Education schools should develop a 'no win scenario' for students

The most recent issue of Atlantic Monthly has a story, Your Child Left Behind, that has an interesting chart comparing individual U.S. states to nations with respect to the percentage of students performing at the advanced level in math proficiency. Ranking first through third were three Asian nations: Taiwan, Hong Kong and Korea (the chart did not separate North from South). Fourth was Finland. The highest ranking U.S. state? Massachusetts, which was seventeenth.

According to the story, Massachusetts required its newest teacher candidates to pass a basic literacy test. In the first year, one-third of the teachers who took the test failed. The state also required students to pass a before graduating from high school, and reallocated resources towards tutoring students who failed. These were the only reasons given. In both cases teachers were asked to teach to tests.

I could not believe that tests alone were the solution. Literacy tests may tell an education agency or a principal what a teacher knows, but they are not an indicator of how a teacher might perform in a classroom. Student teacher, however, does. But maybe what we need is a simulation game as pre-test, a Kobyashi Maru of sorts, for prospective teachers.

Most familiar to Star Trek fans, the Kobyashi Maru is also known as the "No Win Scenario." In Trek lore, it is the Starfleet Academy rescue and attack avoidance drill conducted from the simulated bridge of a starship. Nobody solves the problems; the captain almost always goes down with the ship. But the test is more about character and ingenuity than about solving a seemingly unsolvable problem. Trekkers know that Jim Kirk, later captain of the flagship Enterprise, cheated by reprogramming the simulation, and that he was recognized for original thinking.

So, what if education schools designed a "no win scenario" for their students before they even attempt to take an education course, let alone teach real students in a classroom setting?

Here is how it might work. An education school creates a "model" classroom and pays actors to act like the worst of the worst students. The lesson would be very simple; it could be something the students and the actors already know. The lesson is not the point of the simulation, classroom management is.

Every fall and spring, the education department would invite all students to take the simulation; they would not need to have declared majors. They would be given the lesson in advance, with no advance information about the students, and asked to teach for half an hour. The actors would do everything they could to make the teacher lose control of either themselves or the class.

Those who emerge unruffled, without violating the obvious premises--for example, don't hit a student--would be invited to continue towards an education degree. Those who lose composure under fire would be asked to consider another major.

The beauty of the no-win scenario: it's cheap and requires no government involvement whatsoever. It also helps students learn how difficult it is to be a teacher, even when you know your material cold. Students who did not consider teaching before might find it a better fit for their skills and abilities. The bad side: the no-win scenario is designed to rattle a teacher. Some who fail may feel humiliated. But that's where student services come in.

The no-win scenario would become the whittle-down process in education schools, a greater assurance that teacher candidates have been truly tested not only for their academic knowledge, but also for character and ingenuity.

An effective teacher also needs to be an effective leader who must be able to maintain the attention of her class. She will also need to be able to think on her feet in the classroom. textbooks will not be easily at hand. And, if you refer to them in front of students, even to check an answer you got wrong, the students will laugh at you. Respect is far better than ridicule for a teacher who expects to succeed.

The literacy test, as Massachusetts has used, the Praxis examinations and master's degrees are not the truest assurances of a tested teacher. They also come too late. It's better to have a whittle-down process for education majors to keep the worst suited people out of the classroom before they have started on an education degree and help them find another profession that is better suited to their talents.

How come the Big 12 didn't want TCU?

Last night it became official: Texas Christian University (TCU) is moving to the Big East in 2012. The Horned Frogs will have a whole league to beat up on their way to an automatic BCS bowl bid. And the Big East will be in two of the five largest media markets in the country. Seems like a win-win, except for the travel budgets.

I wrote a post about this back in September. I was fascinated by how a sports conference was willing to ignore geography, not to mention a need to hold down travel budgets, in order to lure TCU.

But now, I also have to ask: How come the Big 12, a conference with four Texas schools, didn't want them? Nebraska and Colorado are about to leave the conference, so why not add a Texas school in a Texas market they do not have? There is no BCS school in the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex.

Founded in 1873, TCU relocated from Waco, home of Baylor University, to Fort Worth in 1911, after its campus had burned down. Today the university has approximately 9,200 undergraduate and graduate students; it is one of the smallest schools in the country that plays major college football. TCU also has a very small alumni body compared to large public and private universities. According to their Web site, TCU has 77,500 alumni compared to over 380,000 Rutgers graduates.

So, maybe smallness might have scared the Big 12 away.

But wouldn't it be natural for the Big 12 to have a team in the Dallas-Fort Worth area? The city has hosted its most publicized rivalry, Texas vs. Oklahoma, for eighty eight years. The Cotton Bowl may have dropped in stature--since the advent of the BCS format, it has never hosted a national championship--but it has a $3.75 million payout. In addition to the Cotton Bowl, which will be played in Cowboys Stadium this season, the Metroplex will host two other bowl games: the Armed Forces Bowl and the Ticket City Bowl.

So the Dallas-Fort Worth market has gotten better for bowl games, but it isn't good enough for the Big 12 to have seven other home games, as well as an opportunity to build upon interstate rivalries?

I'd bet there are more Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Baylor, Oklahoma or even Oklahoma State alumni living in the Metroplex than Pitt, Rutgers or Syracuse alumni. Heck, I'd venture a guess there are more Rice alumni there, and Rice is a smaller school than TCU.

I know this sounds silly, but you have a better chance of selling out a game when many fans of the home team andthe visiting team live in the area. On the other hand, when it comes to TCU, smallness extends to the stadium. Amon G. Carter Stadium seats less than 45,000. But moving a game to the Cotton Bowl or Cowboys Stadium is not like Rutgers moving a game to the New Meadowlands.

Is there a fear that TCU would walk in and win the conference title? TCU was a national champion in 1936 and 1938,and played in six Cotton Bowls. Gary Patterson has brought about a football resurgence in twelve seasons. Has he become too good a coach for the Big 12 to fear?

The Big Twelve's blunder might become the Big East's bonanza (bad pun, sorry) as long as Gary Patterson's Horned Frogs keep up their winning ways.

Food fight over hummus at Princeton

Today I read a front page story in the hometown Trenton Times about student petitions at Princeton University over hummus. You read that right: hummus.

Last month, the Princeton Committee for Palestine (PCP) began petitioning against the hummis sold on-campus. The story mentions that the hummus is produced by the Sabra Dipping Company, an Israeli food manufacturer and marketer co-owned by Pepsico and Strauss Group. Sabra, according to the story, sends care packages and financial aid to the Israel military. The PCP claims that Sabra's beneficiaries include the Golani Brigade, a unit that has committed human rights violations against Arabs.

But instead of asking the university store managers to supply hummus from another manufacturer, one without Sabra's supposed military ties, or approaching an off-campus retailer to do so, the PCP gathered signatures for a student referendum on consumer choice. The Daily Princetonian, the campus paper, opposed the referendum, claiming Sabra's connection to human rights violations was "tenuous," and that other culinary options were available.

If I read this story right, the students who proposed the referendum have been accused of using their request for choice as an opportunity for the university community to condemn an Israeli corporation's exercise of social responsibility. There are concerns that a yes vote would mean that Princeton is "anti-Israel," and possibly a less hospitable place for Jewish students.

Personally, if the PCP has been able to prove that there are at least 200 members of the university community who would like to eat a different brand of hummus, then it would be in the university's best interests to stock it anyplace food is sold on campus. I'd guess it could not be a brand with ties to Coca-Cola, if Princeton is a Pepsi campus. There would be no need for a referendum to satisfy culinary desires. The market would prevail. Stocking no hummus at all would be extreme. Obviously there are enough people who like to eat it; otherwise, it wouldn't be sold.

