Friday, June 22, 2007

Roses in New York City


Romancing the Rose in Its Infinite Splendor

Michael Falco for The New York Times

It is Rose Month at the New York Botanical Garden in the Bronx where the rose garden has reopened after a comprehensive $2.5 million renovation.


Published: June 22, 2007

AS they always have — and absolutely must — during Rose Month at the New York Botanical Garden in the Bronx, fanciers of the queen of flowers will stop, stoop and smell the roses, inhaling the splendor of the Peggy Rockefeller Rose Garden throughout the month of June. But this year visitors will discover a 1.04-acre garden that has been redefined. After undergoing a comprehensive, six-month, $2.5 million refurbishing, the rose garden is presenting its largest and most varied collection ever: 3,373 plants in 621 varieties.


Related

Renewed to Keep the Bloom on the Rose (June 22, 2007)

Michael Falco for the New York Times

A Memorial Day rose with a visitor at the Peggy Rockefeller Rose Garden at the Botanical Garden.

Michael Falco for The New York Times

In the garden: Some rose varieties have been culled and others added.

Michael Falco for the New York Times

Among the 621 varieties of roses featured in more than 3,000 plants in 83 beds is Rosa Mardi Gras, above.

Michael Falco for the New York Times

“What you love about roses, aside from their beauty,” says Peter E. Kukielski, self-described “rose geek” and curator of the garden’s rose collections, “is their names and their stories. It’s fun to personify them.”

As rose lovers visit individually or in groups of “rose friends,” they will find that the garden’s 83 beds, radiating from its central gazebo, have been reorganized and repopulated. New walkways, railings, permanent signs and other embellishments have been installed, in addition to extensive, if often invisible, infrastructure improvements that are intended to ensure that the future of the garden is comfortably rosy.

This weekend there is a busy roster of rose-related tours led by experts, question-and-answer sessions with the garden staff and home-gardening demonstrations. (See accompanying box.) But now, beyond this, the collection itself, the tapestry woven of the garden’s grand inventory, has more big blocks of color. Reds and pinks and whites and oranges and butter yellows fill the garden’s irregular triangular lot, with its planting area of 19,288 square feet. And visitors will encounter a more chronological presentation of the garden’s roses as well.

“We needed to expand the collection to keep up with rose hybridizers and to rationalize our heritage collection,” said Gregory Long, president of the mile-long, 250-acre Botanical Garden, a national historic landmark where roses have been grown since 1790.

A year ago the Botanical Garden brought in a rosarian, or cultivator of roses, from Atlanta, Peter E. Kukielski, whose formal title is curator of the Botanical Garden’s rose collections. He culled 400 of some 2,000 plants, those he deemed underperforming and unsuited to the location; then he added 1,703 new plants.

The setting of the rose garden, to the southeast in the Botanical Garden where it is bordered by the Bronx River Parkway, is a natural bowl just down the hill from the picturesque Stone Cottage, which dates to the mid-19th century, when the surrounding land was part of the Lorillard estate. The slopes of its margins are punctuated by weathered outcrops of Fordham gneiss.

There in 1916, at what is believed to have been the site of a Lorillard garden and pond, the current rose garden was planned, along with its fencing and gazebo, by Beatrix Jones Farrand, a niece of Edith Wharton and the most fashionable landscape designer of her era, Mr. Long said.

But the rose plantings established there were a stepchild of the Botanical Garden for decades, and the rose garden offered few amenities, since the plot was three-quarters of a mile, and a 15-minute walk, from the visitor hubbub near the Enid Haupt Conservatory. Now the garden’s trams make the 13-minute trip from the new visitors center every 10 minutes on weekends.

Video

More Video »

In the 1980s David Rockefeller donated $1 million in the memory of his wife, Peggy, to renovate the rose garden, creating new gates, fencing, walkways and a gazebo, all following the Farrand plan; it opened to the public in 1988.

Now the gazebo and iron lattice fencing have been refurbished and repainted. (The fence is considerably more than ornamental, since it discourages the Botanical Garden’s omnivorous rabbit population, which yearns for rose roots.)

The renovation has also brought the installation of large new decorative medallions of Hudson Valley bluestone at the main western entranceway, and new bluestone border pathways that now augment the crunchy gray stone-dust walks that were the signature of the previous garden. There are also new iron railings and boxwood borders by the main granite staircase to the west.

A sophisticated system of automated irrigation has been installed to keep the flowers watered on hot summer days. The drainage system needed drastic improvement as well, since in severe storms the garden “could be underwater,” Mr. Kukielski said. “Ducks used to swim among the roses,” he added.

For the first time each of the rose garden’s three entrances has its own welcoming garden: pinks and whites at the north, purples and oranges at the south and reds and apricots at the main western entrance.

The four tree roses at the north entrance, a variety named Pillow Fight — their hue is an appropriately fluffy white — are flanked by new varieties like Mystic Beauty and Borderer.

Pillow Fight, Mr. Kukielski explained during a tour on a recent afternoon, is a rare seedling of a hybrid called Gourmet Popcorn, and in the garden the miniature flowers of these white roses have been situated next to their Pillow Fight offspring “because we wanted to tell that story,” he said.

The tree-rose stars of the south entrance are four examples of a new variety called Burgundy Iceberg, a floribunda the color of Burgundy wine.

The main entrance too features some new celebrities: four newly introduced tree roses called Home Run, surrounded by apricots and reds that include Soft Morning and Sans Souci.

Mr. Kukielski said he hoped that the garden could now serve as a living encyclopedia of historic and modern roses. Therefore the eastern border of the garden is now a chronology of cultivation, the garden’s heritage rose collection of varieties — stretching from north to south — that existed generally before 1867, when the first hybrid tea rose, La France, was created. Though there are classic roses in other sections of the garden, they will be consolidated at the eastern margin during the next year.

