Two Nobodies Speak Out : Our 150 Year Journey and Perspectives on Education [1 ed.] 9781617355349, 9781617355325

Citation preview

Two Nobodies Speak Out Our 150 Year Journey and Perspectives on Education

Two Nobodies Speak Out Our 150 Year Journey and Perspectives on Education

Sheldon Marcus Professor at Fordham University’s Graduate School of Education and

Philip D. Vairo Former President, Worcester State University, and Dean Emeritus, School of Education at California State University At Los Angeles

Information Age Publishing, Inc. Charlotte, North Carolina • www.infoagepub.com

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Two nobodies speak out : our 150 year journey and perspectives on education / edited by Sheldon Marcus and Philip D. Vairo. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references. ISBN 978-1-61735-532-5 (pbk.) -- ISBN 978-1-61735-533-2 (hardcover) -ISBN 978-1-61735-534-9 (e-book) 1. Marcus, Sheldon. 2. Vairo, Philip D. 3. Educators--United States--Biography. 4. Education--United States. I. Marcus, Sheldon. II. Vairo, Philip D. LA2311.T95 2011 370.92'2--dc23 2011028004

Copyright © 2011 IAP–Information Age Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any electronic or mechanical means, or by photocopying, microfilming, recording or otherwise without written permission from the publisher. Printed in the United States of America

This book is dedicated in memory of our parents, Sarah and Joe Marcus and Rosana and Nicola Vairo, who made the American dream a reality for us.

CONTENTS Acknowledgements .................................................................................. ix Introduction ............................................................................................. xi Chapter I

Who Are We? ................................................................... 1 The Marcus Journey ........................................................ 3 The Vairo Journey ........................................................ 21

Chapter II

Moving from Sitting Behind the Desk to Standing In Front of the Classroom ............................................. 33

Chapter III

American Colleges and Universities: What are They Like and Where are They Going? ........................ 59

Chapter IV

Teachers: Can They All be Great ? ................................ 89

Chapter V

Educational Reform: A Con Game, a Possibility, or a Reality? ................................................................. 101

Chapter VI

Power Brokers and Influential People in the Educational Arena: Are They a Positive Force?............ 113

Chapter VII

Thinking Out Loud! ….. ............................................. 127

Chapter VIII

Concluding Remarks................................................... 137

vii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We wish to express our appreciation to our parents for giving us a solid foundation during our formative years. Special warmth and thanks also goes to our wives, Phyllis and Lillian, for their continued support and understanding throughout our professional careers. The ideas and proposals in this book are derived from our experiences with many outstanding and not so outstanding educators, and our many decades of service in the education profession. The content of this book, however, reflects our own philosophies and views of American education, yesterday, today and tomorrow. This book would not have seen the light of print without the word processing skills and “smarts” of Anna Razzaio, Stephanie Saccurato and Suzanna Cole. Our gratitude goes to Marsha White and Jamie Lee, two brilliant young ladies, for their valuable editorial comments. We also owe thanks to our family members and friends for their encouragement and enthusiasm in pushing us to write this book. Finally, we wish to acknowledge the students we have encountered from public schools through doctoral programs. Students are what schools should be about. They are by far the best and most important component of any school. Sheldon Marcus Philip D. Vairo.

ix

INTRODUCTION Over the decades, many books have been written about the educational problems facing our nation, with most claiming to present “innovative” and “successful” approaches to solving those problems. It is striking how after all these “solutions” have been prescribed and, in many cases, implemented, we are still looking for ways to help our children learn more effectively. We have had difficulty over the decades finding articles in The New York Times and Education Week reporting the demise of educational innovations. Instead, we found many articles reporting “successes.” Yet, these so-called “successes” have not solved our educational problems. Thus, the search continues for the “Holy Grail”—the book or program containing the next truly fail-proof strategy to meet the needs of every student and allow him/ her to master subject content. We are also eagerly awaiting the next “howto” book detailing the process by which every candidate for a teaching and an administrative position in a school will indeed be outstanding. Don’t hold your breath. Despite promises to the contrary, solutions will be offered but they will fall short. Simply stated, there is no “Holy Grail!” Nevertheless, we are already seeing the next round of “solutions”: “Race to the Top” merit pay, rating teachers, and, of course, charter schools, just to name a few. Data show that many children attending urban public schools, even in those with the highest per pupil expenditure, in many instances, are not performing up to grade level. Is it the fault of educators? Debate rages as to whether old solutions emphasizing “discipline,” “rote learning,” and “phonics” were less successful or more successful than today’s “new solutions” aimed at improving the teaching–learning process. It is unclear from these debates whether the “new solutions” are indeed workable. Might it be that this failure results from botched implementation of the “new solutions” or could it be that many of them are based on false premises and therefore are xi

xii

INTRODUCTION

doomed to fail? Could it even be that some or even many educational problems defy solution? Can our democratic society accept such an assumption? These are questions rarely discussed. We don’t have any can’t-miss solutions to offer. We find it almost humorous to watch the current Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, spell out his plans for solving educational ills. Did he solve educational problems in Chicago where he was superintendent of schools? Of course he didn’t. Could anyone have done better? Probably not, but we will never know with certainty. In actuality, there is no contemporary school leader in grades K-12 who can claim total success. Partial success, yes, but not success for all. This is the way it has always been and it will remain that way. Does it make sense to have better teachers and better school administrators? Should tenure be reexamined? Should the role of teacher unions in an educational system be reviewed? The answers to all of the above are a resounding “yes!” Should principals be removed when the students in his/her school consistently do not perform well on tests, or if attendance lags below the norm and violence in the school building is prevalent? This is what Mr Duncan is prescribing and he is right. Yet, during Secretary Duncan’s tenure as Superintendant of schools in Chicago, all children did not meet academic standards and not every child who entered high school graduated. Violence in Chicago schools continued to flourish. Should Mr Duncan have been fired? Of course not. Someone, however, needs to remind Mr Duncan that even the very best teachers do not succeed in reaching every child with whom he or she comes into contact. Every working educator in America knows that there are competent principals who lead schools, and teachers who work in them that are often labeled as “failing schools.” This book can be useful to a variety of audiences. First, the general reader may find it interesting to learn what actually goes on in schools, from grades K-12 through doctoral programs at universities. Second, parents of children attending K-12 schools, young adults in college, and those individuals pursuing graduate studies, can get an inside view of what it is like to be on both sides of the desk. Third, undergraduate and graduate students seeking a career in education can get a better idea of what their profession is really about as a result of reading this book. We have included actual events we experienced in our lifetime journey through education which can serve as realistic case studies to be analyzed by future teachers and administrators to ascertain if there are different and better ways of handling many of the situations we describe. We portray our views and experiences, ranging from teaching in public and private schools and universities to the presidency of a college. Further, we are not relying solely on memory. Starting from his days as a public school teacher, Marcus kept a diary and both of us have kept some of the documents related to some of the events described in this book. At this point in our lives, we have

Introduction xiii

no agenda other than to describe what actually occurred. We have neither a need to “get even” with anyone, nor do we have to worry about our next job. We are, however, guided by some simple beliefs. How children learn, socialize, and mature varies greatly from child to child, as do the parenting skills of adults. The efficacy of teacher and administrator preparation programs differ dramatically. The organization and operation of a school building and a school district office is complex. Many issues and needs that should at least be addressed in schools are caught in a web of pressure group politics from all sides of the political spectrum. Such pressure groups range from “God Squadders” and “Bible Bashers,” to teacher unions, ethnic and racial groups, politicians on the political left and right, universities, taxpayers, parent groups, and some who just want to grab some money or personal power. This book will discuss many issues through an integrated compilation of experiences from our professional lives in schools. These experiences and conclusions will involve education, politics, economics, social interactions, ethnic and racial politics, and human values. Obviously, our experiences shape our conclusions. Between us, we have been “witnesses” to and participants in over 150 years of life in education. This book, hopefully, will provide the reader with whatever wisdom we have garnered over the years of our journey. First, we discuss in detail our own lives—our expectations, our family histories, our friends are colleagues and all those many intangibles which have molded our thinking and which we share with the reader. We have done this in order to give insight into some of the factors that have served as a basis for how we conducted ourselves throughout our years in education and shaped the views expressed in this book. We have changed the names of many of the colleagues and students we discuss to spare those who are still alive and/or their families any embarrassment, and to save us from any possible defamation suits brought against us. However, we do use the real names of those individuals we thought deserved accolades for his or her professionalism and service to students. The book is written not to be a contender for the New York Times Best Seller List, although we would not be adverse to that, but to air many subjects that have been ignored, silenced, and distorted to the disadvantage of students attending schools today. We believe that youngsters are growing up in a society full of contradictions and intellectual dishonesty which permeate the fabric of almost every institution in our society. Some may view us as outdated professors, out of touch with today’s educational scene. After all, we were born in the 1930s during the Great Depression and grew up in the Bronx, New York City. Although we both earned our undergraduate degrees from the elite City University of New York and later earned our doctorates from Duke University and Yeshiva

xiv

INTRODUCTION

University, our professional lives took us to public schools in the South Bronx and to universities that were not usually ranked in the top 50 nationally among schools of education. Nevertheless, we believe we do have some commentary to offer that is both different and, perhaps, worthy of consideration by the general public, parents, aspiring educators, and even many educators already in the field. We hope you will agree with us after reading this book.

CHAPTER I

WHO ARE WE? This chapter attempts to highlight some of our early experiences as youngsters. Although we lived relatively close to each other in the Bronx and attended the same high school (albeit at different times), our paths did not cross until 1959 when, as young men, we both taught in the South Bronx at Thomas Knowlton Junior High School, which had the number designation of JHS52X. We believe that the reader should possess some background information to better understand what shaped our perspectives, as we are both highly opinionated. We have divided this chapter into two sections, each describing our individual experiences and putting our journeys in an historical context. The differences in our early years were relatively minor when contrasted with the many common denominators of our lives. Our profiles are portraits of two Bronx boys who dreamed we could achieve, although this thought developed in us slowly and by a process we cannot exactly fathom even to this day. Our philosophy of life and education was developed by a series of building blocks which were constructed early in our lives and expanded as we navigated the education profession.

Two Nobodies Speak Out: Our 150 Year Journey and Perspectives on Education, pp. 1–32 Copyright © 2011 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

1

THE MARCUS JOURNEY My parents Sarah and Joe, my older brother Arthur, and I lived in a threeroom apartment—“to the front”—as my mother would proudly remind us, and although I vaguely recall a baby crib, my most vivid recollections of the sleeping accommodations always reminded me of the Milton Berle joke: “I never slept alone until I got married.” In my case, I didn’t sleep alone until my brother served in the United States Army. Most of my young life, we shared a daybed that we pulled out and up every evening and down and in every morning. Our bedroom also doubled as the living room. It was hardly luxurious. When I would ask my mother how she and Pop wound up in the heavily Italian area where we lived, she would give me a look that made me feel I was a moron and usually say: “College boy, you may know your books, but you don’t know anything else. You keep asking me narrisha frage (foolish questions).” Once, however, she actually answered me, “Three rooms! To the front! $28.32 a month! College boy, stick to your books.” I used to think they were overpaying. There were, from my earliest memory, books in the house, thanks to my brother who was 5 ½ years older than me, and, of course, the Yiddish language newspaper, which my parents always referred to as “the Forvitz” (in actuality, this famous newspaper’s name was Forward), which my father usually read after dinner before going to sleep. Occasionally, he would even teach me Yiddish words by using his finger to sound out and translate the headlines of the “Forvitz.” Yiddish was the primary language of my parents, but by the time I was a teen, they were speaking “Yinglish,” a combination of Yiddish and English. I don’t know how good their Yiddish was, but their English was a combination of immigrant English and Bronxese, meaning

3

4 S. MARCUS and P. D. VAIRO

sentences often were often lacking a grammatical subject. Nevertheless, I clearly understood what they were saying and to this day, occasionally I omit the subject of a sentence, taking for granted that the person(s) I am addressing knows who or what I am referring to. As a child, I was embarrassed by my parents’ accents and broken English, and this embarrassment was exacerbated when I started school and heard teachers speak without an accent, using English I was not accustomed to hearing at home. Most of my classmates and friends had parents whose first language was Italian, and whose accents were as distinct as those of my parents. This did not diminish the pain of hearing my parents’ speak in their heavily accented form of “Yinglish.” After all, I was an “American kid.” Like virtually every child growing up, I was shaped by my environment, family, neighborhood, and the schools I attended. Some of those memories seem even sharper today than they were decades ago. Once, my brother told me of the day he came back to our apartment and found our mother crying. When he asked what happened, my mother said she was waiting on line in the A&P, and when she asked the cashier something, the lady behind her screamed at her, “Move, you gypsy Jew!” Mama didn’t respond, but obviously that did not lessen the impact these words had on her. Throughout my youth, being called a “fuckin’ Jew bastard” or some variation of that theme, was almost an everyday occurrence. After a while, I didn’t even hear it anymore, although these words still kept coming. If I thought the person cursing at me was too big for me physically, I would ignore the comment. If I thought I could take on the son of a bitch, then I would get into it. When I was about seven or eight years old, some idiot who was about six years my senior beat me up, and I went home crying. My mother went to see the boy’s father, dragging me behind her. The idiot’s father apologized to my mother and said it would never happen again. It didn’t. I would get dirty looks from the idiot, but he never put his hands on me again.

I don’t recall when I first saw the neighborhood school, P.S.57. It was always just there, a tall, five-storey building dating back to the early twentieth century. It was the tallest and most imposing building in the neighborhood, occupying almost a square block from 180th to 181st street on the South and North, and from Crotona Avenue to Belmont Avenue on the East and West. There were two different schoolyards. The left field fence of one of them rested against the building we lived in. These two schoolyards brought together loads of kids on weekdays after school, and teenagers and young adults of all ages on the weekends. Softball, stickball, off the wall, pitching in the box, basketball, and two-touch football played on concrete were the games of choice, depending on the season of the year—regardless of brutally cold or hot weather. P.S. 57 was also there where I spent my first seven years in school.

Who Are We 5

The location of the school dictated that most of the youngsters in the schoolyard were Italian, along with a smattering of Jewish kids. To the south of 180th street, the neighborhood became more Jewish, and to the north more heavily Italian. There were some Irish kids in the neighborhood, but almost all of them went to Catholic schools and we interacted with them only occasionally. There were also a few youngsters of other ethnic backgrounds—just a few—and even one black youngster, Charlie. Since everyone had a nickname, by the time we were teenagers, it was not surprising that he was always referred to as “Charlie Black.” This certainly distinguished him from another kid called “Charlie Red” (because of his hair color). Activities in the school reflected the culture of the neighborhood and events taking place around us at the time. When I entered school in 1942, World War II was raging. Every Friday morning there was a school assembly. The girls had to wear a white blouse and skirt, and the boys a white shirt, tie, and dress pants. As far as I can recall, everyone did so. You knew what you had to wear on Friday so you made sure that your only pair of “good pants” and your one white shirt were ready to be worn on Fridays. The assembly would always begin in the same manner. Mrs. Pearl Thaler, our school principal, would stand on the auditorium stage and, in a very animated fashion, lead the entire assembly, consisting probably of three to four hundred youngsters, in singing “Praise the Lord and Pass the Ammunition.” No matter how loudly we sang, Mrs. Thaler would shout, “Louder! Louder!” On some occasions, I would hold my hands to my ears because of the sound level generated. On some assembly days, “Praise the Lord and Pass the Ammunition” would be supplemented by a 78 rpm version of Kate Smith singing “God Bless America.” After hearing the record, Mrs. Thaler would say she was going to play it again, and this time we should all join in singing. As always, she stood at the edge of the auditorium stage, swinging her arms vigorously and urging us to sing “Louder! Louder!” Mrs. Thaler seemed to be a physically imposing figure, and I drew comfort from this because if she was on “our side,” we were certainly going to win the war. I was not sure in my early years in elementary school exactly what was going on in the world, but I knew from listening to conversations at home that for America’s defeat in World War II would have dire consequences for me and my family, although I did not quite then realize that defeat would probably have meant death. Many, many years later, I related my Mrs. Thaler recollections to Ted Wiesenthal, who was then a colleague of mine at Fordham University, but earlier in his career had been superintendent of the district in which Mrs. Thaler had been a principal. After listening to my Mrs. Thaler stories, Ted asked me how tall I thought she was. I had no idea, as my recollections were based on my being five to seven

6 S. MARCUS and P. D. VAIRO

years old. Ted looked at me, smiled, and said, “I knew Mrs. Thaler very well. I would say she was less than 5 feet tall.” Nevertheless, in my memory bank, she remains gigantic. We could not lose the war. Mrs. Thaler would not allow it. Besides, even Kate Smith and God were on our side. I remember crying my first day in kindergarten. My mother accompanied me to school and I was fine—until she left—then I started crying. Fortunately, I got over it. I had some extraordinary teachers, like Mrs. Metrillo, who lived on Hughes Avenue, a block and a half from the school, and Miss Spencer, my third grade teacher, who was famous for staging the annual Christmas show presented in the school auditorium. Prior to the 1944 Christmas show, Miss Spencer calmly addressed the school assembly that while we were going to celebrate a joyous Christmas, a battle was raging in Europe (the Battle of the Bulge) in which the lives of many young American boys would be lost so that we might live in a better and safer world. Even at age 7, listening to Miss Spencer, I realized that many people I did not know were in far off places, risking their lives to enable me to enjoy playing ball in the schoolyard, go to school, and do pretty much what I wanted. From the day Miss Spencer gave that brief talk, whenever I walked the streets of my neighborhood, I had a much greater appreciation of the little flags in the many windows of the apartment buildings and houses. All these flags told a different message. Some, according to the color and number of stars on the flag, indicated how many family members were serving in the armed services. Some flags even designated that someone in the family had been killed while serving. I wondered who they were but I never realized how young most of them must have been, some only 10 or 11 years older than me. We all knew about the war because there were things like “black-outs,” food rationing stamps, and the collection of the empty tin food cans that we brought to school so that the metal could be collected, processed, and used in the war effort. Heaven help the unlucky family if an air raid warden had to yell out, “You, on the third floor of 2114 Belmont Avenue! I can see your lights!! Turn them off !!!”

In 1948, when I was in the fifth grade, we began rehearsal for the annual school May Day festival. I had no idea then of any of the political implications of May Day. This event always took place in the schoolyard, and to most of the children it seemed to mark the beginning of spring. What still sticks out in my mind about this particular May Day was a conversation in front of my classroom between my teacher, Mrs. Dreiarsh, and Dr. Harris, an older teacher. The conversation was about several parents who had come to the school to complain about the fact that their children were being asked to participate in dancing the “Hora,” a Jewish folk dance, at the May

Who Are We 7

Day festival. These parents, it seemed, did not want their children performing a “Jewish dance” in fear of them catching a “Jewish disease.” Until then, I never thought one could catch a disease by dancing. May Day came, and the “Hora” was performed by Jewish and non-Jewish students. As far as I know, no one caught the “Jewish disease.” Yet, this animosity towards Jews reinforced my feelings of being apart and different. I could never figure out why some people did not like Jews. I thought of myself as a good person, and I certainly thought of my family in the same way. Later that spring, I got at least a partial answer as to why I was subjected to name calling and why some parents complained about doing a “Jewish dance.” One afternoon after school, Anthony, who attended St. Martin of Tours Elementary School, came to the schoolyard with a pained expression on his face, and asked me: “Why did you do it? Why did you do it?” I had no idea what he was talking about. ”Do what?” I said. Anthony simply repeated the question again several times. “What did I do?” I kept asking. Finally, Anthony told me: “You killed Jesus! The priest said so.” I told Anthony, “I didn’t kill anybody.” “You did so! You killed Jesus!” I continued to protest my innocence, but I was upset not just by the accusation but because of the genuine pain and the anguish that was visible on Anthony’s face. Later, when I told my mother that Anthony had accused me of killing Jesus, she told me not to worry about it because I had not hurt anybody. As an adult, when I told that story to my brother, he related a similar story that occurred when he was a teenager. Georgie, who lived across the street from us, one Sunday afternoon after mass, asked my brother, “Why did the Jews kill Jesus Christ?” My brother told me he simply responded: “The Jews didn’t kill Him, the Romans did.”

Dr. Harris, my sixth grade teacher, didn’t smile much, and she already seemed beyond old. She had white hair, was bow-legged, and often got around with the assistance of a cane, but she was very demanding of the students. She also emphasized music appreciation. I can clearly remember her teaching us the words to “The Peat Bog Soldiers” during our weekly music hour. We would usually wind up singing it so often that the students were totally turned off by it. Later, I discovered it was a song about Communist prisoners in Nazi slave labor camps. Other than that song, I have no recollection of Dr. Harris’ politics intruding on anything that got in the way of her being a teacher who demanded that we do our work and that we do it well. It was during my year in Dr. Harris’ class that I did miserably in reading the eye chart on Health Day. Dr. Harris called my mother and told her I needed glasses. I swore to myself that I would never wear them. After all,

8 S. MARCUS and P. D. VAIRO

I thought of myself as a real man (I was one of the best ball players in my grade), and real men did not wear glasses. My mother took me to an optometrist who, of course, reinforced Dr. Harris’ diagnosis. Soon I had a pair of glasses which I did not wear. Dr. Harris, however, kept hounding me: “Where are your glasses? Put them on!” Since I was somewhat intimidated by her, I eventually did so, but as soon as I left the school building, off they came. Dr. Harris was relentless to the point of even calling my mother one Saturday morning on our new “party line” phone, demanding that she see to it that I wear my glasses all the time for a very good reason—I could barely see without them! After being double-teamed for a while, I finally started wearing them. It was good to see things more clearly.

It was about this time that I began my lifelong love affair with Frank Sinatra. One afternoon, the entire grade was sent to a special assembly where we were shown a movie “short” called “The House I Live In” in which Sinatra starred. Of course, I already knew who Frank Sinatra was—how could a kid who lived on Belmont Avenue not know Sinatra? He was an icon to all Italians and to an entire generation of teenagers and younger kids like me. As the movie unfolded, I could not believe what I was watching. The kid chased onto the window ledge was me! And Frank Sinatra was in that alley helping me! He was on my side! “The House I Live In” was shown in our assembly probably 15–20 more times throughout the school year. Each time I saw it, my admiration of Sinatra grew. My hero, a great good singer, and a pretty good ladies’ man, to boot.

April 12, 1945 was a memorable sunny weekday afternoon. I was seven years old and playing in the schoolyard. Through the fence, I noticed my mother walking west along 181st street. Suddenly, a teenaged kid came running down the street toward her, yelling out with joy: “The fuck is dead! The fuck is dead!” As he got to my mother, barely slowing down, he screamed at her, “Now, you fuckin’ Jews will get what’s comin’ to you!” and almost in a state of euphoria, continued running down the block, repeating, “The fuck is dead!” I had no idea who was dead. Later, I learned that our wartime leader, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, had suffered a stroke and died. He had been a presence in the lives of virtually everyone around me. In the apartments of most of the Italian youngsters with whom I played, there was usually a statue of Virgin Mary, a crucifix on the wall, sometimes a photo of Pope Pius XII, but more often, a framed picture of Franklin Delano Roosevelt on a dresser or tacked up on a wall. On the other hand, some people, like the joyful youngster screaming and running down the street, truly believed that Roosevelt’s real name was Franklin Delano “Rosenfeld.”

Who Are We 9

While attending P.S. 57, I had my first experience with death. I vaguely recall a young teacher named Mrs. Brunelli, who taught the Children with Retarded Mental Development (CRMD) class which, in the 1940s was segregatied from the rest of the students. One morning, we were told we were going out onto Crotona Avenue because Mrs. Brunelli had died and her funeral procession was going to drive by the school. The entire school building emptied out. I watched with a degree of fascination and fear as a line of limousines and a funeral hearse, bedecked with flowers, slowly passed by. I knew Mrs. Brunelli was under those flowers. It seemed that one of her last wishes was to have the hearse go by the school. I dreamed about that hearse and Mrs. Brunelli for a long time. I wondered why she had died as I thought only old people died. I also wondered what it was like to be dead under those flowers. Many decades later, I am still wondering.

What impact did these childhood recollections have on me? Very simple— from an early age, I learned that I was considered “different” by many. Thus, at an early age, I resolved never to make group judgments about people of different religions, ethnicities, races, or anything else that makes one different. I learned that the meaning of “different” is different; not better than or worse than, just different! For every idiot that assaulted me with their hands or mouths, there were many more great Italian youngsters I grew up with. Later, as an adult, I valued the friendship of Frank Volpicella, Joe Mileti, and, of course, my amigo, Phil Vairo. Eventually, I took my final revenge on the Italian kids who tormented me when I married Phyllis, the smartest and prettiest Italian girl in the world—and I still say that after more than three decades of being with her.

In 1949, I entered Niles Junior High School (118x), a much more modern building than my elementary school. At the time, junior high schools represented the latest solution to problems plaguing schools around the country. Previous to the junior high school philosophy taking hold, most schools were organized on the basis of grades K-8, and then on to high school for grades 9–12. Many educational reformers, however, thought that this was not working well. Their solution was to take the 9th grade (high school freshmen) from the high school and the 7th and 8th grades from the elementary schools to create a junior high school. Today, the junior high school is a relic of the past, but don’t despair! For those who live long enough, some educational reformer will come up with a can’t-miss, new solution to the ills of the school systems around the country—“We need to organize schools around grades 7, 8, and 9.” This new “solution” will also have a new name.

10 S. MARCUS and P. D. VAIRO

While I was attending Junior High School 118X, I had my only experience failing a course. Decades before Public Law 94-142 was enacted to protect the rights of handicapped children, I didn’t even know I had a handicap until I was assigned to a typing class filled with what seemed to be new Royal typewriters. On the first day of class, our typing teacher, Mrs. Lefko, was very clear about her expectations. She demonstrated how we had to place our fingers on the typewriter keyboard and which fingers would be used to hit specific keys. She also had a little bell on her desk, and when she hit the little tab on top, we had to instantly stop typing, with the emphasis on instantly. During our first class, I made a discovery—my fingers did not seem to move separately. I could not hit the keys with different fingers. I always knew my fingers were misshapen, but I didn’t see it as a problem until that first typing class. Nevertheless, I tried to get by just using my pointer finger to hit the keys. But Mrs. Lefko was on the alert. By our second class, she was screaming at me to use my fingers properly. We only had typing twice a week, but throughout the semester, Mrs. Lefko kept up a steady barrage of yelling and criticism directed toward me. Once, after class, I tried explaining to her that I could not use my fingers as she had instructed us to do. She told me she would not tolerate any excuses and that I should learn how to type like everybody else. At that point, I just gave up. From then on, whenever Mrs. Lefko hit her desk bell and the rest of the class reacted instantly, I would hit keys several times with my pointer finger so that she would know exactly who was doing it. At the end of both semesters, I received a grade of 25 for the class. Thank you, Mrs. Lefko, because without you, I would not know what it was like to have failed a course and to deal with all the frustration that went with being unable to do what a teacher asks of a student. This experience always stuck with me as an educator and, I believe, influenced me in how not to treat my future students. Teacher education programs, even the very best ones, cannot prepare would-be teachers for every eventuality. They certainly cannot teach empathy towards children. Without it, one is not going to be a very good teacher.

On another occasion, I learned a lesson about what and what not to tell my mother about events at school. I was taking a shop class in printing, and the teacher, Mr. Dona, was unhappy with the behavior of the students and yelled out: “I am going to knock the piss out of the next kid who’s out of order!” For some reason, this struck me as being funny, since I had never heard a teacher use language in a classroom that kids used regularly out on the street, so I started laughing out loud. Dona told me to come to the front of his desk, and I did so. He got out of his chair and smacked me right across the face with an open hand. It was more humiliating than physically

Who Are We 11

hurtful, and although very angry, I did not respond. When my mother got home from work that evening, I told her that Mr. Dona had slapped me across the face. She immediately called for my brother, who was in the living room, and told him to beat me up worse than Mr. Dona had done. Before he could get to me, however, I went running out the apartment door, flew down the stairs and ran out in the street with my brother pursuing me. It was a good thing that I was faster than he was. I was afraid to go home until about 10:00 p.m. that night. When I did get in the door, my brother was not home and my mother was asleep. I learned a really good lesson that day. Most parents had great trust and confidence in teachers. Later, my mother told me she wanted my brother to beat me up because the teacher probably did not hit me hard enough for what I had done. By the way, she never asked me what I had done to cause the teacher to hit me. She automatically assumed that if the teacher hit me, I was in the wrong. After that, I tried very hard not to let my mother know when I got into trouble at school.

In Junior High School 118X, I thought I received a good education in subjects like Social Studies, French, and English, thanks to teachers like Mrs. Soriano and Miss Haskell. I had the same horrible Math teacher for two years and my interest level in math probably mirrored her interest level in teaching us. She was obviously bored and so were we. As a kid, I could not hit a baseball like my brother nor could I play basketball like my cousin, Lenny, but I could play a little. My junior high school had intramural tournaments on every grade level, and since classes were grouped by the foreign language we studied, I was always with kids who were taking French, whereas most of the Italian kids were in classes with kids taking Italian. In the seventh and eighth grades, my class lost in the championship game to the class composed of Italian kids. After each game, my class dutifully lined up and congratulated the kids on the winning team. I can still recall, however, the championship game in the ninth grade when surprisingly, even to me, we beat the Italian kids. I went four for five that game. Solly Costell went five for five. After that game, there were no congratulations from the losers. I walked home with my friend, Tommy Del Guidice, who played on the losing team. Tommy told me that he was surprised at the reaction of his classmates. I learned that day that it is better to be a gracious loser than a sore loser, although I have not always succeeded in living by that credo.

It was also in junior high school that I began noticing girls. I guess I was coming of age, and although I had kissed some girls in elementary school

12 S. MARCUS and P. D. VAIRO

playing “Spin the Bottle,” I hadn’t had a real “romance.” At different times in Junior High School, I had crushes on a couple of girls, although it was unknown to them. One particular classmate I really was drawn to was Edie. In the spring of my senior year, the school prom was on the horizon and I kept wondering if I could get up the nerve to ask Edie if I could take her to the prom. Unfortunately, I didn’t own a suit, and I didn’t know if my parents had the money to buy me one. As a result, I did not ask her, althought my biggest fear was of her saying “no.” One day, however, Miss Haskell asked me to get the window pole and open the windows. Edie was sitting on the window aisle. Amazingly, she looked at me, smiled, and said, “How would you like to take me to the prom?” I was so startled that I said in my best Belmont Avenue sneer, “Are you kidding?” and walked away. Edie, I would have loved to have taken you to the prom. You simply surprised an immature, teenage dope. I am very sorry for acting like an idiot. Until around 1950, the radio was our source of information from the world outside our neighborhood. Certainly, the newspaper was important, as were movies (specifically the “News of the Week” feature shown between double or triple features at the movie house). It was the radio, however, that was the mystical vehicle that stimulated our imaginations. However, it was baseball that most stimulated my imagination. For example, in the fall of 1944, I heard my first baseball game. I came home from school, turned on the radio and voices miraculously came into the kitchen. On this particular day, two teams from St. Louis were playing in the World Series. After listening to the announcer describe the game for a couple of innings, how could I not become a St. Louis Cardinal fan? The Cardinals seemed to have such wonderfully descriptive nicknames: “Slats” Marion, “Whitey” Kurowski, Stan “The Man” Musial, Walker “Big Coop” Cooper, Harry “The Cat” Brecheen. They were my favorite team for many years. I rooted for them that fall and they won, beating the St. Louis Browns four games to two.

As important as radio was, by the late 1940’s there was a newer communications device looming on the horizon called television. After World War II, televisions became available, and many made their first appearance in bars. Thus, it was at the Crystal Bar on 180th Street in September of 1946 where I saw my first boxing match. The great Joe Louis, the reigning heavyweight champion of the world, was defending his title against someone from the neighborhood, Tami Mauriello. That night, for whatever reason, my brother took me to the Crystal Bar, with its huge 12-inch T.V. screen, to see if the local hero could take the heavyweight crown from Louis. The bar was crowded with Mauriello supporters and the smoke was suffocating. Then the fight began, but I didn’t see much of it. Right after the fight

Who Are We 13

started, everyone jumped up and I heard screaming, “Kill the nigger! Kill him!” Those were some of the milder things yelled out. Suddenly, there was stone silence. The fight was over and I had not seen any of it. But I knew from the reaction of everyone around me who had won the fight. Many years later, I saw a tape of this less-than-one-round match, and I understood immediately at what point everybody in the bar jumped up and started screaming. Mauriello, who could punch, had hit Louis and staggered him. Shortly thereafter, however, Louis knocked out Mauriello. Thus, the silence.

Sports were an important outlet and escape for me as a child. I played all the usual school yard games (stickball, softball, off-the-wall, boxball, ring-alevio, Johnny on the pony, touch football on concrete, and basketball) and attended many sporting events around the New York metropolitan area. In my youth, getting a ticket for a major sports event was no big deal, and, often times, it was free. I feel sorry for today’s youngsters, who need a wellto-do parent to buy costly tickets and accompany them to the event. The 1940s and ’50s were a different story. For example, on Sundays in the fall, I would often go to the Polo Grounds and watch the New York Football Giants. Tickets were free, thanks to the Police Athletic League (PAL) which distributed them to keep youngsters off the streets and out of trouble. The games were usually poorly attended and young kids like me seemed to make up most of the people in the stands. In the summer, my friends and I could also go to Yankee Stadium to watch the New York Yanks play football free of charge, thanks once again to the PAL. It is grimly humorous to compare free tickets available then to the personal seat licenses and sky-high prices charged to watch the Giants and the Yankees today. My, oh my, has the world changed! Going to Yankee Stadium and the Polo Grounds also evoke some terrific memories, such as being in the stands and calling out to Stan Musial, who was about 40 feet from us, who turned toward us, smiled and waved. He truly was “Stan the Man.” We would get to Yankee Stadium early and would watch Joe Dimaggio playing fungo with his son, Joe, Jr., I was always jealous. Joe, Jr. was about my age and I kept thinking, That kid’s father is Joe DiMaggio! How lucky can you be! As an adult, when I learned a lot more about Joe DiMaggio and his relationship with his son, I realized how lucky I was to have my parents. Ah, the naïveté of youth. We often had the opportunity to go to Madison Square Garden to see college basketball games, the New York Knickerbockers, in the then-relatively new National Basketball Association, and the New York Rangers. Admission to Madison Square Garden was not free, yet, by using our school general organization card, we could purchase tickets for 35–70 cents depending on

14 S. MARCUS and P. D. VAIRO

the seat location. There seemed to be more excitement when the local college basketball powers, such as City College of New York (CCNY), New York University, Long Island University (LIU), and St. John’s University, were playing in double-headers. Getting a ticket for those games was a lot tougher than going to see the Knicks or the New York Rangers. I can remember vividly seeing black players on CCNY and LIU. The Knicks had just brought in Sweetwater Clifton; Charlie Cooper was playing for the Boston Celtics and Earl Lloyd was playing for the Syracuse Nationals. At the time, I did not realize that history was being made. Most times that we went to Madison Square Garden we would walk down Broadway after the game. It was always fun to walk by Jack Dempsey’s restaurant and invariably see Dempsey sitting at a table by the window. We always pressed our faces against the window right where he was sitting. He, too, would usually acknowledge us with a smile and a wave. It was hard to believe that this smiling man at the table once defined toughness and unbridled fury. Seemed like a really nice guy to us! We would occasionally see Rocky Graziano walking the streets in midtown. To us, he was famous even before Paul Newman portrayed him in “Somebody Up There Likes Me.” Graziano, too, always smiled and waved at us.