But its only natural for campus political activists to see through each other. That's what put this story on the front page of a regional paper and NJ.com. The campus politics is more newsworthy than the obvious solution to the problem.

When is the right time to fire a football coach?

The day after Thanksgiving I went to the worst Rutgers football game I have personally attended since I became a season ticket holder.

I was no better than most of the fans. I left midway through the third quarter. It was too cold to sit through the rest of the game, so I listened to it in my car. The student broadcasters on WRSU, the campus radio station, were no doubt equally frustrated. I'd never heard more sarcasm mixed with play-by-play before. But I can't say I blame them. This was a bitter cold ending to a very difficult season.

After the game I listened to KnightLine, the half-hour post-game show where fans call in. You don't hear many calls in thirty minutes, but one repeated comment stuck in my head: Greg Schiano, our coach, did not do a $2.4 million job this season. Schiano is under contract through 2016.

I follow college football beyond Rutgers, so I asked myself: Did Texas coach Mack Brown do a $4.5 million job this season? He went 5-7 less than a year after playing for a national championship. Did Jeff Tedford at Cal earn his pay, which can average $4 million a season, after going 5-7? His Golden Bears gave second-ranked Oregon all they can handle, but they will not be going bowling this season.

Aside from the records of their teams, Tedford is a good comparison to Schiano. Both took their jobs around the same time: Schiano's first season was 2001, Tedford's a year later. Neither has won a conference title outright, through Cal was co-champion in 2006, but both have turned around mediocre programs. Both have signed extensions during their careers. Tedford has signed three, Schiano two. Both are the highest paid public employees in their respective states.

Both coaches work for schools where academics supposedly take priority over sports, and their schools are located in states with tremendous fiscal pressures. Yet these two men respect the academic reputation of their institutions. Schiano's Scarlet Knights have appeared in the top five in the NCAA's Academic Performance Rating for the the past three seasons, while Cal has had 74 players on the Pac-10 All-Academic team since Tedford became coach. Both coaches have a Draddy Award winner: Brian Leonard for Rutgers in 2006, Alex Mack for Cal in 2008.

There is one major difference between these two men. Tedford had been a head coach in his conference before taking the job he holds now. He won 38 games at Oregon over four seasons before coming to Cal. Schiano was the defensive coordinator at the University of Miami for two seasons before coming to Rutgers. Before then he had been a position coach at Penn State and with the Chicago Bears.

So it's safe to say Rutgers hired a less experienced man. The university could not afford a coach with Tedford's three years experience at the helm of a major college program, let alone a coach with Mack Brown's resume. They got the best they could get with the money they had. As long as he was one of the lowest paid coaches in the Big East, Rutgers football fans said God bless. Then Schiano's teams started to win.

In 2006, a win over West Virginia would have given Rutgers the Big East title. The Scarlet Knights had upset Louisville, then the second-ranked team in the country, and won their first nine games in a row. During the season, they were ranked as high as sixth in polls. Students pitched tents to get tickets; they even called their cotton village Schianoville. Obviously, expectations rose after the season, though the Knights have not won eleven games in a season since then. Then again, Jeff Tedford has never won eleven games in a season at Cal.

It's very easy to blame Greg Schiano for Rutgers' poor 2010 season, just as it is to blame Mack Brown or Jeff Tedford for their team's misfortunes. But it's very difficult to walk away from the investment you made in a head coach and start over with someone else. You have to ask: Can the next man do better?

Like Jeff Tedford, Greg Schiano's influence upon Rutgers extends beyond coaching. Annual fund monies, sponsorships, licensing revenues and television income have increased dramatically. Both Rutgers and Cal capitalized on their football coach's successful seasons to raise funds for other athletic facilities. Success in football also reflects positively on alumni contributions. Would the next man keep fund raising on an upward slope?

In building, as opposed to rebuilding, a football program Rutgers had much further to go than Cal; it was not like the Scarlet Knights could count on USC and UCLA on their schedule every season, or many great moments of football games past for alumni to reflect upon. Cal had at least played in a Rose Bowl in 1959. Though they lost, there are plenty of living alumni who remember the game.

As late as 1976, Rutgers' football stadium had less than 21,000 seats and basketball games were played in a 1,000 seat gym. When you start far back in the pack and you want to be noticed, you take your televised games on Wednesday and Thursday night and you accept invitations to minor bowls with enthusiasm. But you don't walk away after one or two setbacks.

Firing Greg Schiano now, for whatever reason, whether it be for his losing record after ten seasons or his $2.4 million salary, would not advance Rutgers' football or academic fortunes. The next man would have to be another young "up and coming" assistant or small college head coach who would be willing to work for less than half Schiano's salary. That man may go through a losing season, or two or three, and there would be Panic in Piscataway. There would be considerable outrage,too, since we would have to pay Schiano and the new coach through all the pain.

Rutgers is in the midst of a $1 billion+ capital campaign. The university has made a decision to improve its mens' basketball program in much the same way as it tried to improve the football program, by investing in a promising young head coach. He, like Schiano, will earn a higher salary than his predecessor in his first season, though he will start out as one of the lowest paid coaches in the Big East. But that's the way you rebuild.

Greg Schiano is only 44. He is still one of the youngest coaches in major college football. After ten years he deserves full credit for all of the good he has brought to Rutgers' football program. He could have just as easily left after 2006 and become the head coach at Miami. If you come to campus as often as I do, you see new construction as well as more students dressed in scarlet than you might imagine. Rutgers has elevated its national profile and Greg Schiano has been very much a part of that. I'd say he deserves a chance to right the ship.

Book Review--How Lucky You Can Be: The Story of Coach Don Meyer by Buster Olney

I can't think of a better post to write before I take off for the Thanksgiving holiday than this review.

Written by ESPN reporter, Buster Olney, How Lucky You Can Be is the story of the most successful coach in college basketball. Don Meyer, formerly head coach at Northern State University (SD) as well as Hamline University (MN) and Lipscombe University (TN) won 903 games through his career. While coaching at Lipscombe, he also operated one of the largest and most successful basketball camps in the country.

Olney's story is about Meyer's remarkable last season, 2008-2009. In September, 2008, Meyer was in a horrific--Olney's word, but you must see the picture for yourself--car accident. His Toyota Prius collided with a tractor-trailer truck. He survived the collision, but his left leg had to be amputated below the knee. Weeks later, during his recovery, he would run his head and find granules of glass that had become embedded in his skin, too small for the doctors to remove them. Worse, the surgeons who operated on Meyer found out that the coach had terminal cancer.

Meyer recovered with the help of family, former players and many friends to coach his last season. The gist of this story was to show how they had all come to know and love this man.

As a coach, he came from the Bobby Knight school. He emphasized defense and physical endurance without Knight's legendary temperament. There are incidents where he yells, but he does not discourage players who are performing to his expectations. There are also many acts of kindness, which the coach preferred to keep private. Don Meyer was a coach who had no problem sharing his detailed coaching notes with other coaches, and he also carried a long list of e-mails of people he had been asked to pray for.

Don Meyer could have coached at a higher level, but he was a small town Nebraska farm boy who preferred to live in small towns. He had assistants who passed up better offers to learn from him. He also had players who could have gone elsewhere who decided to play for him. He also had many friends in the coaching world, because of his character as well as his success. Meyer was also recently honored for an ESPY Award for his contributions to his sport, perhaps the first national recognition he has received outside basketball circles.