To the north are species roses, those wild plants that evolved under natural selection. And a group of Rosa gallicas, the first hybridized class of roses, has been moved to the heritage bed, including varieties like Charles de Mills, introduced about 1790, and Cardinal de Richelieu, introduced about 1845.

The library of rose classics also includes damasks, albas, centifolias, China roses, moss roses, Portlands, Bourbons and hybrid perpetuals.

A first for the garden is the display of its collection of Barni roses from Italy, which combine the scent and shape of old roses with the vigor and repeat-flowering penchant of modern hybrids. The Barnis are new to the American rose scene, Mr. Kukielski said, and include exquisitely hued Rita Levis, Montalcinis and Silvina Donvitos.

Also on view is a new collection of Kordes roses from Germany. They are not only fragrant and beautiful, Mr. Kukielski said, but disease resistant as well, requiring no fungicides.

“What you love about roses, aside from their beauty,” he said, “is their names and their stories. It’s fun to personify them.” One example is Elizabeth Taylor — a deep pink hybrid tea rose — planted in the garden next to Julia Child, a butter yellow floribunda. Julia is adjacent to Betty Boop, a white-pink floribunda.

“The right plant in the right place can tell a story worthy of a novel,” Mr. Kukielski added. He offered as an example a plant called Peggy Martin Survivor, a vivid pink cutting from a New Orleans rose fancier’s important backyard collection. Though 450 of Ms. Martin’s heirloom plants were washed away during Hurricane Katrina, the Survivor was the lone rose to bloom again after the waters subsided.

A ruddy, sturdy, self-described “rose geek,” Mr. Kukielski, 41, said of roses on a recent afternoon that “they like to eat a lot and drink a lot, and I do too, so we get along very well together.”

Before joining the Botanical Garden last year, Mr. Kukielski — pronounced koo-KEL-ski — ran his own Atlanta-based company, the Rose Petaler Inc., creating estate rose collections.

A native Nebraskan who came to Atlanta at 5 and grew up there, Mr. Kukielski developed his love of roses from his mother, Elizabeth, and by working in the garden with his grandmother, Helen Gillen.

How did he become a rose geek? “They catch your soul,” he said. “The color, the scent, the uniqueness of them.”

And when people ask him what his favorite rose is, he tells them, “Whatever is blooming that day.”


What's On My Other Blogs today: (click blog name to go there) = / 1.3rd Eye Blog / 2. Favorites Blog/ 3. Vita Excolatur (Living Well ...) Blog/ 4. Humor Me Blog/ 5. News and Current Events Blog/ 6. Consider This ... Blog/ 7. Consumer Warnings Blog/ 8. New Orleans Pentimento Blog/ 9. We Constant Gardeners Blog/ 10. Chaillot Family Blog/

Thursday, June 21, 2007

Birds & Us


Editorial Observer

Millions of Missing Birds, Vanishing in Plain Sight

Published: June 19, 2007

Last week, the Audubon Society released a new report describing the sharp and startling population decline of some of the most familiar and common birds in America: several kinds of sparrows, the Northern bobwhite, the Eastern meadowlark, the common grackle and the common tern. The average decline of the 20 species in the Audubon Society’s report is 68 percent.

Forty years ago, there were an estimated 31 million bobwhites. Now there are 5.5 million. Compared to the hundred-some condors presently in the wild, 5.5 million bobwhites sounds like a lot of birds. But what matters is the 25.5 million missing and the troubles that brought them down — and are all too likely to bring down the rest of them, too. So this is not extinction, but it is how things look before extinction happens.

The word “extinct” somehow brings to mind the birds that seem like special cases to us, the dodo or the great auk or the passenger pigeon. Most people would never have had a chance to see dodos and great auks on their remote islands before they were decimated in the 17th and 19th centuries. What is hard to remember about passenger pigeons isn’t merely their once enormous numbers. It’s the enormous numbers of humans to whom their comings and goings were a common sight and who supposed, erroneously, that such unending clouds of birds were indestructible. We recognize the extraordinary distinctness of the passenger pigeon now because we know its fate, killed off largely by humans. But we have moralized it thoroughly without ever really taking it to heart.

The question is whether we will see the distinctness of the field sparrow — its number is down from 18 million 40 years ago to 5.8 million — only when the last pair is being kept alive in a zoo somewhere. We love to finally care when the death watch is on. It makes us feel so very human.

Like you, I’ve been reading dire reports of declining species for many years now. They have the value of causing us to pay attention to species in trouble, and the sad fact is that the only species likely to endure are the ones we humans manage to pay attention to. There was a time when it was better, if you were a nonhuman species, to be ignored by humans because we trapped, shot or otherwise exploited all of the ones that got our attention. But in the past 40 years, we have killed all those millions of birds or, let us say, unintentionally caused a dramatic population loss, simply by going about business as usual.

Agriculture has intensified. So has development. Open space has been sharply reduced. We have simply pursued our livelihoods. We knew it was inimical to wolves and mountain lions. But we somehow trusted that all the innocent little birds were here to stay. What they actually need to survive, it turns out, is a landscape that is less intensely human.

The Audubon Society portrait of common bird species in decline is really a report on who humans are. Let me offer a proposition about Homo sapiens. We are the only species on earth capable of an ethical awareness of other species and, thus, the only species capable of happily ignoring that awareness. So far, our economic interests have proved to be completely incompatible with all but a very few forms of life. It’s not that we believe that other species don’t matter. It’s that, historically speaking, it hasn’t been worth believing one way or another. I don’t suppose that most Americans would actively kill a whippoorwill if they had the chance. Yet in the past 40 years its number has dropped by 1.6 million.