In my final year in junior high school, I did not take any examinations for admission to one of the special academic high schools for the gifted in New York City, although I thought I was pretty smart and was receiving good grades. No teacher, however, encouraged me to apply to those schools.… Thus, I wound up at the neighborhood high school, Theodore Roosevelt, located across the street from Fordham University. At Roosevelt High School, I was both a decent academic student as well as a pain in the ass. Being the latter resulted in my being suspended from school twice. On the first occasion, during a chemistry lab, my lab partner was trying to get the attention of a young lady by picking up a lit Bunsen Burner and shoving the flame towards her. By the time the chemistry teacher, Mr. Freeman, noticed the subsequent disruption, my lab-mate had put the burner down and the teacher accused me of wielding the Bunsen Burner. Not wanting to be regarded as a “rat,”, I did not say, “It wasn’t me; it was him!” Instead, I said nothing. I was sent to the dean’s office and was suspended for 3 days. I was angry at my lab-mate for not coming forward, but I took the fall anyway. My second suspension was more serious. One morning during my last semester of high school, a friend of mine told me he had forgotten a homework assignment and asked if he could borrow my bus pass to go home and get it. We agreed to meet at a certain location and time because I needed my bus pass for my job, which involved picking up urine samples from various

Who Are We 15

pharmacies in the Bronx and upper Manhattan for a physician’s laboratory. Unfortunately, we missed connecting at the appointed time and place, so I went to his classroom where he told me he would be in the event we missed one another. The class had already started so I tapped on the back door window. My friend saw me and passed the bus pass via a student relay system to get it to the person sitting in the seat closest to the door who would then give it to me. Of course, the teacher, Mr. Gold, quickly realized that the passing of the bus pass had disrupted his lesson. He intercepted it and put it on his desk. Mr. Gold had been my intermediate algebra teacher, and although he knew who I was, we had no relationship. In a panic because I was now late for work, I entered the room and told Mr. Gold it was my bus pass on his desk and that I needed it for work. He picked up the bus pass, looked at it, and said: “It says here that this bus pass can be confiscated if it’s given to somebody else.” He then placed it back on the desk and resumed the lesson. I picked up the bus pass from his desk and said, “Where does it say that?” Mr. Gold then grabbed my arm in front of the class. Automatically, I swung my arm in a backward motion. Mr. Gold went flying back against the blackboard. Being that I was late for work, with my bus pass in hand, I quickly left the room. When I got to school the next morning, my official teacher told me that the Dean of Boys, Mr. Justice, wanted to see me in his office. When I got there, Miss Bellow, the Dean of Girls, was also there. When she saw me, she asked Justice, “Is this the bum?” Justice did not answer her. He asked me what had happened the previous day, while Miss Bellow incessantly chimed in with various forms of “Suspend the bum!” The meeting concluded with my being suspended from school until my mother and I appeared at a hearing conducted by the school principal. On the day of my hearing, my unhappy mother and I entered the main lobby where we accidentally met Mr. Elliffe, a former gym teacher of mine, who told my mother what a wonderful son she had raised. Given my mother’s anger toward me at the moment, the timing could not have been better. We then proceeded to the principal’s office, where a secretary, whose name I never knew, started screaming: “That’s the bum! That’s the bum! He just knocked me over in the hall!” Simultaneously, Miss Bellow was shouting to the principal, Miss Callan, “I told you he was a bum! I told you he was a bum!” I was dumbfounded. Better yet for me, my mother thought she was in an office with lunatics since she had not left my side from the moment we had entered the building and she knew I could not have knocked anybody down. After a few minutes of the secretary and Miss Bellow shouting: “He’s the one!” “He’s a bum!,” we went into the principal’s office. The end result was that I was suspended for the rest of the semester (which was about two weeks), banned from graduation, and told that my high school diploma would be mailed to me. That, however, is not the end of the story. Let’s fast forward about 15 years.

16 S. MARCUS and P. D. VAIRO

One day, when I was chair of the Division of Urban Education at Fordham’s Graduate School of Education, Dr. Thomas Vinci, chair of the Division of Curriculum and Teaching, asked me for a favor. “Shelly, we are interviewing someone for a vacancy. I would really appreciate it if you would participate in the interview process.” I asked what time the interview would take place and where. Tom told me 1 o’clock, and I told him, “Sorry, I have a meeting at that time.” Tom was not deterred. He said: “Come after your meeting is over. If you get there, 1:30, 1:45, the interview should still be going on.” Tom was a good guy, and although I really did not want to go, I told him I would be there. I got to the interview at about 1:30. Everyone was sitting at a large round table. As unobtrusively as possible, I slipped into the lone, unoccupied chair, trying to minimize my disrupting the interview process. As soon as I sat down, however, Tom stopped the meeting and introduced me to the candidate. “Mr. Gold, let me introduce you to our distinguished chair of the Division of Urban Education, Dr. Sheldon Marcus.” I was sitting almost opposite of Mr. Gold. Stunned, I immediately covered my face, hoping my hand and the afro I sported at the time would hide my identity. I mumbled something to him and the interview resumed. If Mr. Gold did recognize me, he gave no indication of it. I said nothing at the interview while continuing to hold my hands in front of my face. When the interview concluded, Tom escorted Mr. Gold to the elevator, returned to the table and polled each of the participants on their reaction to the candidate. When Tom got to me, I simply said I was not there long enough to form an opinion. Mr. Gold had done nothing wrong. I had acted like a 17-year-old punk. Mr. Gold did not get the job, but not because of anything that could be attributed to me. Many educators can probably think back to when they were students and did stupid things. Hopefully, youngsters can grow, learn from mistakes, mature, and eventually occupy a responsible position in society. Is it every day that one gets a chance to judge people who once judged them? Perhaps not, but it happens more than occasionally.

I wanted to go to college because I knew I did not want to work as a laborer for the rest of my life like my father. My grades were good and my mother made it seem that it was expected that I would attend college and follow in the footsteps of my brother, who was the first American-born child in my extended family of immigrants to attend college full-time. He had been admitted to the City College of New York (CCNY) and, without any guidance counselor’s advice, I applied there, too. Given the fact that attending CCNY was free, there was no other option. I probably would have worried more about being admitted if I had known at the time how competitive CCNY was as an academic institution.

Who Are We 17

Today, it may be hard to believe that I only applied to one college. What would I have done if I had not been admitted? The answer is simple: I would have gone to work full-time and gone to college part-time in the evening. Many youngsters did exactly that. Looking at the educational universe today, I still scratch my head at youngsters who apply to 10, 12, 15 colleges or more. The impact of this on colleges is immense, given that students get multiple letters of admission and many colleges do not know who will actually show up in September until the large deposit check is received. With the availability of guidance counselors in high schools today, it does not seem unreasonable for high school seniors to be limited in the number of colleges they can apply to, if among their choices should be a “safe school.”

In February 1959, after two and one-half years at Roosevelt, I began my college studies at CCNY. I knew that I had entered a new phase of my life. I quickly realized that I no longer would be among the brightest students in all my classes. The assignments seemed overwhelming and the classes challenging. At CCNY, I was enrolled in the infamous Math 61 class required of all freshmen at CCNY—a course in differential calculus. From the first day of the course to the final exam, I had no idea what the professor was talking about. I would, however, spend hours looking at the textbook and pore over my class notes in an effort to pass this course. The teacher was patient, but I still didn’t “get it.” Somehow, I managed to regurgitate enough knowledge so that when I finished the final exam, I thought that I might pass the course. In those days, grades were posted outside of the office of a particular department. The grade a student received appeared next to his/her actual name rather than an identification number. Standing outside of the math office trying to locate my class and section of Math 61, I was struck by the number of “F”s that seemed to jump off the grade sheets. Finally, I found my class, then my name, and saw a “D.” I was ecstatic! As I walked the eight blocks to the subway, my feet never touched the ground. I thought I could repeat that course six times and never do any better than I did the first time.

I chose French as my foreign language since I had five years of studying the language already under my belt. I don’t ever recall getting less than 90 in any of my French classes. My first two class sessions in French at City College, however, were quite different from my high school experience. The teacher did not speak a word of English—only French. What amazed me was that everybody in the class, except me, seemed to understand what was being said and was able to respond. My high school French teachers had emphasized grammar rather than conversation. I was totally lost. After that

18 S. MARCUS and P. D. VAIRO

second class, I dropped French and began a new language—German. The next day, I appeared for my first German class. Here, too, the teacher was speaking German, but I understood much of what he was saying. Thank God, my parents had spoken Yiddish. I got my come-uppance one day, however, when the professor called on me to respond in class. Confidently, I did so. The professor stood silently, looked at me and said coldly in English, “Herr Marcus, this is a class in German, not Yiddish!” I guess my dialect was not acceptable, although over the course of the next two years, I managed to do quite well in German.

History had been my favorite subject in high school and I was looking forward to advancing my knowledge. I found myself in a History I (Ancient History) class where the teacher had a very heavy accent and a stern demeanor. She distributed the course requirements and I was stunned by the amount of work she required. Once again, I said to myself, I’m getting out of this class. Two days later, I showed up for my new History 1 section. When I got to class the professor was not yet in the packed room. When she did enter the room she looked at us, smiled, and said, “Many of you have tried to escape, ja?” She was right! Somehow she had wound up as the teacher of this new section that I and many of my classmates had transferred into. It turned out well, however, Dr. Wierszewski, was a great lecturer, albeit a very demanding professor. To this day, I still have the 360 pages of handwritten notes from her course.

The amount of work required of me as a freshman at CCNY often left me panic-stricken. I did, however, catch a break in my English class where the professor required a short theme each week. Overwhelmed by the amount of work in German and History and my difficulties with Calculus, I was struggling until 1:00 or 2:00 A.M. in the morning to complete my assignments. Pressed for time, I dashed off my first theme after spending only 30–35 minutes on it. I got it back with a grade of “C.” I was thrilled. I thought to myself, that given the time I had to spend on my other courses, putting in 30–40 minutes a week on a theme in order to get a “C” was just fine. I did this for the rest of the semester and indeed got a “C” in the course. I thought this was a good trade-off. In my second semester of English, I was enrolled with a different professor. Given my experience the previous semester, I did my usual 35- to 40 minute paper, and hoped for my usual “C.” When I got it back, I was stunned. I had received an “F- -” along with the teacher’s comment on it—“See me after class!” Not exactly what I had expected. My meeting with the professor was brief and to the point. He told me that my paper was totally unacceptable and that since I possessed

Who Are We 19

the academic ability to be admitted to CCNY, I could either buckle down and take the work seriously, or drop the course. What I learned about writing from that professor enabled me to pursue an academic career in higher education for over 43 years. I had a “B” going into the final but wound up with a “C.” I still have the “F- -” paper. Thank you, Professor Magalaner.

The last three years of college went pretty well. My grades improved and the amount of time I put in to achieve them diminished. The professors were always prepared and some of them were great. In history and political science, the faculty provided me with the background and a sense of how we came to be in the world of the late 1950’s. Professor Bailey Diffie told the class on our first session that “I only gives two “A’s” in a class. I got one of them. Further, I loved working my butt off. Professor Ivo Duchacek was charismatic in his Government 41 course. These professors and many others opened my eyes to a whole new world about which I had previously known very little of. My positive memories of these professors only grew as I progressed through my graduate studies and found that I was indeed lucky to have had the quality of instructors I experienced at CCNY. By the way, there were no more suspensions from school. I suppose maturity was setting in.

By the fall of 1958, I was preparing to become a teacher in the New York City public schools. I was a history major and an education minor. So, social studies was going to be my teaching subject area. I was to graduate in January 1959 and start my teaching career a couple of weeks later. During Christmas of 1958, however, something memorable did happen. On December 28, 1958, at 10:00 a.m., Bobby Spitalnic and I lined up at the bleacher entrance to Yankee Stadium, under the Jerome Avenue El, in order to buy tickets to watch the Baltimore Colts and the New York Giants play for the National Football League championship. Yes, there were ticket booths selling tickets and although I do not remember the price (I think it was in the area of $2), we wound up with terrific seats in the right centerfield bleachers, around the 35-yard line, and close to the field. We were among the “millions” who today claim to have been present at that game. Most of the game is still clear in my memory. Johnny Unitas was in his high tops, Raymond Berry and Lenny Moore were catching everything thrown to them despite being well-covered, Weeb Ewbank threw a punch at Sam Huff on the Baltimore sideline, and Alex Webster picked up Kyle Rote’s fumble and ram it almost to the Baltimore goal line. The Giants overcame a 14-3 deficit, to take a 17-14 lead. Frank Gifford was stopped short of a firstdown on two third-down attempts, although from where I was sitting on

20 S. MARCUS and P. D. VAIRO

the other side of the field, it looked like the referee shafted the Giants in terms of where they placed the football. It became increasingly cold as the game wore on. I was surprised at the huge number of Colt fans cheering on Unitas, the greatest quarterback I have ever seen (sorry Peyton, Tom, and Joe), as he drove the Colts down the field for the tying field goal and later, in overtime, for the winning touchdown scored by Alan Ameche. After this game, there would be no more ticket booth sales for Giants games. Pro football had now arrived. This game marked the end of my childhood because on February 2nd, 1959, I began life as an adult—as a teacher in Thomas Knowlton Junior High School in the Bronx.

THE VAIRO JOURNEY In retrospect, the Vairo journey was one of fulfillment, happiness, sorrow, regrets, and appreciation. Looking back at that journey over my 78 years, I can say, however, that it was consistently exciting and rewarding! My life began in a very sheltered Italian immigrant family. Italian language, culture, my parents, grandmother, and aunt were the dominant factors in my early years. At age five, when I entered kindergarten in 1938, the school became a partner in my socialization process. Not long after, the streets of the Bronx joined the circle, as new friends entered my every day existence. Both of my parents had only a first and second grade education in rural schools in Piaggine, Italy and Leonforte, Sicily. Separately, they came to America through Ellis Island in 1920. They both were 16 years of age without any special skills, and met on a blind date in 1931 through mutual friends. However, their informal family education, which focused on fidelity, hard work, commitment, and mutual respect, set a tone for me as I grew up in New York City. My parents came to America for many reasons, all of which can simply be boiled down to one—search for a better life. My mother’s father, my grandfather, was murdered in Leonforte, Sicily when she was 15. That event prompted her mother to move the family to America and to get away from the nightmare of my grandfather’s death. They wanted to start afresh. Even in America, however, death was a constant presence. My mother’s younger brother died of tuberculosis during the Great Depression and left the household without a male figure in the house. My grandmother, mother, and her sister shared a dreary economic situation until my mother and my aunt married.

21

22 S. MARCUS and P. D. VAIRO

My father came to America with one of his uncles. They arrived in New York City and soon settled in Cleveland, Ohio. After several years, they moved to New York City to be near another uncle. My father worked hard for low wages, but was always proud of his adopted land. He joined the U.S. Army National Guard and served for about 10 years. During World War II, he was offered a position as a steward in the United States Merchant Service, but declined since he was already 38 years old and, by now, had three dependents to feed, my mother, my grandmother, and me. I was born on August 4, 1933 while my father was on active duty in the National Guard. My mother was very proud to have a son. They named me Felice, after my grandfather. At that time, we lived in a basement apartment on Vyse Avenue in the Bronx. My sister was born in that apartment in 1935 but died of complications from Downs Syndrome on my birthday in 1936. This was a devastating loss to my parents and it left them with a vacuum in their lives. My parents did not have any more children out of fear of Downs Syndrome, so I grew up as the only child. On one hand, it was a lonely existence as I lacked any enrichment and learning experiences often gathered from siblings. However, I received a great deal of love and had two wonderful role models in my parents. Later, my mother’s mother came to live with us, and we shared the living room, which really served as a second bedroom. Italian was spoken in our home, but both of my parents found time to attend night school to learn English and become American citizens. As I got older, English was more frequently spoken in my presence. I was happy about this as I did not want my parents to speak Italian. I was ashamed of their speech patterns and accents. I was also uncomfortable that my parents were very short, as they each measured about 5 ft. give or take an inch or two. I am only 5 ft. 6 in., so I sometimes wonder today if my own children were ever concerned about my lack of height and its possible impact on them. My mother was always wearing black clothes in memory of her daughter, brother, mother, and sister, and then my father when he died of cancer in 1964. This, too, made me uncomfortable. I have often felt guilty about having those negative thoughts about these two wonderful people who meant so much to me during my lifetime. Over time, I was fortunate to adapt the best characteristics of my two cultures— American and Italian. This eventually expedited my ability to adjust to life as an adult and made me see the goodness, unselfishness, and kindness of my beloved parents. Later, as an adult, I found out for myself that being a parent is a complicated and often perplexing assignment. The impact of my family interactions and my educational experiences are, in some ways, still a mystery. How we develop attitudes, values, and perceptions is complex and not easily explained. My formative years were difficult, as I was exposed to two cultures with different styles and customs. These issues are a lot murkier than sociologists often make them appear.

Who Are We 23

As time passed, however, I developed a better understanding of human development and perception. On the one hand, I was a captive of two conflicting cultures, while, on the other hand, I was in a family environment that was caring and provided me with the security so essential in childhood. In the final analysis, it was my parents’ philosophical view of family and life that shaped my life and taught me the essential prerequisites for moving on to a productive life.

As I was growing up, my father worked two poorly paying jobs, starting in the morning as a cafeteria worker at George Washington High School, and then deep into the evening as the second chef at the Pelham Heath Restaurant. My mother worked in a doll manufacturing firm on Tremont Avenue in the Bronx. These three jobs made it possible for our family to survive the Great Depression and purchase such modest items as a small Philco radio, linoleum flooring in our kitchen, and new clothes for me to attend school whenever a new school year was to begin. One also has to remember that being Italian in the 1930s and’40s was often not a comfortable situation. For much of that time, Italy was our military enemy and Italians were looked upon with suspicion as potential spies and unwelcome aliens. The movie industry and the print media portrayed Italians as Capone-type gangsters and/or as a buffoon, like “Il Duce,” Benito Mussolini. In fact, in my kindergarten class there was a youngster named Benito and he was always called “Mussolini,” a mocking term that even 5-year-olds understood. It did not take me long to realize that being Italian was a minus, both in school and on the streets. Thank God we had Joe DiMaggio to give us pride in our heritage. Of course, as an adult, I learned that my pride was misplaced because DiMaggio was not the person in his personal life that he was on the ball field.

I was frightened when I entered kindergarten, and I found myself in a strange, cold environment with children I did not know and a teacher who was warm, but with whom I felt a distance. My first day of school was not really a happy experience for me, although these feelings were probably no different than those of many other children in the class. Later in my elementary school years, the beginning of the school year was special to me in an entirely different way. Every September before school got underway, my parents bought me new pants, shirts, and shoes, as did the parents of many of my classmates. Most of us wore those same clothes throughout the school year. Even at that young age, clothes were a badge of status among us poor children. It is interesting how children learn about our social structure without any instruction on stratification in school.

24 S. MARCUS and P. D. VAIRO

Just observing my surroundings was sufficient to learn about social class in our society. I attended Public School 6, a K-8 school, located on Tremont Ave in the Bronx, from 1938 to 1947. Misbehavior was not tolerated in the classroom. What I especially liked about those years was that there were regular routines followed and clear expectations of what was expected of us. The classroom was a peaceful environment and seldom was there a discipline problem. Being exposed to the culture of both the streets of the Bronx and to the internal structure of the school taught me a great deal. Both had particular codes and expectations. As a seven- and eight-year-old boy, I was introduced to such words as “sissy,” “shorty,” and a host of other human adjectives. In school, we had our own graphic grading system such as “smart,” “stupid,” “handsome.” “pretty.” “ugly.” “tall,” “short,” all of which were applied to different students. Kids do learn fast about the real world! Because of the strength of character and realism possessed by my parents, they took the unusual step of changing my first name from Felice to Philip so that I could assimilate more easily in school. When I was named Felice, some teachers mispronounced my name at roll call or during class recitals as “Phyllis.” My classmates laughed at me and told me I had a girl’s name. What a depressing experience for a young boy! My parents’ grasp of reality made them realize that my life would be much easier with the name Philip than it would be with the name Felice. Should they have done this? In an ideal world, of course not, but I learned something about my parents from this experience. They were special and swallowed their pride to help their son make the transition from the old world to the new world. The change of my name quickly confirmed to me the complexities of the cultural and linguistic mores of the world into which I was born. This experience at a young age gave me an understanding and empathy for diversity, a term that has entered the American culture, but is often misinterpreted or misunderstood. Looking back, I can only imagine how hurtful it was for my parents to change my name. Felice was the name of my grandfather and great-grandfather. Only in America, as Harry Golden said in his book of the same name, can dreams of social class mobility become a reality. My parents were fortunate enough to have their son become a college professor and president. There is no other country in the world where so many children of so many immigrant families can succeed in attaining the American dream. This name change experience also introduced the Vairo family to the legalities of the American judicial system. My parents, who really could not afford an attorney, were told by school officials that if they wanted to change my name they should obtain legal counsel. At great economic sacrifice,

Who Are We 25

they did so. Papers were filed, and we received the official document from the New York State Supreme Court verifying that henceforth my name was officially Philip. I was now mainstreamed into the American culture, but many more obstacles remained ahead.

Since I came from a non-English speaking home, I did encounter some academic problems in school. I was immersed in the English language, as were all the other students who also came from non-English speaking homes. I was also fortunate to be exposed to the “old” fashioned, now discredited rote learning approach to education, but it worked for me. I quickly learned my assigned spelling words and multiplication tables, and I particularly loved learning about geography and history The greatest portion of my learning experiences as a child, however, came from exposure to life outside the classroom. This point shall be repeated often, for it reverberates in the lives of children today, just as it did for me during my young years. Learning is an all-encompassing experience which includes every aspect of our being and development. Generally speaking, learning certified by degrees and academic affiliation is the ladder for vertical mobility in America. No one can ignore the high correlation between schooling and income. An important reason for my doing well in school, or occasionally, not doing so well, depended on how I viewed my teachers. I found that when she made the classroom less threatening and demonstrated empathy for students, I was more comfortable and success followed. I use the pronoun “she” simply because I did not have a male teacher until the 7th grade, and, even then, only in subjects such as Industrial Studies and Physical Education. Although we certainly needed a male figure in the academic classroom, for me it was a missing component until I was about 12 years of age and in the seventh grade. I never wanted to fail in school, but neither did I expect to be one of the top students in the class. I was relatively satisfied just to be in the normal range of my teachers’ expectations. My attitudes and goals to be just an average student changed slowly over the years. Yet, I never really maximized my academic potential until my junior and senior years in college and later when I attended graduate school. I was either a late bloomer or I was just plain lazy as a youth. I was also a mediocre athlete, but loved playing football anyway. I was never a discipline problem, although there were occasions that brought out my selfish qualities. For example, I was jealous of classmates, especially the “teacher’s pets” those who had better educated parents, were more economically privileged than I was, or had parents born in the United States.

26 S. MARCUS and P. D. VAIRO

By the time I was 12 years old, my family had moved to five different apartments in the Bronx. I was born on East 112th in Manhattan, but at age three, my parents moved to the Bronx. Moving became a part of our life every few years. My parents moved so often for the simple reason: they were constantly seeking a more affordable rent. I recall living in a basement apartment on Vyse Avenue in the Bronx. We did not stay there long for the rats were everywhere and my parents were concerned about me and my sister, although she died a few months after we moved there. From Vyse Avenue, we moved to Longfellow Avenue where we stayed for about a year until, in the middle of the night, the ceiling collapsed in my bedroom. Our next stop was Bryant Avenue, where we stayed several years before moving to Tremont Avenue. All these moves were undertaken to save a few dollars in rent and live in greater safety. Also, during the Great Depression, landlords would give a month or two free rent to attract renters. Finally, my parents moved to 964 East 178th Street. The rent by our standards was not low, but the building was clean and was located one block from Public School 6 Bx. The rent was $36 per month for a one bedroom apartment. In 1946, our landlord informed us that he was going to raise our rent by four dollars because he was installing a new refrigerator and stove. That ended our dependency on the ice man. The rent was cheaper on the upper floors because there was no elevator, so we lived on the fifth floor facing a back courtyard. The building was a great improvement, however, over our earlier accommodations. We lived in that apartment until I got married in 1958. As a teenager, I wanted to alleviate my parents’ economic situation as best as I could. Thus, at the age of 14, I was thrilled to get a summer job as a vendor for the nationally renowned Harry M. Stevens Corporation, which had the food concession at both the Polo Grounds and Yankee Stadium. I soon discovered that this company exploited their young employees. I was required to arrive at the ball park every day at about 8 a.m. to “shape up” for possible selection to work that day. If selected, the vendors were then required to bag peanut bags without compensation for 1 or 2 hr before and, often, even after the game. In my social studies classes in high school, a great many of the class conversations focused on the progressive programs sponsored by Roosevelt’s New Deal and by New York State aimed at preventing child labor exploitation. But here I was in the world of work at two major league ball parks. What a shock it was that before and after the game we were expected to bag peanuts or pack empty soda bottles into cartons without compensation. When we were selling merchandise or food, we received a 10% commission on all items we sold. If we sold 600 bags of peanuts a day, at 10 cents a bag, we could make $6.00—not bad for a kid in 1948. It was what kept me from quitting.

Who Are We 27

But the reality of doing free work for a multimillion dollar corporation was a disgrace. How labor laws could be ignored and teenagers like us exploited are still beyond my comprehension. Where were the child labor inspectors? Nowhere to be found! Yet, I was grateful for the work at Yankee Stadium and the Polo Grounds during my high school days. Did I watch the ball games? No! Did I meet the players? No! Am I a baseball fan today? Sorry, the answer again is “No.” On the other hand, I needed the money and working at Yankee Stadium and the Polo Grounds allowed me to earn some much needed dollars. It was also a good learning experience in my journey to adulthood. When I offered money to my parents, they told me to open a bank account and save my money, for there would be a day when I could use it. They never wanted the money I earned. In fact, they continued to provide me with spending money so I could save what I earned. That tells it all about my parents.

As a child, I was fortunate to become friendly with a Jewish family in the neighborhood that served as a role model for me. They set a positive tone about academics, and their three children all eventually went to prestigious colleges and universities. They were people who greatly impacted on my life, although I never told them how impressed I was with their family. Every Sunday, I looked forward to walking through the Bronx Zoo with the youngest brother, my classmate, and his father. Education was their family trademark! My father had to work on Sunday, so I really had a substitute father that day.

When I was in the elementary grades, my classes were grouped heterogeneously, and there was a wide variety of abilities among the students in the class. As we progressed to the 7th and 8th grades, we soon became aware of the status of our local high schools. A few students in our grade were encouraged to apply to the Bronx High School of Science, Stuyvesant High School, and Brooklyn Tech, the elite academic high schools of New York City. I was not encouraged to apply to these schools. Yet, I did have to select a high school to attend. When I was still in elementary school, a teacher suggested that I might be interested in attending Catholic Religious Instruction offered at a nearby church on Tuesdays at 2 p.m. I indicated that I was interested and told my parents, who did not object. Soon, those of us in the Catholic Religious Instruction program were let out of the public school to attend Religious Instruction, offered at St. Thomas Aquinas Church. As part of the program,

28 S. MARCUS and P. D. VAIRO

we were also required to attend church on Sunday and, after mass, have an additional one hour of religious instruction. When I was in the eighth grade, I was awarded a beautiful gold cross by the Sisters at the church school for being an outstanding student. This was the first academic award I had ever received and I was very proud of my accomplishment. This experience inspired me to apply to Cardinal Hayes High School, a Catholic school in the Bronx. However, I was denied admission. I had applied without even discussing the matter with my parents. As there were transportation costs and a monthly tuition charge, I was not really upset that I was denied. Besides, my real dream was to attend Fordham Prep. I thought that there was real status and prestige attached to Fordham Prep because of its name association with Fordham University and its location on the University campus. I thought attending Fordham Prep would introduce me to a better world. Yet, I realized that if I could not get into Cardinal Hayes, I certainly would not be admitted to Fordham Prep. It is ironic that approximately 20 years later, I was an associate professor and Chair of the Graduate Division of Curriculum and Teaching at Fordham University, playing an instrumental role in revising several graduate doctoral programs and in introducing an innovative doctoral program in Urban Education. Life indeed has interesting surprises! After being rejected by Cardinal Hayes, a friend suggested that I attend a vocational high school, an idea which I quickly rejected. Even as a teenager, I wanted to go on to college, and I had already developed an academic and vocational class prejudice. Thus, I was left with only one choice—to attend Theodore Roosevelt High School, the neighborhood high school. Of course, my parents were happy that I was going on to high school. I explained to my parents that attending Roosevelt High School and enrolling in the Regents track program would provide me more future opportunities than attending a vocational high school. The academic differences between most students attending academic and vocational high schools were quite obvious to me. It should be noted that there were no grade school guidance counselors to assist students to make intelligent high school choices? The Regents program I selected was one of the three programs available at Roosevelt. The other two were the General Diploma and the Commercial Business programs. I did and still do regard my choice of a broad based liberal arts college preparation program as a wise decision. My choice proved to be my passport to the future. All the doors which eventually opened to me hinged on a 14-year-old boy’s decision to pursue an academic program. Looking back at my K–8 days, the most academically talented students were Jewish. In my high school, although Jewish students were in the minority, most of them seemed to pursue academic programs leading to college. Jewish families placed a high value on education and the results were apparent.

Who Are We 29

Before entering elementary school, my life was controlled by my parents. However, when I began my journey away from home to attend school, I soon was exposed to the so-called “Melting Pot” environment of the public school. Kids of different cultures and religious affiliations interacted with each other and a few became friends. Jewish parents were often suspicious that their children might become friends with the Gentiles and vice versa. Because Black students were very few, there was very limited interaction between the races. Also, there were no Black teachers in our school, nor were there teachers of Italian heritage. In fact, although I did not know it at the time, there were very few principals of Italian background in the New York City public schools. In retrospect, I was caught between my family’s culture, morés, and folkways; my own aspirations; and the school’s effort to assimilate all the students into mainstream America. I was very fortunate that my parents promoted the assimilation dream and did not keep me locked in the “old world.” School opened doors to a new world for me. By adapting to America, my parents essentially encouraged me to take the necessary steps to enter mainstream society. I learned that the school did not necessarily have to be the enemy of the poor, culturally different, and immigrant children, and that parents should not ignore the advantages of the assimilation process for their children.

My Roosevelt years still evoke several special memories, some good, some not so good. My Geometry II teacher, Mr. Burns, succeeded in reaching me academically. He gave me confidence, especially after my Geometry experience with Mrs. Rigid, one of the most insensitive teachers I ever encountered. I received a grade of 87 on the New York State Regents Examination because of Mr. Burns’ efforts. On the other hand, I had a chemistry teacher, Mr. Freeman, who also reflected the same cold attitude as Mrs. Rigid. In my junior year, I contracted a serious illness and missed 3 weeks of classes. When I returned, there were no expressions from Mr. Freeman inquiring about how I was feeling. No offer of academic help was extended to me for having to make-up the work I had missed because of illness. To complicate matters further, on my first day back in school, my grandmother passed away and I missed two additional days because of the wake and funeral. When I returned to school, I was immediately sent to the Dean’s office as a possible truant! What a frustrating experience for a 16-year-old boy. Chemistry was like a foreign language to me, with symbols substituting for words. It was entirely different from biology, a subject which I had enjoyed. Mr. Freeman was autocratic, and the classroom climate verged on grim. I was fearful in class and never asked any questions. After missing so many classes, I fell behind in my work and never did recoup from my missed

30 S. MARCUS and P. D. VAIRO

lessons. No, I did not request help, for I was too scared to do so. Neither, however, did the teacher ever approach me to ask if I needed any extra assistance due to my absences, as other teachers did. Consequently, I received a failing grade of 55 in chemistry. I did not dwell on this experience since my family was still mourning the loss of my grandmother. I also blamed myself for not making a greater effort in the chemistry class. Like much in life, there is an irony to this story. Many years later, when I was Chair of the Graduate Division of Curriculum and Teaching at Fordham’s new Lincoln Center campus, who did I see at Fordham during registration but my former chemistry teacher, Mr. Freeman, being counseled by a colleague. He saw me, but there was no indication that he recognized me. If our history had been different, I would have greeted him cordially. Instead, I avoided making any contact. An extra effort on his part might have contributed to my succeeding in his chemistry class. I might add, I never saw Mr. Freeman at Fordham after that day. Chemistry was a subject that haunted me even through college. When I was a sophomore at Hunter College, I decided to transfer to the New York State Maritime Academy. I was accepted, but was also informed that I would lose a year of college credit from Hunter College because I was lacking some of the required Maritime courses. My admission was contingent on completing one year of high school or college physics or chemistry. That did it! I had no appetite to revisit my earlier, unpleasant memories associated with my high school chemistry class.