How Lucky You Can Be is as much an inspirational story as it is a sports book. Those who want to read about game strategy should look elsewhere. However, if you want to learn more about the qualities that make a great coach, buy it. It's well worth your money and your time.

Jersey Shorts-Some quick thoughts about issues in the Garden State

Instead of devoted a full post to a story about New Jersey schools and politics I'd like to do some short takes about issues on my mind.

Anti-Bullying Bill

Recently I wrote about an anti-bullying bill that was introduced in the New Jersey Assembly with approximately 40 co-sponsors. Yesterday, the bill was approved by the State Senate; only one senator voted against the bill, saying it needed more specifics.

The bill has advanced to Governor Chris Christie's desk. No one can speculate on whether he will sign it. Governor Christie campaigned against unfunded mandates, but he has also taken extraordinary steps to intervene in the salary policies and teachers contracts within local public school districts.

While this bill had overwhelming support in the legislature as well as interest groups for social equality and, it would involve no appropriation of funds, it will not be a "be-all, end-all" to the issue of bullying in the schools.

My fear is that it will be seen by teachers and principals as an intrusion into their work as well as arouse suspicions about educators among parents. One must also consider that many teachers are also parents, and that while they are employed by schools, may be homophobic or prejudiced in some way, though they might not have allowed that to affect their jobs or their judgment.

This was a victory for state legislators. They can all say that they helped pass on of the toughest anti-bullying laws in the country--the current law encourages, but does not mandate anti-bullying programs--while not increasing spending. Both houses have enough votes to override Governor Christie, should he veto the bill. Instead, they have thrust the burden on the schools, which may be resented.

When the New Jersey Legislature passed mandatory sex education in the early Eighties, it did so without funding it. However, private contributors stepped in, as did Rutgers University, to develop a teacher training program. Such an effort will be needed for an anti-bullying program to succeed under an unfunded mandate.

The New York-Penn Station Tunnel Project

I've argued that Governor Christie was right to oppose the federally funded project, that the state should not be saddled with any cost overruns. Overruns are a fact of life in publicly funded New Jersey construction projects.

However, what if the federal government reprogrammed money instead, so that there would be no cost overruns?

Since Election Day, it has been reported that the newly elected governors of three states: Florida, Ohio and Wisconsin, have decided to kill high-speed rail programs in their states. Ohio Governor-elect George Voinovich has already asked that the money be reallocated to road improvements instead.

Here's my suggestion. Reprogram the money for New Jersey and New York.

According to a story today in USA Today, the Obama Administration has appropriated approximately $10.4 billion for thirteen high speed rail projects across 31 states. However, the governors are right to consider the marketability of high speed rail against the potential numbers of construction jobs it might add in the short term. And, if you've ever driven a car through Florida, Ohio or Wisconsin, it is safe to argue that New Jersey and New York are far more congested and far more transit dependent than those three states.

Approximately $2.5 billion in unspent funds was allocated to those states. If they, and other states don't want the money for high-speed rail, let New Jersey have it for light rail. It can reduce the risk of overruns or provide leverage for Governor Christie to work with New York Governor-elect Andrew Cuomo to get New York to participate in the project. While the Port Authority committed funding to the tunnel, New York State did not.

Public Television

Last week, all employees of New Jersey Network (NJN), the state's only public television station, received layoff notices. Governor Christie had planned to zero out the Network's funding as of December 31. The layoffs do not affect the NJN Foundation which is a separate non-profit corporation that raises money for the Network.

New York and Philadelphia corporations have expressed interest in acquiring NJN, however there are no firm assurances that NJN will retain its New Jersey focus. In addition, NJN was founded long before cable television and public access channels became commonplace. However, talk radio has become more popular, while NJN was never well-invested in that medium.

Here's what I wonder: There are three Rutgers campuses, nineteen community colleges and nine other four-year colleges, all distributed throughout the state. Why can't some of these college radio stations be upgraded to become a statewide public radio network?

Between the foundation's efforts and student fees, there is a better chance to find a stable source of funding as well as an opportunity to develop a new generation of broadcast journalists. Today, college-run stations do best at music, campus news and, in the case of Rutgers, college sports. However, the staff is never challenged to work on features or breaking news, which they would need to handle in real life. This is also a great way to get students more interested in state politics as well as deliver more New Jersey news outside the campus community.

These are all just thoughts. The state cannot afford to maintain status quo. Sometimes there are better alternatives than to cut, zero-out or pass the buck.

Book Review: Harvard's Secret Court, The Savage 1920 Purge of Campus Homosexuals by William Wright

Harvard's Secret Court is not a new book; it was published five years ago. But I found it in the Yale Book store very recently. The author, William Wright, is a Yale graduate who has written biographies of Christina Onassis, Luciano Pavorotti, and Marjorie Merriweather Post (she owned Mar A Lago, a Donald Trump address), among other works.

In reading this story you must take into account the context of the times. In 1920, Woodrow Wilson was president; he would be a lame duck through March of 1921. Wilson, an ardent segregationist, had appointed A. Mitchell Palmer his Attorney General. Palmer led what was known as the Red Scare, a drive to root out Communism in the U.S. Political and social deviance was as unpopular and closet in those times as it is among conservative elements of our culture today.

The Harvard of 1920 is not like the Harvard of today. Today's Harvard is a global university that has had non-discrimination policies in place for nearly thirty years. The Harvard of 1920 was all-male. Students came largely from preparatory schools as opposed to public schools. The school was hardly diverse. This was also a time when eugenics had become part of psychological research. The physical education instructor at Harvard--phys ed was a graduation requirement--compared the physiques of Harvard men versus Yale men. Do not take this story as judgment of the Harvard of today, though as you read further you might find it a fair assessment up through 1953.

In 1920, Harvard president James Lowell convened a three-member court amid rumors of homosexuality among the student body. Upon reading letters from former lovers, Cyril Wilcox, a suspended student, committed suicide. Not only had Wilcox been recently separated from Harvard, the court had taken it into its power to notify Wilcox's parents.

Lowell's secret court extended it's authority beyond the student body. A recent graduate and a faculty member were tried, as were restaurant workers who, while being suspected lovers, were not a part of the college community. The court not only expelled students, it also lied to them. Despite promises to the contrary, all but two students mentioned in this story was never allowed to re-enroll. In fact, they were blocked from entering other colleges.

One student allowed to return, Joe Lumbard, had only one year left towards his degree; he had intended on completing the requirements in three years. He was admitted to Harvard Law School and later in his career became a federal court judge. He was cited as having been "associated" as an acquaintance with homosexuals, though other students, as well as the non-students, were found guilty by association.

What was most undistinguished--by my views today, I'd say disgusting--was that Harvard refused to provide positive references about Lumbard as well as the former students through 1953, more than three decades after they had left campus. At the same time, Harvard was purported to have other homosexuals on the faculty and President Lowell had a lesbian sister. After leaving Harvard, Lowell served as a judge on the panel that convicted Sacco and Vanzetti, both suspected anarchists. Lowell voted guilty.

The deliberations of the secret court were stored in the university library. No one was aware of their existence for more than eighty years. A reporter for the Crimson, the campus paper, stumbled upon the court archives while doing research for another story. Since the students would have graduated eighty years before, and were quite likely deceased, the university granted the Crimson access to the records and permitted the paper to write a three-part story.

Then-president Lawrence Summers also publicly expressed his regrets for the past incidents. He did, however, tell Wright: "I do ask myself, repeatedly, are we administrators doing anything now that will look as bad in eighty years?"

