in-the-gallery. The last half of the book is dominated by Frum's Middle-East views -- pro-Israel, pro-\"regime change,\" anti-Muslim, anti-Colin Powell -- not Bush's presidential deeds. And while Frum doesn't shrink from applauding Bush for uttering lines Frum himself wrote, he offers little fresh insight into how Bush became, in his view, the Right Man for the job of worldwide evil-undoing. Frum presents a year in the professional life of an upper-mid- level White House staffer. Mixing details about the speechwriting process -- the final text for the president appears in 16-point type, Arial font -- he also offers his right-of-center, right-of- Bush spin on issues such as tax cuts, electricity deregulation and stem-cell research. For his part, he always stood ready for an ideological rumble. Recalling an impromptu exchange in a hallway with liberal stalwarts Barbra Streisand and Harvey Weinstein, he recounts his ringing vindication of Bush's Kyoto-phobic position on global warming after what he considered their ineffective challenge. Yet by the summer of '01, after the Republicans lost the Senate, Frum had mostly given up hope that Bush would ever be the sort of rootin'-tootin' right-winger that he yearned for. He began avoiding parties where he knew his conservative chums would rip into his boss for his missing agenda, knowing Frum could say little in Bush's defense.