After earning my Bachelor’s degree and upon the completion of my two years of service in the United States Navy, I took a position as a teacher at Thomas Knowlton Junior High School, located in the South Bronx. One afternoon after school, while I was shopping on Fordham Road with my colleague, Sheldon Marcus, I encountered my Geometry teacher, Mrs. Rigid, walking with another Roosevelt teacher. I stopped to exchange polite greetings and I was surprised that she remembered me. Then, she asked me what I was doing now. I informed her that I was now a New York City teacher. She was quiet for a second or two, and then responded with the same sarcasm she had often exhibited when I was in her classroom, “I can’t believe that you’re a teacher!” I kept control of my temper, but quickly broke off the conversation and continued on my way. After almost nine years since she was my geometry teacher, nothing had changed. She would never comprehend that grace and kindness toward students was much more beneficial than negativism or sarcasm. Overall, I enjoyed attending Roosevelt. Looking back at the teachers and curriculum, it was an underrated academic institution. Those of us enrolled in the Academic Regents program were especially fortunate, as

Who Are We 31

many of the teachers were excellent. I was not an outstanding student, but I was so proud that I attained the grade of 97 in my senior year Social Studies Regents examination, the second highest score of any student in the graduating class. I still consider that grade an academic landmark. As I have already mentioned, I also attained a grade of 87 in my Geometry Regents examination. These grades gave me the confidence to think I was academically capable of going on to college. However, I really knew very little about the college selection process. I did not receive any counseling, and my only possibility to attend college was to enroll at the elite City College of New York, albeit, at night, for I doubted I would be admitted into the day program. But I was determined to attend college and obtain the so-called passport to the middle class rung of our social order. In a chance conversation, however, a classmate told me that I should apply to Brooklyn College as a day student, which I did. I was not accepted at Brooklyn College, but a Hail Mary pass came my way before I enrolled in evening classes at City College. The New York City Board of Higher Education had decided to admit 236 men into Hunter College which, until then, was an all-female institution with a solid academic tradition. When I was informed that I was not accepted into Brooklyn College, the same letter stated that I would be admitted to Hunter College’s first class of male students without any new application being submitted. I was thrilled and my parents were so proud I would be going to Hunter College’s Bronx campus. In September 1951, tuition was free and fees were $5 per semester, and that included books loaned to students rather than purchased. Yes, I had scored a touchdown! I shall always be a supporter of public higher education, for without the opportunity to attend Hunter College my life may have taken a different course.

Entering Hunter College in the Bronx was a special challenge for me. I selected Political Science as my major. As a freshman, I had some academic strengths but I also had weaknesses. Despite receiving a grade of 97 on my Social Studies high school Regents examination, I received a D in 15th-16th century European history in my freshman year at Hunter. What a disappointment! Wrong teacher, wrong historical period for a freshman not acquainted with that historical period, and an inability on my part to adapt to the teaching style of my professor, were all factors in receiving this grade. But in the last analysis, the poor grade was my responsibility! Eventually, my grades improved and as an adult, I progressed through a series of educational experiences culminating in my appointment as President of Worcester State University in Massachusetts at the age of 49. I might add that after earning my doctorate at Duke University, my first college teaching job was at my alma mater, Hunter College. It was hard for me to believe

32 S. MARCUS and P. D. VAIRO

that only 8 years after I had graduated from Hunter, I would be returning as a member of the faculty. That was a special thrill for me, and I was most appreciative of the appointment. A dream became a reality. In 1952, during the Korean War, I had enlisted in the US Naval Reserve. In January of 1955, immediately after graduating from Hunter College, I requested that I be activated for a two year period. I served one year as a deck hand and mess cook on a destroyer escort, DE744, and one year on an ammunition ship, AE17, as a storekeeper. An interesting experience serving below decks and not as an officer! Upon my discharge from the Navy, I sat for the New York City junior high school Social Studies examination. Securing that teaching license was the first important step in my professional career path. My parents could hardly believe that I was now a teacher. I soon found myself teaching at Thomas Knowlton Junior High School in the South Bronx. It was here I met my co-author, lifelong friend, and professional colleague, Shelly Marcus, in February of 1959, when he joined me on the faculty.

CHAPTER II

MOVING FROM SITTING BEHIND THE DESK TO STANDING IN FRONT OF THE CLASSROOM As stated at the conclusion of Chapter I, the two co-authors met for the first time on Marcus’s first day as a teacher at Thomas Knowlton Junior High School in the Bronx. Vairo walked over to Marcus in the Teachers’ room, extended his hand and a conversation ensued: “Vairo, Phil Vairo.” “Marcus, Shelly Marcus.” “Where are you from?” “The Bronx. Where are you from?” “The Bronx.” “What section of the Bronx?” “Belmont Avenue. What section are you from?” “West Farms. What does your father do?” “He’s a house-painter. What does your father do?” “He’s a cafeteria worker at George Washington High School.” Vairo then looked at Marcus laughingly and said, “Our parents screwed up. You grew up with the Italians and I grew up with the Jews. You had my

Two Nobodies Speak Out: Our 150 Year Journey and Perspectives on Education, pp. 33–58 Copyright © 2011 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

33

34 S. MARCUS and P. D. VAIRO

apartment and I had yours!” Our friendship has remained steadfast since that February 2, 1959 day. It has endured through geographical separation and all of life’s ups and downs. To this day, we still wonder if our friendship would have taken hold had we not been two kids from the Bronx of humble origins. Today, more than five decades later, the answer to that question is immaterial. Vairo had already been at Knowlton for two and one-half years, and on this early February day, we now had both transitioned from being pupils in the class to teachers. It was quite a role reversal.

Our educational experiences since the late 1950’s have served to confirm that school, and what happens inside it, is not a simple thing to write about, for if the walls of the schoolhouse could talk, they would tell the stories of life—with all its fears, joys, frustrations, and hopes. It is difficult to capture these concepts in the pages of a book, but armed with years of experience at Thomas Knowlton Junior High School, this book recounts a great deal about the students and staff and their great qualities and human foibles. Hopefully, casual readers, educators, and those aspiring to become educators will benefit from our stories. Our frequent visits to schools in the 21st Century have led us to conclude that problems in inner city schools like Thomas Knowlton in the 1960’s are not different from the problems facing schools today.

The all-boys school in which we taught was composed almost equally of black and Puerto Rican youngsters in grades 7 to 9, with an approximate enrollment of 1200 students. We can recall one Chinese youngster and a smattering of Jewish, Irish, and Italian boys who, in total, probably constituted about 1–2% of the student population. As time passed, the Puerto Rican student population expanded while the black population diminished. Although the school was physically located in the South Bronx, the phrase “South Bronx” did not yet have the meaning that it does today—a synonym for urban blight. Then, the South Bronx actually referred to a geographical location. The neighborhood included a broad, tree-lined street, Avenue St. John, and some once sturdy two- to three-storey brownstones that were now deteriorating. The school was located in what had once been a working class, predominantly Jewish neighborhood. After World War II, the neighborhood became more heavily black and Puerto Rican. The most famous graduate of Knowlton, although he was unknown in the late 1950’s, was Colin Powell. The school staff of 60 teachers, a guidnace counselor, a dean of behavior, a principal, three assistant principals, and several secretarios were mostly male.

Moving from Sitting Behind the Desk 35

Because of the large Puerto Rican population, the school had what was then called a non-English Department, led by the wonderful Luisa Cruz, and included about seven or eight faculty of Hispanic background. There were a number of females on the faculty, and overall they were among the best teachers in the school. In the early 1960’s, the school was renovated, a new wing was added, and the staff grew to about 125 faculty plus ancillary staff and administrators. The student body grew to approximately 2300 students, and now included both boys and girls. The faculty was an interesting mix of a handful of older teachers who had been there prior to 1941, World War II and Korean War veterans, and young adults like us. Teacher turnover was high. The school had a reputation as being an extremely difficult place to work. Many of the faculty had as a goal to move on to schools in higher socioeconomic neighborhoods or secure a nonteaching position in a school. Some teachers preferred the high school setting and believed that “teaching in the worst high school was better than teaching in the best junior high school.” Vairo was puzzled the first time he heard this, but then it was explained to him that since junior high school included grade 9, the very worst disciplinary problems never made it to high school because they either would have been old enough to quit school by the time they should have completed 9th grade or be “pushed out” by the school administration.

THE STUDENTS We encountered students who gave us grief, frustration, anger, satisfaction, and joy, and they made the most indelible impression on us. To this day, we are still in contact with some of those students. The years at Thomas Knowlton Junior High School also brought us into contact with many fascinating colleagues and students. Some students could be difficult and they certainly tested new teachers, but the vast majority of students were great kids. We found the students to be the jewels of our teaching experience. They often raised our anxiety level and sometimes left us physically exhausted, but the rewards were great. They were not the type of rewards one could deposit in a bank account. Rather, they were psychic and worth a lot more than money. We learned early in our careers that students have a sixth sense about the individual standing in front of the room trying to teach them. It made no difference whether or not a child could read well. All of them, however, were able to come up with an answer to one question: “Is this teacher for or against me?” Invariably, their answers were on target. The way teachers were treated often hinged on the answer to that question. For example, a teacher nicknamed “Superman” by the kids (because of his sculptured

36 S. MARCUS and P. D. VAIRO

body) lasted in the school about a week before the bedlam in his classroom drove him out. On the other hand, Mrs. Fisher, who could not have weighed more than 85 pounds and spoke in a low, refined voice, rarely had a problem maintaining discipline. While teachers were testing their students, unknown to most teachers, their students were testing them as well, and their evaluation of them determined whether or not the teacher survived. This is still true today. Both of us had similar experiences during our first few days in the classroom. We had no clue how extraordinarily difficult it was to teach, in terms of the emotional and physical toll that it exacted from teachers. We also quickly realized that if our college education professors ever walked into our classrooms, they would not survive the day. To say that they were out of touch with the realities of urban schools would be a gross understatement. Did they mean well? Yes, but they also trained us to work in schools that we were not employed in. Hopefully, during our careers as professors, our own students did not have the same thoughts about us. Only our students, however, know the answer to that one.

On his first day in the classroom, Vairo was assigned to teach a group of eighth graders known for being difficult. However, as soon as the students learned that Vairo was a Navy veteran who had served on an ammunition ship, they immediately took note. It was a combination of the students’ perception of Vairo’s personality and style, and the low regard which the students had for their previous teacher that made it possible for him to establish an immediate connection with the class. Of course, luck always plays a role when it comes to that intangible factor of human interaction, something that is very difficult to predict. One of the most moving experiences Vairo encountered at Knowlton occurred on his way to the Prospect Avenue subway station located near the school. While walking to the subway he encountered one of his students, Julio, who invited him to meet his grandmother. Although he was somewhat reluctant to visit a student’s home unannounced, Vairo accepted the invitation, for it brought back memories of his formative years when he seldom interacted on a personal basis with his teachers. The student’s basement apartment evoked memories of Vairo’s childhood basement apartment on Vyse Avenue in the Bronx, and of Vairo’s mother placing rat traps around the apartment. The student’s grandmother was an engaging person who expressed great interest in her grandson’s education. While it was refreshing to see the importance she placed on schooling, the poor physical conditions of this basement apartment were both evident and discouraging. When Vairo left, the grandmother and the student profusely thanked him for coming.

Moving from Sitting Behind the Desk 37

In Marcus’s first semester, he was assigned to teach Mathematics to students in seventh and ninth grades. The youngsters were already so far behind in Math that his seventh grade students were taught long division and multiplication, and the ninth graders were taught fractions, percentages, and ratios. On Marcus’s first day, a seventh grader by the name of Angel was making it difficult for him to effectively teach the class. Finally, totally frustrated, Marcus walked up the aisle where Angel was sitting, stood behind him, and whacked him in the back of the head with an open hand. Angel stood up angrily and said, “What you doin’, man?” Angel’s face was so contorted it seemed funny to Marcus, who turned away to avoid having Angel see him laughing. For whatever reason, the other youngsters in the room also thought it was funny and started laughing, and instantly the tension was gone. Even Angel smiled, but as he sat down he calmly warned Marcus, “Don’t ever do that again.” Somehow this incident created an instant bond between Marcus and Angel. Their relationship, however, was continually tested. For example, when Marcus was co-coaching the school basketball team, Angel tried out but did not make the team. A few years later, Angel was a starting guard for a talented Morris High School basketball team. On one occasion, Morris was playing the always-powerful DeWitt Clinton, where visitors rarely won. In this particular year, Clinton was led by the legendary Nate “Tiny” Archibald. The game went down to the final seconds when Angel stole the ball from Archibald and went in for the game-tying layup as the clock ran out. Marcus happened to be sitting behind the Morris bench and, before overtime began, Angel was totally inattentive to his coach’s instructions. Instead, standing a few feet in front of Marcus, he tapped one of his teammates, and pointing toward Marcus, said: “See that turkey over there? That turkey cut me from the junior high school basketball team! From the junior high school basketball team!” Angel still had that wonderful smile on his face which always made Marcus laugh. Angel winked at him as the Morris team went back on court. During overtime, he stole the ball again from the great Archibald for a key basket, and Morris eventually emerged with the win. Angel had a rather quaint way of describing certain situations. When Marcus returned from lunch with several colleagues one day and entered the school’s main lobby (located in front of the auditorium), 40 to 50 students were milling around, unable to get into the auditorium because the doors were locked. Seeing Angel, Marcus asked him what was going on. Without hesitation, Angel replied: “Have you ever eaten in a Chinese restaurant and ordered a combination platter?” “Yes.” “Good, because now you’ll understand what happened. Someone used the auditorium stage to prepare a combination plate—a number one and number two.”

38 S. MARCUS and P. D. VAIRO

With that, Angel, with a twinkle in his eye and that ever-present smile on his face, rejoined his friends. No one ever solved the mystery of “The Case of the Student Who Used the Auditorium Stage as a Toilet.” Several years later, when Marcus was a guidance counselor, Angel came to his office and asked: “How much money do you make a week?” Marcus replied, “That’s none of your business.” Angel was persistent. “Seriously, you always told us to work hard, get good jobs, and give our best.” “That’s true, but what the hell does that have to do with how much money I make a week?” “Well, I thought you would be proud of me.” As he said that, he reached into his two pockets and with each hand pulled out a thick wad of cash, slammed it on the desk and said, “Are you proud of me? This is my earnings from last week.” “Angel, if you are involved in pushing drugs, I’ll kill you.” “I would never do that. I’m working the numbers.” Wearing that irrepressible grin, Angel picked up the cash, gave Marcus a hug, and left.

During Marcus’s first week as a teacher, Ray Klein, a faculty member, came into his classroom and handed him a “present.” He called it a “teaching aid” that was not mentioned in teacher training programs. It was an 18-inch steel ruler from his woodwork shop. It even came with a name. Klein turned to the class and told them to tell Marcus the name of the steel ruler he was holding up. Amazingly, and almost in unison, the class said: “Sergeant Jake.” Rudy Hernandez, a student sitting directly in front of Marcus’s desk, said out loud: “Kids in the class don’t like to fool with Sergeant Jake.” It seemed some teachers subscribed to a philosophy that punishment for misbehavior should take the form of coming to the front of the room, bending over the teacher’s desk and getting whacked in the rear end by “Sergeant Jake.” Incredibly, in some classrooms this form of discipline worked because the students had bought into the process. It was a rare teacher, however, who could survive by relying on this kind of physical force. Youngsters responded best to good teaching, as Marcus and Vairo discovered as they gained experience as teachers.

In the fall of 1959, Marcus was assigned to teach Social Studies. He was still relatively inexperienced after only one semester as a math teacher, and his pedagogical skills still left something to be desired, to say the least. This was brought home to Marcus quite dramatically when he was teaching a class on “The Age of Exploration of the New World.”

Moving from Sitting Behind the Desk 39

Class participation was about what it usually was, with a few of the brighter kids volunteering often and either giving the right answers or asking the good questions to move the class along. In order to get broader participation from those not volunteering, Marcus began calling on some youngsters. At a certain point, he asked Albert to “review for the class the reasons Columbus set sail to discover the New World.” Albert, sitting in the first seat directly in front of Marcus’s desk, responded with: “Fuck you, Mr. Marcus.” Taken totally by surprise, since nothing had transpired to set off such a response, Marcus, almost reflexively, looked at Albert and said: “What did you say?” Albert repeated: “Fuck you, Mr. Marcus.” “What did you say?” Now, Albert shouted out: “I said fuck you, Mr. Marcus!” The class responded, some with laughter, others crying out, “Get him, Mr. Marcus!” “He’s making a chump out of you, Mr. Marcus!” “Smack him!” This precipitated a flood of cursing from Albert. Mercifully, for all present, the bell ended the class and Marcus dragged Albert to the Dean’s office. He was suspended from school for 3 days.

Juan was a troublesome youngster. He constantly talked in class, disrupted instruction, and was not very popular with the teachers. Juan would often cut class, usually to the joy of his teachers. The fifth floor, where Mel Schwartz, an assistant principal, maintained his office, was the educational citadel of the school. To Schwartz’s credit, he worked hard to keep it that way. Not only did he handpick teachers for room assignments on the fifth floor, but he would also stop whatever he was doing to step out into the hall during the change of periods and any time he heard a noise. Schwartz’s dour demeanor did not engender a lot of friendly interaction with the kids, but he did have their respect. On one occasion, while Marcus was teaching, a loud clang outside his room caused him and several teachers to open their doors and see what was happening. There was Juan, giggling, throwing a metal object on the floor, picking it up and throwing it down again. Mr. Schwartz asked angrily: “What are you doing, Juan?” “Having fun.” “Where are you supposed to be?” “In class.” “Why aren’t you there?” “Cause I’m cutting.” “Why are you cutting?” “I don’t like my teacher. Besides, he threw me out of class.”

40 S. MARCUS and P. D. VAIRO

“Which teacher?” “Mr. Clyde.” Relieved that Clyde’s room was not located on the fifth floor, Schwartz said: “Juan, get off the floor!’ Immediately, Juan started jumping up and down in pogo stick fashion while moving toward the stairway. As he pogo-ed his way to the stairwell, he kept repeating, “I’m off the floor ... I’m off the floor ... I’m off the floor.” Schwartz was furious. The teachers, however, returned to their classrooms laughing, reminded once again of the quick wit of their students.

Vicki was a beautiful, bright, and musically talented eighth grader. She had an outgoing personality and was truly popular with her classmates. She was the kind of child who, when you looked at her, you said— “I’ll take a dozen more like her in my class.” Her horizons were limitless. Academically, she was outstanding. Socially, she was mature far beyond her years. One afternoon, several teachers returned from lunch to see some youngsters gathered in the lobby of the school. Some were talking quietly to each other, and others were sobbing. There were no hysterics. When asked about what had happened, the students reported that Vicki had killed herself by jumping out the window of her apartment. Everyone was stunned. She wasn’t the first child, nor will she be the last, to take her life for reasons nobody will ever really understand. What had happened? Should we have seen what was coming? Many teachers asked themselves if they had failed Vicki. Her death was a reminder of the fragility of youth—even among those who seem to experience success.

Gilberto was one of the brighter students in the class, so it was a surprise when he was absent from school for a week. Upon Gilberto’s return to school, he told Marcus that he had been absent because he had to take care of his three younger brothers and sisters. When Marcus asked where his mother was, Gilberto started to cry and said that she had died in childbirth the previous week so he had to take care of his siblings. Marcus didn’t know what to say except to mumble something about Gilberto not hesitating to ask for help if he needed it. Gilberto now had the responsibilities of an adult man, even though he was only in the eighth grade. He did not, however, let this tragedy define him. Incredibly, he took care of his responsibilities at home and also found the time and resources to eventually go on to college.

Harry was a well-behaved, personable, quick to smile, polite youngster with a unique skill. Harry always gave the impression that he was someone with

Moving from Sitting Behind the Desk 41

a lot of common sense and reliable. There was a kosher delicatessen that remained in the neighborhood from a time when there was a large Jewish population, and it was quite popular at lunchtime among many teachers. One day, Harry encountered Marcus and a few other teachers leaving the building to go to the deli for sandwiches. He offered to go to the deli, saving the teachers the three-block walk. Soon, Harry was bringing lunch back daily for six or seven teachers. He always managed to return the correct change and the right sandwiches and sodas to each teacher. On some days, not only did Harry bring back the sandwiches but also returned the total amount of money given to him by the teachers. The teachers did not ask questions and tipped Harry handsomely. Harry did well for himself from these tips. He was another one of those kids who had a lot of “street smarts” outside the classroom. This is an often repeated story, but teachers often fail to tap into the strengths and abilities of such students.

Daniel came to class tipsy, carrying the empty bottle of Thunderbird with him. When told to leave the room and go to the Dean’s office, Daniel insisted he was not drunk, only high. He remained good-natured, but his teacher insisted that Daniel leave the room and not come back unless accompanied by his father. Daniel looked at Mr. Jones and told him, “I’ve never seen my father, so I guess I’ll never come back here.” He left the room. The next day he returned to class without his father and no memory of having been high the day before, or so he said.

Jose was a short, slight of build youngster who had graduated from the school a few years earlier. On occasion, however, he would pop back into the school and usually try to run some kind of scam—and he was good at it, particularly with teachers who were new to school and did not know him. One day, he came to Marcus’s office to say hello and ask if he wanted to buy a new television for $120. Marcus threw him out of his office. About 15 min later, Bernie Tuck, then a new teacher in the school, came by to tell Marcus that a kid named Jose had come by the cafeteria selling a new television for $120. Marcus told him that Jose was a scam artist. Later that day, despite the warning, Tuck told Marcus that he had indeed driven with Jose to a nearby apartment building where Jose said the new television was waiting. Jose told Tuck that the guy who had the TV set did not trust strangers so only he could go into the building, so Jose said: “Give me the $120 and I’ll be back with the TV set in a few minutes.” Tuck did not know what to do first: smack Jose in the head or break out laughing. Tuck did neither. Instead, he told Jose, “I don’t have $120. Who the hell carries $120?”

42 S. MARCUS and P. D. VAIRO

“How much do you have?” “I’ve got about $17.” “Look Mr. Tuck, I don’t think that the guy will sell me that TV set for $17, but I’ll try. He likes me.” Finally Tuck broke out laughing. “You little prick. Do you think I’m stupid?” “No shit, Mr. Tuck. I can get you that TV set.” Leaving Jose in the street, Tuck returned to school. The next day, however, the cafeteria was full of laughing teachers. It seemed that one of the newer teachers had bit on Jose’s offer of the television set. He had been told to wait in the car; given Jose $50, watched him enter the apartment building, and waited and waited and waited and ...

Frankie was a short, stout seventh grader who, because of his appearance and nasal voice, was constantly taunted by his classmates for being a “fag.” His classmates talked of Frankie having been sexually involved with a 40-year-old male. Frankie responded by calling his tormentors liars and challenging them to fights. His problems were further aggravated over the Thanksgiving holiday when his older brother mugged and shot a woman. The brother was caught by the police and sent to Bellevue Hospital for psychiatric observation. The story made the newspapers and word spread quickly through the neighborhood. By Monday morning, the students already knew what had happened. Now Frankie was not only taunted about being a “fag,” but also that his family was insane. The situation was brought to the attention of the guidance department, and Frankie’s official class was changed, which still did not alleviate his situation. Gossip travels rapidly in schools, so the taunts followed him wherever he went. Soon Frankie was frequently absent. By January, he no longer came to school. He remained on the school register, but he was never seen again. Teenagers can indeed be cruel to their peers. It still amazes us as to how youngsters who are viewed as being “different” are often viewed as being “less than.”

Two grinning boys broke into the girls’ locker room and made obscene remarks and gestures. The boys had caught the girls in various stages of undress. Some girls laughed and giggled while others screamed and tried to cover up. Several girls, who were already dressed, ran out of the locker room to find that the teacher assigned to the locker room was AWOL. Luckily, however, the boys did nothing but mouth-off and leer. After several minutes, the girls who had run out of the locker room returned with their teacher. Upon seeing her, the two boys ran from the locker room, but not without taunting, cursing, and offering their bodies to the girls they left behind.

Moving from Sitting Behind the Desk 43

One day, as Marcus was teaching his 8th grade Social Studies class, he turned towards the window and was surprised to see a young woman wearing only a brassiere standing at the window of an adjoining apartment building about 50 feet away, staring into the classroom. Marcus acted nonchalant, or so he thought. The lesson continued with Marcus pretending that the semi-naked young lady did not exist, although he stationed himself in the corner of the room where he could both look at the class and out the window. The next good look out the window was even more of a shocker. The young lady was still there, only now she was naked with her arms behind her tilted head in what was, to say the least, a provocative position. Marcus thought he was still being discreet while looking out the window. But then Tony, one of the students, blurted out: “Its apartment 4C, Mr. Marcus.” The class broke into laughter and, to the relief of Marcus, the dismissal bell rang. A smiling Tony came up to Marcus on the way out of the room. “Her name is Isabella and the place is a whore house.” Sharp kid!

Randy was the leader of the Puerto Rican gang in the neighborhood. All the kids called him by his nickname “Blackbeard,” due to his dark black skin color. Yet, Randy always thought of himself as being Puerto Rican. As a matter of fact, in many of the showdowns between black and Puerto Rican gangs (an event that happened too often), Randy would let loose a vituperative barrage about “killing niggers” and a host of other ugly comments, despite the fact that he was darker in skin color than any of the kids he was talking about. Other than an occasional short fuse, Randy could be reasoned with most of the time. Because of his status as gang leader, Randy was totally aware of what went on in the school building and neighborhood. For example, one day Mr. Cooper came to Marcus in tears, complaining that his new car had just been stolen from in front of the building. Randy had already moved on from Knowlton, but Marcus was able to reach him and tell him what had happened. The first thing Randy wanted to know was, “Which teacher?” Marcus replied, “Cooper.” Randy said, “Oh, he’s a good guy. I’ll see what I can do.” About 45 minutes later, Randy drove down Kelly St. in Cooper’s car. Randy was also part of a more serious incident in which Marcus was almost killed. Alan, a youngster with a Puerto Rican mother and a Jewish father, had asked Marcus for help in securing a college athletic scholarship. He was a good student who was the starting shortstop on the Morris High School baseball team and a starting guard on the basketball team. Marcus contacted several people, including Art Ditmars, a former Yankee pitcher, and Hilton White, who had a lot of connections with colleges

44 S. MARCUS and P. D. VAIRO

because of his role as a coach in neighborhood afternoon and evening centers. Eventually, Alan was offered a full scholarship to American International College in Springfield, Massachusetts. Subsequently, he came to Marcus’s office to thank him for his efforts on his behalf. It was close to 3:00 p.m. and Marcus had quite a few things to do before he left the building to go to his after-school job at a recreation center. Since Alan’s apartment building was on the way to his second job, Marcus told him to wait outside for him and that he would drop him off. When Marcus exited the main entrance of the school, he noticed lots of youngsters still milling around on the street. Marcus saw Alan leaning against a car with somebody talking to him, or so Marcus thought. Already running late, Marcus grabbed Alan’s arm and said, “Let’s go; I’m late.” The youngster whom Marcus thought Alan was talking to turned and put a gun between Marcus’s eyes; it was so close that he could feel the barrel touching his skin. The youngster said, “Where do you think you’re going?” Numbed by what was happening, Marcus blurted out: “I’m going to work,” and, already having hold of Alan’s arm, started walking away with him. By the third step, Marcus realized what had just happened and wondered which would come first—hearing the gun go off or feeling the bullet. For whatever reason, perhaps because of the kids still milling about, no shot was fired. Marcus and Alan got to the car and drove off as quickly as possible. At that point, Marcus demanded to know what the hell was going on. Alan told Marcus the incident was the result of a dispute over a girl at Morris. Marcus was thoroughly shaken by the experience. That next morning, a serious looking Randy, now 17 or 18 years old, came to Marcus’s office. He said to Marcus, “I’ve got a car outside. Let’s go for a ride.” Marcus did not quite understand what Randy was talking about. He asked, “Why do you want me to go for a ride?” “We heard what happened yesterday afternoon.” “So what does that have to do with going for a ride?” “If we drive around the neighborhood, maybe you can identify the guy with the gun and we’ll take care of him.” Then it suddenly hit Marcus what Randy and his friends had in mind. Marcus looked at Randy and said, “You’ve got to be crazy!” “No, Mr. Marcus, you can’t let anybody get away with things like this.” Marcus thanked Randy for his offer, but informed him that he would pass on the ride. When Marcus told this story to his colleagues, one of them said, “Randy just paid you the ultimate compliment as a teacher.” Another Alan went on to an ivy college and is now a professor at a prestigious eastern university. We are very proud of him.

Moving from Sitting Behind the Desk 45

Jorge was a youngster who would use education as a stepping stone to achieve upward mobility. Many teachers at the school were children of immigrants and the first generation in their families to have attended college. Thus, there was often this terrific simpatico from teachers because they saw mirror reflections of themselves in many students. What set Jorge apart was not simply that he was a bright, hard-working kid or that he would later graduate from college and become successful. What made Jorge different was that he went on to a career, first as a teacher and eventually as the principal of the school he had attended, Thomas Knowlton Junior High School. Tragically, while still principal, Jorge was stricken with cancer and died at an early age. There were hundreds of Jorges. We wished there were thousands. Angel Santiago was the shortest and thinnest boy in the class. He was sensitive about his lack of size and would react quickly with his mouth and/or hands to any slight, be it perceived or real. He cursed often and did not back down from even the toughest kids in the school. Invariably, in any physical confrontation, Angel was the loser. Behind the macho exterior, however, was a gentle and, at times, insightful youngster. Angel did not have a real notion of what he wanted to do with his life—other than to get out of the South Bronx. He was often confused about life. In other words, he was like most young teens. After graduation, Marcus and Angel kept in touch. Eventually, Angel decided to join the Army and communicated sporadically with Marcus. The last letter received from Angel was from Vietnam. It was matter of fact in describing life there. If he were fearful, he did not show it in his letter—but this was no surprise—Angel never showed fear. Shortly after having received this letter from Angel, his father came to school and tearfully informed Marcus that his son had been killed in action. Angel’s name is now inscribed in the Vietnam War Memorial in Washington, D.C. Angel got his wish. He had escaped the South Bronx—the hard way. Look for his name on the Wall the next time you are in Washington, D.C. He would appreciate it. A one-line note from the mother of Jesus explaining his absence from school on the previous two bitterly cold days in January, and exemplified the conditions that some youngsters endured. “Dear Mr. Markus, Plez excuz Jesus for being absent. It was cold and he has no warm coat.”

Glenn was one of the stars of the Knowlton basketball team. If the South Bronx denoted poverty during this time, the North Bronx (which was

46 S. MARCUS and P. D. VAIRO

anything north of Fordham Road) stood for middle class. One day, Knowlton had a game scheduled at JHS 142X, located in Northeast Bronx. The day of the game was bitter cold, and the team had to take public transportation to get to the school. The team gathered in the school lobby prior to heading for the subway station. Marcus noticed that Glenn was wearing a sweater while everyone else was bundled up. He asked, “Where’s your coat, Glenn?” “I left it at home.” “Well, rush home and get it and then meet us at the train station.” “I can’t. Nobody’s home.” Hector then whispered to Marcus, “Glenn doesn’t have a coat.” At that point, Marcus gave Glenn his coat. Once they reached 142X, Marcus was surprised to learn that the school principal was also the basketball coach. He was most gracious and had a student monitor take the team to the locker area where the players could change, although many of them wore their uniforms under their shirts and pants. Soon everyone was upstairs on the gym floor doing pre-game warm-ups. Hector jammed one of his fingers catching the basketball. Nothing was broken, but Marcus wanted to tape the injured finger. Marcus had left a roll of adhesive tape in the locker room. When Marcus got to the locker room, he could hear loud voices emanating from the home team’s locker area: “Let’s kill those niggers and spics!” “Let’s kick their asses!” “Yeah! Yeah!” “Let’s get the black mother fuckers!” At that moment, Marcus could only think about Glenn having no coat on this bitter, cold day, and he was angry. He got the tape and quickly went upstairs. When Marcus got there he noticed the home team’s coach/principal on the floor and was glad to know that he had not been with his team in the locker room. Once the game began, it was obvious that Knowlton was a far superior basketball team. By halftime, Knowlton was up by more than 20 points. Nevertheless, the starters played throughout most of the second half, much to the unhappiness of the youngsters sitting on the Knowlton bench. Even unhappier, however, were the kids playing on the other team after they were blown out by more than 40 points. While walking Glenn home that day, Glenn told Marcus that his coat had been stolen but that he would have another one shortly. He thanked Marcus for the coat.

THE STAFF We can say with certainty that be it 1960 or 2011, the teachers in a given school building know exactly who the best and worst teachers are in that

Moving from Sitting Behind the Desk 47

building. Even student teachers and new teachers know within a month who the best and worst teachers in the school. They know this as accurately as someone in the building for 10 years. Of course, the worst teachers are convinced that they are good at what they do. Thus, in reality, teachers can gauge other teachers well but not themselves. The litmus test is: which teachers would other teachers in the school want their biological children to have and which teachers should be avoided at all costs? The parents, however, may not know who the best and worst teachers are, and if they did, most usually do not have the clout to influence which teachers will be teaching their children. The above is an absolute fact and will be just as true in the year 2100 as it were in 1960 and 2010. Teachers also know the level of competency of the administrators in a given building. There may always be personal grudges present between teachers and administrators but teachers do know if a principal is real or a fraud. Sometimes, depending on the hour of the day, administrators can be both. This was certainly the case for the administrators we worked within the public school system.

Mr. Fry, the principal of Thomas Knowlton at the time, was a man with a sense of humor and was considered a “regular guy” by most of the faculty. One day, Vairo was in Fry’s office and the music teacher, Mr. Furmo, barged into the office yelling and screaming. What had happened was that while Mr. Furmo was in the hallway between classes, several students urinated on the piano. He was very upset and asked Fry what he was going to do about it. Fry, with a straight face, replied, “Do you have holes in your shoes? If you don’t, your feet will stay dry, so don’t worry about it.” The music teacher looked at Fry and abruptly left the office.