It was interesting that this question from a president who made an unfortunate quip about women in the sciences that eventually got him removed from his position, and who accepted more than $20 million in advisory fees from investment firms while employed full-time by the university.

In addition, all references to the secret court were erased from the university archives as Wright's book went to press. Harvard may not be the same institution it was in 1920, but it is probably no less image conscious.

Tony Danza struggles to teach in 'Teach'

In one of my first blog posts I wrote that TV should bring back Room 222 to fill a need for a serious, but well written drama on what it's like to be a teacher. This past week I had a chance to catch up with a real-life docu-drama, Teach, starring Tony Danza as a tenth grade English teacher in a Philadelphia high school.

I knew of Danza for his role as doe-eyed nice guy cab driver/boxer Tony Banta in Taxi, one of the best sit-coms of all-time. After starring for six years in Taxi, Danza went on to a nine-year engagement in Who's The Boss. Born in Brooklyn, Danza went to college at the University of Dubuque in Iowa on a wrestling scholarship, earning a degree in History Education. But he never taught in a classroom until Teach was filmed.

In order to do Teach Danza earned an emergency teacher's certification; he was rushed into service at Philadelphia's Northeast High School. From watching the show I thought Northeast, which has a very diverse student population, was a lot like my suburban New Jersey high school, only bigger. It was not a run-down urban public high school, or even a pre World War II building as you saw in Boston Public. Age of the building aside, it could just as easily be a setting for the Walt Whitman High in Room 222.

But this is not fiction. Danza committed to two years and he actually has to teach. The best scenes of this show take place in the classroom. While Danza has been wizened to the ways of the theater, he looks totally lost in a high school classroom.

The kids don't trust him; they wonder why he bothers to be there. They're not afraid to vent their distrust or test him as they would any other sub without a Hollywood resume. They have no reason to think Danza's special. His best known TV roles ended long before they were ever born.

Danza's really tries though I'd guess he falls into the same traps as any other classroom rookie. He works too hard to relate to the kids in a very large class and volunteers for every extra-curricular activity and teacher's function. But he doesn't know enough to be helpful in most cases beyond offering a pat on the back. This was especially true when he tried to be an assistant football coach. He doesn't know the game or the drills. However, he's smart enough to give that up when he becomes overwhelmed by the pressures of the job.

He shines, however, when he's asked to be involved in anything to do with drama or stage music. Mayor Michael Nutter asks him to emcee a benefit show for a charity that is actively supported by his wife. But this is where the show starts to fall down. There are too many references to Danza's celebrity to make Teach as credible as it could be. In class he drifts into tangents about his life and such things as how many cars he has.

In another episode, Danza sings the national anthem at a Phillies game. Aside from being a traitorous act for a New Yorker to do--the only thing worse would be singing Sweet Caroline at a Red Sox game--it is a distraction from the major intention of the show, to show how difficult it is to be a first-time teacher with limited training.

The biggest problem of Teach is, however, not the use of Danza's celebrity, but that the show is boring and slow. Editing was done by inserting freeze frames between scenes, making the show feel longer than an hour. I wished it followed to a format for a fictionalized drama: show the main characters trying to solve three different problem. But Danza is the only star.

No other teachers, nor the principal appear often enough to be in supporting roles. Teach would have been a more interesting show if the actor's performance could have been contrasted with the efforts of an experienced professional teacher in the same classroom setting. We do see some of the silly "school policies," but not enough for the show to feel life-like.

The audience deserves to know what a good teacher does in an average urban high school. They've seen enough of struggling teachers and schools in the media. Teach adds nothing to the debate about the quality of education in our country, but Danza deserves a B-plus for effort. I just wish we saw a little more.

The Boise State of the Sixties

I've finished reading Ron Jaworski's The Games that Changed the Game as well as Tim Layden's Blood, Sweat and Chalk; both books discuss the offenses that have revolutionized professional football.

Both books discussed the signature plays of Don Coryell, one of the greatest minds in the college and pro game, and probably the most important and innovative coach who is not in the Pro Football Hall of Fame.

Before coaching the high-flying offenses of the St. Louis Cardinals and the San Diego Chargers, the latter a Super Bowl contender during the first half of the Eighties, Coryell was the head coach at San Diego State University. According to Layden, Coryell's Aztecs outdrew the Chargers during the late 1960's. They might have been to their era what the Boise State Broncos have been to ours.

Coryell coached the Aztecs from 1961 to 1972. During those twelve seasons, he complied a winning percentage of .834, better than Bear Bryant, Woody Hayes, Bobby Bowden or Joe Paterno. From 1967 through 1972, Coryell lost only one game in conference play.

At the beginning of Coryell's career San Diego State was the equal of what would today be considered a Division 1-AA or Division II program. The 1961 schedule, when the Aztecs went 7-2-1 included several California state schools. He lost to Cal State Long Beach (which no longer plays football) and Fresno State (a bowl-eligible school today). By 1972, when the Aztecs went 10-1, they eight wins over schools that now play in the highest division today, including a PAC 10 school (Oregon State) and a Big 12 school (Iowa State). But those were the bottom feeders in both conferences.

Like Boise State, the Aztecs were first relegated to lower division and minor bowls. But Coryell won all three in an era before conference playoffs. The Aztecs became a Division 1 team in 1969. That year they won the Pasadena Bowl, played in the Rose Bowl a month before New Year's Day, and beat Boston University 28-7.

Coryell developed 54 players who played in the NFL, with five drafted in the first round. Four of his quarterbacks were drafted. Don Horn, the first, was the Green Bay Packers first draft choice in 1967. He was selected to be the heir apparent to Hall of Famer Bart Starr. Dennis Shaw, the second, was a second round pick of the Buffalo Bills. He was the AFL Rookie of the Year in 1969. Brian Sipe, the third, drafted by the Browns, became the NFL's Most Valuable Player in 1980.Coryell's assistant coaches at San Diego State included Joe Gibbs and John Madden, among others.

Don Coryell died in July of this year. While NFL teams still employ his offensive schemes, Boise State is probably the college team that best carries on his legacy. The Aztecs faced the same competition and schedule issues for ranking and recognition that the Broncos face today. But they did what they had to do--win with the schedule they had.

Don't be too quick to call Cathie Black a figurehead

New York City mayor Michael Bloomburg has chosen Hearst Publishing executive Cathleen Black to succeed Joel Klein as his Chancellor for schools. Like Klein, Black has no background in teaching or education administration. The state commissioner of education will need to issue a waiver of professional requirements so that Black may accept the job.

I wouldn't sell Cathie Black short. As an executive she opened doors for women to gain respect and employment in a once male-dominated industry. She has had to prove herself to extremely intelligent albeit cynical people before. The reception to Bloomburg's announcement is no less cool than it was to Klein's appointment when the mayor first took office.

When a system gets as large and bloated as New York's, and it's effectiveness becomes compromised by the confines of a thoroughly detailed labor contract, the superintendent needs to be a leader who is also a tough negotiator who knows that sacrifices must be made. In the heydays of print journalism, as Cathie Black rose up corporate ranks, the publishing industry had very prickly labor relations. On this score, Black is more qualified than a traditional candidate.

A system this larger also needs a fund-raising executive. For comparison, look at the president of a university. That executive is not always a person who has been a member of a university faculty. Quite often he or she is someone who knows how to flick political levers to advance an agenda, and is good at making the "ask." A traditional superintendent is more likely to get into intellectual debates over an agenda: that's why they do not stay as long as Klein has.

