By Shilpa Agrawal and Hannah O’Grady

“I’m not wearing any makeup so I have to tell the truth,” the lively 80-year-old Marni Nixon said as she made her way through her living room, filled with books, photographs of family members and a well-worn piano by the wall. Nixon’s friendly demeanor belies impressive credentials, including being the mesmerizing voice behind Audrey Hepburn in My Fair Lady, Natalie Wood in West Side Story and Deborah Kerr in The King and I. Nixon has also acted in films, playing Aunt Alice in I Think I Do and Sister Sophia in The Sound of Music. Her 2006 autobiography, I Could Have Sung All Night, reveals her thoughts about these and other moments from her life. Nixon lives with her husband, Albert Block. A voice teacher when she is not performing herself, Nixon has no intention of ending her career.

Marni Nixon

Our Town: How did you enter into the performance world?

Marni Nixon: I grew up in California with a very musical family. We all played instruments. I started playing the violin when I was four years old, and we practiced an hour before school everyday.

In my teens I began to sing instead of play. When I was 14, there was a group called the Roger Wagner Chorale. I was a soloist with them, but I would also sing in the ensemble. It was terrific training.

I was also a messenger girl at MGM. I met a lot of people at the studios and started giving tours on the MGM lot. I had a lot of chutzpah. I didn’t know that much about the back lot, which was filled with facades, of the studio. But you can fill yourself in on the stories of these facades, and I would make up a lot of stories and get big tips.

You are most famous for your dubbing work. How did you become involved in that?

I did my first dubbing for Margaret O’Brien when she was acting in The Secret Garden. I was a little kid actress. Somebody saw me—a composer, Bronislaw Kaper—and he came up to me and he said, “Hey Nixon, you think you’re so smart, well can you sing in Hindu?” And I said, “Yes!” When I went to the recording studio on the lot, he had a Swami there who taught me all the words and told me to sing like a little kid, and then we recorded it.

For The King And I, it was very short notice and they sent me a phonograph of Deborah Kerr’s singing voice and they asked me, “Do you think you can do her voice?” And then in the studio the next day they made a recording. Within a day or so, I had the job.

Kerr and I rehearsed together for about a week per song. I had to know what she was thinking acting-wise, and I sort of had to get into her head. We would stand side-by-side and just go through the scene. She would actually go through the scene and I would watch her and the way her mouth moved, and she would watch me, and I had to imitate her voice and pronounce things like her.

I never thought that the dubbing, or the music theater, would be something that I would be known for. It was like a trick, you know? You could imitate, and you could do things for other people’s voices.

But as it turns out, dubbing is what led you to your claim to fame as “The Voice Of Hollywood.” What was it like at the time singing behind the scenes for other actresses?

Nobody knew that it was dubbed at that point. And they warned me, of course, that if anyone ever found out, that I would never work in town again—that they would see to it. It was really like a mafia threat. I was scared to death that anyone would find out that I did her voice. Eventually I figured out that you can’t control everybody. Like, the orchestra doesn’t know what’s in my contract. How do they know that they are not supposed to say anything? Eventually people began to know. Deborah Kerr herself let it out in an Earl Wilson column, that I had done the dubbing. She said that I had just done the high notes, but that’s all right.

You later acted in films yourself. Your most famous on-screen role is as Sister Sophia in The Sound of Music. What was that like?

It’s a much more intimate experience. It was wonderful working with the people involved, and getting to know Julie Andrews. At the time I was working on My Fair Lady as well, and I went to her and told her that I was having trouble with a scene in that film and she helped me and was just a dear.

In 2006 you came out with an autobiography about your experiences. What inspired you to write it?

People always kept asking me about things, about people, and I would tell them stories and tidbits. Eventually people started urging me to write things down, and I realized that nowadays the world is moving so fast and it is important to preserve everything.

By Reid Spagna

Born in Pittsburgh, Peter Ackerman received a Bachelor’s degree in English from Yale and attended The American Conservatory Theater in San Francisco to study acting. Among other works he is the co-author of Ice Age and Ice Age 3.

The writer met his wife when she starred in his play, Things You Shouldn’t Say Past Midnight. The couple settled down on West End Avenue and has two sons.

Most recently, he is the author of The Lonely Phone Booth, his newly released children’s book.

Peter Ackerman

The story portrays one of four remaining phone booths in Manhattan, located on the northwest corner of West End Avenue and 100th Street. An analog victim in a digital world, the booth loses its grasp on the neighborhood as “shiny silver objects” capture the ears of passing pedestrians.