One day during Marcus’s first full year as a teacher, Mr. Fry requested that he come to his office before leaving the building. When he got there, Mr. Fry, in a most gracious voice, asked him to be seated. He then asked Marcus about his formula for being so successful in raising the aspiration levels of the children in his class. Marcus did not have a clue as to what Fry was talking about, but was flattered that he seemed to be complimenting him for having a positive influence on the students. Marcus told Fry that he had no secret formula; he just tried to convey to the students the importance of education on their future lives. Fry insisted that Marcus was being much too modest and went on to voice the view that Marcus was doing a fabulous job of motivating the students. After almost 10 min of compliments, Marcus thanked Mr. Fry for his kind words but informed him of his need to get to his afternoon graduate classes. Fry then asked if Jaime had been in class that day, and Marcus

48 S. MARCUS and P. D. VAIRO

answered that he was absent. Fry then noted that Jaime was a particularly difficult youngster but that his attitude had improved since Marcus had become his teacher. Marcus actually thought Jaime was a potentially serious trouble maker, but he did not mention this to Fry. Marcus did say, however, that he did not think he was being successful with Jaime, but Fry insisted: “You are having a wonderful influence on that young man. Don’t sell yourself short.” “You’re being much too kind,” “Not at all. Why, did you know where Jaime was today instead of being in school?” Fry then answered his own question. “Why, he was in the Museum of Natural History.” Smiling, he then said, “Jaime was arrested in the Museum for mugging an elderly lady. Keep up the good work. I rather like the idea of one of our juvenile delinquents getting arrested in the Museum of Natural History. It indicates class and good taste.” As Marcus left the building, he wondered if Fry were crazy, or if he were just bored and frustrated by his inability to improve things as a principal.

Joe Mitzer, a science teacher, had been teaching at JHS 52X since before World War II. Often, he would wearily enter the teacher’s room, plop down into an easy chair, and mutter to no one in particular something about how kids today did not care about education. “They lack motivation … They are resistant to teaching and unwilling to do their homework … They are poorly disciplined and are representative of the rapidly declining academic standards of our school system.” Usually, he would finish his discourse with: “Those kids who came to school in the ’30s and early ’40s … They wanted to be here. They wanted to learn. They were a pleasure to teach.” Mitzer left 52X in the early 1960’s. In the latter part of the 60s, several teachers who never knew Mitzer were echoing the similar opinions he had voiced. Only now, however, the halcyon days were the early 1960s, those same days that Mitzer rued as marking the end of “real education.” Regardless of the year, teachers tend to believe that students were much more eager and teachable 10–20 years ago. The decade of the so-called “Golden Era of Education” is the variable that is constantly changing. In the ’70s, it was the’ 50s and ’60s. In the ’80s, it was the ’60s and ’70s. One can be sure that in the present decade, one in which the quality of education is so widely deplored, will one day be looked back on fondly as a period when “kids really wanted to learn.” Count on it!

Moving from Sitting Behind the Desk 49

Mr. Muffin was a gym teacher, but that conveys as much about him as saying Michael Jordan was a basketball player. Muffin was a nut job—but a loveable one. He had charm, personality, lots of nerve, and a knack for pushing situations to the limit, often getting himself into trouble, but with the uncanny gift of being able to extricate himself unscathed from these situations. Muffin was almost charismatic. Among Muffin’s many traits was his always looking for a way to make an extra buck. One day, Marcus needed to talk to Muffin. Strangely, the door to the gym office was locked, so Marcus knocked. The door opened slightly and Muffin’s face appeared. He grinned when he saw Marcus and literally pulled him into his office. The office was dark and a movie was being shown. When Marcus looked at the screen, he was surprised to see that a pornographic movie was being shown and the room contained many teachers. “Shelly, the admission price is $2, but because you’re the UFT Chapter Chair and a good guy, for you it’s free.” “Muffin, are you nuts? You can’t do this! Let’s talk outside.” Muffin chuckled. “Sure, Shelly.” Once outside, Marcus inquired about Muffin’s sanity. “You can lose your job for this.” “Nobody’s going to know” “Nobody’s going to know?! You’ve got a full house in there and a room full of unattended kids! Do you think they won’t talk about this? How long has this been going on?” “I just started. I need the money.” “‘Need the money? Look, I stumbled into this because I had to see you. What would happen if Dr. Mann [the principal] had to see you and came knocking on the door?” “No problem. I’d just say ‘two bucks, Doc’.” Marcus got out of there as fast as he could. Later, he heard that several other teachers had also warned Muffin to stop what he was doing. Surprisingly, he did. No one was sure if he did this because of the great risk involved or because if it were the failure of the porno movies to generate sufficient income for him.

As a teacher, Muffin instituted a series of rules to be followed which he made known to the students at the beginning of every semester. He also made it clear the punishments for disobeying these rules. If a student were late to class more than once, Muffin would have the student bend over in front of the assembled class, and he would administer one or two whacks to

50 S. MARCUS and P. D. VAIRO

the students’ buttocks with a heavily knotted hemp rope. Usually, the kids quietly accepted their punishment. Amazingly, no complaints about Muffin’s “rules’ reached the administration—until Robert Franco’s father came to school to see Dr. Mann, the school principal. Dr. Mann notified Muffin that an irate parent was in his office, complaining that Muffin had hit and humiliated his son. Before going to Dr. Mann’s office, Muffin asked Marcus to accompany him as the UFT Chapter Chairperson. Muffin could have talked himself off of Devil’s Island, but Marcus went along anyway. Present in the principal’s office were Dr. Mann, Muffin, Marcus, Mr. Franco, his son, Peter, and Mrs. Luisa Cruz, the Non-English Department Coordinator, who could best be described as a “real lady.” Her role was to serve as a translator because Mr. Franco spoke very little English. After everybody was introduced to one another, the meeting began with Mr. Franco rapidly speaking in Spanish in an excited, angry tone and gesticulating with his hands. Somehow, Mrs. Cruz’s translation seemed a lot milder than what Marcus thought from watching and listening to Mr. Franco. His lengthy statement was translated as: “Mr. Franco is upset that Mr. Muffin hit his son and hurt him.” Muffin responded by denying that he had hit Peter. Mrs. Cruz’s transmission of Muffin’s comment to Mr. Franco seemed to really anger him. His angry response was translated as: “You certainly did hit my son and you hurt him and caused him to be embarrassed in front of his classmates.” Muffin continued to deny hitting Peter, and when Mrs. Cruz translated his continued statements of innocence, Mr. Franco reached into the pocket of his jacket and pulled out some glossy, color photos while at the same time shaking his fist at Howie. “Mr. Franco is upset that you continue to deny hitting his son. He works as a photographer for The Sun (a Spanish language newspaper) and he took pictures of the results of your beating his son.” Even after Mrs. Cruz’s translation, Mr. Franco shook his fist at Muffin while talking excitedly in Spanish, all the while glaring at him. Mr. Franco handed three or four pictures to Dr. Mann, who looked at them and passed them onto Muffin, who passed them on to Marcus. The photos were not passed on to Luisa. The pictures were quite clear. They showed someone’s black and blue buttocks covered with angry, red welts. Mr. Franco then spoke again and with considerable consternation. The translation still seemed mild. “Well, now do you still believe that my son was not beaten and do you still deny that you are the responsible party?” “Look,” Muffin said, “I just looked at pictures of somebody’s ass. Frankly, they could have been pictures of anybody’s ass. There was no face to go with

Moving from Sitting Behind the Desk 51

the pictures. These pictures could be two years old. Who the hell knows whose ass that is?” Mrs. Cruz’s translation was brief. Immediately, Mr. Franco barked something at his son, who quickly stood, unbuckled his belt, unzipped his pants, pulled them down, along with his underwear, and bent forward to expose his battered buttocks to us. It all happened so fast that there was silence for a few seconds, although Mrs. Cruz turned her head away and looked out the window. In response to another command from his father, Peter pulled up his underwear and pants. Muffin was smiling. Muffin, still smiling, said, “You tell Mr. Franco that I am going to set this straight.” With that, Muffin moved his chair closer to that of Mr. Franco and started telling him (through Mrs. Cruz) that his rules were created for the benefit of the students. They were aimed at making the kids “good boys.” What he did was for Peter’s growth as a man. Within 15 minutes of Peter’s exposing his buttocks, a smiling Mr. Franco emerged from the principal’s office with Muffin’s arm draped over his shoulder. The two of them were now friends. By the late 1960’s, Muffin announced his support of the movement advocating community control of the schools. Racial tension in the city was now pervasive. 52X and the South Bronx were aptly reflective of those tensions. One day in the teachers’ cafeteria, Mr. Muffin asked a rhetorical question to a number of faculty seated around a long table, speaking of himself in the third person as he was prone to do: “You know O1’ Muffin loves you guys, right? You know O1’ Muffin will always love you guys.” “Okay, Muffin” said one of the teachers, “Cut the shit. What’s up?” Muffin simply smiled and restated his earlier statement. “You know Ol’ Muffin will always love you guys.” “Come on, Muffin. What’s going on?” “O1’ Muffin has decided that he’s going to get ahead. There’s a lot of shit going on out there and O1’ Muffin has got to take advantage of it.” “What the hell are you talking about? Come on; speak so we can understand you.” Still with that wide grin and eyes twinkling, Muffin responded. “Look guys, there’s going to be a lot of Black principals coming to town. I’m going to try to be one of them. O1’ Muffin has got to get ahead. “You know that Ol’ Muffin loves you guys, but if you hear stories that Ol’ Muffin has referred to teachers here as ‘White Mother Fuckers,’ just remember that O1’ Muffin still loves you guys, but he has got to get ahead.” The bell sounded. Marcus looked at Muffin’s still smiling face as they rose to leave. In the spring of that school year, Muffin was appointed principal of a New York City school.”

52 S. MARCUS and P. D. VAIRO

Jack was a teacher who was often late to work in the morning. His lateness necessitated other teachers covering his homeroom class. Nevertheless, he was regarded as a leader by some of the African American faculty in the fight against white racism. He often talked about white musicians and singers lacking soul, as only black artists possessed this trait. White faculty were also treated to his view on how “you white teachers are purposely not teaching black children in order to keep their minds enslaved.” It was an interesting point of view which at first provoked laughter, given the fact that most of the white teachers considered Jack to be a mediocre teacher at best, even when present. As the 1960’s developed, society grew more polarized and Jack’s views grew even more racially extreme. One day, Jack was again espousing his customary views on how white teachers were exploiting the school’s black children. This time, Bob Finkelstein, a Social Studies teacher, took umbrage with some of Jack’s comments. “How can you say that when you are one of the worst teachers in the school?” “You’re full of shit! You and your kind are killing our children.” “Fuck you. Don’t you think we know why you are late all the time? Do you think we’re stupid?” “You and your people have this ability to mix up the issues. My personal life is none of your fuckin’ business. But we won’t be thrown off the track this time. You and your people are killing our children for your own ends.” “What the hell are you ranting about? Who are ‘my people’?” “You know damn well who you are!” “No, I don’t. Tell me.” “Jews! You Jews are behind all the evil in the world. Everywhere there’s a problem, you can find Jews profiting from other people’s miseries.” Finkelstein became red faced. The few of us in the room were stunned. You’re a fuckin’ hypocrite! You talk a good game but you don’t give a shit about those kids.” Jack glared at Finkelstein and responded: “Hitler didn’t kill enough of you people!” Immediately Finkelstein leaped towards Jack, but the other teachers intervened and were able to prevent a brawl. On the other hand, when word of what had happened spread through the building, it seemed to split the school largely, but not completely, into two camps. The Hispanic faculty remained out of the fray, with one exception, Mr. Santos, who sided with the faction that believed that the white teachers were purposely perpetuating

Moving from Sitting Behind the Desk 53

“no-education policy” on the school’s minority children. Shortly after, Jack left the school for another position.

Lenny was an industrial arts teacher. He was a heavy set, gruff individual who, his exterior notwithstanding, was funny and possessed lots of New York City “street smarts.” Lenny’s shop was on the ground floor of the school’s new wing. By now, the theft of batteries from teachers’ cars parked on the street was rampant. One day, as Marcus was talking to Lenny in his shop class, he looked out the window and yelled, “Son of a bitch!” and tore out of the room. Instinctively, Marcus followed him. In a flash, both were out on the street heading towards Lenny’s car, which had its hood open and a kid leaning in under it feverishly turning a wrench. Lenny quickly came up behind the kid, tapped him on the shoulder and as the kid turned around, Lenny said: “Can I help you?” Without hesitating, the youngster, who looked about 18 to 20 years old, said: “Is this your car?” “Yes it is!” Lenny replied. “Man, you’re lucky. Some guy was stealing your battery. It’s a good thing I saw him. I told him to stop and he ran away. I was putting your battery back in the car, man. Teach, you’re lucky I stopped him.” Lenny and Marcus started laughing at the kid’s story. Lenny then told the kid, “Get the fuck out of here and if you ever touch my car again, I’ll cut your balls off !!!” “Teach, I was just stopping a crook” “Get lost.” With that, the kid walked down the block, turned the comer, looked back, and saluted in a way that said: “Thanks, goodbye, and I may see your car again.”

Mr. Aratari was a short, square-bodied individual. He was quiet, soft spoken and totally dedicated to the task of teaching children. He was a gentleman and a gentle man. The only remedial reading teacher for the school, Anthony was unflagging in giving his time, including his lunch period, to instructing the youngsters, far too many of whom were in need of his services. He spoke in a soft voice, often expressing to teachers his desire to help as many children as possible, but also blaming himself for his inability to achieve greater success with the children. He was the consummate, dedicated teacher and we often wished that we could match him in the devotion and professionalism he brought with him to school each and every day.

54 S. MARCUS and P. D. VAIRO

One September, when the school year began, Anthony was not present. We were told that he had moved on to another school. Later, a story circulated (never confirmed, however) that he had committed suicide. We all hoped this were fiction. To those teachers and children who knew him, he will always be St. Anthony.

Richie Frazier, a social studies teacher, was the middleweight champion of the school. He earned the title in a series of matches in which he knocked out three students in a two-week period. Frazier had a short temper and a love of history, which he wanted to impart to his students. If students in his classes impeded his teaching, they soon learned to be alert. When discipline problems arose, Frazier often lost control of himself and threw a punch. One such instance involved Ramon, a nasty little kid, well-known for bullying students when he had his “boys” with him and well-known for his cowardice when alone. One day, Ramon gave Frazier some back talk and was promptly slapped in the mouth. His “machismo” threatened, Ramon let loose a flurry of curses followed by a punch. Frazier easily blocked the punch and fired a left-right combination which put Ramon on his back. Ramon started crying, got up and went meekly back to his seat. Many of Ramon’s classmates thoroughly enjoyed the result of this bout. Once outside the door, Ramon muttered to his classmates that “me and my boys will take care of that mother fucker.” Nothing happened. Two days later, Frazier knocked out the front teeth of another student. A day later, he broke the nose of yet another student. That student appeared in school the following week with his mother and a lawyer. The principal was more than a little upset, as he had asked Frazier on several occasions to stop smacking kids. The principal was able to solve the immediate problem by convincing the parent that her son had thrown the first punch, but the school, being a benevolent institution and Frazier being a real nice guy, no charges would be preferred against the student. The mother thanked the principal and left the office. The lawyer was unconvinced, but he had lost a client. In February, the principal appointed Marcus as an acting assistant principal. He gave Marcus only one command: “Keep Frazier under control!” The first day on the job, Marcus sent for Frazier and told him that when he “felt the urge to punch a youngster, he should do one of two things: put his hands in his pockets, or send the child to me.” Luckily, Frazier punched no one for the remainder of the term. The principal was ecstatic with Marcus’s performance as an assistant principal. A strange way to be evaluated! At the conclusion of that school year, Frazier quit teaching and went into the restaurant business.

Moving from Sitting Behind the Desk 55

Thelma was a nice lady but a mediocre teacher. After teaching several years, it had become noticeable that on more than a few occasions, she was showing up for work inebriated. The students and faculty could smell it. One day, she even passed out in the Teachers’ Room and was unable to meet her class. The principal spoke to her about the problem, but no formal action was taken. However, she was urged to explore the possibility of teaching elsewhere as being at 52X was certainly not the easiest situation in the world. Of course, she would receive an excellent recommendation if she did find another position at another school—and that’s exactly what happened. Nobody ever knew if Thelma got professional help for her problem. She was simply swallowed up and disappeared into the maze and blur of the New York City school system and its tens of thousands of teachers.

Ernest was an extremely capable teacher of Spanish. He worked his butt off every minute of every day. In return, he believed that his students should fulfill their assigned responsibilities, and that his students could learn as well as their middle-class counterparts. Ernest believed that those teachers who did not intellectually challenge their students were cheating them and that teachers did a disservice to the children when they gave good grades for sloppy or poorly done work. Thus, it was not surprising when Ernest and his supervisor, Mr. Schwartz, were heatedly discussing Ernest’s Spanish grades for the marking period. In some classes, it seemed that Ernest had failed two thirds of the class. Schwartz maintained that such wholesale failures were unacceptable and he wanted Ernest to change the grades “so that a more realistic number of children passed Spanish.” Later that day, Ernest came to see Marcus in his role as UFT chapter chair. “Can Schwartz arbitrarily change my grades?” “I don’t think so, but he can ask you to justify those failing grades.” “Well, that’s one of the upsetting aspects of this situation. He never asked if the failing students all deserved to fail. I was really disappointed in Schwartz about that. I expected better than that from him. “Well, how did you leave it?” “The grades stay as I gave them to him.” “Are you ready for the fallout?” “What fallout? I hope that the students will get the message that poor work merits a poor grade and that to do better they will have to work harder. I want to show you something.”

56 S. MARCUS and P. D. VAIRO

After saying that, he opened the grade book he was carrying to show the grades next to each of his Spanish students. There were grades for exams, class participation and homework assignments. His grading system was exhaustive. “Shelly, I know these kids can do better.” By the end of the year most of the failing students had raised to grades to at least the passing level, not because Ernest has become more lenient, but because his students were working harder. Ernest, however, expressed on more than a few occasions that he was growing weary of fighting an attitude that allowed children to slide by with unacceptable work. At the end of the year Ernest left the school. A consummate professional was gone.

In Marcus’s almost nine years as United Federation of Teachers (UFT) chapter chair in his school, only one grievance left the school for a district hearing. This grievance involved a decision on the part of the principal, Mr. June, to terminate the services of Abruzzo, a substitute teacher. Abruzzo had no control over his classes. They simply ran wild. His efforts to improve his classroom management skills were fruitless. Yet, Abruzzo would complain to Marcus that he was being harassed by the school administration. He wanted Marcus to warn the principal that he would face union action if this harassment continued. Marcus was in an uncomfortable position because he thought Abruzzo was an awful teacher. On the other hand, as UFT chapter chairperson, Marcus was required to represent Abruzzo and see that due process was afforded under the terms of the collective bargaining contract. At the district hearing, although Marcus would be present, a UFT field representative would be the key advocate for Abruzzo. The grievance hearing began with Mr. June giving his reasons for terminating Abruzzo and then describing the efforts taken in trying to upgrade his performance. June was surprisingly measured in the presentation. He spoke without rancor and actually seemed sympathetic to Abruzzo’s plight. As June spoke, Abruzzo muttered under his breath, but whatever he was saying was inaudible, although his behavior was both noticeable and unnerving. The muttering continued throughout the 15 minutes June took to present his case. No one asked Abruzzo to stop. All present, including the UFT rep, just sat there, stunned. Finally, the Superintendent, after having let Apuzzo ramble on, thanked everyone for coming and said he would consider the facts and inform the parties involved of his decision. A few weeks later, the Superintendent, to the surprise of no one, upheld the principals decision at step one. Apuzzo was gone from the school.

Moving from Sitting Behind the Desk 57

Several weeks later, Marcus was talking to Al Shanker, President of the UFT at the time, about his ambivalence in having to represent someone he thought was incompetent. Al responded by sharing some things he would repeat many times, but this was the first time Marcus had heard it. “Look, Shelly, you don’t have to believe that every teacher you go to bat for is in the right. Your job is to see to it that the teacher is given due process under the terms of our collective bargaining contract. Criminals, even the worst murderers, are entitled to their day in court. They have rights guaranteed under the Constitution of the United States. So do teachers. “Keep something else in mind. We [the UFT] don’t have any voice in the process by which the Board of Education says a person is suited to teach children. It’s funny, though, that whenever someone they said is okay to teach children doesn’t work out, they come screaming to us to help them get rid of the teacher. What’s worse is when they go to the press and the public complaining how the UFT protects incompetent teachers. We didn’t license that person. They did.”

This was and remains today a cogent argument.

Jimmy Breslin, the noted New York columnist, wrote in the March 10, 1964 issue of the Herald Tribune, which at that time was one of New York’s leading dailies that our junior high school was a “zoo.” In this column, Breslin wrote, “the kids put away their knives and went down the block and into Junior High School 52 to start another week of education at the expense of the taxpayers of the City of New York. They started their week in school, these kids, with knives in their pockets and no books under their arms and with lop-sided leather heels clicking big-shot style down the halls. And with them came something like 2060 others, one as disorderly as the next, and they must have felt good about things yesterday because the detectives did not have to come down to Junior High School 52 until nearly 11:00 a.m. And then only for an assault on another pupil, and these hardly count anymore.” We were regular readers of Breslin’s columns and we usually agreed with them. On this one, however, we knew that he was off base. Yes, there were some kids walking around the halls with knives, but, for every one of those kids, there were hundreds of children who, to the best of their abilities, were looking to the school as the way to achieve their same dreams. As we look back over almost 50 years, we know that the school Breslin labeled the “zoo,” produced teachers, principals, accountants, college professors, policeman, soldiers, business people, and so many more who lived good, honest, and productive lives.

58 S. MARCUS and P. D. VAIRO

Given the living conditions in the South Bronx at that time, it is amazing that so few kids filled the description portrayed in Breslin’s 1964 column. So thank you, Nick Martin, James Gary, Rod Bailey, Maria Santiago, Peggy Puerto, Gary Greene, Randy Vasquez, Angel Manso, Maria Salgado, Alan Kraut, Tony Cruz, Nelson Velez, and to thousands of others, some of whom are mentioned by name in this chapter. You made our lives richer.

From the vignettes in this book, the reader should not get the impression that there were not many dedicated, professional teachers and administrators who, day in and day out, came to school and gave the students their utmost efforts. It was always a pleasure to work with the likes of Al Lewis, Al Oliver, Jay Smith, Normie Cohen, Sid Moskowitz, Luisa Cruz, Ada Rodriguez, Stella Ginorio, Alejandro Rodriguez, Earl Hill, Cal Ramsey, Joe Mileti, Jack Reinowitz, Carmen Arroyo, Bruce Moody, Mamie Thompson, Eleanor Johnson, Morty Kallman, Jane Fischer, Mel Schwartz, Rita Belsky, Wally Edwards, and, of course, St. Anthony Aratari. They, and many others, gave so much of themselves to their profession.

CHAPTER III

AMERICAN COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES: WHAT ARE THEY LIKE AND WHERE ARE THEY GOING? Traditionally, the term university referred to an institution of higher education that offered graduate degrees, including the awarding of doctorates. Many even had law schools and medical schools attached to them. Colleges usually referred to institutions attended almost exclusively by undergraduate students. Today, those distinctions are almost obliterated. The reason for this is that in the search for increased status among institutions of higher education, many administrators seem to believe that the word university carries more public relations oomph. For example, every 4-year school in the Massachusetts state system is referred to as a university. The same is true in the state of Georgia. Strangely, some institutions of higher education offer a doctorate, but still refer to themselves as colleges, such as Boston College. Given this blurring, in this chapter, the words “colleges” and “universities” are used interchangeably. The general public often views colleges and universities as the purest symbols of American democracy because of the essential role they have played in promoting upward social mobility. Yet, many critics have expressed reservations about our system of higher education. For example, Charles J. Sykes in his 1995 book, Politics and Corruption in Higher Education: The Hollow Men,

Two Nobodies Speak Out: Our 150 Year Journey and Perspectives on Education, pp. 59–88 Copyright © 2011 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

59

60 S. MARCUS and P. D. VAIRO

and Andrew Hacker and Claudia Dreifus in their 2010 book, Higher Education? How Colleges are Wasting our Money and Failing our Kids and What We Can do About it, agreed that American institutions of higher education have lost their way. Many years ago, President Dwight D. Eisenhower expressed concern about the potential power of our nation’s military-industrial complex. Today, higher education is an entity seeking similar power. On August 1, 2010, The New York Times reported on the academic-industrial complex and its close association with major corporations. Can universities be compromised by such connections with the corporate sector? Administrators and professors serve as research consultants to corporations, while corporate leaders serve on university boards of trustees. These corporate figures are welcome to serve as trustees because of their ability to donate sizeable amounts to the university. This arrangement, however, creates a potential conflict of interest in which even medical research can be, and has been compromised because of the too-close a relationship between academia and the corporate world. Currently, many colleges and universities resemble nation-states. Some colleges and universities are economic powerhouses with endowments in the billions; some have intercontinental ballistic missiles disguised as football and basketball teams; some form loose alliances called the Ivy League, the Big Ten, the Southeastern Conference, the Pacific Ten and the Big East; most colleges and universities try to balance their budgets. Failure to accomplish the latter results in the leaders of public colleges going to state legislatures with requests for additional funding. In the present economic climate, legislatures are not in the mood to be agreeable. Thus, tuition increases and cutbacks in programs and staff follow. In private colleges and universities, tuition increases and program cutbacks are also likely. Particularly at a private institution, heaven help the school president who fails to balance the school budget. Higher education in the United States, however, still remains a unique institution. In Europe, historically, the most prestigious universities were often located in the major cities of the continent, such as Paris, Vienna, Bologna, Berlin and Madrid. The historical base of higher education in the United States was entirely different. Early on, universities in the United States were often located in small so-called “college towns.” Yes, Harvard and Columbia Universities were located in larger cities, but they were the exceptions rather than the rule. The institutions that developed in early America were private and usually church related. With the passage of the Morrill Act in 1862, publicly supported state universities began to mushroom. Rural-dominated, often conservative state legislatures, as well as public opinion, viewed cities as dangerous places, rampant with sin, corruption and a culture foreign to the

American Colleges and Universities 61

Anglo tradition. Therefore, it is not surprising that our forefathers in the 19th and early 20th centuries established state universities in small towns and rural areas. With the large migration of Catholic immigrants to America in the 19th century, many Catholic universities, such as Boston College, Fordham University, Georgetown, and Loyola University of Chicago, were established in large cities where Catholics tended to live. After World War II, with the passage of the G.I. Bill of Rights and many veterans taking advantage of this Act, state legislatures established branch campuses of the flagship state university in urban areas. Therefore, the University of Illinois at Chicago Circle, the University of Missouri at St. Louis, the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, and the University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee, just to name a few, were established. Soon after, numerous university extension centers were established. The growth of urban universities attracted many potential students. By the 1980’s, many state colleges were transformed into regional universities. The site selection for these many new college campuses often involved fierce political battles as state legislatures were confronted by various groups petitioning on behalf of specific cities and geographical locations. Other proponents of higher education urged the establishment and/or expansion of publicly supported community colleges to be located in both urban and rural areas so that all students could have the opportunity to attend some kind of postsecondary school. States like California and Florida soon became leaders in the development of such community or “junior colleges,” as they were often called. .

Today, America’s universities and colleges are expanding even beyond the nation’s borders by establishing campuses abroad. For example, New York University has established a campus in Abu Dhabi, in the Middle East, for the purpose of attracting talented students from throughout that region and the world. Other universities have set up shop in Asia, Europe, Africa and the Middle East. The stated goal is to develop a global university aimed at attracting a talented student body and world-class faculty from the international academic community. In our opinion, profit is the driving force in the expansion of American universities abroad. Such expansion is also predicated on enhancing the reputation of that specific university. No university wants to be left behind. In this respect, higher education is coming to resemble major corporations in the same industry that compete with each other in order to keep or expand their share of the market. This situation also reminds us of the Cold War during which the Soviet Union and United States were constantly trying to outdo one another in weaponry development.

62 S. MARCUS and P. D. VAIRO

Has this emphasis on being number one, number six, or number 26 always been the rule in higher education? Indeed, to a certain extent, this has been the case, but not to the degree to which it is today. Most college presidents still publicly maintain that the academic mission of the university remains paramount. In reality, most presidents see huge endowments, faculty research and publications (even if read by almost no one), and powerful sports teams as the way to grow the image of their schools. The quality of classroom teaching always receives lip service, but on most campuses in America, that is all it is. As universities have become more competitive with one another, the nature of the professoriate has evolved. The days of earning a doctorate, securing a position at the university in one’s area of expertise, achieving tenure, and reaching the rank of full professor is now much less frequent than it was 10 or 20 years ago. Although colleges are increasing in size, there has not been a commensurate growth in the size of faculty. We define faculty as those individuals occupying tenure track lines. Currently, instead of adding faculty lines, there is now tremendous reliance on adjuncts, parttime, and so-called clinical faculty, individuals who are not on tenure track lines but do have experience in the fields in which they are employed. These individuals need not publish, are employed full time, by contract for a specified period of time usually ranging from two to four years. Tenure track faculty who have not yet received tenure observe these trends and are now aware of their precarious position in the university. Competition in higher education has also increased because of the growth of self-proclaimed profit-making institutions. Whether or not institutions of higher education specifically proclaim their profit-making goal, they are all entrepreneurial as they are in the business of selling their product, raising funds, advertising, and even pretending that these enhance their abilities to offer a better quality education to students. The internal operation of higher education has many flaws, and what the public sees does not convey how institutions of higher education are managed, supported, and promoted. All universities and postsecondary schools compete with each other, and the form of that competition depends on where that institution sees itself in the academic pecking order. Stratification among America’s colleges and universities is a fact of life. The prestige and reputation of one’s alma mater are often thought to open doors for a better life on Earth for those students who attend the highest tier schools. Success after graduation from such schools translates into economic prosperity and social mobility. Thus, parents and students alike scamper to get their children or themselves into the “best” possible colleges or universities. Many universities take it for granted that they have a commodity in high demand for which they can charge whatever they please—and they often do just that. A number of universities have tax-free endowments of more than one billion dollars. Yet, the actual quality of

American Colleges and Universities 63

instruction received at the wealthiest and least wealthy universities varies dramatically from classroom to classroom within and among institutions. Simply stated, the quality of instruction actually received by students is not dependent on the perceived quality of the institution. Awful teaching is a fact of life in our most elite universities and great teachers can be found in less prestigious institutions.

A great deception has been promulgated in our society related to the ranking and status of our colleges. We have created a caste system rather than a class system in American higher education, and this has serious implications for students seeking to achieve the American dream. The overwhelming majority of high school graduates do not attend elite colleges like Yale, Harvard, Princeton, M.I.T., Cal Tech, Columbia, and the other colleges that regularly make the top 30 list of US News and World Report. Colleges reflect our economic system, and in doing so, they make the playing field uneven in terms of ease of achieving social and economic mobility. The richest and most influential institutions get the lions’ share of their financial support from tuition federal grants, gifts from alums, and foundations. In today’s economic market, the status of a student’s college is acutely reflected in the job market. Admission to Harvard or Yale can be heavily weighted by a combination of economic status, legacy and academic achievement. Thus, only a small portion of the population from the lower social classes can overcome their background and gain admission to such elite schools. Yes, affirmative action programs exist as a showplace of university integrity and equal opportunity, but always remember that admission by legacy is a reality and far outstrips the number the admissions allocated to minority and economically deprived students. This point was made by a Harvard researcher in the January 5, 2011 issue of The Chronicle of Higher Education. Michael Hurwitz, a doctoral candidate at Harvard, examined “the impact of legacy status at 30 highly selective colleges and concluded that, all other things being equal, legacy applicants got a 23.3 percentage point increase in their probability of admission. If the applicant’s connection was a parent who attended the college as an undergraduate, a ‘primary legacy,’ the increase was 45.1 percentage points.” Hurwitz concluded that a legacy applicant had four times a greater chance of admission at an elite institution than an identical applicant without a legacy. We are left to wonder if our elite educational institutions are merely props for the well-to-do. When one meets a Harvard or a Yale graduate, as opposed to a graduate of a less prestigious school, what is the reaction? What happens when these individuals apply for positions in the present job market? To us, the answer is obvious. The alum of the elite college definitely has the advantage. Yes, there are exceptions, but they do not occur very often and other factors often enter into the equation. There is no

64 S. MARCUS and P. D. VAIRO

doubt that the ranking system plays a significant role in establishing and reinforcing the status of institutions of higher education. U.S. News and World Report clearly conveys to the profession, as well as to students, parents, taxpayers and public officials, that a hierarchal, stratified tier structure exists in American higher education. A comparative review of U.S. News and World Report rankings indicates that few significant changes occur from year to year. Every year, private institutions are cited at the top of their list. For example, according to the 2011 rankings, the following schools were rated as the top 20: (1) Harvard, (2) Princeton, (3) Yale, (4) Columbia, (5) Stanford and Pennsylvania are tied, (7) California Institute of Technology and Massachusetts Institute of Technology are tied, (9) Dartmouth, Duke, and Chicago are tied, (12) Northwestern, (13) Johns Hopkins and Washington University in St. Louis are tied, (15) Brown and Cornell are tied, (17) Rice and Vanderbilt are tied, (19) Notre Dame, and (20) Emory University. Number 22, The University of California at Berkeley is the first public institution to be recognized in this elite group. The University of Virginia, University of California at Los Angeles, University of Michigan, and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, all public universities, were also ranked among the top 30 best universities. The problem in attempting to sort institutions by assigning a numerical ranking to each of them is that it literally stereotypes and weakens the reputation of the many not highly ranked institutions. What is particularly disturbing to us is that these rankings are closely followed across the country by high school counselors, high school students and their parents. Furthermore, when faculties apply to other institutions for a position, the rank and standing of their present institution is heavily weighted. Yet, the reliance on peer assessment in the U.S. News and World Report is very subjective and of the 4273 people who were sent questionnaires in 2010, only 48% responded. How these individuals were selected is not clear, and this raises additional questions about the study, such as what institutions did they represent and from where did they receive their graduate and undergraduate degrees? The graduation and retention rates cited in U.S. News and World Report are really extraneous. It is obvious that if a larger number of outstanding students apply to an elite institution, the so-called “best qualified” will be admitted, and that institution’s retention rate will be superior to a less prestigious institution. Selectivity reflects the retention rate. The four tier system used in the U.S. News and World Report perpetuates the established past reputations of prestigious institutions in Tier One and serves only to generate additional applicants for those top tier schools and relegates other students to second, third or fourth class citizens in the academic community. In our experiences with faculties affiliated with universities at all tier levels, we found that there were outstanding faculty, mediocre faculty, and total losers at all schools, regardless of the tier ranking. We also observed that

American Colleges and Universities 65

faculty commitment to students did not correlate to the status and ranking of the institution. Further, we did not see any substantial differences in the teaching abilities of those professors who received their doctorates from elite universities as compared to those who graduated from the second tier universities. We did note, however, that faculty at tier one institutions published more frequently than their colleagues in tier two to tier four schools. Elitism in colleges and universities is perpetuated by such factors as from which institutions the faculty members received their doctorates who mentored their dissertations, and the field and specialization area of their dissertations. These will, to a large measure, determine where an individual will be employed. The so-called elite schools usually employ candidates who are graduations of other elite institutions. It is very difficult for individuals receiving doctorates from the lower tier institutions to find employment at places like Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Brown, Duke, CalTech, MIT, Berkeley, Dartmouth or Columbia. On the other hand, receiving a doctorate from one of these institutions will enhance job placement opportunities everywhere. The existing stratification between teachers in our elementary and secondary schools and professors in our colleges and universities is also one of the great weaknesses of our educational system. Overall, there is no comparison in status and professional freedom between those who teach in K-12 and those who teach in our colleges and universities. In addition, there is seldom any meaningful communication between the faculties of K-12 and the faculties of our colleges and universities. Hopefully, someday this division will disappear.