An executive with Black's background is more likely to find common ground with the mayor and advance it. Bloomburg is one of the most powerful mayors in New York City's history. Consensus is wonderful, but it's exceptionally difficult to achieve in a city with so many interests tied to education. Not that it would matter. Nothing is going to go forward without the mayor's backing.

The traditional superintendent is also looking towards the next job. For instance, Rudy Crew, former Mayor Giuliani's chancellor, moved on to Miami. A system such as New York's needs a person determined to make change for New York; either he or she will stay a long time and make things happen, as Joel Klein did, unless the job becomes all-consuming. Cathie Black will be no less effective than Klein. She may even do better, because she can draw from a more relevant life experience.

Wish Carlos Pena baseball free agent success

This morning I stumbled on to an interesting story while reading the introduction to The Best American Sports Writing edited by Peter Gammons. He is best known for his coverage of the Boston Red Sox as well as the rest of the American League. I'm a Yankee fan, but Gammons is one of the five best baseball writers in the country.

In this book Gammons briefly mentioned Tampa Bay Rays free agent first baseman Carlos Pena. While Pena, now 32, is not coming off one of his better seasons--he hit below .200, the "Mendoza Line" for poor hitting--he is one of the best power hitters in the game. He has averaged 36 home runs, 102 RBIs, per season in the four years he has played for Tampa Bay. Pena earned a Gold Glove for his play at first base in 2008, as the Rays made the World Series for the first time, and last season he was named to the All Star team. In 2007, he was named Comeback Player of the Year in the American League.

Gammons first covered Pena when the first baseman was a student at Northeastern University. Pena, who immigrated to the U.S from the Dominican Republic when he was 14, not only starred for the baseball team, he also maintained a 3.4 GPA in electrical engineering after transferring from Wright State University (OH) following his freshman year. Take a look at this story from the Northeastern student paper that was written twelve years ago.

According to Gammons, Pena lived in Haverhill, Massachusetts after he came to the U.S. His family moved into a two-bedroom apartment without heat and both parents had to work two jobs. His parents refused to allow Carlos to take English As a Second Language in school; they made him learn English at home.

At the time the story in the Northeastern paper was written, and Gammons had first met Pena, the ballplayer was about to become the tenth player picked in the 1998 Major League Baseball Draft. But he, according to Gammons, was not the only star in the family. His younger brother was on his way towards a doctorate in engineering and his sister was dancing with the Boston Ballet.

After college, Carlos Pena did not have an easy ride through the major leagues. Drafted by the Texas Rangers, he was traded or released by five teams before he came to the Rays, including the Yankees and the Red Sox. He was sent down to the minor leagues halfway through his major league career, even after hitting 75 home runs for the Detroit Tigers over four seasons. You have to admire this man for sticking with it.

But why am I writing about a ballplayer who is unlikely to be a Yankee--we have Mark Texiera to play first--and quite likely to return to an "enemy" team?

It is because Carlos Pena reminds us of what may happen when we are welcoming to immigrants, as opposed to being hostile towards them.

Hostility has not only come from policies such as those implemented to stem illegal immigration in Arizona, to cut off children of illegals from access to a college education, to keep the number of "green cards," employment visas low so that business cannot hire foreign-born engineers to fill professional positions. But America did not become a great country by resenting people from other countries. It did by welcoming them and providing a path to citizenship.

Pena also plays a sport that many American-born children and young adults dream to play. He comes from a country where major league teams set up academies to prepare prospects who are still of high school age and teach them English. But Carlos Pena's family chose to come to the U.S. instead. He and his siblings wanted an education. Half a century ago, U.S. born major league ballplayers resented players from Spanish-speaking countries; they were there to take their jobs. Today, they represent about a third of the game. You will probably not find a starting line-up that does not have a player with a Spanish surname.

Their representation is so significant that the Major League Baseball Players Association asked that the 2011 All Star Game be moved from Phoenix to another city, in protest against Arizona immigration policy. This was one quote from Micheal Weiner, the association executive director.

“The recent passage by Arizona of a new immigration law could have a negative impact on hundreds of Major League players who are citizens of countries other than the United States. These international players are very much a part of our national pastime and are important members of our Association. Their contributions to our sport have been invaluable, and their exploits have been witnessed, enjoyed and applauded by millions of Americans. All of them, as well as the Clubs for whom they play, have gone to great lengths to ensure full compliance with federal immigration law."

Carlos Pena went many extra steps further to earn all he has earned in the game. I won't root for him to hit well against the Yankees, but he'll always have my respect. He deserves yours, too.

Gainful employment proposals may be confusing, complex and irrelevant

This month the U.S. Department of Education issued regulations concerning a "gainful employment" policy.

Primarily targeted at for-profit pre-professional programs, the policy would require these schools to provide graduation and job placement information to students as well as the federal government. The Department of Education, in turn, uses this information, as well as salary information, to determine how much students may borrow towards their degree.

I understand why gainful employment policies have been proposed. Unlike publicly supported colleges, which rely on subsidies and endowments, and privately supported non-profit schools which have tax exempt status as well as endowments, the for-profit colleges rely on heavily on federally sponsored student loans and Pell Grants.

The for-profits do not, or at least it has gone unreported, offer academic or merit-based scholarships from their own funds to reduce educational costs. I understand this, too. The for-profit institutions are run for the benefit of shareholders who would not want to see lower profits in exchange for subsidies. Shareholders would also oppose gainful employment policies. If the school missed the mark and fell short of its placement and salary predictions, their investment would lose value.

The greater danger, however, is that such a policy could eventually apply to every school: for-profit, private non-profit or public.

Large public universities, in particular offer a large number of undergraduate majors, many pre-professional, and many not. Not all of the pre-professional programs are tied to jobs that pay high entry level wages; off the bat I'd name architecture, communications, education, library science and social work as low-paying fields. Not all of the liberal arts majors are tied to high paying entry level jobs. In fact, many of these majors are not tied to employers who traditionally recruit on college campuses.

In addition, most graduates do not remain in fields tied to their undergraduate major. To make a long term wage projection for, as one example, an undergraduate chemistry major would be irrelevant. Chemists go on to business careers or pursue new degrees that enable them to change fields. A few go on to doctoral study; some wind up in research in private industry while others teach.

A policy based on irrelevant analysis is expensive to interpret and enforce, and in this case, student borrowers will not be in a position to challenge the federal government's judgment. Colleges will see enrollments in programs rise not because of student interest, but due to an ability to get loans. Enrollments in other majors will decline, too.

The problems that have come out of the for-profit world are a result of misleading marketing practices and uncertainties about the pre-professional nature of some degree programs. The education community has already made the debate public. Prospective students can make their own choices without the federal government becoming involved. Students have proven smart enough to make career choices, though many make them too late in college. But that's not a place for government either.

A better practice, under direct lending, is to tie federal financial aid to student repayment rates. Schools with poor collection rates would be penalized. Less aid would be made available. Most likely enrollment will suffer, too, and there would still be students who would feel swindled by their school.

But it would be in the best interest of every school to be honest with their students, offer sound career development assistance to students and alumni, and recruit students who are most likely to graduate, as opposed to those who would merely owe money for an aborted education. They would not want to risk losing their next generation of students.

However, it is also the responsibility of prospective students and their parents to become educated consumers before committing to a school, and there are free resources available to help. Government cannot legislate personal responsibility when it comes to choosing a college. It can only be a resource.