Currently working on an animated feature for Universal Pictures, Ackerman recently took time to discuss The Lonely Phone Booth, his writing career and the changing culture of New York City.

Our Town: Why did you choose the 100th Street phone booth to be the subject of your book?

Peter Ackerman: The story came about a couple of years ago when my younger son was three. We were walking by the booth, and he said, “Why is that phone in a box?” I realized that he had no idea; it seemed very funny to me.

What implicit messages did you aim to express with The Lonely Phone Booth?

Everything has value. Even though things are changing, it doesn’t mean that something we used to use is valueless. The phone booth is a metaphor for a human being. An older person can’t do everything that he or she used to do, but it doesn’t mean that they are valueless.

What is your most memorable phone booth experience?

In college, my girlfriend spent the semester in France. I would go to a particular phone booth and she would call me collect and I’d accept the charges. We got away with this a few times, but one time, the operator broke in and said, “I know what you’re doing!” I was very panicked, and hung up the phone. It was a very dramatic moment.

What is the cultural significance of old phone booths?

There is a neighborhood feel to it. I’ve seen people in phone booths laughing, crying and yelling. You don’t exactly hear what they are saying, as they are enclosed in the booth, but in a weird way, you imagine all sorts of things about them.

You co-wrote Ice Age and Ice Age 3. How do you find a balance between entertaining children and adults, in both your book and the Ice Age films?

If you know that kids and adults are going to see something, you need to have themes that are simple and clear. I tend to write about things that are interesting to me, but I don’t try to talk down to kids.

Do your sons have any input in your children’s works?

When the book was still in gallery form, I read the book to my son’s class at P.S. 87 and made some changes to it based on certain words they couldn’t understand and the jokes that they thought were and weren’t funny.

What has writing The Lonely Phone Booth taught you? Does it make you notice new things about the city?

I feel alert to everything that is around me in the neighborhood. The truth is, I must have passed that phone booth a billion times with my kids, and I hadn’t thought about it. Then my son noticed how unusual it was, so I take more notice of things, great and small.

Symphony Space is known for presenting music marathons that are unforgettable for any culture vulture. May 15, the 12-hour “Wall to Wall Behind the Wall” will include world and U.S. premieres, along with rare works by world-renowned and emerging composers from the Soviet Union and Communist-era Eastern Europe. It’s the brainchild of Symphony Space’s associate artistic director Laura Kaminsky, who will become the institutions’ director July 1. We caught up with Kaminsky, who grew up on West 79th Street between Amsterdam and Columbus avenues, to find out why Russia, why now.

Q: You’re known for tackling big, scary political themes. Do you think Symphony Space patrons are ready for that?
A: The way I think about this is that we chose to do “Wall to Wall Behind the Wall” to celebrate a great body of music. It’s not so much a political analysis as a cultural journey, and I think people are totally ready.

Q: Who do you think should be going to this? What kind of people will find this music appealing?
A: I think everybody will. There’s symphonic music, chamber music, solo music, there’s jazz music, there’s folk music. It’s a pretty broad spectrum and it’s all great stuff, so I think people who are curious and culture-loving are going to have a great time.

Q: Why Russia? Why Berlin? Why this now?
A: I was looking at histories of Wall to Walls. Most are by composer, but some are thematic. Last year we did “Wall to Wall Broadway.” It’s got to be something that I’m passionate about. I though about doing Shostakovich, but that’s not as interesting as his entire context, where he lived. I lived in Eastern Europe. “Wall to Wall Behind the Wall” stuck in my head. I thought I could make a great program out of this. I really had a sense of the wealth and richness of all of this music. I thought of all the music that I wanted New Yorkers to hear. It would be a 100-hour festival if we did all the pieces I want to play. It was my passion for the music and my desire for Symphony Space to look broadly at cultural differences—I thought this was a great way to do that.

Q: Why a marathon? Do you think it’s trying to take arts to a “competitive level,” or is it just less intimidating for people so they can come in and out and not feel strapped down?
A: I guess the history of Symphony Space is that we were founded with a Wall to Wall marathon. We’ve been doing this for 32 years. It’s absolutely not competitive. It’s a warm embrace of our community. It’s absolutely about community and the joy of sharing good music. Yes, I hope it is less intimidating.