Worcester State University where Vairo was president, served generations of children of immigrants and provided educational opportunities to them. Worcester State had over 60% of its students as the first generation in their families to attend college. Also, Worcester, the second largest city in New England, had 55 different languages spoken among its multiethnic population. Although Worcester State University was a lower tier institution in a state that included such prestigious institutions as Harvard, Tufts, Holy Cross, Clark, and MIT, still there was a need to recognize outstanding students for their academic achievements. In 1984, an Honors Day Student Convocation was established and the college sought a noteworthy keynote speaker but yet someone with a personal touch. Alex Haley was that individual. He had served in the United States Coast Guard, and by the late 1970s, he was famous as the author of Roots. When he graciously accepted Vairo’s invitation to be the keynote speaker at the Convocation, there was an air of excitement at Worcester State as it tried to become an institution of higher academic quality. Haley gave a terrific talk, and he remained a friend of Vairo’s until his death.

66 S. MARCUS and P. D. VAIRO

At about this time, Worcester State University received a 10-year accreditation from the New England Association of Colleges and Schools, rather than the customary five year reaccreditation, for the first time in its history. In the third year of Vairo’s presidency, it was suggested by some colleagues that the University needed to do more community outreach. None of the other nine colleges located in Worcester participated in the Columbus Day and St. Patrick’s Day parades which marched down Main Street. St. Patrick’s Day was only two weeks off when Vairo was asked if Worcester State would participate in the parade. Vairo accepted the invitation. The issue now was exactly what form this participation would take. It was concluded that the best vehicle for visibility would be a marching band. There was a problem, however; the University did not have a band, but one was immediately organized. Through the University newspaper, students were solicited to join the hastily established band, but only 13 volunteered. There was disappointment but not a sense of defeat. A decision was then made to include non-musician students who would be willing to march with the band, in uniforms, but without playing an instrument. An additional 25 students expressed interest in doing this. Since there was no time for extensive band practices, it was decided to play one song, “Irish Eyes are Smiling,” which the band practiced all week. The band was going to march down Main Street in tuxedos donated by a generous member of the community and, as it progressed, there would be different spectators lining the street, so it made no difference if the band played the same song over and over. The band played its one tune and was received with great enthusiasm and cheers from the spectators. The musical instruments held by the nonmusicians gave the impression of a full-fledged band. It was a grand day for Worcester State and St. Patrick. Vairo’s most gratifying moment as president of Worcester State University was when he instituted a Senior Citizen Day Convocation and offered a selection of tuition-free courses to seniors. Governor Michael Dukakis was invited to be the keynote speaker. Vairo welcomed the seniors and made a few preliminary remarks. Since his mother was in the audience, Vairo decided to recognize her presence and remarked that his mom had now made the jump from the second grade to college. It took her all of 85 years, but here she was. Then, something unexpected occurred. Vairo’s mother stood up and, in a loud voice, told the audience that her son had misrepresented her. She said: “I always told my son to tell the truth but he failed to do so today. I only went to first grade, not to second.” The audience laughed and the Governor said, “How can I top this!” That indeed was a special day for Vairo, the college, his mother, and all the senior citizens in attendance.

American Colleges and Universities 67

College athletic programs now occupy a special niche on many American campuses. This has had a profound effect on the diversity of the student body and on admissions policies at many institutions. A special tolerance now exists for admitting college athletes. This can be attributed to school administrators that have succumbed to trustees, alumni, the student body, and often to local residents, all in the hunt for the almighty dollar and greater prestige. The graduation rates of athletes at some colleges are disgraceful! Should anyone be surprised? Several years ago, The Chronicle of Higher Education noted that the Duke University football team had the highest graduation rate of any Division I football program. In response, an anonymous football coach from another institution was quoted as asking “Oh yeah, and how many football games did Duke win last year?” The answer was, “not many.” In the immediate future, there will neither be significant changes in admissions policies for athletes nor in the operation of major sports on campuses. Basketball and football are big businesses. Sports that do not generate income may be dropped, but more colleges will be trying to move up to Division I in football and basketball in order to share in the loot. Even a casual observer must realize that the recent realignments of athletic conferences have only one purpose—to generate more money for its member colleges. Unfortunately, the money made from college athletics is not usually integrated into the general operating budget of the college. Not only do athletic departments fail to contribute to the general operating budget, but students are asked to pay fees to specifically support athletic programs. William C. Rhoden in his New York Times column of March 19, 2009, pointed out “that cynics see the NCAA basketball tournament as a perversion of higher education while others have a positive view of college sports.” In our view, it is an almost impossible task to have peaceful co-existence between the pursuit of learning and collegiate sports, as presently conducted, with perhaps the exception of universities fielding Division II athletic teams. On many campuses, one can only pity the college president who has a disagreement with their successful basketball or football coach. Most of the time such disagreements do not become public because most presidents are smart enough to either avoid them or keep them secret. When Bobby Knight, Indiana University’s basketball coach, was fired for his antics by the University administration, his behavior was no different than it had been for decades. What was different, however, was that Knight’s basketball teams were no longer the powerhouse they had once consistently been. In his heyday, Knight was more powerful than the University president. This situation was neither unique to Knight, nor is it ancient history on many college campuses today. At Ohio State, until recently, the now departed football coach, Jim Tressel, could have fired the school president, E. Gordon Gee.

68 S. MARCUS and P. D. VAIRO

In most places, providing an education to athletes and developing character is pure lip service. Police blotters constantly remind the general public of the difficulties awaiting youngsters who are imported to the university for athletic purposes only. Our sympathies are with these young people as many of their coaches become wealthy while the usefulness of most athletes ends when their eligibility is exhausted. Athletes are the serfs of the college athletic world. Yes, we know a number of them will sign lucrative professional contracts, but they are very, very few. Yes, some get “perks” while attending college. But as Harry Edwards said: “The moving van that took these kids out of the ghettos and deposited them at colleges will not even drop them off where they came from once their usefulness to the college is over.” Coaches move from school to school with impunity. Athletes who do this must sit out a year. Athletes are captives of the universities while coaches have freedom of choice. In some instances, coaches may have a financial penalty clause in their contracts if they leave, but that has rarely deterred raids from other college suitors. Student athletes should have the same freedom to transfer their skills to any college without penalties, the same privilege their coaches enjoy. Major college athletic powers realize that they are merely serving as prep schools for major professional sports teams, but they do not care. With the major realignment of collegiate conferences, it is certain that so-called “tradition” no longer exists. Texas Christian University joining the Big East Conference occurred for only one reason—money. Are there maps that put Texas in the east? In June of 2010, Kansas University athletic director, Lew Perkins, in a New York Times article, stated that in order to keep the Big 12 Conference alive, some universities had pooled money to pay the University of Texas, Texas A&M, and Oklahoma University to stay in that conference. Bribery, anyone? Some presidents are now even prominent in promoting sports. Many college presidents proclaim that winning makes students happy, but, even more importantly, is conducive to having alumni write big checks to build and renovate athletic facilities, student dormitories, new student centers, administration buildings, libraries, and even some classrooms. In other words, winning athletic teams foster the growth of the university. In September 2010, The New York Times highlighted everything wrong with the relationship between big-time athletics and the mission of the university. The Times reported that the University of Florida athletic department had an annual budget of almost 95 million dollars, and controlled three private planes. The softball coach earns $250,000 per year. The President of Florida, Dr. Machen, is quoted as saying: “If we are going to compete in something, we want to win at it- whether it is in pediatrics or women’s gymnastics.” He went on to say that athletics is “part of our culture. We want people to know that Florida is a place for winners.”

American Colleges and Universities 69

Dr. Machen’s comments say it all. A good portion of the general public, however, may not even care about this perversion of athletic programs and the mission of the universities. After all, as long as there is good football and good basketball to view, who gives a damn?

Profit making and online institutions are now new players in higher education. They compete for students, and some are now flourishing. Many of those institutions exist primarily to make money, much of it from student loans. Some students at these institutions are so ill-prepared academically that they have no chance of ever earning a degree. We have been treated to the spectacle of seeing even a respected corporation like The Washington Post making headlines when one of its profit-making subsidiaries, Kaplan College, had to stop enrolling new students after federal investigators uncovered incidents of pressure and possible fraudulent and misleading come-ons to potential students. One incident involved a Kaplan employee telling an applicant that the school had the same accreditation credentials as Harvard. Enrollment in such for-profit colleges has reached almost 1.8 million students. In 2009, students enrolled in for-profit colleges received more than four billion dollars in Pell grants and more than 20 billion dollars in federal loans. The Chronicle of Higher Education, on December 22, 2010, stated that the United States Department of Education expected nearly half of the financial loans made to students attending for-profit colleges will wind up in default over the next 20 years. Senator Tom Harkin, chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, said: “I continue to be amazed by the questionable and sometimes outright illegal practices occurring within the for-profit sector.” The growth of online education is best exemplified by Phoenix University. Yet, we are left to wonder about the existence of a serious, rigorous, evaluation of the workings of Phoenix. Since its inception, how many students have enrolled at Phoenix? How many of them actually graduated? What is the debt of Phoenix students? Being a private institution, there seems to be little transparency. Online and for-profit institutions have found a market not served by traditional four year colleges, and they do have great potential to benefit students and adult learners who are interested in workshops or taking a course or two. They also have vast potential to generate income. Another interesting development is the growth of private companies the market and workshops. Thus, for example, on different dates in the fall of 2010, The New York Times carried full page advertisements for a “One Day University”, offering the opportunity for those who pay $99, marked down from $249 (but only for the “next 67 students”), to enroll in one hour lectures offered by “16 award-winning professors from such institutions as

70 S. MARCUS and P. D. VAIRO

Harvard, Princeton, Columbia, Dartmouth, Cornell, and Notre Dame,” among others. The names of those institutions appear in much larger type than the names of the individuals offering the lectures. With the exception of two of the speakers, Mario Cuomo, a politician, and the author, Joyce Carol Oates, the other 14 award-winning professors were not familiar to us. This may be due to our ignorance. On the other hand, since The New York Times advertisement headlined the university affiliations in big bold letters instead of the names of the professors, we sensed that the university affiliations of the speakers were the draw. Do the professors involved give part of their earnings to their respective universities? What percentage of the $99 (or is it $249) goes to the professors and what percentage goes to the “One Day University?” Is this an example of higher education and business cooperating to reach out to make the public better informed, or simply a matter of greed, or a combination of the two?

When one examines the vertical administrative structure of higher education, it becomes obvious that many upper-level university and college administrators can and do lose touch with the students and faculty. This same observation can also be made of the military, organized religion, large corporations and political institutions. Obviously, this is an unhealthy situation, but fragmentation is inherent in all social institutions. Top college administrators often see themselves as not only part of the institutions, but sometimes even possessing a sense of ownership of that college or university. Real accountability is often lacking. Some are under the delusion that the viability of their university is due to their great leadership qualities. Yet, almost all universities continue on after such administrators, with their “great leadership qualities,” ________________. Over the years, we have witnessed the substantial power exercised by college presidents without regard to those who are supposed to serve the students. Power does corrupt and it also prevents real collegiality and the sense of real community so badly needed on campuses. In addition to their salaries, college presidents enjoy special perks, such as free housing, an automobile, lucrative travel and entertainment allowances, charge cards, and generous retirement benefits. All of those make the position attractive. Also, the freedom to move to a higher paying institution is a special feature of the job. The presidents’ status in the community is often well-recognized and gives the office an additional power base. A college president should not be considered royalty, but at many institutions the position comes close to that status. When Vairo was a college president, he was aware of the presidential trappings and, in reaction, instituted an open door policy to all employees. He was available to administrators, faculty, and staff, including janitors, security, and handymen. Meetings on

American Colleges and Universities 71

campus were often advertised as: “Worcester State University Community Meetings” and all employees were invited to attend. Looking back, Vairo had no need for the trappings of power. He always tried to remember his roots and he recognized that his position was temporary and not a lifetime one. Worcester State would remain after he was gone.

Finances are now a major concern of all parties involved in either offering or receiving a college education. Parents who send their children to a college do so at great financial sacrifice, be that college public or private. It is no longer uncommon for private institutions to charge tuition, room and board of over $50,000 and, in some of the elite institutions, the total bill can reach $70,000. Tuition, room and board at many public institutions now often exceed $20,000 annually, the cost is even more for out-of-state students. Such costs take a heavy toll on the average American family. This situation is likely to worsen in the immediate future as many state treasuries are now close to empty, necessitating both higher tuition at state schools and serious program cutbacks or even elimination of some programs. Now institutions must also seriously consider providing additional financial aid to students so that they can maintain a student body that is not homogenous in terms of wealth. Tuition and fees have already sharply increased at a time when many American families no longer have the ability to pay for such increases. Students are now graduating from colleges and universities with debts which will burden them for at least a decade. Our less economically affluent students, and by this we mean students from families earning less than $80,000 annually, cannot sustain ever increasing tuition and fees. We are surprised that there is not a general revolt in protesting these increasing costs. Seldom do college administrators address this issue. Why not? The question is, how can tuition be stabilized without negatively impacting the quality of education offered to the students? This is not an easy question to answer, yet there are ways to do so. For example, the cost of attaining a doctorate can be lessened if students are given the flexibility to begin writing their dissertations earlier in their course of study than is usually now permitted at most universities. This would allow students to avoid paying costly maintenance of matriculation technology and housing fees. Luckily for Vairo, Duke University’s doctoral program offered the flexibility to do exactly that. Prior to his admission to Duke’s doctoral program in the fall of 1961, Vairo was already giving considerable thought to his dissertation subject. In Vairo’s second week at Duke, he mentioned to his advisor that he had a topic for his dissertation and would welcome the opportunity to discuss it with him. After a brief meeting, Vairo was advised that it might be helpful if

72 S. MARCUS and P. D. VAIRO

he shared his idea with the North Carolina Board of Higher Education (NCBHE). He did so. The meeting with the Director of the NCBHE was one of the most exciting encounters in Vairo’s professional career. Dr. William Archie had received his doctorate in French from Princeton University and served as a translator for General Dwight D. Eisenhower in World War II. Prior to his present position, he had served as dean of the College at Wake Forest University. He was a very warm person, a good listener and extremely gracious to a young neophyte. Vairo shared with Dr. Archie his ideas, which focused on the quality of faculty teaching freshmen and sophomores in four year colleges in North Carolina compared with two year colleges. Archie was enthusiastic about the idea and invited several colleagues in his office to meet with Vairo. After further discussion of Vairo’s proposal, the NCBHE eventually employed him on a part-time basis while he pursued his doctorate. Further, Dr. Archie prepared a letter to Duke endorsing Vairo’s project. When Vairo returned to Duke, his doctoral committee was surprised to hear the news. Dissertation topic approval could be a long process taking anywhere from one to three years. Yet, Vairo was informed several weeks later that his topic was approved. Since Vairo’s wife was in New York, working at the New York Foundling Hospital and pursuing her master’s degree in Social Work at Fordham University, he had the time to carry a full student course load, work on his dissertation, and serve as a part-time associate at the Board of Higher Education. It was a challenge, but he completed all the requirements for his doctorate in 18 months, including the oral defense of his dissertation. Instructional and personnel costs of most colleges range from 75 to 80% of the total operating budget. Costs need to be contained but there has not been a concentrated effort to do so. The usual explanation for this is that “the quality of the program will suffer!” We don’t agree. If we do nothing about this situation, we are going to bankrupt our middle-income families. This problem is not going away and needs to be addressed now, not later.

Entrepreneurship is a paramount consideration in the world of colleges and universities. Over the years, the same questions continuously arise: “How many students are enrolled? Will we make our budget projections? How are we doing compared with our sister institutions? Do we have too many small classes?” A special fear occurs among college faculty administrators when enrollment in a school decreases. This can lead to faculty downsizing or even elimination of some programs. Panic then permeates the ranks of faculty and staff and resumes are soon updated and mailed out. If a college or university has a faculty of several hundred and each faculty member were willing to accept a temporary salary freeze and teach one

American Colleges and Universities 73

additional course during the academic year, considerable savings would accrue to the institution. Of course, administrators would have to accept the same salary freeze and eliminate some of the trappings of their positions. The one course increase in faculty teaching load would eliminate many adjunct faculty and thus reduce the expenditures of various departments. This would not be a popular solution among faculty and administrators, but colleges can no longer be passive about the kind of debts that are being accumulated by graduates and nongraduates alike. It should be kept in mind that faculty salaries vary from region to region, university to university, and even among schools and departments within the same university. This is particularly true in private universities where salaries are confidential. For example, within the same institution, medical school faculty usually earn more than other faculty. Law school faculty will follow in the salary hierarchy, followed by those in the graduate school of business administration. Usually, the lowest salaries are paid to faculty in the liberal arts area. At public institutions, particularly where there is collective bargaining for faculty, there is more uniformity in salaries. Even at such institutions, however, the needs of the institution and the negotiation skills of the wouldbe faculty member play a major role in determining entry salary. A good negotiator oftentimes starts with a higher salary than faculty already at that institution for many years, regardless of faculty rank. It is not uncommon for associate professors to earn a higher salary than a full professor, or for an assistant professor to earn a higher salary than an associate professor. In looking at areas for possible cost cutting, capital construction projects need to be reviewed, as these are often a huge portion of the budget. Before physical expansion of a campus begins, it is vital to examine the real needs to do this! The overall utilization rate of physical facilities on campus must be examined before additional monies are used to construct new buildings. More classes should be scheduled on weekends and Friday afternoons and evenings. Furthermore, some facilities are unnecessarily elaborate. Learning, other than in research laboratories, can take place in a simple, clean, physical environment. The purchase of new technologies should also be immune to cost cutting. From an institutional point of view, the race to increase the university’s endowment never ceases. As the economy stagnates, universities will provide guide books for students and their families informing them where they can go for loans and grants so that the particular school can receive its tuition. Although students and their families continually express dissatisfaction with tuition increases far beyond inflation, most college administrators believe that their institution must continue to expand. It is also interesting to note how creative some institutions have been in terms of keeping the engine of the university fueled by tuition checks and

74 S. MARCUS and P. D. VAIRO

other sources of income. For example, prestigious Columbia University offered the opportunity to graduates who had earned a doctorate of social work (DSW) prior to 1993 to convert that degree to a PhD, which is what Columbia has been awarding to social work graduates since 1993. Of course, doing so involved a $600 charge.

Politics at a university are always alive and well. When he was Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger, a former professor at Harvard, was asked by a reporter which was worse—the politics in Washington, D.C. or the politics at Harvard. Without hesitation, Kissinger replied that the politics at Harvard were worse. The reporter seemed surprised and asked Kissinger how this could be since his work in Washington, D.C. involved national survival. Kissinger responded by saying that was exactly the point. At Harvard, the stakes were so low that politics there involved only egos, and this made the “politics” so vicious. We believe Kissinger was right. Politics exist in every organization, but in universities, the pervasiveness of politics is exacerbated because the reward system is usually not predicated on how much one earns. For the most part, professors know coming into the field that they will not get rich. Thus, ego is the catalyst for politics in the university, and these egos need to be constantly massaged, restrained, and nurtured. Good university administrators do this well. Another reason for the politicization of many departments is that the personnel system of universities’ function by having senior, usually tenured faculty, vote on the employment, reappointment, promotion, and tenure of colleagues. Oftentimes this can lead to the formation of cliques, favoritism, and interesting behaviors on the part of faculty. Prior to Marcus’ first personnel committee meeting at which he was to be a voter rather than be voted upon, his dean, Harry N. Rivlin, called him into his office and gave him some advice; “Tomorrow, you will be attending your first personnel meeting as a tenured faculty member. These proceedings are confidential. On the other hand, keep in mind that you should be prepared to have what you say at one of these ‘confidential meetings’ appear on page three of The New York Daily News. Not only will you be quoted, but you can be certain that you will be quoted inaccurately.”

Over the next four decades, Marcus came to fully realize the accuracy of Dean Rivlin’s comments. At one personnel meeting, Marcus asked several informational questions about the candidate’s publications. When the meeting ended, Marcus went to the men’s room and when he emerged, the candidate was under discussion

American Colleges and Universities 75

waiting for him at the door, demanding to know why he had said what he said at the meeting. No more than five or six minutes had elapsed since the meeting had concluded. Marcus asked the faculty member to repeat what he had allegedly said. She did so. Nothing she repeated was accurate. At a reappointment meeting, a candidate was criticized by a program colleague for having a second job. The colleague urged that this candidate be rejected for reappointment because his holding a second job violated university statutes. Faculty personnel committees operate almost as a Star Chamber proceeding-virtually anything can be said with little or no evidence or data being offered as proof. In this incident, no evidence was submitted to back the accusation that the candidate for reappointment actually held a second job. When the ballots were tallied, the candidate received a negative vote. From the discussion, it appeared that most faculty voted against the candidate for reasons other than his possibly having a second job. On the other hand, almost everyone in the room knew for a fact that the faculty member making the charge about the candidate holding a second job, himself held a second job, where it was, what he did there, and what days he worked. Some faculty have no sense of shame. At another personnel meeting, a tenured faculty referred to a candidate as the “Anti-Christ.” There was silence in the room. Being a nice Jewish boy from the Bronx now teaching at this Jesuit institution, Marcus looked to the three priests in the room, who were also tenured faculty, for a response. No luck. Instead, there was silence for what seemed like several minutes. Finally, Marcus asked the individual who had made the “Anti-Christ” charge “which category should the accusation be considered under for reappointment: Research and Publication, Teaching, or Service?” The candidate was reappointed. At a tenure meeting, a faculty member urged his colleagues to deny tenure because multiple female students had told him they could not get a decent grade from the candidate unless they agreed to sleep with him. In response to this serious charge, a faculty member asked if the names of those females could be given. The professor making the charge said he would not do so because the candidate for tenure had allies in the room and that they would report the names of those females back to the professor. The professor would then retaliate against those doctoral students. Considerable discussion followed as to the ethics of making such charges without names being given. The discussion then degenerated into the individual who made the charge getting angry about being questioned about his truthfulness. He never seemed to understand that without specific names, the charges were almost meaningless. Finally, as a compromise, this professor agreed to name the complaining female students in his written report that went to the dean and then the academic vice president. Several faculty said that if the names were given in that individual report, the tenure committee should reconvene to reconsider their votes. The candidate

76 S. MARCUS and P. D. VAIRO

received an affirmative vote and the committee was never reconvened. Later, the assistant academic vice president told the dean that the professor making the charges at the meeting did indeed repeat them in his written statement, but he never gave names. The candidate received tenure.

Most universities offering graduate degrees are dependent on the research and publications of faculty for the prestige enjoyed by that university. This means that the quality of teaching is not the paramount concern. This was best exemplified when Marcus served as a member of the University Tenure Review Committee at Fordham University. On one occasion, a science professor being considered for tenure had incredibly poor teaching evaluations from his students. Despite these negative evaluations, supporters made the argument that the professor was doing landmark research at Sloan Kettering Memorial Cancer Hospital and that this should count more heavily in the tenure decision than should his poor teaching evaluations. During the deliberations of the tenure committee, two physicians attested to the innovative cancer research being done by this professor. Ultimately, tenure was awarded. Less than a year later, this individual secured a tenured position at an elite, Tier I institution. Behavior of some faculty at personnel meetings can become highly predictable. For years, a faculty member making his first comment at meetings would always begin with the words: “I haven’t made up my mind on how I will vote on this candidate … ” Almost everyone in the room knew full well that the professor had indeed made up his mind long before coming into the room. Another colleague, whenever he disagreed with someone, would invariably begin his response with: “That’s a very good point, but … ” After several years, many of his colleagues had struggled to avoid yelling out, “but”, as he began his sentence. The professor never “got it.” Many tenured faculty, regardless of how they actually vote, will make sure that a colleague knows that he or she supported the candidate at the personnel meeting. This once led to a situation where six colleagues of a candidate spoke strongly in support of that individual’s application for reappointment. Since personnel votes are cast by secret ballot, it is never possible to know with certainty who voted how. On this occasion, Marcus was sitting next to a colleague who had said nothing at the meeting, but made no effort to hide his “yes” vote as he marked his ballot. The votes were then collected, counted, and announced. The candidate received only four affirmative votes. Nevertheless, one can be pretty sure that six people would convey to the candidate that they had strongly supported her reappointment. Who knows if even three of them, or even one of them, had actually voted “yes.” In most colleges and universities, faculty personnel votes on candidates are recommendations to the dean of a particular school or college. The dean

American Colleges and Universities 77

then writes an independent report to the academic vice president or provost specifying his/her views on the candidate. In most cases, it is difficult to overturn an overwhelming recommendation of a faculty committee. If a faculty vote is close, the dean’s recommendation will often carry the day. If it does not, that particular dean needs to do some fence mending with his/her administrative superior or update his/her resume.

The lack of genuine dialogue between the faculties of various schools within a university is also a matter of concern. At universities with which we have been associated, some faculty looked down on colleagues preparing teachers. Often, liberal arts and teacher education faculty have little interaction with one another, and in some cases, barely tolerate each other. Only at a few institutions, have there been earnest efforts at cooperative projects. This conflict has its roots in the doubts that some liberal arts faculties may have about the scholarship and the quality of the doctoral degree earned by education professors and the students they mentor. At times in our careers, we almost had to apologize for being professors of education. Often, we were told by colleagues in other disciplines that most graduate education degrees lacked solid subject content. This did cause some resentment, and these attitudes will not be easily changed. There is a need for liberal arts faculty and teacher education faculty to recognize that each has essential responsibilities within the universities.

Grade inflation is a fact of life in higher education. There is often considerable pressure on professors to be generous and give higher grades to avoid grievances from students, poor student evaluations, or empty classrooms. These could mean the professional kiss of death for a young faculty member or prove to be embarrassing for a senior professor. There is often hesitation and unwillingness on the part of faculty to face angry students. Such anger can result if a professor gives “F”s, “C”s and even “B”s and “B+”s! Many graduate students, in particular, think it is their right to receive a grade of “A” regardless of the quality of their work. Angry students can retaliate against professors by giving them low ratings on the evaluations now required at most colleges and universities. Such low ratings can result in professors being denied promotion, reappointment, and tenure when they are brought to the attention of members of personnel committees. To further complicate matters, some institutions use the grade “pass” or “fail,” which reveals very little about the actual performance of the student. Therefore, professors need to walk a thin line when it comes to how they grade students. By the way, not once in all of our decades in higher education did a student complain to us that a grade of “A” was not deserved.

78 S. MARCUS and P. D. VAIRO

The soul of the university is its students. They provide the “psychic income,” which is the great reward for teaching in colleges and universities. One cannot take this type of income to the bank, and one cannot pay the mortgage with it, but it is priceless. It is the students who make being a full professor, with tenure and no administrative responsibilities, the best job in the world. Over the course of our professional lifetimes, we have encountered many students and have been fortunate enough to become friends and colleagues with some of them. We have shared in their victories and endured the pain of some of their defeats. Life guarantees both. Overwhelmingly, we have been amazed by their efforts, their determination, and their wisdom.

Lisa Gialdi was a young lady who could not see. This did not prevent Lisa from being a first-rate student and to eventually earn her doctorate in counseling psychology from Fordham. One bitter, cold, winter night, at a time when Marcus was associate dean in charge of Fordham’s Tarrytown branch campus, the security guard informed him that someone had left his/her car headlights on. He gave Marcus the license number and not wanting to have someone go out to a parking lot after class and find themselves with a dead battery on this brutal night, Marcus decided to go from room to room to find the owner. When Marcus entered Lisa’s class, he informed them that a particular car had its lights on. “Did it belong to anyone in the class?” Immediately, Lisa’s hand shot up and she said: “Oh darn! I forgot to turn the lights off when I turned off my ignition. I’m so sorry.” The class was silent for a minute or so until Lisa started laughing. Soon, everyone was laughing. Lisa never felt sorry for herself. There was no barrier she could not overcome. She was and remains a hero.

Joe Bureau was a doctoral student in the division of Urban Education which Marcus chaired at Fordham University’s Graduate School of Education. In the mid-1970’s, Joe became superintendent of a New York City community school district. One day at a meeting in Marcus’ office, Joe broke down and cried. It seemed he had been presented with a simple choice by several of his school board members. Either Joe signed off on certain fiscal authorizations that he knew were fraudulent, or he would face certain nonrenewal of his contract. Joe was still too young to even consider retirement, and the diminution of pension benefits resulting from the difference in retirement benefits accruing to a superintendent compared with that of any other job he might attain in the future, was enormous. It was a strange feeling,

American Colleges and Universities 79

watching the leader of a school district responsible for serving the best interests of tens of thousands of children agonize over the choices confronting him—choices presented to him by the elected members of his school board who were charged with safeguarding and promoting the best interests of those same tens of thousands of children.

Jose was attending Fordham’s Graduate School of Education in pursuit of a Master’s Degree in School Leadership and Policy. He was now teaching in New York City, but he also had many outside interests, one of which was managing recording artists. Jose was funny, irreverent, and personable. One day, Jose asked Marcus if he could see him to discuss a problem. At first, Jose seemed reluctant to discuss the exact nature of this problem. Finally, he told Marcus that he had been asked to represent a rather famous entertainer. Marcus congratulated Jose, but also communicated to him that he did not understand what the problem was. Jose, who always addressed Marcus as “Doc,” said: “Doc, this is really a big problem.” Marcus still did not understand him. “Doc, when you manage her, it’s a full service operation.” Marcus still did not get it. “Doc, you are not listening. Being her manager is a full service operation.” Jose’s words still did not register with Marcus. “Okay, Doc, have you ever seen her?” Marcus said, “No.” “Doc, she is ugly, and I mean ugly!” Marcus started laughing. “Doc, it’s not funny! I’ve got to give her my body!” Marcus, trying to keep the conversation on a professional level, asked Jose what the compensation was for serving as her manager. “In addition to the normal cut, I get a boat.” Marcus said, “I didn’t know you liked sailing.” “No, Doc, I mean a boat—a big Cadillac.” Neither Marcus’ undergraduate nor graduate education had prepared him to deal with this situation before him. He told Jose that he appreciated his coming to ask for advice, but this was an area in which he lacked expertise. Jose still had that sad look on his face when he left Marcus’ office. A week later, an excited Jose came into Marcus’ office and said “Doc! Doc! You’ve got to come outside and see my boat!” He grabbed Marcus’ arm and almost yanked him out of the office. Parked right outside of the door to the building was a gleaming new Cadillac. Marcus was careful to avoid asking Jose about the services rendered.

80 S. MARCUS and P. D. VAIRO

Virginia Apuzzo entered a doctoral program shortly after leaving a convent. Shortly after Marcus had met Virginia for the first time, he found himself watching her on a Sunday morning television talk show advocating equal rights for gays and lesbians. Virginia was always honest, direct, and a great companion to share a cup of coffee with. As she became more involved in gay and lesbian politics, Marcus saw less and less of her. Over the years, however, they did keep in touch, and Marcus was honored when Virginia asked his permission to list him as one of her references for the F.B.I. security check necessary in order for her to become a senior White House advisor in the Clinton Administration. Upon her appointment, she was the highest openly gay government official in the history of this nation.

Seong Ho was both a minister and a doctoral student when, in April 2007, a student of Korean ethnicity went on a rampage at Virginia Tech University, killing 32 people. The fact that the shooter was Korean American prompted Seong Ho to email his classmates apologizing for this tragedy: I do not know what to say to those who died, their families, and all people in this country. I just want to say to everyone in my class that I am desperately sorry for what happened to many innocent people there by one of my people. I will pay and repent for whatever I am supposed to do about this tragic matter.

This prompted a number of responses from Seong Ho’s classmates, one of which is reprinted below: Dear Seong Ho, I am sure you feel upset about this, but you should not feel guilty for someone else’s behavior. There is nothing that you personally could have done to prevent this. This is a tragedy, but you are not to blame … We are all to blame.

At the next class, Seong Ho was near tears as a discussion ensued as to why he felt personally guilty of a crime committed by somebody else. Catholic, Protestant and Jewish students in the class said that if the shooter had been a member of their religious group, none of them would feel a need to apologize. Irish American and Italian Americans in the class said that they would have not felt any group or personal responsibility if the shooter had been a member of their ethnic group. By the time the discussion concluded, no one could be sure that the cultural guilt had been lifted from Seong Ho’s conscience. Marcus, however, was so very proud of the efforts the students had made to support one of their own in his time of need.

American Colleges and Universities 81

Isaura Santiago, the first Hispanic president of a City University component was scheduled to defend her doctoral dissertation. When she arrived at the division office, she was nervous and made no secret of it. She told Marcus and the two other members of her doctoral committee that she had not slept at all the previous night, and had also made it impossible for her husband to sleep. Efforts to calm her did not alleviate her anxiety. She started talking about her husband, who was parking their car, and how he had taken off from work to be with her. She then related a conversation she had with her husband the previous evening: “We talked all night. He asked me about what the next morning would be like and who would be present. I told him that my mentor and two readers would be there, as well as the Director of Graduate Studies. He asked me the names of those who would be present. I gave him the names. When I mentioned you, Dr. Marcus, he said, ‘What is Marcus’ first name?’ I said his first name is Sheldon. He said ‘I knew a Sheldon Marcus. He was my teacher in junior high school. Maybe it’s the same guy! How old is this Dr. Marcus?’ I told him I wasn’t sure, but I told him you were in your thirties. He looked disappointed. ‘My Marcus would be 65 or 70 years old by now.’”