In this Alexandria, Va high school failure is not an option

Today I'm reading a story on Yahoo's Shine, Moments from Motherhood that talks about an Alexandria, Virginia high school that has replaced failing grades with 'I' grades for Incomplete. The thought is that those who receive an Incomplete will catch up at some point with the rest of their classmates.

I see the point. Some students do not learn as quickly as others. They'll need more time to comprehend the material. It might take them into the summer or the next school year for them to know what they need to know.

I could not tell from the story whether student repeat the class, or continue their learning into the summer. If they repeat the class, I don't think it's fair to keep the 'F' off the transcript; the student "earned" it. If learning is more self-paced, then its a different story.

When I was in high school, our math faculty delivered self-timed instruction in Algebra, Geometry and Algebra II. Each chapter in the math book was a unit. You took a test after the teacher had determined that you had satisfactorily done the homework for that unit. You could do the homework yourself, or find someone to help you, but you took that test on your own. The number of points you got per unit depending on how well you did on the test. Scoring a 70 got you a pass into the next unit and points towards your final grade.

Each marking period the faculty spotted you 50 points. If you had done extremely well and completed several units--you got over 49 extra points in a marking period--points were carried over. So it paid to do well on the tests.

When I look back this system was more than fair. At worst, most people completed the required number of units on time and they got at least a C+ (80 or better) in the class. Those who did exceptionally well got to start the next year's math course a few months early. I knew one person who blew through Geometry, Algebra II and Trigonometry in one year.

Those who failed to complete the minimum number of units were designated as Transitional students. They didn't repeat the class, they just kept going and finished the units at their own pace. Fortunately, there was always a teacher willing to help.

The unit by unit idea allowed a college-bound student with more limited math abilities to complete three years of math--mandatory for most colleges--by the end of their senior year. They also would know what they needed to take the SATs and score well enough to get in somewhere.

I don't believe this Alexandra school has the same intentions, but I brought up my high school's approach to support one of their major points: not everyone learns key subjects, especially math, at the same pace.

Grading policies and school calendars sometimes place unfair limitations that can get in the way of student achievement. We have to keep in mind, as Garrison Keillor sometimes writes, that not everyone can be slightly better than average. For some completing the journey is the major reward.

Maybe the answer to high paid school superintendents in NJ is to have no school boards and principals with more autonomy

I can't say life isn't interesting with Chris Christie as governor. Yesterday his administration suspended the contract of the Parsippany school superintendent whose situation I discussed on Friday, and his interim commissioner of education issued a moratorium on extensions for all school superintendents whose contracts are slated to expire when the new salary cap takes effect.

The salary cap requires no legislation, through public hearings are planned. However, the governor, through the education commissioner, is implementing his plan. I'd guess he wants the better paid superintendents to lay down their arms--retire or start looking for new jobs. This action also usurps the authority of the local officials who negotiated those superintendent's contracts.

I understand what Christie is trying to do, and he'll likely get away with it. He's touched on a hot button--high salaries--and his supporters love it. He's keeping a campaign promise; if you cut the costs of public education, you can hold down, and maybe reduce, property taxes.

You can force school districts to consolidate or innovate without handing them money. The New Jersey League of Municipalities is meeting this week to discuss ways to do precisely that. Chris Christie, conservative as progressive? We'll see. This budget cycle he zeroed out funding for a state commission on shared services and he is not participating in the League's deliberations. That's probably best. He'd only create a negative distraction. Why expend energy booing the governor when you can speak with your colleagues in a calmer manner?

I've already said that I do not like the idea of the governor's interference in the business affairs of local public school systems. But I've also stated that he has exposed a problem: lack of transparency within school boards. If the board approves a $250,000 contract without informing the voters, they deserve what's coming to them. In this case the superintendent, who has not gotten a chance to state his record of achievement to the public, will probably leave.

What I'd like to see, and I have not, is a convincing reason for a large central office and a school board in a suburban public school system. When the commissioner of education issued the order to suspend contract extensions, she notified the county superintendents of schools. Apparently, the local superintendents have some reporting line to them, though it might be a dotted line in some counties. County government in New Jersey is weak. It has little control over what municipalities do, though it takes a portion of local property taxes for the services it delivers.

So, I have to repeat a suggestion that I've made in past posts. Do away with the local layer entirely. Eliminate the school boards and the central office. The non-academic duties of the superintendent: purchasing, transportation, property management, budgets, contracts, security and so on, are already performed by local government. Maybe some of these services could be run by county government instead. They are in cities in other states.

The municipal business administrator could hire the equivalent of an academic dean to advise on education-specific issues, possibly staff to handle the hiring of teachers. Or possibly a parent's liaison to help families choose the best schools for their children. That's important if you offer more choice. It's not a function normally performed by school boards in the suburbs. A liaison would help empower families to make their own choices, where ever possible.

Or, better yet, place the responsibility for teacher recruitment at the county level and have human resources work directly with the principals at the schools. I'd like to see principals be given more autonomy to work with teachers and parents. Make control more local by putting it in the hands of the people who have a stake in the success of the school.

If charter schools are being set up to be more autonomous and private schools have always operated this way, then why not place all schools on this model? Hold principals more accountable for their decisions, while possibly making budget cuts that really matter.

Book Reviews--Two on becoming a writer

Last week I went to the Backspace Author-Agent Seminar in New York. I'm close to finishing, or should I say was close, to finishing a young adult story around a girls' high school basketball player.

Needless to say, I won't be writing a young adult story though I'll do a new one around the subject. Leaving the conference I felt very discouraged. I had gotten conflicting advice which made me feel confused. I'd become tired of hearing more advice.

I left a business career to write because I like to write about subjects that interest me. I did not consider trends, what is 'in' or 'out'. I went the print-on-demand route on my first novels because I had worked too hard to not see them published. Since then I've been told that was a mistake, that I might have ruined a career before it started. I might have worked in business before writing, but I didn't give the eccentricities of the publishing business much thought. I just wanted to tell a good story.

I've come to appreciate that writing, like music, dance or art, is a craft and that crafts have certain guidelines as to what can be sold and what cannot. I've attended classes and conferences, taken my second novel, Defending College Heights, through agent pitches and workshops and taken my third through much of the same. Eventually, I've learned that I'm more inspired by what I read than what I hear. I can open and close a book whenever I want.

The day after the conference I bought this book: Don't Quit Your Day Job, Acclaimed Authors and the Day Jobs They Quit. Edited by Alabama novelist and bookstore operator Sonny Brewer, this book features essays by twenty three noted authors about the day jobs they held until they felt confident enough to write full-time. Reading it thoroughly might have kept me from quitting on my writing.



Here you read about John Grisham's early lack of success as an underwear salesman at Sears as well as his early legal career. You learn about Pat Conroy's work as a teacher on an impoverished island off the South Carolina coast; the experience formed the basis of his non-fiction work The Water Is Wide. You find out why one author found took several years away from writing to be a teacher and school counselor and why another became inspired to write by a football coach who had agreed that he should give up the sport. These stories made me think about what I used to do, and why I simply didn't continue doing it after I started writing.

Since I'd read the Conroy essay and I've also read four of his books: The Lords of Discipline, The Prince of Tides, My Losing Season and South of Board, I bought his latest: My Reading Life.



In it he talks about the people and things that have influenced his writing: his mother, high school English teacher, fellow authors, a book list seller as well as Gone With The Wind, military life, and his favorite Atlanta bookstore. Conroy is one of my favorite writers. He tells an interesting story and I never feel that he is talking over my head. My Losing Season, in particular, helped motivate me to do a basketball story and I still have it on my shelves.