In our everyday economic behavior, we seem determined to discover whether we can live alone on earth. E.O. Wilson has argued eloquently and persuasively that we cannot, that who we are depends as much on the richness and diversity of the biological life around us as it does on any inherent quality in our genes. Environmentalists of every stripe argue that we must somehow begin to correlate our economic behavior — by which I mean every aspect of it: production, consumption, habitation — with the welfare of other species.

This is the premise of sustainability. But the very foundation of our economic interests is self-interest, and in the survival of other species we see way too little self to care.

The trouble with humans is that even the smallest changes in our behavior require an epiphany. And yet compared to the fixity of other species, the narrowness of their habitats, the strictness of their diets, the precision of the niches they occupy, we are flexibility itself.

We look around us, expecting the rest of the world’s occupants to adapt to the changes that we have caused, when, in fact, we have the right to expect adaptation only from ourselves.



What's On My Other Blogs today: (click blog name to go there) = / 1.3rd Eye Blog / 2. Favorites Blog/ 3. Vita Excolatur (Living Well ...) Blog/ 4. Humor Me Blog/ 5. News and Current Events Blog/ 6. Consider This ... Blog/ 7. Consumer Warnings Blog/ 8. New Orleans Pentimento Blog/ 9. We Constant Gardeners Blog/ 10. Chaillot Family Blog/

Friday, June 15, 2007

Gardening Coaches

Plant! Water! Weed!

Gary Hallgren
Published: June 15, 2007

SINCE the early 1980s, when Arlene Kagle bought a weekend home with her husband in Stanfordville, N.Y., and began gardening, her flower beds have gone through more phases than the moon. “Things went from looking glorious to too many coreopsis to none, and from no black-eyed Susans to endless mounds,” said Dr. Kagle, a psychologist in private practice in New York and Dutchess County.

Skip to next paragraph
Jamie Rose for The New York Times

Arlene Kagle with her coach, Tim Steinhoff, in Stanfordville, N.Y.

Jamie Rose for The New York Times

A client’s garden tools, like Ms. Meek’s, give coaches insight.

Jamie Rose for The New York Times

Susan Harris gives a pointer to Kay Meek in Maryland.

Then early last summer, to prepare for a 25th anniversary party, Dr. Kagle planted everything she could find that would bloom between June 15 and June 25, the day of the event, and then gave the garden the back of her hand in July and August. Needless to say, it was not a pretty sight by Labor Day.

“This year, I decided I needed either to burn it all down and start over or find someone to give me some perspective,” Dr. Kagle said. “I’m an old hand, but I needed a fresh eye.”

One option would have been to hire a landscape architect — someone who would have done all the rethinking and the replanting, leaving Dr. Kagle’s involvement to that of remitting a big payment. Instead, she chose to call Tim Steinhoff, a Germantown “gardening coach.” A new addition to the landscape, gardening coaches — or gardening mentors as they are sometimes called — are the personal trainers of the prune-and-plant set.

Their target audience — do-it-yourselfers in search of enlightenment — occupies a middle ground between the people who simply sit back and watch, while others do the planting and mulching, and amateur plant killers whose gardening strategy can best be summed up as trowel and error.

“Arlene knows what she likes, and she also knows that what she’s done could be better,” Mr. Steinhoff said of Dr. Kagle. “But she doesn’t know how to get there.” To help get her there, he’s recommended a carefully chosen selection of peonies that will keep the garden interesting from April to June, early-flowering annuals (like larkspur) and some later-flowering shrubs (like Japanese snowbells). Next up: frikartii, rudbeckia and nearly constantly blooming shrubs like Daphne transatlantica, with certain varieties of salvia carrying through till first frost.

People who have moved from a city apartment to a suburban home with an established garden, those who have just bought a weekend getaway and now have some acreage but don’t have a clue — Mr. Steinhoff has counted all of them as clients, along with aging baby boomers looking to simplify. “They may have gardened with what I call upholstered plants — annuals and perennials,” he said. “Now, they still want to garden, but they don’t want it to take up so much of their time, so they want to know how to modify their landscape.” The answer is to plant shrubs and small trees.

“Part of the problem is that there’s an excess of information out there, the Internet, catalogs, books and magazines,” Mr. Steinhoff said. “How do you winnow?

“I tell people none of this is magic,” he continued. “I don’t hold any secrets. My whole point in coaching people is giving them information and knowledge they can act on. It’s essentially an extended conversation.”

If life coaches help clients cultivate strategies to realize personal and professional goals, gardening coaches work similar terrain. “I think we give people a hand in setting realistic targets, helping them understand what is achievable and what is not,” said Robin Haglund, owner of Garden Mentors, in Seattle, and until recently a coach with Exteriorscapes, also in Seattle.

“I see so many people who have pie-in-the-sky visions of what they can accomplish,” Ms. Haglund said. Such people want to put in new trees and a patio and a fence all at once. “Putting in a patio is something they can do — but is it something they want to do if they travel a lot or if this is their weekend home. We help them develop a skill set like learning how to prune and how to tackle things in bite-size chunks.”

KRISSY MAYER, a garden coach at Natorp’s Garden Stores in Mason, Ohio, also deals with the overambitious. People who don’t know one end of a hoe from the other “suddenly think they’re going to make an intense life change like they’re going to be in their garden from morning until night every Saturday and every Sunday. I give them a scale of things that are 1, 2 or 3 in importance.”

Depending on their arrangement with a client, coaches may come on site only once, perhaps once a season or once a year, or simply serve as docents at the local nursery to help clients make appropriate plant choices. Fees are generally $65 to $100 an hour.

For a client in the Washington area who had a summer home in Martha’s Vineyard, for example, Susan Harris, a gardening coach from Takoma Park, Md., would suggest spring- and fall-blooming plants for the primary residence.