It was almost time for the oral defense to begin when in walked Mr. Santiago— Willie Santiago, as Marcus knew him. Marcus recognized him immediately and blurted out: “Willie Santiago! 65 or 70 years old!!! You son of a bitch!!!!” Marcus and Willie embraced and started reminiscing about their days at JHS 52X. From the ensuing discussion, it turned out that Marcus was only seven years older than Willie. One’s teachers may be a lot younger than their students imagine them to be. Isaura had a successful oral defense and left the room as Dr. Santiago.

Frank Smith was a deputy superintendent of a New York City inner city school district. He was an individual of great character who always had the interests of children at heart. He assumed his new position with great enthusiasm, but soon encountered many troubling situations, one being a relative of a school board member being on the payroll, not showing up for work, but nevertheless clocking in. When this person actually appeared for work one day, Smith told her that she would not be paid when she was not physically present. Instead of being defensive, this individual told Smith that since her brother chaired the local school board, if Smith wanted to “keep his black ass in the deputy superintendent’s chair, he’d better shut his mouth and close his eyes.” Smith did not back down. Eventually, however, there were consequences. The superintendent and the two deputies, including Smith, did not have their contracts renewed. One afternoon,

82 S. MARCUS and P. D. VAIRO

over coffee, Smith told Marcus that the overriding memory of his experience as deputy superintendent was “I learned that black people pretending to defend the interest of black children can rip off black youngsters easier than white people can rip off black youngsters.”

Together, we have spent many, many hours talking about the wonderful students with whom we have interacted over the years. In Vairo’s experiences, there was not a single student he strongly disliked. For Marcus, there was one. In the early 1970’s, the United States of America was reeling as a result of the enormous degree of social unrest. Vietnam War demonstrations, the Civil Rights Movement, the Women’s Rights Movement, and the unrest on American campuses culminating in the deaths of students at Kent State University and Southern University were all contributing factors. For many, it seemed as if the social fabric of America was being torn apart. Fordham University was not immune from what was going on in society. Tom, a doctoral student in Marcus’ department, had managed to get his name into local newspaper when he led a group of other teachers in capturing their principal’s office. According to local newspaper, they then proceeded to mark up the walls with swastikas. This particular student was also president of the School of Education’s Graduate Student Organization (GSO). On November 1, 1970, Marcus’ first day as acting chair of the department of Urban Education, he received a visit from Tom, As Tom stood at the door of Marcus’ office, he growled: “Get out of that chair, Jew.” Surprised, Marcus managed to keep his cool and told Tom he was not going to grant his request. Tom responded by saying that “the students didn’t elect you chair. You are sitting there illegally.” That was probably the most positive discussion Marcus and Tom had over the next three years. As doctoral comprehensive examinations approached, Marcus truly believed that Tom was far from the sharpest knife in the drawer and thought it problematic that he could pass the doctoral comprehensives. These comps were to be administered over the course of three consecutive Saturdays from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., with a one hour lunch break. The comprehensive exam questions were submitted by faculty, discussed, revised, and, when in final form, given to the division secretary to type on her then “stateof-the-art” IBM Selectric typewriter. On the first Saturday of the comps, Marcus went to Fordham, although he was not proctoring the examination. He simply did not want to wait until Monday to review Tom’s exam. At the end of the day, Associate Dean Anthony Mottola, who was proctoring, handed Marcus all of the papers completed by students in his department. The exams were coded so that no names appeared on the blue books that were distributed to the students in which to write their answers. As chair, however, Marcus possessed the

American Colleges and Universities 83

master coding list and knew exactly which paper belonged to Tom. He found Tom’s blue books and was initially surprised that he had filled so many books. The surprised turned to disappointment as Marcus read Tom’s excellent responses to the questions. Tom passed easily. On Monday morning, Marcus received a phone call from a doctoral student who had also sat for the exam. This student complained bitterly about the difficulty of the comp questions. The student voiced his feelings strongly, but in a professional matter. As the conversation concluded, the student said that “Everyone who took the exam did badly.” Marcus responded by saying that he had begun to grade the papers and that he could guarantee that not everybody had done poorly. The student said to Marcus: “I don’t know whose paper you have graded, but I sat next to Tom, and in the morning session he left after about 30 minutes and in the afternoon session he left after about 20 minutes.” The student’s response set off an interesting chain of events. Marcus thanked the student for the call, and immediately ran across the hall to Dean Mottola’s office. “How long did Tom spend writing his comps on Saturday?” asked Marcus. “Oh, I forgot to tell you, but Tom was not in the room for more than half an hour in either session.” “Don’t go anywhere.” Marcus then ran back to his office, grabbed Tom’s blue books, and ran back to Dean Mottola’s office. “Do you think he could have written this much in a half hour?” Dean Mottola took the blue books and thumbed through them slowly. Quietly, he said, “Let’s go see the Dean.” The events described above were then related to Dean Rivlin. Rivlin said nothing. He puffed on his cigar, obviously in deep thought. Finally, after several minutes, Rivlin said to Mottola: “The next two Saturdays, we will administer the comps as if nothing has happened. We will, however, mark the blue books given to the students on the mornings and afternoons of the next two Saturdays. You will collect the blue books at the end of each session, but not distribute them to the division chairs until we have looked at all of them.”

At the end of the third week, the blue books were reviewed. Three individuals, all of whom were from Marcus’ department, had turned in unmarked blue books. The only plausible explanation was that the students had brought completed books in to the room with them. Rivlin then asked Marcus if he wanted to press charges of plagiarism against the three students. Marcus responded with a resounding “Yes!” Rivlin said that given the times and given that one of the students was head of the GSO, he would first discuss this matter with the President of the University, Reverend James

84 S. MARCUS and P. D. VAIRO

Finlay, S. J. Following this discussion, Father Finlay appointed the Dean of the Law School to investigate Marcus’ charges against the three students. A thorough investigation was conducted, and the findings were then given directly to Father Finlay, who shared it with Dean Rivlin. In his report, the Law School dean had indicated he had succeeded in finding out what had happened by reaching an “understanding” with two of the three students who turned in unmarked blue books. In return for being suspended rather than expelled from the doctoral program, the two students told the full story. These students said that Marcus appeared to have such high academic standards that they felt they would be unable to complete their doctoral program without resorting to some shenanigans. They said that Tom, acting in collusion with a faculty member in the department, had devised a plan to provide the three students with the questions and answers to the comp exams. The students would then enter the testing room with the blue examination books already filled in. After the comps were graded, the three students would then lead a physical takeover of Marcus’ office, demand his ouster, and that he be replaced by the faculty member involved in the plot. This faculty member would then see to it that the three doctoral students would graduate. The final piece of the plot was that the new chair would see to it that Marcus and other faculty members not in sympathy with the “new regime” would be recommended for termination at subsequent personnel committee meetings. The end result was that Tom was permanently expelled and the two cooperating plotters were suspended for one year. Unfortunately, certain aspects of the scheme had already been implemented. For example, earlier in the fall semester, Marcus’ application for promotion to the rank of associate professor had been denied, largely due to the efforts of the colleague in cahoots with the students. The following school year, Father Finlay awarded Marcus early tenure, and by 1975, Marcus had become the youngest full-time professor at Fordham University. This still left open the question of what to do with the faculty member who had been in collusion with the three students. This was resolved by doing nothing, or at least so it seemed on the surface. When, however, that professor was considered for his next regularly scheduled reappointment, the vote was negative, and the professor was terminated. Not a word was said of the professor’s involvement in the incident described above at this reappointment meeting.

Marcus and Vairo were indeed fortunate to come into contact with some truly outstanding educators and leaders over the course of their professional lifetimes. Two such individuals were the aforementioned Harry Rivlin and Anthony Mottola. They were both kind, caring, and visionary

American Colleges and Universities 85

leaders. They both shared another trait—a tremendous sense of ethical behavior. An example of such behavior was when Rivlin, while chairing a chairs meeting, was interrupted by his secretary and informed that the United States Commissioner of Education, James Allen, was on the telephone. After asking and receiving permission from the chairs to take the call, he returned after about 10 minutes. Rivlin then requested permission to change the agenda of meeting in order to discuss a proposal that Commissioner Allen had just made to him. Once again, of course, permission was granted. Rivlin then laid out the project that Commissioner Allen wanted done, but he needed an answer that same day as to whether Fordham had the resources to implement this project for the several million dollars it would receive to do so. A lively discussion followed about the feasibility of accepting Allen’s offer. Marcus had come from the New York City Board of Education, where it was his impression that if somebody offered money to do a project, the money was immediately accepted and then one worried if the project would be implemented. However, at this meeting, the discussion seemed to be heading towards a conclusion that Fordham did not have the resources to successfully implement Allen’s proposal. Marcus could not believe it! He thought that somehow Rivlin or Mottola would turn around the discussion so that Fordham would receive the money. Marcus was wrong. Rivlin asked to be excused, went back to his office, and informed Commissioner Allen of his decision—“Thanks, but no thanks.” Tragically, weeks later, Commissioner Allen was killed in a plane crash. Years later, when Rivlin was ill, Marcus would visit with him and they would have some wonderful discussions about their Fordham experiences. On one occasion, Marcus brought up the phone call from Commissioner Allen and Fordham’s rejection of the funding offer. Given the fact that the commissioner had passed so soon after he had made the offer to Fordham, Marcus asked if that was not a bad business decision. After all, the indirect costs accruing to Fordham would have been significant. Rivlin smiled at Marcus and said: “No. Not only was it the only ethical thing to do, but it was also a good business decision. If Fordham had taken the money from Commissioner Allen and done a poor job of implementing the project, Fordham would have been cut out of future funding. By turning down the request, we stayed at the top of Commissioner Allen’s list of universities to contact by reinforcing his belief that if Fordham accepted the money, we would do the job and do it well. Of course, no one could have predicted his premature death, but it is always important to do the right thing.”

Rivlin also pioneered the development of many groundbreaking education programs. For example, he was a catalyst for Fordham, receiving funding from the Ford Foundation to introduce what was then a revolutionary educational program, in which for each of the three years, 20 minority candidates

86 S. MARCUS and P. D. VAIRO

were to be trained and certified as district level administrators. At that time, the paucity of minority school leaders in urban school settings was appalling. Individuals accepted into this full-time program at Fordham were to receive their full salary for that year, full tuition, and reimbursement for all books purchased. Fourteen hundred applications were received for the 20 slots available that first year. That eventual group of 60 graduates went on to become principals and superintendents in New York City and in other school districts around the country. Rivlin also developed a doctoral program in urban education in 1969 with the help of Vairo. He was able to get his proposal approved and implemented by the Fordham faculty, something he was unable to do for the years he was Dean of Teacher Education at The City University of New York (CUNY). Many years later, in the 21st century, CUNY advertisements promoting its innovative doctoral program in urban education. Someone should have told them that they were beaten to the punch by over 35 years. Father Leo McLaughlin, S.J., President of Fordham University and Father Timothy Healy, S.J., the Executive Vice President and later President of Georgetown University, had invited Rivlin to become dean of Fordham’s Graduate School of Education with the goal of making it a tier one operation. An agreement was quickly reached. Money was allocated to hire 20 additional tenure track faculty and additional secretaries. Facilities were to be updated and more support staff were to be employed. Throughout these discussions, however, the issue of Rivlin’s salary never came up. It was not important to him. When Rivlin received his employment contract in the mail from Fordham, it was accompanied by a note from Father Healy that read: Dear Harry, In all of our discussions, we neglected to talk about your salary. Enclosed is a Fordham contract, Leo has already signed it. We have left the line for the amount of your enumeration blank. Could you please fill in whatever you think is an appropriate amount, sign it, and return it to us. Cordially, Tim.

Rivlin filled in an amount, signed the contract, and returned it. Marcus and Vairo said to him, “They really trusted you.” Rivlin smiled and said, “I hope they did. But it was also a pretty good negotiation tactic on their part. If I was negotiating with them face to face, I am sure I would have bargained for $10,000 more than I actually filled in on the blank line.” Rivlin also taught us something about the demeanor of a dean. One day, in one of those visits to his home, the name of a long-gone faculty member

American Colleges and Universities 87

surfaced. Quietly, Rivlin said, “I never particularly cared for him.” We voiced our surprise at hearing that. Rivlin said: “That’s good. That’s very good. There should be a difference between the actions of Harry Rivlin and the actions of Dean Harry Rivlin. A dean has to put his personal feelings aside and try to be fair to everyone.” Great advice, albeit not followed by most leaders who cannot separate their personal feelings from their professional behavior towards colleagues.

Anthony Mottola was the dignified, highly professional, totally dedicated Associate Dean and Director of Graduate Studies at Fordham University School of Education when Marcus and Vairo arrived there. Later, he would become Dean of the Graduate School of Education. He, too, taught us a great deal about integrity. Dean Mottola gave us early insight as to how salaries work in higher education. On one occasion, after suffering a heart attack, his responsibilities were divided among several faculty members until his return. Marcus received the responsibility for approving and signing off on payrolls submitted by grant directors. Soon, a particular submission got his attention. One of Marcus’ doctoral students was also the principal investigator of a grant providing basic literary skills to inmates at Riker’s Island Prison. When Marcus reviewed the payroll, he could not help but notice that the project director was making almost double his salary. He checked the grant budget and saw that the payment submitted was, indeed, accurate. Marcus signed off and forwarded it for payment. However, Marcus remained puzzled by the fact that one of his students was making almost double what he was making. When Dean Mottola returned to work, he asked to be updated on what had gone on during his absence. At that point, Marcus raised the issue of his doctoral student’s salary. Dean Mottola smiled and said: “Shelly, I’ve been here since 1948 and I’m Director of Graduate Studies and she is making more money than I make. The fact is that the grant permits her to make the salary she’s earning. It doesn’t take money out of my pocket and, as a matter of fact, Fordham collects a substantial amount of money for indirect costs from the grant. My attitude is that individuals should earn as much as they’re legally entitled to as long as they produce results.”

He was a good teacher, and it was a lesson well taught. We were indeed fortunate to have two role models such as Rivlin and Mottola at the beginning of our professional careers in higher education. If from this chapter, we seem critical of higher education, it is not because we have not loved almost every minute of the decades we have spent in this arena.

88 S. MARCUS and P. D. VAIRO

Rather, it is our belief that higher education can do better than it is doing presently. Our view is similar to the way we feel about our country. We love the United States for everything it has given us, but it does not mean that we cannot criticize it in an attempt to make it more responsive to the needs of its citizens. Our view of life in higher education was best summed up by Vairo when he commented to Marcus that “the best job in the world is to work at a university as a full professor, with tenure, and no administrative responsibilities.” More than 40 years later, we both believe this is absolutely correct. Yet, a question remained. Why didn’t Vairo take his own advice? After all, Vairo had moved on to be a dean, vice president, and president of institutions in Tennessee, California, and Massachusetts. Vairo’s response was to the point: “When I gave you this advice, I knew I was right. On the other hand, I did not want to be 65 years old, a tenured, full professor, and still be wondering if I was right. Now that I have been around the full education spectrum, I know the advice I gave you was totally correct.”

We both concur!

CHAPTER IV

TEACHERS: CAN THEY ALL BE GREAT? Teachers are the infantry of the education profession. After the politicians, school board members, school administrators, teachers union officials, foundation heads, university professors, and so-called “experts,” (most of whom are self-designated) are done with their pronouncements on the best ways to educate children, it is the classroom teacher who must implement all of the oftentimes conflicting prescriptions handed down to them. The classroom teacher has the most difficult job in the school building— facilitating learning by children. Some critics claim that teaching is a soft job; after all, most teachers work a 180 day school year and they are not even full days. Those of us who have taught know better. The job can be so onerous that classroom teachers consistently seek specialized assignments outside the classroom, such as learning specialist, special project coordinator, program director, assistant principal, school counselor, etc. in order to escape the classroom or at least to reduce their classroom teaching load. The financial reward systems in education also reinforce the belief that assignments outside the classroom translate into a “softer job.” Interestingly, usually such positions are accompanied by a higher salary. This results in many outstanding teachers, even those who enjoy teaching children, leaving the classroom.

Two Nobodies Speak Out: Our 150 Year Journey and Perspectives on Education, pp. 89–99 Copyright © 2011 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

89

90 S. MARCUS and P. D. VAIRO

Good teaching requires relentless perseverance, careful preparation, and an understanding and empathy for children. These characteristics cannot be hidden from children. We have seen teachers, who are not physically imposing, walk into classrooms in New York City and Los Angeles and immediately command the respect of students. Good teachers come in all sizes, shapes, and personalities. They usually have knowledge of subject content, are energetic, enjoy working with children, and are motivated to give their students their best efforts every period of every day. Sometimes, people who might be characterized as “normal” fail as teachers. On the other hand, some individuals who might be described as somewhat “nutty” are revered by their students. It all comes back to the answer to the question that students ask themselves: “Does the person at the front of the room really want to be here? Is he/she someone we can trust? Do we like the teacher? Does the teacher like us?” One thing we learned quickly was that there is no cookie cutter model for being a successful teacher.

In 1983, A Nation at Risk, a United States government report on the quality of education, described teachers who were under-qualified, underpaid, working in abysmal conditions, and achieving poor results. This report resulted in efforts to improve the quality of teacher education programs. One such effort, with Albert Shanker (then President of the American Federation of Teachers) as the driving force, led to the creation of the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. This National Board was aimed at providing a clearinghouse for national recognition and certification of outstanding teachers. Thanks again to Shanker’s leadership, there was also a call for higher standards in both teaching and learning, which has culminated in the present Standards Movement of the 21st century. The quality of teachers remains a controversial subject today. Over the decades, many solutions have been proposed to improve the quality of teachers. Most have been feeble and piecemeal efforts. Often, some of the key variables involved in the teaching process were, and still are, totally ignored. The starting point for this controversy often centers on the quality of college programs preparing individuals for careers as teachers. Critiques of teacher preparation date back decades and even centuries. Five decades ago, Dr. J. C. Sitterson, former Chancellor of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, indicated that teachers from his University “were less than prepared to teach disadvantaged children than we’d like them to be or feel they should be.” Dr. Herbert Schueler, former Dean of Teacher Education at Hunter College and former President of Richmond College of The City University of New York, also pointed out that teacher education programs “cannot be developed in an ivory tower apart and remote from the people it is intended to serve.” What was said decades ago still applies today. Teacher education programs are still struggling with

Teachers: Can They All be Great? 91

how to meet the needs of children from all circumstances, particularly those from disadvantaged socioeconomic backgrounds. In 2006, Arthur Levine, former president of Teachers College, Columbia University, stated that “teacher education now is the Dodge City of education: unruly and chaotic.” We agree with Levine and it is time to change. A nation-wide comprehensive study of the teaching profession is needed to overhaul the teaching profession in a manner similar to the one that grew out of the Flexner Report which the medical profession undertook nearly 100 years ago. The Flexner Report was a commentary on the state of American and Canadian medical education in the early 1900’s that led to dramatic changes in the organization, standards and curricula of medical schools. The Flexner Report urged that the “for-profit” medical schools, that were so prevalent at the time be shut down. It also urged that medical schools should be attached to universities and that the training of physicians should emphasize rigorous training in sciences and broadened clinical experiences. More than 100 years later, taking the profit motive out of the equation in the training of teachers is a problem. Schools of education attached to universities can instantly begin to alleviate the teacher quality issue by raising admission standards for entry into programs. Regrettably, this may not happen because budgetary concerns of college administrators will not allow this. Admitting fewer students means less tuition. There are, however, some basic steps that can be taken to improve teacher quality if the political and social will to do this is present. The academic grade point average of college students wishing to become teachers should be raised and factored into admission to teacher education programs. Consider how the medical profession would be viewed today if 50% of physicians had graduated in the bottom quarter of their undergraduate classes. This is the situation the teaching profession faces today. Education Week, in its October 20th, 2010 issue, carried the findings of a report that found that countries with the best-performing school systems recruited a significant number of their teachers from the top-third of their high school and college classes. The report pointed out that only 23% of teachers in America came from the top third of their college class, and in high poverty schools this percentage dropped to 14%. In law, dentistry, and medicine, there are no substitute dentists, doctors or lawyers. The minimum requirement for teacher certification in every state should be a master’s degree in the subject area to be taught. Also, many teachers are instructing students outside their professional preparation subject because of shortages in areas such as science and mathematics. If one were a chief petty officer corpsman in the Navy and wanted to practice medicine, that individual would have to obtain a medical degree. There should be no exceptions in the teaching profession. Once exceptions to this requirement are permitted, floodgates are open to provisionary or uncertified

92 S. MARCUS and P. D. VAIRO

teachers. Today, about 10–15% of our nation’s teachers hold temporary or provisional certification. Once accepted into a teacher education program, there should be a heavy emphasis on students spending the overwhelming majority of their time in schools, be they urban, suburban, or rural. Student teachers should rotate among different kinds of schools and be exposed to different kinds of students. This recommendation carries with it the requirement that college/university faculty spend more time in schools. Presently, this is difficult to do because having professors spend a great deal of time in schools is expensive to the college/university. Further, such professors working in the schools may get little respect from many colleagues because in higher education, “clinicians” are often looked down on while “researchers” reap the rewards of promotion and tenure. Nevertheless, the professors supervising and preparing teachers, administrators, school psychologists, or counselors are nevertheless the key to success of any preparation program. These professors must possess both a theoretical knowledge of learning and leadership theory, along with clinical experience. One of the “dirty secrets” of education is that many education professors have little or no experience working in schools and would not know what to do once they were actually in one. To deal with this issue, professors should be required to actually work in elementary and secondary schools for one semester every seven to 10 years. Cooperating teachers assigned to supervise student teachers in schools should be experienced and effective classroom teachers and be given a reduced teaching load. The present system of providing the so-called cooperating teacher with a free college course and/or a small stipend is insufficient. The cooperating teacher needs time to prepare and meet frequently with the student teacher. Student teaching is the capstone of a prospective teacher’s training program and should be supported financially. Every teacher seeking employment in a school system in the United States should be required to give a demonstration class. This is already done in many suburban school systems around the country where hundreds of applicants will apply for a single vacancy. Once the three to five finalists have been identified, each should be required to give such a demonstration lesson. We realize, however, that this may not be realistic in employing science and mathematics teachers, two areas where a shortage of certified teachers still exists.

The launching of Sputnik in 1957 and the subsequent emphasis placed on the teaching of science and math in the American school curricula, has not resulted in well-qualified science and math teachers in elementary school classrooms. Also, there is a paucity of well-equipped science laboratories in

Teachers: Can They All be Great? 93

our elementary schools. These issues need to be addressed as must be the issue of offering accelerated science and math classes in grades K-6. Over 40 years ago, Vairo and Dr. William Perel, Chair of the Mathematics Department at Wichita State University, published an article in Educational Forum entitled, “New Mathematics and Old Teachers.” This article pointed out that only two of the 67 public school teachers participating in a thenrecent National Science Foundation Institute (NSF) on the campus of the University of North Carolina at Charlotte were regular readers of the Arithmetic Teacher, a basic publication in the field. Furthermore, very few of the elementary school teachers attending this NSF-sponsored institute had completed any college math work beyond Algebra I. Only one teacher had studied calculus. Today, after reviewing the requirements for teacher certification in several states and the teacher education programs for elementary school teachers, there is little emphasis placed on the training of science and mathematics teachers. Thus, it would be surprising if teachers with little or no background in science and math would be eager or competent to teach these subjects to students. Professional education courses need to be integrated with offerings in arts and science. Preparing teachers is really a university enterprise and there must be close cooperation between the liberal arts and education schools if programs are to succeed. Comments from Arts and Science faculties, such as: “Oh, I see you are enrolled in the school of education ... ,” implying that the course of study is inferior, must cease. We have had too many decades of academic warfare between schools of education and colleges of arts and sciences. Two past deans of the School of Education at Fordham University were formerly professors in the undergraduate liberal arts college at Fordham. Both, however, were active and interested in teacher education. Marcus and Vairo worked with Anthony Mottola, a former professor of Spanish who served as dean of the Graduate School of Education. He was adept at building relationships between professors in the School of Education and the School of Arts and Sciences. He was also a man of great integrity, a quality essential to be a successful leader at any level. Although we did not know Dean James Donnelly, a history professor, he was similar to Dean Mottola in that he was sensitive to the need for joint planning efforts between the School of Arts and Sciences and education professors. Both deans, along with Dean Harry Rivlin, contributed to making teacher education at Fordham University a true university enterprise.

As the battle over who should be admitted to teacher education programs is taking place, another battle is raging over the evaluation of individuals in such programs and also those already teaching.

94 S. MARCUS and P. D. VAIRO

On December 27, 2010, The New York Times carried a front page story entitled, “Hurdles Emerge in Rising Effort to Rate Teachers.” Rating teachers is actually an old issue. We can recall when a special division of the New York City Board of Education, called the Board of Examiners, set rigid standards for admission to the profession by administering competitive examinations for licensure. These examinations included a written exam, with both short answer and essay questions, graded for content and English usage; an interview at which candidates were screened for their speech and content knowledge; and a classroom teaching demonstration lesson where candidates had to show the potential to grow into a polished teacher. These requirements became obsolete in the 1950’s and 1960’s, an era of tremendous teacher shortage, when just “bodies” were desperately needed in front of a classroom. These “bodies” did not even have to be warm; cold ones would suffice. There was also criticism that minorities and children of immigrants were discriminated against by this rigorous examination process. At one point, it was said of the New York City Board of Examiners that application of its speech standards would result in even Albert Einstein failing the physics exam because of his unacceptably strong German accent. Perhaps some strategies that go back more than 40 years need to be revisited, and the strongest ones adapted to meet current conditions in teaching.

Evaluation of teacher impact on students is far more complex than evaluation of those in other professions because so many more variables play into the process. Each student is a complex human being, and a teacher has to develop strategies that must consider individual differences. A teacher, unlike counselors, psychiatrists, dentists, accountants, and other occupations in which there is a distinct one-to-one relationship, has anywhere from 15 to 40 students in a class, all requiring attention. In secondary schools, teachers routinely have contact with over 125 different students per day. Most teacher preparation programs in colleges/universities are accredited by two organizations: The National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Educations (NCATE) and The Teacher Education Accreditation Council (TEAC). As a matter of fact, in the fall of 2010, these two organizations agreed to merge over the next two years. They have also agreed that the merged organization will adopt new, higher standards and that education programs that fail to meet these new standards should be closed down. NCATE has been around for a long time, while TEAC is a relatively new organization. The question is, where has NCATE been until now? How many teacher education programs have been evaluated by NCATE? In that period of time, how many programs did it recommend be closed? We are not asking how many did not receive full approval resulting from an initial

Teachers: Can They All be Great? 95

visit. As it has been common for teacher education programs to receive conditional approval, re-visits are scheduled six months to a year later to see if previous weaknesses had been addressed. Invariably, full approval soon follows after the revisit. NCATE is often viewed as a joke, since it is extremely unlikely that it will recommend that a program not be approved. If, however, such a recommendation were made, NCATE does not have the wherewithal to prevent such a program from continuing to exist. Some teacher education programs do not even bother to apply for NCATE approval. Most students in teacher education programs have either never heard of NCATE, or have no idea what it means to be NCATE approved (or even know if their school’s program is NCATE approved). NCATE can talk about higher standards in the future, but until its evaluations of teacher education programs become more rigorous, it will remain as an organization without clout. It should also be remembered that NCATE exists only because the institutions it accredits pay membership dues to it. How many dues-paying institutions can NCATE risk losing?

How tough was it to become a teacher? Very tough! Vairo’s wife’s family doctor passed the New York City high school Biology examination in the 1930’s, but could not find employment as a teacher in the Great Depression. Eventually, he decided to enter the medical profession. Today, the standards for admission to medical school far exceed those required to obtain a teaching license. Nevertheless, evaluating and ranking teachers and doctors is an entirely different issue. In general, how we rank people is not a simple task, and whatever criteria are used will have a subjective dimension which cannot be easily measured. Another controversy in the evaluation process has surfaced over the desire of some school systems to publically release the names of teachers who are not effectively teaching their students, as measured by test scores. The question naturally arises: why not apply this process to MD’s? They, too, impact on lives. Will the scores on medical license examinations be made available to the media? What about letting the public know about the “batting averages” of surgeons? Such an approach, however, may not be the answer to the teacher quality controversy. Nevertheless, in January 2011, a New York City judge ruled that the ratings of thousands of New York City teachers could be made public. The United Federation of Teachers said it would appeal the judge’s ruling. The outcome will be worth following. Another weakness of the evaluation process is the limited input of parents and students. Parents and students cannot be ignored in any evaluation process. Most colleges now require students to evaluate their professors, and these evaluations are reviewed by colleagues and administrators.

96 S. MARCUS and P. D. VAIRO

Some may reject this strategy as inoperable in grades K-12 because younger students are not mature enough to make such critical evaluations. We disagree! Students have great insights and they should not be ignored. Obviously, there will be a margin of error regardless of the process used, but in the last analysis, students and parents must be included in any ranking system of teachers. Whether it is directly or indirectly, every society evaluates and classifies people and groups in the social structure. Values, perceptions, and personal experiences of a society play a significant role in the actual ranking of these groups and individuals. At times, success may be measured in terms of immediate results, such as by test scores. Long-term impact in the teaching profession, however, is seldom measured, as longitudinal studies are underutilized. Although human growth and development cannot be measured in an artificial time frame such as a “semester” or one particular course, most parties in the educational process do not have the patience to wait 10–20 years for data. In spite of the weakness of the evaluation process in our schools, parents do learn through the “grapevine” that the effective teachers are in their children’s schools. It should be noted that tenure for teachers existed before teachers earned the right to collective bargaining in the early 1960’s. Before collective bargaining, political, social, racial, and religious considerations played a role in selection, retention, and promotion. Teacher unions are not responsible for the ills of education. Certainly, the present evaluation structure and collective bargaining arrangements do provide maximum protection to the teacher, but teacher evaluation still remains in the hands of school and district administrators. Regardless of the system used to evaluate teachers, there will be continued disagreements and different approaches to this issue. In colleges and universities, reappointment, tenure, and promotion decisions are recommended by peer review. This process has not filtered beyond a handful of K-12 school districts. Merit pay for college faculty is also widely used. A few school districts have entered into agreements with teacher unions on the awarding of merit pay, most notably in Rochester, New York, and Fairfax County, Virginia, but eventually these agreements came apart. We recognize that merit pay is a difficult sell with many shortcomings. However, the present mode of ignoring professional performance in grades K-12 cannot continue. The lock-step salary system needs to be revised and teachers cannot be sheltered from some kind of performance evaluation. In May 2010, Colorado passed a landmark law that tied the progress of students to the teacher evaluation process. Whether or not this type of legislation will spread across the country is open to speculation. We do know, however, that teacher unions are opposed to the law and its application elsewhere. It will be interesting to see if similar laws are implemented in other states.

Teachers: Can They All be Great? 97

Good school administrators and other teachers know who the best teachers in the school are. Education professors training future teachers know who the best student teachers are. The real problem is, what do we do with this knowledge? Unfortunately, the answer is usually nothing. Most teacher education professors hope that the interview process and classroom demonstration lessons (which now are required for attaining a position in many school districts) will sort out their less competent student teachers. This does not always happen, particularly in inner city schools where the need for teachers is high and the pool of candidates is lower than it is in the suburbs. Administrators in schools often conclude that it is just too difficult to terminate mediocre teachers. Teacher personality and style are issues which can be equated to the “third rail.” We have witnessed graduates of outstanding institutions with good knowledge of their subject fail in the classroom because of inappropriate interpersonal skills. Some of these shortcomings can be corrected, but few teachers are terminated because they are ineffective, particularly if they are tenured and unionized. The reasons for this are many, but from our experiences, it is a difficult task to quantify and document sufficiently poor teaching to result in removal by sporadic supervisory classroom observations. The courts have also provided considerable protection to the classroom teacher. Complicating matters further is the fact that there is also no evidence that even the “very best” teachers succeed with all children. Would the teachers from so-called “low performing schools” be more successful teaching children if they were transferred to “high performing schools?” Would teachers from “high performing schools” be as successful working with children in “low performing schools?” We must realize that teachers are not always able to create the necessary chemistry needed to create a positive teaching–learning environment. In June 2010, John Wooden, the former University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) basketball coach, passed away. Often called the “Wizard of Westwood,” his teams were unusually successful. During his 27 years at UCLA, his teams won an unprecedented 10 national championships. Obviously, he was able to attract top tier high school players, but he was also known for being a truly outstanding teacher. Our teachers and schools of education could benefit from following Wooden’s simple guidelines for success: careful preparation and a mastery of the fundamentals. His “Pyramid of Success” was a teaching system that included sound values, fellowship, cooperation, and individual responsibility. These basic principles should be instilled in future teachers during their training so that they will carry over once they are actually in the classroom. Below, we have tried to take Wooden’s principles and apply them to education rather than to a basketball team. We believe that teachers should

98 S. MARCUS and P. D. VAIRO

emphasize these tasks to students on a daily basis, for there are no shortcuts to success. 1. Do your homework faithfully every day. 2. Read the directions on tests and carefully follow the teacher’s instructions. 3. Before answering questions, think first about your responses. 4. Do not wait until the last moment to do your class assignments. 5. Read a book every 2 weeks. 6. Do not hesitate to ask questions if you do not understand something discussed in class. 7. Do your work with pride and neatness. 8. Review your work prior to submitting it to the teacher. 9. Inform your parent(s) and teacher of any problems you encounter in school or on the computer. 10. Practice makes perfect. Repetition should not be ignored. 11. Be respectful to teachers and classmates. 12. Do not get discouraged. Tomorrow is another day to achieve success. 13. Enjoy the moment. Be positive in attitudes toward school.

It would be a gross injustice to discuss the role of teachers and their impact on student achievement without citing the reality of every child’s total environment. This environment includes neighborhood, home, peers, relatives, and the media. Often, the impact of these influences may carry as much weight, if not more, on a child’s ability to learn than what happens in the classroom. It should come as no surprise that there is a strong correlation between family income, parent occupation, and a child’s success in school. Yes, there are many exceptions to this, but overall, poor and disadvantaged youth face more hurdles in the learning process. In contemporary society, the dysfunctional family, the fractured family, and in some cases the absence of a family, may place a greater barrier to learning than most critics of teachers wish to admit. One of the dogmas of the American education is that “all children can learn.” Educators say this as frequently as the Pledge of Allegiance is uttered in classrooms around America every day of the school week. This dictum is spouted by many educators as if it was the 11th Commandment. Anyone who has worked in a school knows that all children can, indeed, learn. But to leave that view out there without the reality of numerous “buts” and “ifs” is misleading. Yes, all children can learn, but not all children learn at the same rate. All children cannot master complex subject matter; not all teachers

Teachers: Can They All be Great? 99

teach equally well; principals and superintendents do not administer equally well; and all counselors and psychologists are not equally caring. Nor should we assume that all parents parent equally well. The educational process is indeed very complex, and money alone will not necessarily promote success in the classroom. Teachers, however, are the key to opening the doors to learning, but they should not be the only ones held responsible for the critical task of educating children.