Like Conroy's novels, My Reading Life doesn't talk down to me; it makes a great author more human. Sometimes it's good to know the great ones have struggled with their work, that their lives are not always perfect. Writing can also be lonely. This book and Brewer's made me feel less alone.

Chris Christie takes frustrations out on suburban school superintendent

This week I've read a story on NJ.com that New Jersey governor Chris Christie criticized the new five year contract as well as the pay raise for a school district superintendent in Parsippany, a fairly well-to-do community in the northern part of our state. Reading the story as well as the comments I was curious about the unreported as well as the reported.

Governor Christie has proposed a cap on school superintendent salaries. A superintendent working in a small school district would earn a maximum of $125,000. A superintendent working in a large district would earn $175,000.

Who does this hurt? The superintendents who earn close to the cap. Those who earn more are grandfathered; their raises capped at two percent. Those who earn slightly less would not earn much more,unless they decided to work in another state. Those teachers and administrators who are considering pursuit of the doctorate in education, often a necessary credential to become a superintendent, will likely think twice if they have to pay for it.

I've never heard of a situation in New Jersey history where a governor deliberately tried to challenge home rule and set a salary cap on local public employees. I also do not know how he came up with the figures. Maybe he see some rising stars who are willing to work for what he's willing to see the school systems pay.

But read the comments and the story together. There is more to this than a superintendent and his salary package.

There is the issue of transparency. Presumably the school board tried to give the superintendent a raise without notifying the public. He was earning $212,000; the board tried to give him a $22,000 raise for the first year of a new five-year contract. Under Governor Christie's cap, he would have gotten slightly more than a $2,000 raise.

Transparency could have been brought out through better reporting. One thing we don't know: did this superintendent need to make major budget cuts for the upcoming school year? Were teachers released or programs eliminated? If yes, then the superintendent should have sacrificed, too. His raise should have been zero. Parents would be too angry to accept anything more.

Then there is the issue of performance. People who work in the private sector who manage staffs of comparable size and budget to the superintendent would earn far more money and they have incentives to earn even more. Superintendents of schools have contracts, but these have not been historically tied to performance objectives. The result: whenever a superintendent is released in the middle of a contract, the school board is on the hook for the full amount of the contract. They're essentially paying the terminated employee to look for a new job.

We don't know if there might have been performance clauses in the contract of the man in Parsippany. Chances are there were not. But the students might have performed well anyway--no failing schools, high SAT scores, and so on--so maybe this did not matter. Life was good, the board reasoned, so pay the man. But a $22,000 raise that is not tied to performance is excessive in these times.

What we do know is what Governor Christie did to this man. He cited him as an example of greed and wretched excess in a broken system--while traveling around the state to sell his proposals.

The governor called out this man in other towns,treating him as if he were a political enemy. After reading the comments, the school superintendent might have become Public Enemy Number One in his own town.

I realize times are difficult, I struggle, too. But politicians have been become too quick to blame public employees, among others, for the problems of our country and our state. The top brass make too much money, that's why we're having problems. As if lower wage, less qualified people might perform equally or better.

If the superintendent were dishonest that would be one thing--fire him. If the board tried to sneak in a raise while teachers, students and parents suffered, that's another--make the superintendent sacrifice, too. But Governor Christie should never have humiliated this man on the bully pulpit.

An unfair slap in Paul Robeson's face

Yesterday I had some downtime before a meeting at Rutgers, so I picked up a copy of the Daily Targum, the campus paper, to read while I grabbed a stromboli at Stuff Yer Face, an off-campus dining institution. One of the front page stories was a request by the president of the Rutgers-Camden College Republicans to remove Paul Robeson's name from the library.

The student believed that Rutgers should not name a campus building after, in his words, "an unabashed Communist, who despised the capitalism and liberty we are so fortunate to enjoy."

While neither the student nor the university plans to take further action, the story concerned me, since buildings are named after Robeson on all three Rutgers campuses: Camden, Newark and New Brunswick. Robeson is one of the university's most accomplished graduates.

A 1919 graduate of Rutgers, Paul Robeson was class valedictorian, a Phi Beta Kappa and one of the top college football players in the country. He was only the third black student to attend Rutgers, and the only one during his time on campus. After graduation he played professional football in the barnstorming years prior to the formation of the NFL and attended Columbia Law School.

Robeson was not long for the law. In the early 1920s he became a Broadway star and one of the most popular concert singers of the 1920's and 1930's. His “Othello” was the longest-running Shakespeare play in Broadway history, running for nearly three hundred performances.

Between the conclusion of World War I and the start of World War II, Robeson performed not only in the U.S., but also in the Soviet Union. While he faced racial discrimination as an attorney and entertainer in America, he did not face the same reactions abroad. While he advocated for more peaceful relations with the Russians, Robeson also argued passionately for civil rights at home. But as a result of his activism, his passport was revoked in 1950. It was reinstated in 1958.

It is interesting that his travel privileges were restored shortly after the death of his political nemesis, U.S. Senator Joe McCarthy. Robeson, like many other actors, had been called before McCarthy's committee on Un-American Activities to testify on his "radical" activism. Before then, due to anti-Communist sentiments in the country, his concerts had been cancelled in a number of cities. His earnings plummeted from an estimated $200,000 in 1945 to $15,000 in 1951.

This Rutgers student argued that Robeson was a Communist, but there has never been any proof that he was a card-carrying member of the Communist Party, nor that he advocated change in the structure of the U.S. government or the U.S. economy. But
Robeson did speak at Josef Stalin's funeral in 1953, so it was possible to draw a connection to Communism. However, until the later half of the 1960's, support for social equality, Robeson's major interest, was too often equated with support for a socialist political agenda.

Had Paul Robeson been white, I have no doubt that by 1960, a major New Jersey or New York theater would have been named after him, not to mention campus buildings. He was no less significant to the American stage than Helen Hayes. Only two years younger than Robeson, Hayes is regarded as the "First Lady of the American Theater." And like Robeson, Hayes spoke out against Nazism through the theater and performed for our troops during World War II.

I don't know when each of the campus buildings: the Robeson Library on the Camden campus; the Robeson Student Center on the Newark Campus, and the Robeson Cultural Center on the New Brunswick campus were dedicated, but my suspicion is that the honor came either very late in the man's life--Robeson died in 1976--or posthumously. At least Rutgers sought to honor him earlier than other institutions. He was not elected to the College Football Hall of Fame until 1995.

The last of a great Rutgers football team leave after this season

This is my fifth year as a Rutgers football season ticket holder. Prior to then I had no reason to have season tickets. The Scarlet Knights rarely drew well, even in winning seasons, and tickets were very easy to get. I used to live in Somerset, less than half an hour from the stadium. I would wait until the last minute to decide to go to the game, drive to the student center nearest to the stadium, park the car (for free), walk up to the ticket window, and buy a seat (ten to fifteen bucks).

This season I paid fifty dollars a game for my seat, plus twenty to park the car. I had to travel to the New Meadowlands Stadium for the Army game, so I took the bus, courtesy of the Rutgers Touchdown Club, for twenty five bucks, a bargain considering it costs twenty to park the car at the Meadowlands plus gas and tolls. I even won a prize in the raffle on the bus which sweetened the deal.

I've felt rewarded for the extra money I've spent on Rutgers football--until this season. Maybe I've been spoiled. The Scarlet Knights won 36 games during the first four years I had season tickets, including four bowl games. They never won the Big East, but they were competitive. The 2006 team, by far, was the best.