According to Sara Begg, the executive editor of Horticulture magazine, the emergence of coaches may have something to do with an increased interest in gardening as a hobby among the 30-something crowd — and an utter lack of grounding in it: “While I learned gardening from my mother and grandmother, I don’t know these days if most people have that training passed down.

“They want to learn from someone because they’re afraid to take the risk of doing it themselves, spending all that money for plants and watching them die.”

Ms. Haglund sends prospective clients a worksheet so she can get a sense of their skill level. On her first visit, she always walks the property with them, giving a botany tutorial along the way, and asks to check out their gardening implements so she can learn something about how they’ve worked in the past. “A lot of people don’t know about garden forks that help with hand weeding,” she said.

One thing Ms. Haglund has found “is that people will clean up their garden before I come because they’re embarrassed about how it looks. But I really need to see things in their natural state.”

The need for a coach became clear to Candis Litsey when her husband announced that he did not wish to mow the lawn at their main residence in Seattle (the couple also has a weekend home in Hansville, Wash.) O.K., so the lawn would go. But what was going to replace it? “We knew we needed a mentor,” said Ms. Litsey, a homemaker, who called Ms. Haglund, then at Exteriorscapes. “She had a great questionnaire asking what kind of gardening we wanted to take on, how much time we wanted to devote to it. It really focused us.” Ms. Litsey has two triangular chunks of land, each about 1,500 square feet, and another 800-square-foot section.

The result of the focus: Exteriorscapes took on the planting in one of the large beds; Ms. Litsey, with guidance from Ms. Haglund, took over the other one. So far, she has planted some ground cover and some annuals, built a trellis and taken a stab at pruning an apple tree. “I did a quarter of it and had Robin come back to check on my work,” Ms. Litsey said. “She told me I had cut back too much but that I was right to tie the sagging branches.” She said that thanks to her garden coach, she feels more comfortable about shifting plants around the garden and is coming up with better questions at the nursery. “Instead of being seduced by color or scent, I’m asking whether it’s appropriate for the terrain.”

WHILE Susan Harris is called on to deal with issues like soil conditions and basic plant identification, she sometimes finds herself more referee than coach. “I’ve had people call me to settle an argument with their spouse,” she said. “One wants to get rid of the lawn and one doesn’t. Somebody wants to go all native, and they want to do it in a sunny spot, which in this area isn’t practical.”

And sometimes, Ms. Harris and other gardening coaches are asked to be parent figures. “We had a very sticky bush, an Oregon grape, which we bought to keep a little neighbor boy from running through our flower bed 35 years ago,” said Kay Meek, a retired teacher in Silver Spring, Md. The bush had outgrown the bed and, Ms. Meek noted, was beautiful only once a year. “Susan just said, ‘You don’t like it. It doesn’t look good there. Take it out,’ ” she said, referring to Ms. Harris. “She gave me the courage to move it. She gave me permission.

“You can read gardening books,” Ms. Meek added, “but unlike a coach they don’t pat you on the back and say, ‘Go ahead and do it.’ ”



What's On My Other Blogs today: (click blog name to go there) = / 1.3rd Eye Blog / 2. Favorites Blog/ 3. Vita Excolatur (Living Well ...) Blog/ 4. Humor Me Blog/ 5. News and Current Events Blog/ 6. Consider This ... Blog/ 7. Consumer Warnings Blog/ 8. New Orleans Pentimento Blog/ 9. We Constant Gardeners Blog/ 10. Chaillot Family Blog/

Sunday, June 10, 2007

Class Consciousness

The Class-Consciousness Raiser

Published: June 10, 2007

By the time Ruby Payne sat down for lunch, she had been at it for three hours straight, standing alone behind a lectern on a wide stage in a cavernous convention hall, parked between two American flags, instructing an audience of 1,400 Georgians in the hidden rules of class. No notes, no warm-up act, just Ruby, with her Midwestern-by-way-of-East-Texas drawl and her crisp white shirt, her pinstriped business suit and bright red lipstick and blow-dried blond hair, a wireless microphone hooked around her right ear. She had already explained why rich people don’t eat casseroles, why poor people hang their pictures high up on the wall, why middle-class people pretend to like people they can’t stand. She had gone through the difference between generational poverty and situational poverty and the difference between new money and old money, and she had done a riff on how middle-class people are so self-satisfied that they think everyone wants to be middle class.

For the Glynn County Board of Education, Payne’s visit was a big deal. It was back in 2005 that Marjorie Varnadoe, the board’s director of professional development, called to request a presentation from Payne, and this particular Thursday, two years later, was the earliest available date. Principals had ordered Payne’s books and DVDs by the boxload, mostly her ur-text, “A Framework for Understanding Poverty,” and they made the books required reading for their staffs. All over the county, which is on the coast, down near the Florida border, schools held small workshops on class and education, using Payne’s “Framework” as a guide, and teachers sat down together for informal discussions and lunchroom chats about poverty and wealth. When the big day came, the entire school system was given the day off, and by 8 a.m. almost every single teacher and administrator in the county was packed into the Jekyll Island Conference Center, along with the school board, the Chamber of Commerce and various local dignitaries.

The morning went well. Payne, who is 56, has been giving this presentation for more than 10 years, and she knows how to work it: alternating a funny story with a sad one, mixing anecdotes from her own teaching career with references to the work of learned academics, never lecturing or preaching, keeping up a steady stream of one-liners. At 10 a.m., there was a 15-minute break, but not for Payne. A line quickly formed in front of her, and she sat on the lip of the stage, leaning on one arm, her legs tucked beneath her, signing books and listening attentively as one audience member after another told her their own stories about class and education and, usually, how her books had helped them understand their students and themselves. A few of the teachers hugged Payne. One woman kissed her hand. Another burst into tears.

