Excellent book with short insights into dealing with mediocre teacher. Any administrator who would like practical and up date insight on how to make teachers better teachers should read this book.

I loved reading this book for all it taught me and for all the important things it reminded me of. . . . Arguing passionately and convincingly that supervisors must have competence, conviction, and control, the authors provide the information and the tools supervisors need to help teachers mired in mediocrity, that sometimes discouragingly long stretch of the continuum between the incompetent and the skillful. Absent an uncommon talent for denial, you cannot read this book without being transformed as a supervisor.

Caroline Fraser's broad look at Christian Science is a generally well-written and extensively documented historical and sociological study; unfortunately, it is crippled by undisguised (and not infrequently vicious) bias and highly selective use of evidence.

Her presentation of Mary Baker Eddy is little more than a rehash of the most polemical (and often inaccurate) prior biographies. Those looking for a far better researched and eminently more credible view of Eddy should turn instead to the 1998 biography by non-Christian Scientist Gillian Gill.

Fraser's summary of church history is somewhat better, although it, too, picks and chooses its facts carefully. Her assault on Christian Science as a philosophy is almost laughable, occupying a whopping (!) two pages of the book.

Fraser's hardest blows are reserved for failed efforts to heal, especially children, and the court cases that resulted. The facts are not pretty and should be sobering to Christian Scientists, but in fairness (to whatever extent due), much has still been omitted. Fraser's frequently hammered conclusion that Christian Science doesn't heal -- or does so only in psychosomatic cases -- is simply untenable in the face of enormous evidence to the contrary. Dismissing that evidence by calling it anecdotal is dishonest and, in any event, still doesn't make it untrue.

Fraser's book is physically and documentarily impressive, but only those who share her prejudgments or who are largely unacquainted with the broader literature on Eddy and Christian Science will believe for a minute that it is in any way objective and thorough.

Like Caroline Fraser, I too am a former Christian Scientist. I was raised in Christian Science, joined the Mother Church in my teens, graduated from Principia College (for Christian Scientists only), was president of a college "Org" while in grad school, and attended church services until I was in my early 30's. So I can testify to the spot-on accuracy and fairness of Fraser's portrayal of Christian Science in this book.

Hostile reviewers have claimed that Fraser's father, described in the prologue, is some sort of "oddball" Christian Scientist for habits such as not using the seatbelts in his car. In fact, if you truly believe that "accidents are impossible in God's kingdom," as Scientists are taught, then there is no logical reason to use your seatbelts. Christian Scientists who do use seatbelts, like previous reviewer Richard Biever, are tacitly acknowledging that at least some teachings of Christian Science are ridiculous.

After the brief personal account which opens the book, Fraser devotes about the first third of the book to a review of the life and career of Mary Baker Eddy, the founder of Christian Science. Her primary source, contrary to hostile reviewers, is the church-approved biography by Robert Peel. Fraser does not set out to write a full biography; rather, her focus is on clearing away the mythology Scientists have constricted about their "beloved Leader." For example, Fraser demolishes one of the central Christian Science myths, that of Eddy's "fall on the ice" in 1866, which supposedly led to the epiphanic moment when she "discovered" Christian Science.

Fraser also describes the CS Church's efforts to suppress any unfavorable treatments of Eddy in print. For example, a publisher recently reissued Willa Cather's well-regarded biography in 1993. Unable to prevent publication, the Church coerced the publisher into issuing a vaguely worded "disclaimer" with the book, which the church has used to try to delegitimatize it.

The remainder of the book deals with several issues that the Christian Science Church has had to deal with over the 20th century, such as controversies over church governance and the church's media activities. The section that has stirred the greatest hostility among Christian Scientists is Fraser's segment entitled "Christian Science goes to Court." Here Fraser recounts many of the legal challenges to Christian Science over the years. Her emphasis is on the responsibilities of Christian Science parents to properly care for their children. In 1974, the church lobbied the Dept. of Health, Education and Welfare to issue a regulation which effectively coerced states into passing laws shielding Christian Scientists from prosecution for withholding medical care from their children.

The consequences were tragic. Fraser recounts several wrenching accounts of Christian Scientist's children dying, often in extreme pain, from diseases that were easily curable if medical care had been obtained in time (these are what Biever calls "alleged failures"). Attempts to prosecute parents for negligence failed for the most part, thanks to the laws obtained by the church's effective lobbying.

But what of the successes of Christian Science, say its adherents, such as Richard Biever, who refers vaguely to "thousands of healings." You wouldn't know it from hostile reviewers, but Fraser deals with this issue thoroughly. She notes that in fact there is NO credible evidence of the "healing power of prayer" to heal anything other than psychosomatic illness. Fraser analyzes and debunks church propaganda claiming the contrary. She also notes research by William Simpson, which demonstrates that Christian Scientists have significantly lower life expectancies than do comparable groups who accept medical care. Simpson's findings are hardly what you would expect if Christian Science were truly an effective "healing method."

Why, then, do Christian Scientists believe so strongly in the effectiveness of their "treatments." I would attribute it to three reasons. First, as Fraser makes clear, Christian Scientists deliberately shield themselves from learning how the human body works. (For example, like most Scientists, I was excused from health education in school, and I was well past 30 before I even opened a book that had anything to do with human biology). As a consequence, Christian Scientists are ignorant of how effective the body's defenses are against disease.