Curious, I took a look at the roster of the current team. Seven men from the 2006 team are still active, playing as fifth year seniors. Another player, Antonio Lowery, was listed on the 2006 roster, but he did not enroll until the following January.

One, Howard Barbieri, has the been an anchor of a rebuilt offensive line. He's had the pleasure of snapping in the shotgun to three different quarterbacks, one six-five, one six-two and one six-foot (and that might be exaggerated). Barbieri's a decent player, but high snaps have been a problem. So has pass protection, but I don't blame the center; the linebackers blitz from the left and right. Barbeiri was a walk-on to an awfully good team. He played scout team; they mimick the other team's offense for the first-string defense.

Another,Kordell Young, was a highly recruited running back from South Jersey. He came to Rutgers ranked as the seventh-best all-purpose back in the country. In 2006 he played in eleven games and caught a pass that set up the winning field goal against then-#2 Louisville. He missed most of 2007 and 2009 with knee injuries. In 2008 he took over for future NFL star Ray Rice and led the team in rushing while playing only eight games.

A third, Charlie Noonan, is a fan favorite. Playing nose tackle, he is the heart and soul of the defensive line, perhaps the strongest unit on the 2010 team. In 2006 he was redshirted after suffering a knee injury in practice. Like Barbieri, Noonan was a walk-on.

The seven '06ers are the last members of the best team in Rutgers football history. A look at the 2006 roster shows a backfield with a first round draft choice (Kenny Britt), two second rounders (Brian Leonard and Ray Rice) as well as a drafted quarterback who make an NFL roster (Mike Teel). Another wide receiver, Tiquan Underwood, was a seventh round pick. Two offensive linemen, Jeremy Zuttah and Cam Stephenson, were drafted, too. So was tight end Clark Harris.

On defense, Devin McCourty,a redshirt in '06, became a first round pick in '09. His brother Jason was drafted in the sixth round during the previous season, so was his teammate Courtney Green. Linebacker Ryan D'Imperio was a seventh rounder.

In addition to the twelve players who were drafted between 2007 and 2010, seventeen were offered free agent contracts.

Any team that can produce 29 NFL quality players is a great team. I know Rutgers fans will be sad to see the last members of this team leave after this season. If only they can go out on a high note in the remaining games this season.

A case against compulsory national service

The current issue of U.S. News features many stories about public service and volunteerism. This was quite fitting since last week Americans were asked to perform their most important obligation, to vote for the candidates of their choice.

One of the first features of this issue is a debate pro and con about the need for compulsory national service. This would entail a two-year obligation to serve in the military or in a civilian role, for example, as a member of AmeriCorps/VISTA, Teach for America or the Peace Corps. The pro argument suggested a lottery, much like President Richard Nixon instituted for the military draft.

The major arguments in favor of compulsory national service are that it reinforces the values of citizenship and that it brings people of different backgrounds together in camaraderie towards a common cause. I do not dispute either argument; history supports both of them. Compulsory service might also be a way to free up private sector employment opportunities for older unemployed workers in hard times.

While there would be costs associated with compulsory national service--more people would be on a public payroll--implementation may be not be terribly difficult. American men are required to register for military service once they reach eighteen. Registration could be extended to women and to civilian services. The government already has the experience of running a draft lottery.

Yet I have a very difficult time with the idea of compulsory service. The major reason is because it would bring in people who would be reluctant to serve.

An all-volunteer military is superior to a conscripted military because it attracts people who understand the risks. Those who volunteer, especially now, do so with the knowledge that they may be deployed into a battle zone. Military benefits, no matter how great, do not always compensate for loss of physical capablities, and certainly not for loss of life.

A conscripted force blends people who want to serve with people who don't, and that is dangerous. I would not want to serve with a soldier who would not want to watch my back, and I know that goes the same for practically anyone else.

With respect to civilian service, I'd see difficulties in classifying obligations. Programs such as AmeriCorps/VISTA, City Year and Teach for America are nationally respected public-private partnerships, but what is to say that an effective program run by a local organization such as the Harlem Children Zone, or a religious group is not?

Shouldn't we consider those who wish to serve a faith as public servants, too? Jesuit priests, as one example, take vows of limited income. However, Americans might prefer to avoid that debate to avoid recognizing some religious faiths over others.

There are many good community service programs as well as incentives such as college credit and loan forgiveness that have been developed and funded without the initial initiative of the federal government. College organizations such as church groups, fraternities and sororities have always run community service projects. Almost every two-year or four-year college in the country has a person who can hook up students and alumni with a volunteer opportunity in the campus community.

People lend their time to their church, their community, their schools and so on because they want to. No one is twisting their arm. A small group of enthusiastic volunteers will almost always do a better job than a blended group of committed and conscripted people. They do not need to tell each other to do their jobs.

Every candidate deserves a democratic election

Last week I went up to Western New York to help my brother, David, in his campaign to win a seat in the state Assembly. Sadly, he did not win, but this election was an example where winners and losers were declared without full benefit of the democratic process.

David's assembly district includes towns in three counties: Livingston, Monroe and Ontario. After noon on Election Day, problems in three Ontario County towns: Farmington, Manchester and Victor, were reported to the campaign.

Polling places in these towns were sent incorrect paper ballots which could not be scanned by the voting machines. Local news coverage added that Hopewell, another Ontario County town, had not received the correct ballots at the start of the day.

The county had recently switched from mechanical voting machines--remember the ones where you flip the levers?--to scannable paper ballots. The reason: the board of elections wanted a recorded vote for each and every voter in the event of a manual recount.

The process also allows a voter to correct mistakes before he submits his ballot; those ballots are labeled and filed as "spoiled." Election laws require the county to store the ballots for a minimum of ten years. A process that has become more automated in my New Jersey district--we use touch screens--became more Luddite, more low tech, in this part of upstate New York.

Correct ballots were delivered after noon time and the voting machines were reset to zero. Uncounted ballots were placed in locked boxes and sent to the county Board of Elections to be counted manually. The volunteers who man the polls were required to follow an elaborate set of security procedures before placing the ballots in the lock box. They also had to report the totals counted by the voting machines and certify them.

David's campaign sent me to a polling place in Victor to be a poll watcher, an observer, to record the totals counted by the machine and report them to the campaign and to observe the placement of the uncounted ballots into their lock boxes. I was asked to wait until the state troopers came to get the ballots as well as the voting machines. The polls closed at nine o' clock PM. By eleven PM the state troopers had not arrived.

This polling place was also the Victor Town Court, and the judge was not happy. He had been on site during the evening to help set up the court room to receive voters and he had been looking forward to locking up the place and going home. He had gone home, then he had returned to check on me and the two volunteers, one Democrat, one Republican, who were waiting for the state troopers to arrive. Angry, he called the county sheriff, who sent over a deputy to get the ballots and the machines.

The pick-up and delivery of the ballots was never reported to the news media, though my brother was declared the loser of his race on the New York election news shortly after midnight.

To his credit, David refused to concede the race until all of the votes could be counted. Not that he expected the outcome to change; it was only fair that the people who voted for him and his Ontario County supporters know that their vote was counted and recorded. The County released their unofficial election results two days later. In the meantime, my brother's opponent had acknowledged himself as the winner the day before.

Democratic free elections are a source of common ground between our two major parties; at least they are supposed to be. At the very least the media should never declare an electoral race over until it is officially over. The winner deserves to know how well he truly did, the loser should learn where he got all of his support. They are both entitled to the democratic process.