And now it was time for lunch, fried chicken and sweet iced tea and white sheet cake for 1,400, served in a second giant conference hall just across the atrium from the first. Payne sat in the middle of a small circle of admirers; across the table was Charlotte Lawson, an instructional coach at a local elementary school. Lawson was a veteran of the Ruby Payne system, a graduate of a four-day in-depth certification course that authorized her to train other teachers in the basics of Payne’s framework. But she had never met Payne one on one like this, and she was gushing. “I’m so excited,” she said. “This is like a dream.”

Payne laughed a friendly laugh.

“I’ve shared so much of the training here,” Lawson said. “People are always telling me, ‘It makes all the pieces fit together.’ When you work with children and families from poverty, you don’t understand it till you hear this piece, and then all of a sudden you’re going, ‘Oh, that’s why they did that.’ ”

At the heart of Payne’s philosophy is a one-page chart, titled “Hidden Rules Among Classes,” which appears in most of her books. There are three columns, for poverty, middle class and wealth, and 15 rows, covering everything from time to love to money to language. In a few words, Payne explains how each class sees each concept. Humor in poverty? About people and sex. In the middle class? About situations. In wealth? About social faux pas. In poverty, the present is most important. In the middle class, it’s the future. In wealth, it’s the past. The key question about food in poverty: Did you have enough? In the middle class: Did you like it? In wealth: Was it presented well?

It may be that the only people with abiding faith in the power of class divisions in America are the country’s few remaining Marxists and Ruby Payne. And while Payne may not believe in class struggle, per se, she does believe that there is widespread misunderstanding among the classes — and more than ever, she says, the class that bears the cost of that misunderstanding is the poor. In schools, particularly, where poor students often find themselves assigned to middle-class teachers, class cluelessness is rampant.

Your class, Payne says, determines everything: your eating habits, your speech patterns, your family relations. It is possible to move out of the class you were born into, either up or down, she says, but the transition almost always means a great disruption to your sense of self. And you can ascend the class ladder only if you are willing to sacrifice many of your relationships and most of your values — and only if you first devote yourself to careful study of the hidden rules of the class you hope to enter.

Payne’s critics say she is oversimplifying the complexities of poverty in the United States, perpetuating offensive stereotypes of irresponsible, disorganized poor people who play the TV too loud and like to solve disputes with their fists. Payne is quick to caution that her portrait is a general one. She would be “heartsick,” she said on stage, “if anyone used this information to stereotype.” But she also says that if teachers and other professionals don’t look below the surface of class — if they don’t make an effort to understand the habits and styles and traditions that persist in many poor families — they will never be able to recognize the deep obstacles that poor people, and especially poor children, often face.

Payne’s journey into class consciousness began more than 30 years ago, when she met Frank, the man who would become her husband. Ruby was raised in a middle-class Mennonite family in Ohio, while Frank grew up in extreme poverty in Goshen, Ind. As Ruby began to spend time in Frank’s impoverished neighborhood, she realized that she didn’t understand the first thing about the lives of the people who lived there — and they didn’t get her, either. Frank’s friends were appalled that Ruby didn’t know how to defend herself in a fight; Ruby was stunned that her neighbors would regularly get paid on Friday and, after a weekend of carousing, be broke by Monday.

As Payne studied her new surroundings, she came to appreciate more subtle nuances of class division. She realized that her husband’s family’s poverty was what she would later come to call “situational”: they had been middle class until Frank’s father died when Frank was 6, and only then had they slipped down to the economy’s bottom rung. Most of their neighbors, by contrast, were in “generational poverty,” meaning their families had been poor for as long as anyone could remember. Each group, she discovered, had its own distinct set of beliefs and customs.

Payne’s next lesson came when her husband took a job on the floor of the Chicago Board of Trade. He wasn’t rich, but he was now spending his work life with men who were, which meant that Ruby was expected to socialize with their wives. She didn’t fit in with the rich any better than she had fit in with the poor. More miscommunications and social awkwardness ensued, generating more fodder for Payne’s growing understanding of class difference.

Payne wasn’t quite sure what to do with this new knowledge. As her career in education developed, from teacher to principal to administrator, she found that her understanding of class came in handy. Because of her exposure to her husband’s family and neighbors, it seemed, she was better able to communicate with poor students than most other middle-class teachers. Her colleagues began to ask her for help and advice on dealing with their most troubling students, and Payne worked up an informal set of strategies and tips that she would pass along.

Then in 1993, after moving to Texas, Payne read a book that had a profound effect on her: “Creating Money,” a New Age-infused guide to “the spiritual laws of money.” It’s an odd book, ostensibly dictated to the authors by two “spirit guides” named Orin and DaBen. But Payne was inspired. “The book said, Make a list of what you want in your life and ask the universe to bring it to you,” she told me. “So I did. I wrote: ‘I want a life without financial constraints. I want a life without institutional constraints. And I want to make a difference with children.’ And it happened!”

Payne began to give talks on class for small groups of teachers, and they were a hit. Word spread. Soon she was addressing audiences all across the Texas school district where she worked. Over spring break in 1995, she banged out a manuscript based on her ideas and quickly published it herself. This was “A Framework for Understanding Poverty,” which, she says, has gone on to sell more than a million copies. As Payne’s following grew, she quit her job and became a full-time speaker, author and trainer.