The title of this chapter asks if all teachers can be great teachers. Of course, the answer is “No!” There is no field of endeavor where everyone is great at doing what they are supposed to be doing. Every major league baseball player is not Babe Ruth; every actor is not Lawrence Olivier; and every actress is not Meryl Streep. Incompetent doctors, lawyers, and engineers are a fact of life. Teaching will never be different than any other professions. Yet, we must strive to raise the minimum standards for admission and retention in the field of teaching. This should not be difficult to do, particularly in these difficult economic times when there is no substantial teacher shortage. State education departments and accreditation agencies must be more rigorous in approving teacher education programs to begin with. They should also conduct real evaluations of program effectiveness. If this occurs, then let us see what teacher education programs can produce in the way of quality teachers.

CHAPTER V

EDUCATIONAL REFORM: A CON GAME, A POSSIBILTY, OR A REALITY? Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary defines reform as to “(1) amend or improve by change of form or removal of faults or abuses, (2) put or change into an improved form or condition, (3) put an end to an evil by enforcing or introducing a better method or course of action, and (4) induce or cause to abandon evil ways.” School reform is a continuous process. Lessons of a Century, published by Education Week in 2000, gives a wonderful overview of never-ending reform efforts to improve America in the 20th century. Thus, the question can be asked: since reform is a continuous process, does that mean that previous reforms failed? It seems that reforms are usually heralded when introduced and most disappear silently. Reform is always deemed as good—an improvement over what exists presently in schools—but sadly, many have not improved the American educational system. America’s school systems are littered with failed educational reforms, and we guarantee that many future reforms and reformers will join them on the garbage dump. For example, in 1998, when the team of Alan Bersin and Anthony Alvarado took over the reins of the San Diego Public School system with their “Blueprint for Student Success” program, local politicians, business community leaders, educational publications and foundations all

Two Nobodies Speak Out: Our 150 Year Journey and Perspectives on Education, pp. 101–111 Copyright © 2011 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

101

102 S. MARCUS and P. D. VAIRO

voiced lavish accolades about how this new leadership team would improve the education of San Diego’s schoolchildren. By 2010, the new educational leaders of San Diego “rolled out a new improvement plan that is almost the opposite of its controversial predecessor.” In fact, the September 1, 2010 issue of Education Week went on to state that the new reforms would replace the now-dismantled innovations introduced by Bersin and Alvarado. Here we go again! We have yet to see any rigorous, unbiased research about the impact of the Bersin-Alvarado reforms and their effect on learning. Be sure, however, that the present school administration in San Diego will be replaced by another reform administration. As a matter of fact, the now popularly discredited Bersin-Alvarado “Blueprint for Success” may once again come into vogue; perhaps, not with the same name, but with the same principles. Reformers are quite good at taking an old idea, putting it in a new box, wrapping it nicely with a beautiful ribbon, and then giving the box a new name. Voila! The latest educational reform has now arrived! In its continuing efforts to reform and improve its schools, Los Angeles recently hired John Deasy as its new superintendent of schools, overseeing a system of 678,000 students. Deasy was once the Deputy Director of Education for the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, a mega-foundation that has pioneered in funding small high schools in urban school districts around the country. Given the financial, political, and social clout of the Gates Foundation, it is easy to predict that Deasy will be proclaimed successful in leading the Los Angeles school district, both during his tenure and upon the occasion of his departure. What we are not as sure of is if the students in Los Angeles will learn successfully. Needless to say, another “reformer” will follow Deasy as superintendent. New York City schools attempt to educate over 1,100,000 youngsters in a vast network of schools. It would be insightful if readers went back and read The New York Times editorials that greeted each new superintendent or chancellor and the reforms that each promised to institute. Having done that, we now understand why the film Waiting for Superman received so much attention. From reading The Times, one had the expectation that every new chancellor would unlock the door to successfull learning. Let us be clear: neither Superman nor Superwoman is coming to save America’s schools. The best we can hope for from reformers is some degree of incremental educational progress for children, honesty and integrity from school leaders, and a systemic stability relatively free of politics. Even these things, however, will be incredibly difficult to achieve.

The best illustration of unrealistic goals being placed on superintendents was on the occasion when we were present for a friend’s initial public speech

Educational Reform: A Con Game, a Possibilty, or a Reality? 103

as the leader of the school district. He promised a smorgasbord of immediate academic improvements to the assembled parents and school board members. Later, over a cup of coffee, we asked him how he could possibly deliver on his just-made promises. He looked up squarely in the eye, and said: “Of course I can’t deliver on what I just said! On the other hand, do you think I would have become superintendent if I had not made a similar presentation to the school board and told them my program would take two generations to reach fruition?” We understood; if he had been honest with the school board, he would not have been selected superintendent. Alongside these unrealistic expectations, we must cite from The New York Times a recent story about the highest rated high school in New York City. Regrettably, this high school received notoriety when several whistleblowers came forward and claimed that the “successes” of this school were bogus; apparently, the school administration instructed teachers not to fail any students. So, if the news is too good to be true …

Cathie Black, on becoming the Chancellor of the New York City school system, had absolutely no experience in education other than being the mother of two children who attended private school. Her career had been spent in the media. Nevertheless, in this era of growing mayoral control over the schools in large urban areas, Mayor Michael Bloomberg designated Black to be chancellor. After some haggling, the New York State Department of Education gave Black the needed waiver of certification, and she assumed her new role in early January 2011. In less than two weeks, Black, despite her media background, was already involved in controversy about some comments she made. When asked by a parent how she planned to deal with overcrowded schools, Black responded by saying that birth control might be the answer. When confronted by questions about budgetary cutbacks, she responded that she would have to make choices like Sophie (referencing the William Styron book, Sophie’s Choice, in which a non-Jewish Holocaust survivor must make a tragic decision). Most New York City newspapers and parent groups were all over Black for her comments. She had barely begun in her new position, and although we do not believe her comments were anything more than off-the-cuff jokes, they do illustrate how difficult it is to be leader of any school system. Most importantly, in all of this uproar, the children in schools were the forgotten players. Instead of focusing on school improvement, Black had to defend her actions, which took time away from the more important task of leading any school system in the United States: improving instruction and learning. She has since “resigned”. Michelle Rhee became a national figure as an educational reformer and a media darling soon after she was appointed chancellor of the Washington,

104 S. MARCUS and P. D. VAIRO

D.C. school system, a system already on a life-saving ventilator. With the support of Adrian Fenty, the mayor of Washington, D.C., Rhee confronted the teachers union, came up with a merit pay concept, and took on the issue of tenure. Yet, with Fenty’s defeat in November 2010, Rhee had to step down. Will there be any lasting changes from Rhee’s term as chancellor? That remains to be seen. Will the new mayor and Rhee’s replacement (her former assistant) ever say anything other than the Washington D.C. school system will improve? We do not think so. Hopefully, Rhee will go on to other leadership positions, enjoy a longer term in office, and have a real impact on improving the education of children. Perhaps, however, her time in Washington, D.C. may lead her to believe that it is easier to “talk” reform than to “do” reform. She certainly succeeded in putting some critical education issues on the table for public debate. We hope, however, that Rhee’s legacy will not be the picture of her in the December 13th issue of Newsweek, standing with her arms folded in front of some kind of drawing that gives the impression that she is wearing a cape. Whether she did this on purpose or not, let us be clear: she did not prove to be Superwoman. Appearances should never trump substance.

Another characteristic we find both common and upsetting involves troubled schools or school districts that receive new leadership and then, according to news stories, are able to turn themselves around and become educationally functional. The Roosevelt Long Island school system has had such a negative history of failure that the New York State Department of Education had to intervene and take over operation of that 2800 student school district. When this occurred in 2002, it was the only school district in a state of 700 districts to earn this “distinction.” In August 2010, The New York Times carried a story headlined by “Troubled School District is on Road to Recovery.” The article discusses improved test scores and district finances, and a better overall school tone. We would like to see a rigorous outside independent team spend some time in the Roosevelt schools and closely examine what is going on there. If there is indeed improvement in test scores, what did the educational leaders in Roosevelt do to bring this about? Can this process be replicated in other districts? For us, a barbeque on school grounds, a disk jockey, and students receiving t-shirts (all cited by The Times) do not convince us that there has been a real improvement in the student learning process. Although we were born in New York City, we subscribe to the Missouri state motto: “Show-me.” Reform efforts have also been spurred by the growth of alternative education models. The best example of such a model has been the rise of the charter school, yet another idea emanating from Albert Shanker in 1988 as a vehicle to free teachers from the straitjacket of paperwork and burdens

Educational Reform: A Con Game, a Possibilty, or a Reality? 105

of nonprofessional activities. By the 2010–2011 school year, charter schools are heralded by both educational conservatives and liberals alike. Over 1.6 million children are now enrolled in such schools. Do the students in charter schools perform better than those in so-called “regular” schools? What are their policies for admitting students? Must they admit all applicants or can they reject some? If they can reject applicants, what are their reasons for doing so? These are the key questions for which we have not seen satisfactory answers. Nevertheless, Thomas Friedman, the respected New York Times columnist, has already bestowed the adjective “remarkable” on Geoffrey Canada, founder of a charter school effort called “The Harlem Children’s Zone” (HCZ). Usually, we find ourselves in agreement with Mr Friedman, and we agree with Mr Canada when he is quoted in Friedman’s column as saying “our schools will not be fixed by a Superman or a super theory.” Yet, many individuals now hail Mr Canada himself as Superman. Let us not rush to judgment. We hope that HCZ will indeed result in learning gains for its students, but the reality is that we need more time and more unbiased research evaluations in order to make a sound judgment on whether HCZ is actually what its supporters claim. The Century Foundation has already questioned these claimed successes of charter schools. Optimism is good. Fairy tales are not so good.

Today, America’s schools could be described as being in the “era of accountability,” meaning children had better do well on standardized tests, or else. What are some of the consequences of this kind of accountability? A December 11, 2010 story in The New York Times related that the Atlanta, Georgia school system was being investigated for criminal behavior, amid accusations of systemic cheating on State standardized tests over the previous two years. These allegations that school employees in Atlanta changed test answers to improve children’s scores could result in similar investigations in other school systems as well. We are not opposed to meaningful school reform, but sadly, we are well aware of the failings of many American schools and the consequences these have for the children who attend them. These failures impact on human lives and something needs to be done. Certainly, President Obama’s “Race to the Top Program” is an effort in the right direction. On the other hand, we cannot say that school districts that receive federal funds in this highly selective process to identify innovative school districts and their programs will be successful. Only time will tell. We define success in the scientific sense, meaning that if something works in school district A, it should work in school districts B, C, and D. Many times, real educational success is the product of uniquely talented individuals and supportive communities

106 S. MARCUS and P. D. VAIRO

working together in a limited geographical area. Replication is impossible because of the nature of the specific situation and the individuals involved in it. Thus, this kind of success is limited and often disappears when the educators depart the scene. The United States Department of Education is giving hundreds of millions of dollars to establish a nationwide network of charter schools. We hope this money will be well spent, but for now it is only a hope.

The success of educational reform in the United States seems in jeopardy if judged by the reaction to the recent results gathered from international standardized tests measuring math, science, and reading abilities of countries and cities around the world. The exam results showed that schools in Shanghai, China outperformed students in approximately 65 other countries. Shanghai schools remain open until 4:00 p.m. and their education system emphasizes discipline, rote learning, and test preparation. The reaction by some in the United States to Shanghai’s coming out on top was disturbing. Comments criticized the emphasis of Shanghai schools on rote learning and the heavy concentration on preparing students for the test. It was said that such methodologies produce narrow-minded students who are unable to innovate or solve problems. Where is the evidence to support these criticisms? Are we supposed to think that American students who do not know very much will be happy, innovative, and broadminded? Could it be that knowledge is power, and that knowledge and success in school lead to better and more satisfying jobs? We think so! Paul Krugman, the distinguished economist from Princeton and columnist for the New York Times, has consistently advocated increased spending as a means to alleviate the so-called “Great Recession.” Whether or not this stimulus approach is the right prescription to solve our economic woes, only time will tell. Our focus, however, is on the issue of increased spending in education. How can anyone oppose to such a noble purpose? Nevertheless, when one compares student S.A.T. scores in the 50 states and the per pupil expenditures per state, one would assume that the higher the respective state expenditures per pupil, the higher the test scores. After reviewing these expenditures, we found that a positive correlation does not exist! Without adequate funding, schools do not get better. Yet, higher levels of funding in of itself do not often translate into educational success. Extra funds in education can do no harm, but money alone is not the panacea for achieving success for our students. It is time to examine educational expenditures at all levels of the government. We need honest, mature conversations and dialogue with total access to data if we are going to deal effectively with not only our national economic crisis, but how we can maximize our tax dollars spent on education in this critical period.

Educational Reform: A Con Game, a Possibilty, or a Reality? 107

The average American student spends less hours in the classroom and fewer days in school than his or her counterparts in countries like Japan, China, South Korea, or India to name a few. Our schools need to expand and extend the hours, days, and weeks our children spend in school if we are going to be a competitive industrial-technological nation, and provide the prerequisite skills our students need to function successfully in today’s global economy. Currently, summer educational programs are available in some cities, but not in sufficient numbers to meet our children’s needs. The extended school year for all students is a movement that has not taken hold in the United States, but it should, for the long range of benefits will outstrip the immediate costs.

Reformers often succeed in conveying the impression that they are doing something that is rectifying previous wrongs. Yet, it should be clear by now that reformers come and go, and their ideas and views depart with them. Educational reformers do, however, know how to astutely navigate the politics of education and create a positive image in the media. They are usually adept in obtaining support from various foundations, individual philanthropists, corporate institutions, government grants and receive “good press.” Reformers certainly have cornered the academic marketplace, and their books and so-called research are widely distributed and used in undergraduate and graduate classes in our colleges and universities. If one reviews the bibliographies of many of the education courses offered in colleges, there really is a paucity of traditional and conservative thinkers on the list. Why not give our students an introduction to a variety of viewpoints? Reformers like Herbert Kohl and Jonathan Kozol are much more likely to be found on reading lists than Thomas Sowell. We are not saying that Kozol is wrong; we are simply advocating that differing points of view be presented in education classes. Twenty years ago, Vairo gave a lecture at a top tier university and was met with resentment and hostility from the audience for his strong support of some of the conservative thinkers of the day. Many of the faculty were upset that a fellow educator would lend support to such “archaic ideas” as those proposed by such philosophers as Allan Bloom, Mortimer Adler, and E.D. Hirsch. It should be obvious that neither side of the educational philosophical spectrum has been proven correct in its ideology. Education is a very complex process, and frequently there are so many variables that impact on success in learning. In our opinion, learning requires mastery of basic essential tools. Yet, personality and styles of teaching often are ignored. Human chemistry does play a significant role in the learning and teaching process.

108 S. MARCUS and P. D. VAIRO

During the 1960’s, it seemed like the educational messiah who would lead the nation to educational success was John Holt. Two of his books, How Children Learn and How Children Fail were bestsellers in the early 1970’s. During the course of a two week summer institute at Fordham, Holt was a participant. He wrote interesting books, but was not a magnetic speaker. During the course of his presentation, a drowsy Marcus thought he heard Holt say: “We should forbid children to read.” No, Holt could not have said that, or so Marcus thought. The first question from the audience, however, was: “Mr Holt, did I hear you correctly? Did you say we educators should forbid children to read?” Holt answered: “That is correct.” The questioner then followed up with a request for an explanation. Calmly, Holt said that although he had taught in a private school in Boston, he made it a point to visit urban public schools throughout the country. In every school he visited, he also made it a point to visit the boys’ bathroom, and in every one of those bathrooms, was a certain four-letter word written on the walls that was never, ever misspelled. Holt finished his explanation, and the graduate students sat in silence. Of course, Holt’s point was that if teachers warned kids not to go to the library, then the kids would naturally tend to immediately go there. It seemed simplistic to Marcus then and it still seems so now, but this view was coming from the messiah of education at the time! Other reformers came in different shapes and forms. For example, Joe Clark, principal of Eastside High School in Paterson, New Jersey, was the subject of a cover story in Time magazine, profiled on 60 Minutes, and had a movie based on his life, Lean On Me. He was acclaimed for bringing order to a school that had previously been labeled as “out of control,” and as a result, the academic performance of students improved and violence declined. Clark was a very charming man. Marcus had the experience of being on a panel with Clark shortly after he was on the cover of Time. The occasion was a discussion on improving schools, open to the public, held at a New York area college. At dinner, in the President’s dining room prior to the panel discussion, Marcus found himself seated next to Clark and found him to be an easy conversationalist. By dessert, Clark leaned over and whispered in Marcus’ ear, “How much are you getting for being here tonight?” Marcus responded, “I’m eating it right now.” Clark went on to explain that he had agreed to participate in this panel when his speaking fee was $650 plus expenses. Since his speaking fee had now jumped to $5000, Marcus asked Clark whether he was going to give his $650 or $5000 performance later that evening. Clark laughed. On this cold, miserable, rainy night, the auditorium was packed with anywhere from 600 to 700 people. Clark was introduced to thunderous

Educational Reform: A Con Game, a Possibilty, or a Reality? 109

applause. He put his hand through the split in the curtain and emerged with his symbolic baseball bat in hand, placed there by one of his aides. If the audience had been enthusiastic before, they were now in a near frenzy. The applause and yelling lasted for minutes. Marcus felt like he was sitting on stage watching a Broadway show. Clark said some interesting things to this largely African American audience. He urged those assembled that night to get involved in their children’s education and help them succeed: “I know that you have two strikes against you. You are black and you are poor. But this is America, and in America, you’re not out until strike three is called. So I don’t want to hear about how you can’t succeed. That’s nonsense. Look, when the Irish came here, they were always getting into trouble with the police. Do you know what they did? They became the police! When the Italians came here, they got jobs in construction. They made cement. Do you know what they do today? They plant people in the cement! They Jews, when they came here, they weren’t allowed in the state of Florida. Do you know what they did? They bought the goddamn state! You can do it too! Just get off your butts and do it!”

Applause rocked the auditorium after almost every sentence. Marcus could not help but wonder what the crowd response would have been if he had said the same things. Following Clark, Marcus was introduced. Before he could even say a word, most of the crowd got up to leave. Clark was right; he had not been paid enough to be there that night. The price for Marcus was right. The talk Clark delivered that night was really a conservative Republican view of the plight of black people in America. He was a nice guy, but his acclaim came not from his message alone. Rather, it grew from the desperation of the American public, eager to improve conditions in the nation’s urban schools.

We are a political and educational centrist nation but at times we realize ideas at both ends of the educational spectrum may have a degree of validity. Kozol’s Savage Inequalities makes for sober reading two decades after it appeared. It is powerfully written and its impact has not been lessened over time, as there are indications that the schools of East St. Louis are worse now than when Kozol wrote about them. Most reformers, however, believe that any new educational philosophy, curriculum, or teaching strategy implemented is better than what is presently in use (which runs counter to common sense). The word “reform” has a mystique about it, but it does not necessarily mean “better.” We have seen all kinds of philosophies and ideas usually acclaimed as being successful and then disappear. What happened to

110 S. MARCUS and P. D. VAIRO

“The New Math”? What happened to the can’t-miss for-every-student system of learning to read called “Whole Language”? Where are “Distar” and “Ebonics” today? What happened to the “open classroom”? We could go on and on naming tons of “successful strategies” that have simply dissolved, leaving little positive results behind. Sadly, we must conclude that every reform and innovation is “doomed to success.” Do they really succeed? Of course not, yet we do not recall reading about any study where “Whole Language” was proclaimed not to have achieved its goal. Show us the rigorous study that resulted in the disappearance of the “open classroom.” There must be a realization there is no one panacea to solve educational ills. Since the early 1960’s, billions of dollars have been spent on education primarily to implement reform in schools. Just listening to the present-day critics makes one wonder what happened to all those reforms instituted over the past 50 years. Most of them never even made a dent in the teaching learning process. They did, however, leave a hole in taxpayers’ wallets. Finally, Heaven help the reformer who has a change of views. Just think of the criticism that Diane Ravitch received in 2010 for, “The Death and Life of the Great American School System: How Testing and Choice Are Undermining Education.” In some quarters, she was absolutely vilified. How dare she change her views!

From our teaching experience in grades 5–9, we found that students who have mastered the basic skills immediately felt more comfortable in class, obtained higher grades, and gained confidence and a positive self-esteem. Improving skills and mastering facts do not impede learning. Students must have repetition in the learning process, similar to how ballplayers must have batting practice and football players must have conditioning. Children do not learn by osmosis but by doing. It is not surprising that many private tutorial services offered after regular school hours that use exercise books in such subjects as mathematics and language arts are attracting more and more students. Tutorial services charge as much as $200–$300 per month for their few hours of services, but parents are signing up their children in unprecedented numbers. Schools should offer precisely what tutorial operations are stressing: drill, drill, drill. It would seem this type of activity should at least be part of the focus of the reform movement.

Much has been written about why American schools are failing and the impact this will have on the status of the United States as a world power. Defining failure, however, can be difficult. Should we assume that all students who enter kindergarten must graduate from high school? It is a wonderful

Educational Reform: A Con Game, a Possibilty, or a Reality? 111

ideal thought, one we endorse, but can educators come to grips with the reality that some students just do not want to be in school? We spend millions of dollars on truant officers to get children back in school. Some children will do anything to avoid school, and when they do go, they often make life miserable for classmates and teachers. By doing so, they take away valuable instruction time from other students. There are so many positive things to say about American education, and although strong criticism is welcomed (and often justified), we need to convey how significant our K-12 schools and colleges have been placing students on a conveyor belt leading upward socioeconomic mobility. America’s college enrollments are growing, despite all the criticisms of K-12 schools. Many students whose parents never attended college are now in attendance at all types of colleges, including postsecondary proprietary schools, local community colleges, state and private colleges and universities, including elite institutions. We have cited many educational shortcomings, but we cannot ignore what has been accomplished. What do we mean when a school is failing or succeeding? Are we referring to all the individuals involved directly or indirectly with the school (administrators, counselors, teachers, parents, students, and street environment surrounding the school), or are we talking about one entity, such as teacher performance. What about the role of parents? Have they failed or succeeded in their responsibilities? Have some even tried to be responsible role models? The home is not an innocent bystander in a child’s success and failure in school. American education has a long way to go, but in many areas, for many students, its achievements have been remarkable. The heart of the matter may simply be that our “national will” has been corrupted and there has been no concerted effort to combat our educational ills. We spend more tax dollars on our schools than most nations of the world, but we do not receive the “bang for the buck” that they do. Could it be that the fabric of our society is in decline? It happened to Rome; could it happen here?

CHAPTER VI

POWER BROKERS AND INFLUENTIAL PEOPLE IN THE EDUCATIONAL ARENA: ARE THEY A POSITIVE FORCE? Power brokers and people of influence in education are fluid. Their identities change over time and over issues. Some enjoy the limelight while others prefer to operate in the background. The two major national teacher organizations, the National Education Association (NEA) and the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), are definitely power brokers in the educational arena. The United States Department of Education, many state Boards of Education, local school boards, subject-centered professional associations, state legislatures, Congress, the executive branches of Federal and state governments, chambers of commerce, foundations, and some very rich individuals are all major players in what happens in schools throughout the United States. As students and as young teachers at a time before collective bargaining contracts existed, we believed that the teacher standing in front of the room was practically omnipotent. The powers of the school principal seemed beyond omnipotent. When teacher unionism became a reality, certainly the power of the principal diminished, as did the public’s perception of teachers.

Two Nobodies Speak Out: Our 150 Year Journey and Perspectives on Education, pp. 113–126 Copyright © 2011 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

113

114 S. MARCUS and P. D. VAIRO

Today, educators, politicians, and the general public tend to view teacher unions as huge power players in the field of education. Some even view them as obstacles standing in the way of school improvement. Whatever one’s feelings are on this matter, it should be kept in mind that bad teachers, bad schools, poor quality education, lackadaisical students, and, yes, even tenure for teachers, existed prior to the first collective bargaining contract ratified in New York City in 1962. Only a few remember how powerless teachers once were outside of classrooms. When we started our teaching careers in the late 1950’s, teacher organizations existed but collective bargaining for teachers was only a goal, one which we strongly supported. Thus, as new teachers, we quickly joined the United Federation of Teachers (UFT), the local affiliate of the AFT, which strongly believed that teachers should have the right to collective bargaining. Looking back, it was the right decision at the time because teachers had no voice in the educational decision-making process and were poorly paid for their services. In 1959, there were two major teacher organizations: the AFT and the NEA. The AFT was the much smaller of the two. As a matter of fact, its membership was largely concentrated in three cities—Chicago, Washington, D.C., and New York City. It was formally affiliated with organized labor (the AFL/CIO). The AFT strongly supported the Civil Rights Movement and was a significant contributor, both in money and in supplying personnel, to support the efforts of Martin Luther King, Jr., and other Civil Rights organizations in their struggle to achieve racial equality. As a matter of fact, Marcus had the distinct pleasure of sitting about 35 feet from Martin Luther King, Jr., when he received the Man of the Year Award from the UFT, in the early 1960s. King’s speech was mesmerizing, and he received a thunderous ovation from the packed ballroom at the New York Hilton. The NEA strongly opposed collective bargaining on the basis that teachers were “professionals”, and therefore collective bargaining would degrade their status. The NEA membership was basically suburban and rural, and its local affiliates were largely controlled by administrators. In some places, the NEA even continued to operate segregated teacher chapters within the same school district. Today, collective bargaining is a fact of life, and both of these organizations now have similar goals, and in some states have even merged. They are major power brokers in the field of education. Consequently, both organizations have been heavily criticized for representing the status quo in the battles over education going on today. Because of the perceived state of mediocre educational quality and budget crises afflicting schools today, both found themselves having to defend their previously hard won gains. Many politicians the unions could once count on for support and funding

Power Brokers and Influential People in the Educational Arena 115

are either gone or facing considerable pressure from constituents to rein in some of the power of teacher unions. In California and New York, two states with histories of being pro-teacher union, the cost of public employee pensions poses a threat to the very financial solvency of those states. Even in these formerly highly pro-union states, there is now a view that the pendulum had swung too far in favor of teacher unions and now must swing back. This could mean teacher and public employee “give backs.” Stay tuned and watch how this trend develops.

As young teachers, we found that the UFT was rather primitive in its operations. For example, dues were paid to the chapter chairperson in cash ($2 per month). By Marcus’s third week as a teacher, the UFT chapter chair, Al Loew, came into Marcus’ room and congratulated him on being elected the new school UFT chapter chairperson. Startled, Marcus told Loew that he had just started his career as a teacher and there was no way that he could be the chapter chairperson. Loew responded by saying: “Me and the other two UFT members in the school (including Vairo) held a meeting, and since I didn’t want the job anymore, we unanimously elected you chair.” It was now Marcus’ job to collect dues and, of course, to expand membership. In doing so, Marcus was once humiliated when he asked a middle-aged female teacher to join the UFT and she responded by spitting in his face and saying: “Teachers are professionals. They don’t join unions.” Marcus was left to wonder if professionals spit in the faces of colleagues. In the fall of 1960, the UFT was threatening to go out on strike in order to achieve collective bargaining rights for teachers. Most pro-union activity at that time was confined to the high schools and the junior high schools in the poorer socioeconomic areas of the city, such as the South Bronx, Harlem, Bedford Stuyvesant, East New York, Brownsville, and the Lower East Side. Prior to the strike date, to demonstrate that it was serious, the UFT called for picketing of the New York City Board of Education Headquarters at 110 Livingston Street in Brooklyn. The purpose of this picketing was to bring pressure on the Board members and the mayor to agree that teachers had the right to negotiate a collective bargaining contract. It was also hoped that media coverage of this event would bring the situation to the attention of what was hoped would be a sympathetic public. That day, there were about 200 picketers milling around the Board headquarters carrying placards calling for collective bargaining. It all seemed peaceful enough for 10–15 minutes. Then some Board employees became verbally abusive. They hung out the windows of their offices; some so far out that it seemed that someone had to be holding onto their ankles to prevent them from falling out and crashing down us.

116 S. MARCUS and P. D. VAIRO

Some were about four or five floors up, and their comments, although meant to be serious, were taken with a large degree of humor by most of the picketers. “What are you bums looking for now? A six month work year? “Do you want to work a quarter of a day instead of half?” “You bums are overpaid already!” “Go out and get a real job!” “You don’t like the pay? Then quit!” The New York City Board of Education was not impressed by the demonstration. Left with little choice, the UFT called for a teacher strike to take place on November 21, 1960. We participated in that strike despite the uncertainties involved. A week before the strike, a UFT meeting was held in the Knowlton teachers’ room to discuss strategy when Mr. Fry, the principal, walked in and sat in the corner of the room. The room grew silent. Fry’s entrance was totally unexpected. It was still a time when most teachers were somewhat in awe of the principal, and many principals, in turn, seemed to expect teachers to bow down three times as he/she passed them in the halls. Marcus was somewhat surprised to see Fry, but if he could not conduct a union meeting in front of the principal, how could he lead a strike? Thus, with some trepidation, the meeting resumed, although it was more subdued now. We were reminded of Fry’s presence when, in a low but still distinct voice, he started to whisper the names of those present while writing them on a pad he had brought with him. “Marcus, Vairo, Kallman, Belsky, Fahey, Lewis, Hill, Oliver, Cohen, Birnbaum, Breindel, Smith, Cruz, Rodriguez, Scciaccantano … ” Marcus halted the meeting and asked Mr. Fry if he were trying to intimidate those gathered. Fry smiled broadly. “Of course not. I wouldn’t do any such thing. You are not doing anything illegal by talking about doing something illegal.” The meeting continued. The next week, the teachers went on a one day strike. According to New York State law, under provisions of the CondonWadlin Act, the striking teachers had to be terminated, and they were. The UFT claimed that 7500 of the City’s 40,000 teachers had gone out on strike. New York City claimed that 2500 teachers had struck. By now, Marcus was part of what the UFT called its “Network,” which consisted of coordinators for each school district in the system. Judging from his assigned district in the Bronx, and conversations with other members of the “Network,” Marcus surmised that the actual number of strikers was probably around 5000. Yet, these 5000 teachers made it impossible for the Condon-Wadlin Act to be implemented, as there was a dire teacher shortage in the City, and the strikers were concentrated in junior and senior high schools, most in the poorest areas of the City. On that November 21, 1960 day, the middle- and upperclass areas of the city probably did not even know that a strike had taken

Power Brokers and Influential People in the Educational Arena 117

place. That night, New York City agreed to accept the principle that collective bargaining could be granted if the City’s 40,000 teachers expressed that desire in a secret ballot. If a positive vote occurred, then another vote would take place as to which organization would be the bargaining agent. The terminated teachers were forgiven and restored to their original positions. Several months later, teachers voted overwhelmingly in favor of collective bargaining. Subsequently, teachers selected the UFT as their bargaining agent. In 1962, when negotiations for an actual contract stalled, a second strike was called for April 20. This strike culminated with an actual collective bargaining agreement for teachers. From that night on, collective bargaining spread like a prairie fire to most of the large cities in the United States.

In 1964, the UFT president, Charles Cogen, retired. Two candidates vied to replace him, and Marcus and a number of other young, militant secondary school people within the UFT hierarchy supported Roger Parente, a fiery leader in the High School Teachers’ Association. For those who did not know him very well, Albert Shanker, the other candidate, seemed like an introverted nerd. Shanker won the election, and Marcus, among others, were purged from their union positions. This was actually quite beneficial to Marcus, as it resulted in his returning to school to complete his doctorate. Shanker went on to prove Marcus’s estimate of him was totally wrong. Over time, Shanker and Marcus reconciled. In the late 1960’s and early 1970’s, during an era of explosive tension between teacher unions in most large cities and community groups composed of blacks and Latinos, Shanker graciously accepted Marcus’s invitation to speak at a number of summer institutes held at Fordham University. Shanker never asked how much he would be paid; he simply asked Marcus to send a check to the UFT headquarters and “make it out to the United Federation of Teachers.” This was in stark contrast to some of the other “big” names who appeared at these institutes, some of whom had agents and seemed more intent on how much they would earn for coming rather than sharing their wisdom. At one of those institutes, a teacher asked Shanker: “Why do teacher unions protect incompetent teachers?” (Marcus had asked the same question of Shanker several years earlier, as related in Chapter II). Given the current attacks on teachers as being the main culprits in the failure of children to learn, it seems important to have Shanker’s response to this question reiterated (although in different words). Calmly, Shanker responded to the teacher: “We don’t protect incompetent teachers. Rather, we believe in due process. In school districts in New York City, teachers have been terminated with no

118 S. MARCUS and P. D. VAIRO charges of incompetency brought against them. They were simply charged with being out of tune with prevailing district philosophy. That is nonsense. That is totalitarianism. If a teacher is incompetent, he or she should be terminated. But first, that teacher should have the charges of incompetency proven.”

This still remains a sensible argument. Today, school districts are trying to reconcile due process for terminating teachers with the need to speed up the hearing process involved in such an effort. This is indeed a needed change, but in the current politicized climate, teachers need protection in the school from outside influences. These teachers who are proven incompetent, however, should not be allowed to “hang on.” It is simply too costly to allow this and not beneficial to students or taxpayers.

Looking back over the past five decades, it has been amazing to watch teacher unionism grow from nothing into a goliath. The UFT, along with the NEA, are by any definition power brokers in the arena of education. Calls for reduction in pension benefits for teachers are actually testimonials to how well teacher unions have done their jobs. Meaningful changes in education cannot occur without teachers playing a meaningful role in such discussions. We have gone back and forth on issues regarding the pluses and minuses of teacher unions. Initially, we fully supported teacher unionism. We truly believed that collective bargaining would, among other things, mean higher salaries for teachers which in turn would mean a better quality individual coming into the field. We no longer fully believe this to be true. The pendulum has swung from teachers being powerless to teachers being too powerful. There needs to be a correction so that there is a better balance. We cannot, however, return to the days of teachers having no voice in shaping policy.