Q: There’s a U.S. premiere of Shostakovich war songs included in the program. Can you explain why these haven’t made it here before?
A: One of my many finds last summer, as I was doing research, was an original manuscript written by Shostakovich in his original hand, in lavender ink. It was 20 songs that he had arranged for the soldiers on the front line. They were for voice, violin and cello, because they’re all portable. I asked for a copy and asked if it had been disseminated. I think this is the only score that exists in this county.

Q: What do you have in store for us next? Is there a new direction for Symphony Space that we should expect?
A: A commitment to new work, nurturing emerging artists, commissioning work—giving people the opportunity to express themselves. We want to make music and contemporary work in all disciplines—make all this new stuff accessible. We have pre-concert conversations, which are really great, and make the audience more familiar with the music.

Q: Are you hoping to make Symphony Space more of a destination with provocative programming, as other high-profile institutions have done recently?
A: Our program’s been thought of as being fairly provocative and current. I would like to be thought of as a place that inspires people’s curiosity. Yes, I want to invite people to participate and be part of an exciting cultural hub here.

Q: Jennifer Higdon won the Pulitzer for composition. It seems like a big, important year for female composers. As one yourself, do you have any advice for people starting down that path?
A: I was happy for Jennifer, we had a nice email exchange. [My advice would be] write regularly. Write honestly. Be open. Hone your craft. Engage with ideas and engage with other musicians.

Q: I have a perception that classical music is very much an old-boys club. Is that true?
A: I’m not even sure how to answer that. I mean, the Vienna Philharmonic still doesn’t really have women in the orchestra. That was a big legal issue about 10 years ago because they barred women. But because they received state funding, they were told they had to have equal opportunity hiring. I think it’s less and less true, at least in this country. When you look at the larger classical music institutions, I think you see a much larger mix of personnel, both of men and women, and also an international array of artists.

Q: When did you know you wanted to be a composer? Was that something you always thought of growing up?
A: I guess I started making up music in a formal, thoughtful way as about a 10- or 11-year-old. I didn’t know that I would do it as my primary passionate life endeavor until later. I wasn’t a music major in college, but I did go to graduate school for music. I went to the Music and Arts High School, which was one of the public schools, not LaGuardia. At that time, I was fortunate to be able to be exposed to some of those talented young musicians, most of whom I still know and work with. But I was writing music pretty furiously then.

Q: What was your major in college?
A: Psychology.

Q: Does that ever come into play in your work at all?
A: Every day.

Transcript has been edited for brevity and clarity. With additional reporting by Charlotte Eichna.

Robert Hess seems to have always been helping people, whether it’s managing special needs housing in Philadelphia, running a thrift store for Disabled American Veterans in Baltimore—his hometown—or his most recent gig, New York City’s commissioner of homeless services. The Long Island City resident recently stepped down from that role to assume the newly created position of vice president of replication for the Doe Fund, a non-profit that serves homeless and formerly incarcerated individuals. There he’ll work to expand across the country the “Ready, Willing & Able” program, which helps clients get back on their feet through employment and other support services.

Hess sat down on a rainy Monday to talk about his goals at the Doe Fund, the city’s approach to homelessness and the departure of senior staffers in the Bloomberg administration.

Hess says that serving as homeless services commissioner was the biggest honor he’s had in his life. Photos by Andrew Schwartz

Q: What’s the biggest misconception about tackling homelessness in New York City?
A: The biggest misconception in New York City, or anywhere in this country, is [ignoring] that homelessness starts with economics. People that lack economic resources end up becoming homeless. About 10 percent of the American population, I think, are substance abusers. They live in their own homes, they have insurance, they go dry out, they do whatever they do—but they’re able to maintain a life because they have economic resources. People that lack economic resources, insurance and then become economically poor become homeless.

Q: You’re going to be rolling out the Doe Fund in cities across the country. Tell me what your big goals are.
A: What we want to do is figure out what cities make the most sense to expand into, develop sort of a time schedule to do that and put the funding together and then go make it happen, in a systematic, structured, appropriate way. And then measure our results along the way.

Q: Homelessness was one of the tougher problems that Mayor Bloomberg struggled with. Looking back, do you feel like there were things that should have been done differently? For example, with the drop-in centers, the city was no longer letting folks stay overnight there. Do you think maybe that option should have been kept on the table, given the dire economic circumstances?
A: No, absolutely not. I mean, where’s the dignity in people having to spend the night in a chair? We can do better than that, we’ve done better than that. The city opened over 500 safe haven beds, another 500 or so stabilization beds, we increased faith-based community beds. What we did is have people move out of chairs and into beds and get the support and get a good night’s sleep, and I think that was the right thing to do.