Second, like many people, Christian Scientists commit the post hoc fallacy: A Christian Scientist feels ill, so they "know the truth" about their situation. After some time, the cold/flu/headache/fever/ankle sprain/etc. goes away, and the Christian Scientist concludes "I've had a healing." Not understanding that such "healings" can be attributed to the human immune system throwing off the cold virus or whatever, the Christian Scientist reaches an invalid conclusion.

Third, Christian Scientists simply ignore or rationalize away their failures (as do the fans of psychics). Fraser describes two chilling examples of this tendency. She cites a deposition given by a practitioner, Thomas Black, in a court case related to a child's death. Black stated "Whenever Christian Science is properly applied, it heals." He explained that the child's death came because "Christian Science was misapplied" by the parents. Even more callousness is shown by Ruth Brewster, another practitioner, in a "testimony of healing" in a church publication. Brewster described rearing four children, claiming that none of them ever had "an activity missed because of illness." However, Brewster had once had a fifth child, a daughter who died at 7 years old of an untreated illness, who she simply pretended had never lived.

The inability of Christian Scientists to address their failures is the most important issue raised by Fraser (though not the only important one). Christian Scientists are often dishonest with themselves and others. If the Christian Science movement is ever going to regain the vitality it had early in this century, Christian Scientists are going to have to start being more honest. Reading this book and confronting what Fraser has to say would be a good start.

In sum, I think that every Christian Scientist should read this book with an open mind. Non-Scientists with an interest in the church or its activities will also find it fascinating.

Caroline Fraser has rendered an invaluable public service by writing this exposé of one of the world's most dangerous pseudo-religions: Christian Science. I cannot recommend this book highly enough for anyone who, like myself or Ms. Fraser, was unlucky enough to grow up in a stultifying C.S. family. Others who may be curious about the reality of Mary Baker Eddy's insane philosphy owe it to theselves to read this book. It will open your eyes to the real Truth, aka reality, not the so-called "Truth" of Mrs. Eddy. No, Mrs. Eddy's sick cult kills, quite literally. Yes, there is what one might call an "escape clause" in Christian Science fine print that allows its members to seek medical help if they have doubts about the strength of their faith to cure them. However, 99.999% of all Christian Science literature is obsessed with denigrating medical science, spreading maudlin anecdotal tales of people "healed" by faith and promulgating an absolute denial of our physical existence. Its underlying message to Christian Scientists is crystal clear: you cannot be a real Christian Scientist if you do not rely 100% on C.S. to cure disease. To do otherwise infers that you are not among God's chosen. Peer pressure can be a horrible thing, and many religions, including Christian Science, use it both subtly and ruthlessly. It's no wonder so many Christian Scientists elect to forego medical help when they need it and suffer the tragic consequences, despite the escape clause.

Buy this book. Read it. Recommend it to others. It could save your life or the life of someone you love.

I don't have the scholarly background to assess the accuracy of Fraser's work in this book. I've found it to be fairly interesting though not incredibly scintillating. What I do feel strongly about, however, is the reader on the audiobook version.

The woman reading insists on affecting different accents and tones of voice whenever there is a quote from primary sources (e.g., a faint German accent for Caroline's quotes, French accent for quotes from French commentators, blustery tones for George III and IV, etc.). I'll admit this has some usefulness, as it does help the listener keep track of who is being quoted in this long book, which does rely heavily on primary source quotes. However, it gets on my nerves to hear a reader of a nonfiction work affecting different voices--it's all right for fiction, but it seems silly to me in a work of nonfiction. Just my personal opinion and a warning for those who feel the same way.

A biography about one of England's most enigmatic and on this side of the pond at least lesser known Queens. Charlotte born into the rather stogy provincal atmosphere of the Hanoverian Court was married off while still a teenager to her first cousin the future King George IV. A dandy and bon vivant who had already contracted a marriage years ago to the attractive and apparently virtuous widow Mrs. FitzHerbert. Alas Mrs. FitzHerbert was not only a commoner but a staunch catholic and George was a spend thrift. When His father refused to continue filling his coffers unless he found himself a proper (i.e. Royal) bride he abandoned Mrs. FitzHerbert and wed poor Charlotte.

Almost at once however he was repulsed by his cousin (whom he had never before met). After siring one child (a daughter Charlotte) he promptly returned to the far more worldly and appealing Mrs. FitzHerbert. This led poor Charlotte to rebel.

Her rebellion was to cost her dearly. Leading in the end to a notorioius and flawed trial headed by parliment to decide if she was in fact guilty of adultry.

Charlotte led a tragic but interesting life. As with Marie-Antoinette it can be said that Charlotte's own bad judgement and ignorance were as much (if not more) to blame for her misfortunes as the ill will of her enemies.

Overall it was an engaing account of a fascinating woman and period in time. It gave glimpses into the lives of the rest of the British Royal Family. From George's rather embittered maiden sisters to his mad father King George III and his outwardly sweet but meddling mother Queen Charlotte.

Flora Fraser is definitely Antonia's daughter. This book is elegantly written, meticulously researched, and a pleasure to read. Ms. Fraser doesn't dwell lasciviously on the naughty bits, but she doesn't avoid them either. Historians of the Regency period (or any period) realize that the ubiquitous sex is the least interesting part.

If you're not interested in history and biography, if you prefer The Enquirer to The New York Times, you'll probably be disappointed in this book. On the other hand, if you crave intelligent, truthful, fluidly written narrative about a fascinating time in which hypocritical politicians played innuendo like a fine instrument (sound familiar?), get this book. I've read it multiple times, and always find something new to appreciate.