She now owns and runs her own business, called aha! Process, Inc.; it has more than 50 trainers on contract and accrues millions of dollars in annual revenues. Ruby Payne has become a small industry: her company offers training sessions, workshops, DVDs, audiotapes, T-shirts, autographed Ruby Payne coffee mugs and lots and lots of books: a book about the hidden rules of class in the workplace, a workbook to help people in poverty learn the rules to pull themselves out, a Spanish translation of “A Framework for Understanding Poverty.” In “What Every Church Member Should Know About Poverty,” which Payne wrote with Bill Ehlig, a minister in Baytown, Tex., she not only urges middle-class and wealthy churches to welcome poor parishioners in the door but she also lays out the extra steps they need to take to make the newcomers feel at home. In “Crossing the Tracks for Love,” Payne takes on romance, offering advice for those who enter into a relationship with a person from another class. It’s not easy, Payne cautions: everything from disciplining children to interior decoration is a potential flashpoint for a class-based quarrel. So she provides tips:

“If you’re from middle class and marry or otherwise move into poverty, understand the need of your spouse/partner to protect you,” she writes. “You are his/her possession. Try to see the positives in this.”

And later: “If you come from a middle-class background and marry into wealth . . . learn about extended silverware and silver settings and the different pieces of crystal used to drink different beverages — and take cooking classes. Never, but never, make fun of yourself as a deficient cook. Be extremely knowledgeable about wine.”

In “Crossing the Tracks,” as in all of her work, Payne emphasizes that she is not making value judgments about the relative merits of the different classes; she’s just explaining how they work. “I’m not interested in changing your behavior or the behavior of your spouse or significant other,” she writes. “My only goal is to provide you with options — and awareness. When you know the hidden rules, you have more choices. You can choose whether or not you want to alter your behavior or embrace a different way of doing things. But unless you’re informed, you won’t get the opportunity to decide.”

Despite Payne’s counsel, the reality is that in the nation’s bedrooms and churches, bridges across the class divide are increasingly rare: most Americans worship with and marry people who are just like them. In public schools, though, class divisions are a frequent part of daily existence, sometimes within the student body but also, and more significant, between teachers and students.

The passage of the No Child Left Behind law in 2002 brought a new urgency to the issue of poverty in the classroom. For the first time, schools were required not only to report their overall test results but also to calculate the scores for various “subgroups,” including racial minorities, students for whom English is a second language and students whose parents’ income is low enough to qualify them for a free or reduced-price lunch. It soon became impossible to ignore that there was a problem: poor students were scoring well behind their wealthier peers. And schools suddenly had a powerful incentive to try to address that disparity. Even otherwise well-performing schools could be labeled failures if their poor students weren’t catching up.

Payne believes that teachers can’t help their poor students unless they first understand them, and that means understanding the hidden rules of poverty. The second step, Payne says, is to teach poor students explicitly about the hidden rules of the middle class. She emphasizes that the goal should not be to change students’ behavior outside of school: you don’t teach your students never to fight if fighting is an important survival skill in the housing project where they live. But you do tell them that in order to succeed at school or later on in a white-collar job, they need to master certain skills: how to speak in “formal register,” how to restrain themselves from physical retaliation, how to keep a schedule, how to exist in what Payne calls the “abstract world of paper.”

At the Jekyll Island seminar, I met Steve Kipp, a science teacher at Brunswick High with a ponytail and a jumpy, eager energy. He looked as if he might be the kind of guy whom the other teachers would call when they couldn’t get their computers to work right. Kipp sat in the front row, dead center, and at the break he was the first person to come up and ask Payne for advice.

In 10th grade at Brunswick High, Kipp told me later, the advanced students usually take chemistry, and the other students, the ones who are more likely to wind up in technical college, take Kipp’s class, which is called General Physical Science. And each year it’s the same, Kipp said: the rich and middle-class kids are tracked into chemistry, and he gets the kids from poverty. Kipp grew up in the middle class, and in the past, he said, before he read Payne’s book, he would get frustrated by his poor students. They seemed unwilling or unable to learn; they laughed when he tried to mete out discipline. And so he found it hard to keep exerting himself. What was the point in teaching them, he thought, if they weren’t going to make an effort?

But after he immersed himself in Payne’s work, about five years ago, Kipp’s ideas changed. “I realized, these kids aren’t dumb,” he said. “They just haven’t had the enriching experiences that I had growing up.” So he pushes himself harder now to provide more experiments in the classroom, more hands-on learning to help his students develop the same kind of instinctive understanding of nature that he got running around in the woods as a boy.

Payne’s work in the schools has attracted a growing chorus of criticism, mostly from academia. Although Payne says that her only goal is to help poor students, her critics claim that her work is in fact an assault on those students. By teaching them middle-class practices, critics say, she is engaging in “classism” and racism. Her work is “riddled with factual inaccuracies and harmful stereotypes,” charges Anita Bohn, an assistant professor at Illinois State University, in a paper on Payne’s work. Paul Gorski, an assistant professor at Hamline University in St. Paul, writes that Payne’s central text “consists, at the crudest level, of a stream of stereotypes and a suggestion that we address poverty and education by ‘fixing’ poor people instead of reforming classist policies and practices.” (“LeftyHenry,” a recent poster on a political blog, was less subtle in his criticism; he called Payne “the Hitler of American academics.”)

Payne’s critics seem less aggrieved by what she includes in her analysis than by what they say she has left out: an acknowledgment that the American economy and American schools systematically discriminate against poor people. In this way, Payne finds herself in the middle of one of the central debates about poverty today. On one side are those, like Payne, who believe that poor people share certain habits and behaviors that help keep them in poverty. Recognizing and changing those behaviors, Payne and those who share her views believe, will help poor people to succeed. On the other side are those like Payne’s critics, who think that the game is so thoroughly fixed that most poor people can’t succeed no matter what they do. To them, locating any of the causes of persistent poverty among poor people themselves is, in effect, blaming the victim.