You can always do better, and we ought to look back for lessons learned. But nobody could foresee the greatest economic downturn since the Great Depression. In our city, which is a city with a right to shelter, the number one job of the Department of Homeless Services is to ensure that everyone is housed that needs to be housed every night. And we did that. No prior administration can say that. And so, do we wish that the economic times had been different, do we think the mayor’s aspirational goals of reducing homelessness is a right one? Absolutely. And I believe it will happen, and I think you’ll see that downturn pretty significantly before Michael Bloomberg leaves office. But the goal and the role and the responsibility changed dramatically when the economy went south. We had to focus on expansion, being able to add beds. We had 58 percent more applicants for shelter in the family system in the economic downturn than before—think about that—in the largest homeless system in the world, and we still housed everyone every night. It’s remarkable. And that’s a story that never got told. So do I wish that we had figured out a better way to tell that story? I do. And maybe that’s the lesson.

Q: Do you have any advice for your successor?
A: I don’t have any great advice. Seth [Diamond] is a smart guy, been around a long time, he’ll do a great job. I would tell you he’s got an incredibly capable staff and I’m sure he’ll listen to them. So I think the future’s bright at DHS and the legacy of the mayor on this issue, I think, will be very positive.

Q: Much has been made of the departure of senior staffers of the Bloomberg administration, including yourself, with the implication being that maybe people don’t think the third term is going to pan out as well as the mayor hopes, and they are looking for opportunities elsewhere. What is your response to that?
A: I think quite the contrary. One of the things when you come into government is you want to leave your department better than you found it, and you want to know when to arrive and you want to know when to depart. I think the mayor deserves a lot of credit for being supportive of senior staff members leaving and bringing on new folks. To me, the biggest honor I’ve ever had in my life is to be able to be the commissioner of homeless services for more than four years. I actually think I served longer than any prior commissioner. But having served longer any prior commissioner, there is a point in time when it’s in your own best interest and the city’s best interest for somebody else to come in, and I think this was the time.

Q: The folks the Doe Fund deals with tend to be homeless former inmates, often with substance abuse problems. And you guys do pretty well with that group. Are there lessons the city or other jurisdictions could learn from the Doe Fund?
A: Oh I don’t think there’s any question about that. I think the lesson of the Doe Fund that I’ve seen first in Philadelphia and now in New York, and I hope we’ll see across this country, is that you can take folks with pretty significant, tough histories and help them by providing a hand up and the kinds of support these folks need, and help them become effective tax-paying citizens very quickly and move back into their own homes in the community, without being on public support.

Q: Specifically in New York City, are there things that the Doe Fund does that the city doesn’t do, or that the city could do better?
A: I think the Doe Fund in part is supported by the city, I don’t know that you can separate the two. Do we need more Doe Fund-like programs in the city? I’d say any city in this country could benefit from that. But I think the Doe Fund, we appreciate the support that [we] receive from the city and the state. And so it’s all a collaborative effort.

Q: Do you ever give to panhandlers on the street?
A: Very, very rarely, almost never. Because I think it’s kind of an enabling activity. Every now and then, I have a personal need to do something and I’ll do it. I think it’s a very personal issue. I think generally people are better off not giving, not enabling. But you gotta go where your heart is.

Transcript has been edited for brevity and clarity.

The ads, which feature a serious young woman and direct viewers to a website (abortionchangesyou.com), are the work of Michaelene Fredenburg, a Wisconsin-born mother of two who now lives in San Diego. Fredenburg became immersed in the issue as a guest lecturer in college sexuality classes, where she’s spoken about getting an abortion at 18. She says her goal is to shift the discussion from “should you or shouldn’t you” to examining the range of emotions that follow an abortion. The website posts visitors’ thoughts on their own experiences with abortion, and offers local resources.

Michaelene Fredenburg, of the website AbortionChangeYou.com.

We spoke with Fredenburg over the phone to ask about reactions to her ads, and whether the campaign intends to dissuade women from considering abortion.

Q: Are you surprised at the response your ads have gotten?
A: It was unexpected. Because we’ve run ads before, in late 2008, on subways, and there certainly was an ample response, but it was primarily individuals who were visiting the website. But being surprised that people would misunderstand them? No I’m not surprised. Abortion is a very polarizing and politicized issue and for decades now, when we see the word “abortion” we immediately want to put a label on it. Like where are you coming from on this? Trying to communicate with those after abortion, that’s something really different and I think that people right now aren’t quite sure what to do with that.