In the late 1960’s and 1970’s, foundations interjected themselves into the educational arena. This was best exemplified by the activities of the Ford Foundation, then led by McGeorge Bundy, a confidant and advisor to both Presidents Kennedy and Johnson. In close cooperation with John Lindsay, the then-Mayor of New York City, the Ford Foundation invested millions of dollars to establish three demonstration school districts in high poverty and heavy minority areas of the City during a time when teacher unionism was in its infancy. The UFT was repelled by the racism, anti-Semitism, and disregard for the existing bargaining contract that took hold in these areas of the City. After a period of public bloodletting between the Ford Foundation and the UFT, a watered-down school decentralization bill was passed

Power Brokers and Influential People in the Educational Arena 119

by the New York State legislature in 1969. Over 40 years later, the memories of those days and the belief that it could happen again still drive many of the views and actions of teacher unions. After much negative publicity, by the mid-1970’s the Ford Foundation adopted a lower profile and has been superseded in activism in the 21st century by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. The Gates Foundation has pushed hard for school reorganization and smaller high schools. It has managed thus far to avoid the confrontations with either the AFT or the NEA that defined the efforts of the Ford Foundation. It is, however, a powerful force on the contemporary American educational scene because of the money it pours into school districts that adopt the reforms it advocates. The Gates Foundation is a formidable force.

In different sections of the country, other kinds of power groups have made their presence felt. In some parts of the Midwest and South, the separation of church and state has been blurred by efforts to make school prayer an inherent part of the school day. Other groups have pushed back on the teaching of evolution in schools by favoring the teaching of “creationism,” which they maintain is just as valid as teaching evolution (something we believe to be nonsense). In different school districts in the United States, rigid ideologies are increasingly difficult to exclude, be they from the Left or the Right. In many ways, school districts now resemble the nation’s governing bodies, such as Congress and various state legislatures—deeply divided. This does not benefit students. The impact of federal, state, or local governments are also increasingly visible in their impact on schools. This should not surprise anyone since governments control the flow of money into school systems. Politicians are human, and often want their ideology to accompany the money they allocate to schools. Once, it was generally accepted that education under the Constitution was a local matter. How things have changed. Education is now in the hands of the various levels of government because they control the money flow into school districts. It should also be noted that schools are huge employment agencies. Such employment opportunities do not just refer to positions as teachers, administrators and guidance counselors. The general public may not fully realize how many individuals are employed by schools. Paraprofessionals/ teacher aides, cafeteria workers, building maintenance workers, clerical staff, and, in many urban areas, security personnel are present in virtually every school building. Those who have “connections” often see to it that constituents or friends receive consideration for such positions. Parents are also a potent force in the educational arena. Fifty years ago, most parents did not participate in school activities other than baking

120 S. MARCUS and P. D. VAIRO

cookies or cakes to raise funds. Today, at least on the surface, parents are encouraged to meaningfully participate in school affairs, but many educators think of such parents as obstacles and potential trouble makers. Are parents really welcomed in the school? The jury is out, but parents are a potent force and cannot be excluded. Wise educators will strive to include parents as meaningful partners in the educational process. It is very difficult, however, for some principals and superintendents who are familiar with the history of parent militancy in the 1960’s and 1970’s to feel comfortable about this. Back then, parents wanted to control what went on in schools, including who would be the building administrators. The challenge of identifying power brokers is not always easy. For example, we have witnessed school custodians influence educational decisions made by a principal and superintendent. Secretaries have also had this kind of influence with their administrative superiors. The social status and/or title of individuals may often not be the determining factor in whose views carry the most weight in reaching educational decisions. The tipping point invariably is in the personality of the individuals, the strength of the vested interests who are represented, and the group dynamics of each specific situation. They can be individuals within the framework of the organizational power structure. However, the current system of attempting to single out the influential players in any profession is a difficult task. To Vairo, employees at the New York City Board of Examiners, a body which conducted licensing and promotion examinations were power figures. Mrs. Kelly, whom Vairo encountered when inquiring about a substitute teaching job several days after his discharge from the United States Navy, was an administrative assistant to a member of the Board of Examiners. Although her title did not imply a great deal of authority, it was apparent to Vairo that Kelly was a person of influence. She voiced her pleasure that Vairo had served in the Navy and immediately arranged for Vairo to take a substitute license examination. She then referred him to Thomas Knowlton Junior High School to fill a teaching vacancy. Later, Vairo’s perspective changed. He still perceived others as “power brokers,” but eventually some came to see himself as a power figure. As we learned over time, the individuals with power and influence change as one’s position in education changes. For example, when Vairo was installed as President of Worcester State University, the inauguration committee inadvertently failed to invite the two State senators from the community to sit on the platform. This was a serious error, for both of these senators were influential legislators in Boston and had major impact on funding for Worcester State. What an oversight! Vairo promptly apologized, but it indeed was a learning experience. Over the years, Vairo developed a close relationship with these two senators, and the earlier slight was never an issue.

Power Brokers and Influential People in the Educational Arena 121

In Vairo’s nine years as President of Worcester State University, the faculty union was reasonable in their requests and inquiries. However, beneath the calm relationship, there was always an underlying tension which sometimes exacerbated relations between the faculty and administration. As Vairo viewed this relationship, there were always some specific areas of disagreement involving faculty promotion, tenure, discipline of faculty for poor performance, Board of Trustees’ policies on teaching controversial issues, sabbaticals, and faculty travel money. Vairo had the feeling that even when there was minimal disagreement (and sometimes minimal agreement) on issues, the faculty union leadership did not wish to give the impression to its members that a cozy relationship existed with the administration. Union officials had their being re-elected by faculty as their prime goal. Thus, these officials always supported their colleagues, even without justification. They also often wanted to expand their input into the policy-making area where they had no jurisdiction. Power politics were not divorced from educational decision making. Power can indeed frequently be a corrosive and corrupt force. The New York Times, on May 26, 2010, reported on a charter school in Niagara Falls, New York that spent thousands of dollars in restaurants, on alcohol, plane tickets, and other special “treats.” There was no watchdog overseeing these expenditures. Arrogance, malfeasance, and apathy of all those involved controlled the day! Another story in the Florida Sun-Sentinel, on May 29, 2010, reported that a local school board member took bribes from undercover FBI agents posing as contractors. Yet another situation where influence and power was used by an educational official for personal gain. Public officials who break the public trust do not deserve our sympathy. Another abuse surfaced when a charter school on Long Island fired its management team after paying them a total of $1,000,000 annually. It then hired two of the charter school board members as the new managers, and paid them hundreds of thousands of dollars. Again, influence played a role in the decision-making selection process. We do have our differences with teacher unions, but we agree with them in many of their criticisms of charter schools. The finances of too many charter schools are not sufficiently monitored. Unfettered authority, without prerequisite safeguards, opens the doors to the power brokers, special interests, and even outright thieves who see an opportunity for an easy score. Stringent financial monitoring of all schools should be required. Education is a big, big business! Money should go to the students and not to thieves, shills, or frills.

We have always believed that in order to produce the best possible educators, be they teachers, administrators, guidance counselors and psychologists, there must be an emphasis on the interaction between the real world

122 S. MARCUS and P. D. VAIRO

and schools of education. We not only believed in this credo, but we also tried to act on it. Thus, over the decades, we came into contact with many influential thinkers and doers in the field of education. John King was the first Black male principal of a New York City school. Long before affirmative action, John’s competence and “smarts” resulted in his being second-in-command in the New York City public schools. In the mid-1960’s John retired and came to Fordham University as a Professor of Educational Administration. He was a good colleague who went out of his way to assist Vairo and Marcus. One day, there was a story in The New York Times stating that King was offered the superintendency of the New York City school system. When Marcus got to Fordham that day, who should be waiting there at the elevators but John King! They got on the elevator together, and Marcus asked King if the Times article was accurate, and if so, was he going to accept the position. With a straight face, John looked at him and said, “Shelly, I’m really disappointed in you. I’ve known you for some time now and I am insulted.” Somewhat confused and defensive, Marcus responded, “I hope I haven’t offended you because I certainly didn’t mean to.” John then smiled, “I was only kidding. But you have known me for some time and I actually am a little disappointed that you would think that there is even the slightest possibility of my taking the job of heading the New York City school system. That is a job for a young man who is either brainless, or crazy. I hope you don’t think I fit into either category.” John did not take the job, but his view of the position was certainly interesting. Felton “Buddy” Johnson was a school district superintendent in New York City. Under his leadership, students in his district achieved a degree of academic success despite it being among the poorest areas of New York City. Nevertheless, his school board denied him reappointment as superintendent. When the Chancellor, Ramone Cortines, intervened on Johnson’s behalf, it was page one news of The New York Times. The story stated that the vote to deny Johnson reappointment was 5-4 and there were five Hispanics and four African Americans on the school board. Shortly after the story appeared, Marcus and one of his professional colleagues, Dr. Terry Cicchelli, met with Johnson, whom they already knew well. Both Cicchelli and Marcus mistakenly thought that the vote might have been along ethnic lines. Cicchelli asked Johnson: “How could you have failed, with all of your charm, to convince even one of the Hispanics to vote for you?” Johnson smiled and asked: “Do you know definition of a ‘nigger’?” Cicchelli, laughing, said: “No, but somehow I have the feeling that we will soon be hearing it.”

Power Brokers and Influential People in the Educational Arena 123

Johnson said, “You are right. A ‘nigger’ is someone who tells somebody to sign a document and when that somebody picks up the document to read it, he is told ‘I didn’t tell you to read it, I told you to sign it.’ That’s a nigger, and I have several of them on my school board. And let me tell you; I am nobody’s nigger.” Johnson lost his job, but not on a vote that went on along ethnic or racial lines. To this day, he still is someone to be admired.

Sandy Feldman replaced Albert Shanker as the President of the UFT after Shanker had moved on to become President of the AFT, the parent organization of the UFT. Fordham University’s Graduate School of Education was thinking of hiring a faculty member who had once been an outspoken proponent of teacher unionism but had evolved into one of the foremost critics of teacher unions. Feldman somehow found out about what Fordham’s plans were, and asked to meet with the dean and Marcus. At the meeting, Feldman made it clear how upset the UFT would be if this candidate were hired and how negatively Fordham would be viewed by New York City metropolitan area teachers once word went out that this individual had joined the Fordham faculty. He was not employed. Power politics in action.

Harold Levy, Chancellor of the New York City public schools, promised the parents and children of New York City that there would be a certified teacher in every classroom in the City, teaching in their licensed subject area. Given the fact that New York City enrolled approximately 1,100,000 students and about 80,000 teachers, this was a herculean task. At the time, Fordham’s teacher education program enrolled between 70 and 90 students. Levy, however, wanted Fordham to expand its program to 500–700 with New York City paying the tuition costs. He told us he approached Fordham because when serving as a member on the New York State Board of Regents, he had become aware that not a single Fordham student had failed the State’s teacher examination. Fordham turned down Levy’s offer because, as was made clear to him, Fordham closely monitored who was admitted to the Teacher Education program. If students were admitted en masse, Fordham’s perfect record on the state exams could not be maintained. Program quality is often difficult to measure, but easy to define. There is a fine line between success and failure. Success is easier to achieve when a school has 401 students apply for 400 available seats. Failure, on the other hand, often ensues when only 399 students apply. It is truly a fine line!

124 S. MARCUS and P. D. VAIRO

Max Messer, another New York City superintendent, once shared an interesting definition of a “successful superintendent.” On his first day as superintendent, he received a congratulatory call from the then-senior New York City Superintendent, Dr. Theodore Wiesenthal. When Messer asked Wiesenthal if there was any secret to his longevity, Wiesenthal told Messer to hold up his hand and asked: “What do you see?” “My hand.” “Good! Now at the end of your hand, what do you see?” “My fingers.” “Good! How many school board members do you have?” “Nine.” “Good! Now count your fingers out loud.” “One, two, three, four, five.” “Excellent! Counting to five is all you need to do to be a successful superintendent,” and then hung up. Messer himself later became the senior superintendent in New York City. He maintained that the conversation between Wiesenthal and himself was the best advice he ever received.

The aforementioned Ted Wiesenthal was superintendent of a large New York City school district, D10X as school districts around the City made headlines because of involvement in a variety of scandals, District 10X remained relatively unscathed—but not because the politicians did not try to move in and grab control over the distribution of jobs within the district. On several occasions, the Bronx Borough President asked Wiesenthal to allow the local Democratic Party Club to dole out a percentage of the administrative vacancies in the district as patronage to “deserving” recipients. Ted refused to be part of this arrangement, and for years, he retained his authority to appoint the best people to these positions. As time passed and Wiesenthal’s support on the school board dwindled, the politicians became more aggressive. On one visit, the Borough President told Wiesenthal: “Enough of this shit! We’re not asking anymore. We’re telling you. We are getting half the principal and assistant principal jobs and we will give them out.” Without missing a beat, Wiesenthal said: “Really?” The Borough President said, “That’s right! And this meeting is over! I just came here to tell you, not ask you, about our new arrangement.” As the Borough President headed for the door, Wiesenthal, in an even voice, said to him: “There is something you haven’t told me yet. Will it be your office or my office that’s going to call The New York Times and the Riverdale Press to tell them of our new arrangement?” The Borough President glared back at Wiesenthal, and, muttering curses, slammed the door as he left.

Power Brokers and Influential People in the Educational Arena 125

On January 7, 1993, Alfredo Mathew, Jr., the Community Superintendent of School District 12 in the Bronx, was found dead in a seedy Howard Johnson motel room outside Albany, New York. There were two plastic bags taped over his head at the neck. There was some speculation of foul play, possibly involving some major political figures. The story received a lot of play in the New York media for a few weeks, and then simply disappeared. Marcus had first come to know Mathew in 1968 when Mathew had been part of the path-blazing cohort pursuing administrative certification at Fordham, funded by the Ford Foundation. Mathew always seemed to live on the edge of a precipice. One day after a racquetball game, Mathew told us about being visited by someone in the employ of Andrew Stein, the then-Manhattan Borough President. Stein had voiced his desire to run against Mayor David Dinkins in the Democratic Party primaries. Mathew related that Stein’s emissary told him that if he did not provide certain information about Dinkins (to whom he was close to), then Stein was going to call a press conference to publicize a number of shady dealings in which Mathew was involved. Mathew said he physically threw this person out of his office. A week later, Stein called a press conference at which time he accused Mathew of illegally using money from a foundation, which he had once headed, to buy New York Yankee baseball tickets and a table at a Dinkins fundraiser. The New York Post and other local media gave prominent coverage to the story. As a result, Mathew was under investigation by the Board of Education’s Inspector General. The last time Marcus saw Mathew was shortly before the Christmas break. Mathew said his contract extension for superintendent was coming before his school board prior to Christmas. He thought things looked good. Marcus never saw him again. At Mathew’s wake, Marcus inquired as to whether a vote on Mathew’s contract renewal had occurred. Indeed, it had, and a 3-year renewal was approved. At Mathew’s funeral, Mayor Dinkins and former Congressman Herman Badillo gave glowing eulogies. Then he was buried. Mathew’s death soon passed from the headlines.

It is important to expose education students to power figures. Often, this was done through the employment of unique adjunct faculty and guest speakers. Thus, our students could hear from the aforementioned Albert Shanker and John Holt; a lecture from Robert Moses after he was already the subject of Robert Caro’s monumental biography, The Power Broker; Basil Paterson, a powerful figure in New York City politics; Herman Badillo, the first elected Congressman of Puerto Rican ethnicity; and Steve Aiello, Jimmy Carter’s Ethnic Affairs advisor, just to name a few.

126 S. MARCUS and P. D. VAIRO

We live in an era where many individuals and groups claiming to be friends of education and protectors of the children actually want something for themselves. Schools are now frequently a vehicle to achieve this goal. Schools not only employ many people directly, but in addition, many have contracts with private companies or individuals for the performance of specific tasks. Such contracts can involve building maintenance, food services, textbook and technology acquisitions, consultants to provide workshops and evaluate programs, and the purchase of supplies, ranging from paper clips and scotch tape to more costly items like school furniture, just to name some. Education is a multi-billion dollar industry and lots of individuals and companies want to get their hands on some of the money that flows from this industry. As we look at the current educational scene, it is a positive that some power groups seem genuinely concerned about improving educational quality. However, always be aware that some power groups may actually have a different motive. Education is not always a free-standing social vehicle for the common good, but rather a conveyor belt controlled by numerous influential groups and individuals who may or may not be promoting similar viewpoints. Power brokers are not going to leave the American political and educational scene in the near future. They have existed in all societies from time immemorial, and will continue to do so.

CHAPTER VII

THINKING OUT LOUD! In the 1940s and 1950s, in the halcyon days of New York City newspapers, an era distinguished by many great sports columnists, Jimmy Cannon took a backseat to no one. One of his regular columns was: “Nobody asked me, but … ” What follows is our version of a Cannon column as it pertains to education. Hopefully, our opinions and questions will stimulate readers to think about the issues we raise.

SCHOOLS, GRADES K-12 1. Generally speaking, schools are boring. 2. Despite this, most children look forward to going to school. 3. There should be all-boys and all-girls schools available to those children who prefer them. 4. The school day should be extended to 4:00 p.m. 5. Students should be required to attend school at least 200 days a year. 6. Schools should be operational 12 months a year. 7. Every child in a class knows who is “smart” and who isn’t. Thus, the debate about homogeneous or heterogeneous grouping is, for the most part, a waste of time.

Two Nobodies Speak Out: Our 150 Year Journey and Perspectives on Education, pp. 127–135 Copyright © 2011 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

127

128 S. MARCUS and P. D. VAIRO

8.

9.

10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24.

25.

26. 27. 28.

Rote learning should be an integral part of teaching methodology. It will not work for every student, but neither does any other methodology. Many educators are more interested in having children feel good about themselves than in having them master subject matter. This is because the former is easier to achieve than the latter. How can children who have not learned subject matter possibly feel good about themselves? Schools should be required to have a school nurse in the building. Schools should be involved in teaching good hygiene habits and proper diet. Food served in most school cafeterias do not meet good health standards. Patriotism should be taught in our schools. There should be strict separation between religious beliefs and public education. Elementary schools should be non-graded, rather than the current K-5 system now used in virtually every school district in America. The teaching of reading, writing, and arithmetic should be the primary objective of the elementary school. Science laboratories in elementary schools should exist and be properly equipped. We need licensed science and math teachers teaching these subjects in the elementary school grades. Foreign languages should be introduced in elementary schools. The Middle School concept has not been an improvement of the Junior High School. Sex education should be introduced in the middle school grades. Sex abuse of children is a societal problem and not just a school problem. High schools do not become successful by simply being subdivided into two, three, or four smaller components within the same building with essentially the same student population. If Bill and Melinda Gates want to know what really goes on in urban schools, they need to be able to transform themselves into “flies on the wall” and get into some of those schools. There should be national examinations in academic subjects for high school students. English language immersion should be the primary method used to teach non-English speaking children in our schools. All teachers should be fluent in English.

Thinking Out Load! 129

29. 30.

31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36.

37.

38.

39.

40. 41.

42. 43. 44. 45. 46.

Bilingual education should be limited to the elementary school curriculum. If a language barrier academically “handicaps” so many children of immigrants, why is it that the children of Asian immigrants do so well in school? Why is it “off-limits” to discuss the above? Children of illegal immigrants should be allowed to attend public schools and universities. A master’s degree in a subject area should be required to teach in public and private K-12 schools. There should be a dress code for both teachers and students. All prospective teachers should be required to pass a classroom performance test as a prerequisite for licensure. Within two weeks of starting their jobs, new teachers know who are the best and worst teachers in that school. They know specifically which teachers they would want teaching their own children and which ones they would avoid like the plague. The search for a great teacher in every classroom has us wondering why baseball has not placed greater stress on finding great hitters who can bat 1000 instead of a paltry 300. Teachers and administrators know that even the very best teachers in the school are not successful in teaching content to all their children, as measured by standardized test scores. If alternate routes to teaching are acceptable, we are left to wonder why there are not alternate routes to becoming an attorney, a physician, or an engineer. How can teachers be held accountable for youngsters in their class who have little or no interest in learning anything? Yes, we know the answer to the above. It is the job of a successful teacher to motivate such students. People who believe this ought to go into a classroom and try doing so. The title of “Master Teacher” should be assigned to outstanding classroom teachers. These “Master Teachers” should be paid as much as the school principal in order to keep them in the classroom. Being a classroom teacher in grades K-12 is the most difficult job in education. Teachers should be given a one-semester paid sabbatical for every 12 years they are classroom teachers. Most teachers teach to their expectation level of what they think their students can absorb.

130 S. MARCUS and P. D. VAIRO

47. Teachers should continue to receive tenure—but with some important changes in the present system. 48. Teachers, grades K-12, should have the same 7-year probationary period as college professors, rather than the now common three year probationary period, prior to being eligible for tenure. 49. Tenure is good, but there are just too many bad tenure decisions. 50. Standards for receiving tenure need to be raised significantly. 51. Teachers who deserve and receive tenure do not suddenly become incompetent and lazy. 52. If a teacher is “adequate,” in the current job market, “adequate” should not be good enough to receive tenure. 53. Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York City believes that standards for teachers to receive tenure should be raise, yet recent events might indicate that he may have wanted tenure as Mayor of New York City. We agree, however, with Mayor Bloomberg in his view that the last teacher in should not be the first teacher out in an era of budgetry crises. The quality of a teacher, as measured by welldefined and carefully thought out indices, should determine who stays and who goes. 54. Teachers should have the right to collective bargaining. 55. Albert Shanker evolved from teacher union leader to educational statesman. His adversary during the New York City School Strike of 1968, Mayor John Lindsay, evolved from a potential future presidential candidate to a nonentity. Interesting what the passing of time does to how we look at people and events. 56. Teacher unionism did not cause the decline in student learning, as many critics claim. Collective bargaining for teachers has been a reality only since 1962. Before that date, as many youngsters, if not more, did poorly in school as they do today. In those days, however, the economy could absorb students who did not do well. 57. Many fringe benefits enjoyed by educators and other public employees today, such as medical and retirement plans, are no longer financially sustainable at present levels. 58. Few politicians will have the guts to take on teacher unions in pro-labor states and push for real givebacks. 59. Most teacher union leaders who agree to “givebacks” will be ousted by their membership for being too weak. 60. This may come as a surprise to the general public and to even most teachers, but collective bargaining contracts did not bring about tenure. Tenure preceded teacher unionism. Today, even some teacher

Thinking Out Load! 131

61.

62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67.

68. 69.

70. 71.

72.

73.

74. 75.

union personnel try to give the impression that they are responsible for the tenure system. A uniform national pension system for all teachers in grades K-12 should be implemented. Most college professors already enjoy this benefit, thus allowing them mobility to move to institutions in different parts of the country. Charter schools will not solve our educational ills. Eventually, charter schools will disappear because of lack of success with students. They will be replaced by a “new can’t-miss” concept. Per pupil expenditures should be uniform throughout a state, along with cost of living adjustments in different parts of the state. Taxpayers want better schools and they also want to pay lower school taxes. This will not happen. Taxpayers are correct in believing that some school systems waste taxpayer money on questionable expenditures. Public funds should be available to accredited, private and religious schools, grades K-12, as well as to private and religious accredited colleges and universities. On the other hand, church properties of all religious dominations should be taxed. Policies aimed at keeping drugs and weapons out of our schools should include searches of students and/or their lockers. Students who come to school to learn need to be protected. The pressure for higher test scores sometimes results in the manipulation of scores by educators. Testing experts tell us that the selection of a test and grading policies of those tests, particularly with many tests now requiring writing samples, give ample latitude for educators to determine test results. A December 2010 issue of The New York Times carried a story that the new number two person in the New York City school system believes that one of the answers to our educational ills is more and better testing. Hmm … We wonder why no one else ever thought of that. Raising academic standards as a national goal will be acceptable only for as long as not too many students fail to reach the passing standard. If too many students fail to meet the raised standards, it will be the standards rather than the students that will be blamed. Why are schools for gifted children considered politically incorrect? Merit pay is a concept we applaud. The fair implementation of it, however, poses many problems that have yet to be resolved.

132 S. MARCUS and P. D. VAIRO

76. 77. 78.

79. 80.

81. 82. 83. 84. 85.

86. 87. 88.

89.

90. 91.

92.

Vouchers should be an option available to parents and children. Vouchers should be redeemable at accredited public and private schools. Violence and bullying in schools will continue to exist as long as schools are attended by children ages 5–18. In other words, no matter what educators and legislators may do, the problem is not going away. The learning gap may be narrowed, but it will never be bridged in the lifetime of our children. Educational successes are usually over-hyped and are unable to be replicated. True educational successes occur because of the tremendous efforts and unique abilities of individual educators. Have any really serious evaluations been done on the “successes” of the Harlem Children Zone Schools? The socioeconomic class of a student is still the best predictor of success in school. Mayors or town supervisors should appoint local school board members because so few voters turn out for school board elections. All children can learn, but there are dramatic differences in how much children can absorb in a given time period. With many critics blaming teachers for the poor performance of children in schools, may we ask why these same critics are silent about the responsibility of parents for the behavior and attitudes of their children in school? Parents are usually more responsible than teachers for the poor behavior of their children in school. Politics and education are now intertwined more than they should be. Although the No Child Left Behind Act of 2002 was an effort to improve education, the Department of Education underestimated the “creative abilities” of various states to get around its provisions. Revisions in the No Child Left Behind Act will not result in improvement unless more federal funding is made available and loopholes in the present Act are closed. Diane Ravitch is one of the few present-day educators who knows what she is talking about. The country is not serious about truly raising educational standards to the levels demanded in other countries. If we were serious about this, too many youngsters would fail and this would be politically unacceptable. Political conflict between the Republican and Democratic parties is destroying the ability of the United States to compete in the new world economy of the 21st century.

Thinking Out Load! 133

93.

94.

95.

96. 97. 98. 99.

Now that non-educators are thought to be competent enough to lead some of our largest school systems, we cannot wait to hear about the appointment of a successful school superintendent to lead a major corporation. How come so many school superintendents move from one school system to another and get additional chances to replicate the “successes” achieved in their previous school district? Who do they think they are- baseball managers? Why is it that every time new school officials are appointed, they talk about the need to improve the situation confronting them when their immediate predecessors were thought to be successful? Larry Cuban was right when he said that the quest for urban school reform was never ending. Has there ever been an educational innovation that ended when it was publicly proclaimed to be a failure? Some educational problems will never be solved to the satisfaction of all. Those readers who have seen Waiting for Superman will be waiting a long time.

COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES 1. A college degree today probably does not denote as much intellectual attainment as a high school diploma did in 1960. 2. Four-year colleges and universities should not have open admission policies. 3. Community colleges should continue to accept all high school graduates who apply. 4. SAT scores and other standardized test results should not be the major criteria for admission to college. Legitimate high school grade point averages are at least just as important. 5. Profit-making colleges and online colleges and universities should be allowed to operate but under much stricter regulation than is presently the case. Too many of them are scam operations. 6. For-profit colleges and online universities are becoming adept at lobbying legislators at the local, state and national level. Thus, real regulation of these colleges will be difficult. In today’s America, money seems to talk loudly. 7. There should be “athletic death penalties” meted out to colleges that consistently violate recruiting and academic guidelines in order

134 S. MARCUS and P. D. VAIRO

8. 9.

10.

11. 12.

13.

14.

15. 16.

17.

18.

to put an athletic powerhouse on the field. We are often left to wonder if the major purpose of many institutions is to provide an education or an NCAA basketball team or a BCS bowl team. Affirmative action for college and graduate school admissions, as presently constituted, is unfair. Richard Kahlenberg is correct when he recently pointed out that affirmative action has always existed for the children of the eliteand there was no affirmative action legislation needed when this was happening. College faculty should not only continue to vote on the reappointment, promotion and tenure of faculty colleagues, but should also be given the right to vote on the reappointment of the dean of their particular school after a three to five year period of time. In order to keep tuition costs down, the teaching loads of most college faculty should be increased. Too many professors think that their institution exists because they teach there. Somebody ought to clue them in that their job exists because students write tuition checks to attend that institution. College professors who spend years “beating the system” sometimes become deans and/or vice presidents in the same institution. When they do, they do not have an ethical base to adequately function because there are just too many colleagues who remember their past. College/university search committees for deans and other highlevel administrative positions are usually a waste of faculty time. In most cases, the college/university president decides who gets the job. Colleges and universities are top-heavy with administrators. No wonder tuition keeps rising faster than the rate of inflation. Tenure track faculty lines are being replaced by clinical appointments, with the justification cited that there is a need for such individuals because of their real world experiences and background. In most cases, this is nonsense and is simply a way to diminish a college’s long term commitment to faculty. Most colleges and universities are controlled by the progressive view point. As a result, there is discrimination against recruiting politically conservative faculty. On the other hand, in conservative institutions, the same prejudices and practices exist in recruiting liberal faculty. Why is it that graduate students are offended when they receive a grade of less than “A,” even if they have not put much effort into the course?

Thinking Out Load! 135

19. Why is it that most university faculty teaching graduate classes think that no student should ever receive a grade of less than “B+”? 20. Arthur Levine, former President of Teachers College, was one of the few honest leaders in higher education. His integrity was such that we are left to wonder if that is why he left that position. 21. If Graduate Schools of Education accept high quality of students into their teacher, administrator and counseling training programs, they will produce high-quality graduates. 22. The reason that schools of education do not accept only highquality students into their programs is because these schools are kept alive by tuition checks. As long as students of varying quality can write these checks, the quality problem will persist. 23. Schools of education are not the only guilty parties in terms of admission policies. Are there any PhD programs admitting fewer students in English, Political Science, History, Foreign Languages, and a host of other areas because the job market in higher education for full time, tenure track faculty has virtually collapsed? University faculties in these areas need classes to teach and students to mentor. Most are not concerned to what happens to the students after they complete their course work and graduate, or if they ever do graduate. 24. Every seven years, professors of education should be required to work one semester in K-12 schools in order to keep abreast of what really goes on in such schools. 25. College professors who do not spend any time in K-12 schools but are responsible for training teachers, administrators, and guidance counselors should not be training teachers, administrators, and guidance counselors. Reread this chapter in five years and see how many of our opinions you will agree with as opposed to how many you agree with today.

CHAPTER VIII

CONCLUDING REMARKS The 20th century and the first decade of the 21st century have revealed that Americans continue to be divided on many educational issues facing our schools. Some issues are very complex and almost defy solution, while others could be mitigated if the present polarizing divide among our politicians was addressed in an objective fashion. Our society is in great need of civility in discussions and approaches to solve the crucial issues facing our schools. If the United States is not going to disappear the way the Roman Empire did, the highly political subjects of parenting skills and family cohesion (or lack thereof) will need to be addressed. Perhaps Amy Chua’s Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother can at least be a starting point for that discussion. As young teachers in the New York City public school system, we often thought we were living a wonderful dream. After all, how two young adults could enter a profession, which, as children, was far beyond our social frame of reference? Once we did this, however, we tried never to forget that we were there to help our students to achieve whatever dreams they might have. As we looked at them, we knew that we were once them. Our parents often asked us how our students reacted to us as teachers. Were we comfortable in our relationships with other teachers? They worried about whether we would succeed as classroom teachers. Frankly, in the beginning of our teaching careers, we worried too. As time passed, however, we realized that we as competent as most teachers in the school. In some ways, this actually surprised us.

Two Nobodies Speak Out: Our 150 Year Journey and Perspectives on Education, pp. 137–139 Copyright © 2011 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

137

138 S. MARCUS and P. D. VAIRO

To us, the teacher’s desk was a symbol of status. Standing at the desk was our passport to a better life. We became legitimate, full-time participants in the American dream. Being a teacher gave us a sense of identity, status and a feeling of self-respect. We attained a degree of job security that most Americans today can only dream about. Becoming a teacher introduced us to a middle-class world so different from our experiences as children of poor immigrants. It has been a long trip from entering kindergarten as five-year olds to the world we live in today. There were times when we questioned if we would succeed. Looking back, we think we did okay. We would also like to think that we have not really changed. Between us, we have been classroom teachers, guidance counselor, administrator, and adjunct instructors, held every professorial rank, department chair, associate dean, dean, academic vice president, and president. Long ago, we concluded that perhaps the most important reason for whatever successes we enjoyed was because we both agreed that our primary function was to serve our students. We have never forgotten that jobs exist in education, be they at Harvard, a suburban high school, or an inner-city elementary school, because there are children and adults occupying the classrooms. Whatever decisions we made, some good and some not so good, we always asked ourselves before acting: What does this mean for our students? Does this benefit them? If so, in what ways? Perhaps the most disturbing part of our life’s journey through education at all levels has been our observation that not enough teachers and administrations think of asking these questions. Indeed, we have come across educators who believe that some children are dumb and unteachable and other educators with such bloated senses of self-importance that the notion of their making bad decisions is not even a possibility. Arrogance in education is alive and well, no different from what goes on in any other profession or business. The motivating force behind the writing of this book was to share with readers our insights and experiences so that they might have a realistic understanding of the forces that continue to impact on students from ages five to 80. We tried to interject some humor and to relate vignettes in order to demonstrate the realities of working with children and adults in schools. Our intent was always to promote the abilities of our students to find success, however they might define it. We have been candid and honest in our commentary. We realize that we do not know the answers to the problems of American education. We would add, however, that the reader should always be highly suspicious of anyone who claims with certainty to have those answers.

Concluding Remarks 139

We recently came across a quote from Rafael Gualdo, an eighth grade teacher in Western Florida, in the July 25, 2010, Sun-Sentinel, which, we believe, asks a critical vital question: “In our pursuit of the American Dream, which of the two do we really go after? Is it happiness or is it property?”

For us, the answer to that question was easy. We never became rich in a monetary sense, but we did become rich in experiences and memories, thanks mainly to our students. If we live long enough, do we have plans to write another book? The answer is a resounding “Yes!” Why not? We still have so many stories to tell about the students with whom we have been in contact with over the decades. If, however, time catches up to us, we hope that other authors will focus on their students, tell their stories and share their aspirations and hopes for the future. Thank you for letting us share our journey with you.

IAP—INFORMATION AGE PUBLISHING P.O. BOX 79049 CHARLOTTE, NC 28271-7047 WWW.INFOAGEPUB.COM