Academics in the latter group can’t stand Payne. And academics in the former group find it hard to defend her. There are plenty of sociologists, psychologists and economists who have reached conclusions similar to Payne’s: poor parents are more inclined to use corporal punishment; poor students are more eager to work hard in a teacher’s class when they feel a personal relationship with a teacher; poor homes are more often chaotic and loud. The problem is Payne’s methodology, or rather her lack of one. She does have a Ph.D. in social policy, and her book does have a few pages of footnotes. Her seminars include occasional references to popular scholarly works of sociology and history, like Robert Putnam’s “Bowling Alone” and Jared Diamond’s “Guns, Germs and Steel.” But clearly, Payne’s preferred unit of research is the anecdote. Her talks are nothing like university lectures. They’re a blend of cracker-barrel wisdom, Tony Robbins-style motivational speaking and a Chris Rock comedy routine. And that means that among academics in good standing, saying something nice about Ruby Payne is a good way to invite the disapproval of your peers.

You would think that Payne wouldn’t fret about a few angry assistant professors whose collective audience is a tiny fraction of the size of hers. But somehow, like gnats at a backyard barbecue, they drive her to distraction. Each time a progressive education journal publishes a detailed Foucauldian critique of her book (which she wrote, don’t forget, in a single week), Payne feels compelled to write in with a paragraph or two in her own defense. It doesn’t work, of course; the author invariably blasts back with another extended volley of withering scorn. In the pages of the Teachers College Record, the rich blond-haired white lady from Corpus Christi is never going to come out ahead.

Still, Payne won’t give up. She told me that she plans to spend a good part of this summer bolstering the scholarship behind her work, digging into the latest research, adding footnotes and references to her 11-year-old book.

For now, though, she’s got her stories, one after another, some from her own life, some from her trainers or from teachers and principals she has worked with. They can seem rehearsed, a little neat; some she repeats almost verbatim from one or another of her books. But for the teachers in the Jekyll Island conference center, that didn’t seem to matter much. For many of them, the real struggle of teaching wasn’t about keeping up with the latest in the debate on phonics versus whole language. It was about figuring out how to teach, how to help — even how to connect with — students who sometimes seemed as if they weren’t just from a different neighborhood but from a different planet.

As the afternoon drew to a close, Payne cut out the jokes and grew serious. “I think the hardest part about teaching is the stories that kids tell you that just pull your heart out,” she said, gripping the sides of the lectern and scanning the audience. “There isn’t a person in here who doesn’t have a student whose stories still haunt you.” Her voice was quiet, and her accent had softened. Every pair of eyes, it seemed, was on her. “What I’ve learned to say to kids is this: ‘You know, I respect you so much that you can handle this situation. I don’t know that I could. But if you don’t want to live that way the rest of your life, then I can give you the tools that will help you do things differently. It’s your choice. I can’t change your situation right now, but I can certainly give you the tools to help you change.’ And I think that’s the gift we bring. It’s a huge gift.”

Paul Tough is an editor of the magazine. He is writing a book about the Harlem Children’s Zone, a community organization.



What's On My Other Blogs today: (click blog name to go there) = / 1.3rd Eye Blog / 2. Favorites Blog/ 3. Vita Excolatur (Living Well ...) Blog/ 4. Humor Me Blog/ 5. News and Current Events Blog/ 6. Consider This ... Blog/ 7. Consumer Warnings Blog/ 8. New Orleans Pentimento Blog/ 9. We Constant Gardeners Blog/ 10. Chaillot Family Blog/

Saturday, June 09, 2007

Flipped Roles Can Work

Modern Love

My Husband May Out-Mom Me

Published: June 10, 2007

I USED to date a lot of guys who needed taking care of, and I was never very good at it. I didn’t take chicken soup when they were sick or nod emphatically when they said things like, “I’m a better monologuist than Eric Bogosian, don’t you think?”

When I met my husband, Charles, I knew he would never ask me questions like that. He was the kind of person who always put those he loved first. On our second date I suggested dinner out, and he responded by inviting me over to his place for chicken tortillas. From then on, on the nights that I went over to his apartment, he cooked, and when he came over to mine, we dined out because, like many New York women, I cannot cook.

As much as I enjoyed all the home-cooked meals, Charles and I knew that one reason he was so quick to cook for me was that he couldn’t afford to take me out. He had a graduate degree in architecture but hadn’t practiced in 10 years because the hours were so punishing and the pay so low. He figured that if he wasn’t going to make much money, he may as well do something he enjoyed: paint. At the time we met, I was making a good living writing novels and magazine articles and he sold his paintings. I earned about five times as much as he did.

When girlfriends asked if the difference in our incomes bothered me, I always joked that I was an alpha male anyway. But after Charles and I moved in together, this disparity did become a source of tension. I paid the rent, utilities, cable and credit card bills, while he cooked the meals and did the dishes.

On one level, the tradeoff seemed fair. After all, how many generations of men and women had cohabited just this way but with the gender roles reversed? I was no good at cooking and he was. He wasn’t good at making money and I was. As a couple we were a whole.

But there were months when bills were high, and I would harangue him about his long-distance calls. Or I would worry aloud about all the meal charges on our credit card statement, and he would say I was the one who always wanted to eat out, which was true.

At the time I was seeing a 92-year-old Austrian psychoanalyst, and whenever I expressed concern about the financial inequity of my relationship, he would shake his head and say, “For the relationship to survive, you must be the woman, not the man.”

Later I switched to a Buddhist psychiatrist in his 50s, and he said: “Sounds like it works. Someone’s got to do the cooking and house care. Be grateful you met a guy who can.”

This made me feel better. But there was still a part of me that didn’t think the arrangement was fair. As much as I appreciated the cooking and cleaning, I wanted him to contribute some money. I knew he would probably never make more than I did, but I wanted things to be more balanced than they were.

After we married and began to talk about having children, I realized that a child could have a side benefit for our relationship. If Charles took care of the baby full time, he would be providing care that would otherwise cost at least $25,000 a year.