Q: Why did you guys target New York City?
A: There are similar ads that are running in the Saint Louis area and then in the fall they’ll be running in San Diego. And in time we want to take the outreach into other areas across the United States. New York seemed like an ideal place to start because of the subway system. It’s a way that you can communicate with just about everybody. You have time when you are on the subway. Even when you are with a lot of people, it can sometimes be a little private in your interaction with something, and we thought that setting would be more of an invitation and that’s how we would really like the ads to be understood.

Q: The website purports to be neutral, but it has a lot of focus on the negative parts of abortion. How do you respond to that?
A: The website is open to everyone to come as they are, but it certainly is attracting individuals who are having difficulty with their abortion. And I think that’s understandable. If I’ve gone through a significant life experience but I feel healthy and whole about it, you continue to move on with your life. If I go through a significant life experience and I feel sad or confused or broken over it, I may be seeking support. We wanted to create a place that was safe and focused fully on after the decision. There isn’t anything on the website that talks about pregnancy or beforehand or any sort of political views.

Q: I think it would be fair to think that a person considering abortion would look at the website as well.
A: I acknowledge that possibility. Quite frankly, that’s not the target audience that we are trying to reach.

Q: The Times pointed out that resources slant toward religious organizations. For example, when I put in my zip code I noticed that Planned Parenthood didn’t come up. How were the resources on the website selected?
A: If you noticed when you went to the “Find Help” page, it does acknowledge that different resources work for different people, and we also have suggestions on there about seeking out a therapist or a bereavement support group in your area. And this is for someone who actually feels like they need additional help.

But your observation that there certainly [are] many more religious-oriented after-abortion services is reflective of, that there isn’t, in our opinion, enough of a variety of specific after-abortion services that are available. If someone actually has a service, meaning that there’s an actual program and not a referral service, where you can speak with someone, then they can apply to be listed on the website.

Q: You speak openly about your abortion. Is it a decision you regret?
A: I am public about my experience because I have found that it can be helpful for someone else to relate. But in saying that, I had a much more extreme reaction to my abortion than I typically run across. Sometimes I think when I see stories told, they tend to be one extreme or the other—meaning, “It was really great and empowering,” or in my instance, I fell apart—and I think there can be a danger in that because yes, people fall into both of those areas, but most people fall into some area in between that.

I probably, more than anything, wish that I had not gotten pregnant because I realize that if I had chosen to parent—and it certainly would have been single parenting, my partner was not someone, we were not going to get married—or if I had chosen to relinquish for adoption, those would have had their own difficulties and would have changed my life as well. So I don’t really reside in the “what ifs” anymore because there’s nothing that I can do about it.

Q: Is there anything you will do differently in future campaigns?
A: I would imagine that we will do some things differently, but we’re not sure what it will be yet. Once the ads go down, that volume of communication from New York will also start to dwindle, which will give us time to go back and look over everything and to consider really carefully the criticisms that were raised. Is there something that we can do preemptively to better define the outreach so that it’s not understood as an argumentative phrase, or trying to agendize or make someone feel bad? We’re not sure yet.

Transcript has been edited for brevity and clarity.

As Manhattan borough president, he thinks his office, along with the other layers of municipal government, creates more opportunities for discussion and democracy among New Yorkers. While critics take a half-empty approach, arguing that these positions are a drain on limited tax dollars, Stringer sees a crucial role in coordinating services and troubleshooting on a borough-wide level.

As he begins preparing for a 2013 mayoral bid, we talked to the former West Side Assembly member about the charter review commission, funding the Metropolitan Transportation Authority and the latest developments in his love life.

Q: Do you have any exciting personal announcements?
A: Yes, I’ve gotten engaged. So, it’s been a very exciting week. Before I announced it to the West Side Spirit and Our Town, I had to go to a couple of senior centers and tell all the seniors, who for years have been saying, “So? Are you going to get married?”

Q: Tell us who the lucky lady is.
A: Her name is Elyse Buxbaum. She works at the Jewish Museum, and she’s very sweet and nice.

Q: Would she be upset if you divulged to us how you proposed?
A: Uh, maybe. It was very nice and private and tasteful.

Stringer and his fiancée, Elyse Buxbaum. Photos by Andrew Schwartz

Q: Tell us what you’d like to see in the charter revision.
A: I’d like to see a new agency on food and markets so we can talk about food production and food supply. Right now, we have one person working on food issues, procurement issues, health issues.