He wouldn’t have to take on the small jobs he hated, like landscaping and carpentry, and I could stop griping about the credit card bills. We wouldn’t have to leave our child with a stranger, and I could feel secure knowing that she would be in the care of her loving father. In this radical-feminist vision, I was little more than a vessel for the baby.

What I didn’t count on was that once my baby arrived, I might actually feel something for her, let alone want to care for her myself. I endured 30 agonizing hours of back labor, but once the midwife put her to my breast, she latched right on. Looking down at her, I felt not love exactly —that would come later — but something close. I wasn’t an emotionless vessel; I was a mother.

The first few weeks I nursed and slept while Charles grocery shopped, cooked and did laundry. He ran out for extra burp cloths and a breastfeeding pillow, and when guests came he straightened up and put out hors d’oeuvres and wine. When I fed her in the middle of the night, he simultaneously fed me yogurt and fruit to fill my ravenous body. When my new-mom anxiety gave me insomnia, he went out and bought an herb called motherwort, safe for breastfeeding, and I dozed off.

Without Charles, I could not have made it through those formative weeks. And yet a part of me wanted to fend for myself as a mother. Outside, the three of us would pass other new mothers alone with their infants, the fathers long ago having returned to work, and I would envy the women’s autonomy.

Sure, some seemed exhausted or bored, but others seemed proud to be managing the bottle and the baby sling all at once. I wanted to feel that kind of pride. I was also starting to worry that if the baby spent more time with Charles, she might love him more.

“Try to go out alone with her every day,” said my Buddhist psychiatrist. “You need to do that in order to gain confidence in yourself as a mother, and if you don’t do it now you’ll have problems later on.”

When I got home, I announced to Charles that I was going to take our baby out for a walk, just the two of us.

He was painting in the living room and spun around in his chair. “Did your shrink tell you to do this?”

“N-no,” I said. He always knew when I had been to the psychiatrist; when I came home I either showered him with affection or started a fight.

“Go ahead. Take her out. Nobody’s telling you not to.”

I HAD to exchange a few onesies at a store that was a bus ride away and thought that would be a good excuse for an outing.

The bus came and I struggled to board, stumbled to a seat with my daughter, and collapsed. “You’ve got to fold the stroller,” the driver said. It took all my might to do it with one hand as I cradled my daughter with the other. It wasn’t backpacking through the Sahara, but after making my way to the store and back, I felt an enormous sense of accomplishment. Even if I didn’t have to, I could take care of her myself.

As I began to realize that I liked being a mom, Charles started to see that he needed to be more than just a dad. A few weeks later he got a call from a friend who said their excellent long-time baby sitter was looking for work two days a week. Would we be interested? “What do you think?” Charles asked me.

“I thought you wanted to be a full-time dad,” I replied.

“That was before I knew how hard it was. Besides, if I paint I can sell some work, but if I don’t put in the time I won’t.”

He was right. Even if it felt too soon, I knew in a few months we would be glad we did it. Besides, I found myself thinking, if Charles and I split the child care on the days we don’t have the sitter, then the baby will never love him more.

Not long after, I got two deals writing television pilots, a drama and a comedy. I had eight weeks to write both, and if I wanted to meet my deadlines, I was going to have to work long hours. For those months, Charles was the primary caretaker, dressing her, feeding me so I could feed her, and carting her to the playground and Prospect Park. Some days my only contact with my baby was breastfeeding, and I would feel depressed that I wasn’t getting to play with her. One evening I came home from work to find Charles giving our daughter her first bath in the bathtub.

“I wanted to do that,” I said, and started to cry.

“Honey, she was dirty and needed a bath. I couldn’t wait for you to get home.”

The next night we agreed I would do it, and from then on, bath time was my responsibility. (Later he admitted he had Tom Sawyered me so he could watch “The Simpsons” instead.)

In the spring, I started spending more time with my daughter, and Charles got a studio, where he started painting 30 hours a week. It paid off. He got a solo show and sold most of the paintings, just in time for me to learn that my pilot scripts wouldn’t be produced.

NOW that my daughter is almost 2, I do far more child care than I thought I would, and I am surprised at how much I enjoy it. I like going with her to the Brooklyn Botanic Garden and visiting the iguana at Community Bookstore.

Our arrangement, of course, has all the stresses of traditional marriage roles, even if we’re reversed. Like the archetypal working father, I constantly feel the pressure of being the primary breadwinner and worry that one day my work will dry up, we’ll have to sell our apartment and leave the city, and it will all be my fault. But the upside of my financial burden is that I never feel guilty about working. So many working mothers I know are racked with guilt over missing time with their children because they are married to men who earn enough to support the family. But if I don’t work, we don’t eat.

And I’ve stopped worrying that my daughter will love Charles more. The other day while she was toddling around the living room, she accidentally knocked a wooden chair down hard onto her foot. I rushed to comfort her ... and she said, “Daddy.” I handed her over and watched as he stroked her head, kissed it and told her she was O.K.

A year ago I would have seethed with jealousy. But as a mother of a toddler I know that her preferences change and it has little if nothing to do with me. As Charles sat in the armchair and held her, I watched from the floor. Then I reached for her again, and this time she came.

Amy Sohn is the author of the novel “My Old Man.” This essay is adapted from the anthology “Blindsided by a Diaper,” to be published this month by Three Rivers Press.



What's On My Other Blogs today: (click blog name to go there) = / 1.3rd Eye Blog / 2. Favorites Blog/ 3. Vita Excolatur (Living Well ...) Blog/ 4. Humor Me Blog/ 5. News and Current Events Blog/ 6. Consider This ... Blog/ 7. Consumer Warnings Blog/ 8. New Orleans Pentimento Blog/ 9. We Constant Gardeners Blog/ 10. Chaillot Family Blog/