I just issued a big proposal on the Buildings Department that basically said, “There’s hundreds of thousands of open violations on so many of our buildings—15,000 serious violations that remain open on schools and on public hospitals—we’ve got to figure this out.” So why not propose, which I have, that we create an Office of Inspection for this city?

Another thing I want to do: We need a real Commission on Veteran’s Affairs. We have young people coming back to our city, serving abroad. They need to find jobs, they need to find healthcare, there’s so much we can do.

Q: The New York Post recently editorialized for the abolition of the borough president’s office, which obviously you have differing views on. Do you boycott the Post?
A: I read all the papers, including the Post. Part of what I feel is that the borough president and public advocate doesn’t have enough meat. A big part of the problem is that our budget—the public advocate and borough presidents’ budget—is controlled by the mayor and the City Council. We should make sure that we should not depend on the mayor and City Council for our budget because we become more dependent on them and less independent in our roles.

Q: Switching to the Department of Education, we found out that we have an even higher number of waitlisted kindergarteners than last year. What do you think happened?
A: The three overcrowded reports my office issued exposed this crisis throughout the borough of Manhattan. The problem that we face is, because of an inadequate capital plan, we are going through this on a yearly basis, and it is unacceptable. Parents should have the expectation that they can send their child to a local public school and that is something that we must do to keep parents here. Because the moment they feel that they can’t get their kid into a local school, they take their kids and their tax dollars and leave town.

But I also realize that the larger issue is that we have to invest more capital dollars in building new schools. We talk about the fact that a million more people are going to come to this city in the next 20 years, and we’ve got to make sure that those children who will be here have the opportunity to get educated.

Q: The MTA has taken a lot of heat for recent cuts from all sorts of politicians, yourself included. But I understand that the problem is that the MTA is under-funded by the city and state. Is some of that anger misplaced? Should we be mad at elected officials?
A: Totally. The state has abdicated its responsibility for our mass transit infrastructure and it’s now showing. But I think the MTA has not been smart in terms of how it makes its case and how it identifies solutions. The real issue for me is, why we can’t reinstate the commuter tax and earmark it to our mass transit system that benefits people who live in the suburbs, as well as New York City, and create a recurring fund that helps us run what’s arguably the best mass transit system in the world?

Taking out the budget crisis on students who need MetroCards to go to school and Access-A-Ride seniors—the most vulnerable of our population who are barely surviving as it is on a fixed-income—is just not the way to get things done. Why can’t we ask our friends in suburbia to leave a little something behind for our police, sanitation and mass transit system?

Unfortunately, I was up in Albany when there was the proposal to get rid of the commuter tax. I was against it, I thought it was absurd, and I introduced legislation to bring it back every year. We’ve been trying to recover that deficit every year since the day we eliminated the commuter tax.

Q: In January, the Times reported that you had hired some finance committee people for a potential mayoral campaign in 2013, you had Stringer2013 reserved for the website and you were also going to do some house parties to see what people thought of you outside Manhattan. Have you started that?
A: We are in the process of having those meetings in people’s living rooms throughout the city, and we are going to begin that process. It’s going to be a great opportunity to go around the city, talk about the issues I’ve worked on, and hear from people from all walks of life in every borough, and have a conversation. The great thing about the city of New York is, it’s divided among the boroughs, but we need to have discussion among the boroughs. Manhattan people have to understand the hardships and dreams of people who live in the Bronx and Staten Island. Brooklyn has to have that relationship with Queens, and you really do a better job as an elected official if you look at policy to impact the entire city. So from a government perspective, not just politics, I’m very excited about being able to do that in the coming years.

Q: Any chance that you would leave the Upper West Side, maybe for Gracie Mansion?
A: I’ve been very lucky. I grew up in Washington Heights, which was just a wonderful neighborhood to grow up in. I’ve lived all my adult life on the Upper West Side, but, I gotta tell you, East Side living is good, too. I’ll be right across the Park. I can come back any time.

Transcript has been edited for brevity and clarity.

But it must take an inordinate amount of caffeine—along with determination, vision and smarts—to power this former East Side Council member through her day managing four Success Charter Network schools in Harlem, with three more schools slated to open this fall. There’s also a husband and three children, and frequent sparring with the United Federation of Teachers (a role she became accustomed to during her time as chair of the Council’s education committee). Moskowitz took time out of her hectic schedule, which currently includes Saturday mornings at school, to talk with us about education mudslinging, support for teachers and her political future.

Former Council Member Eva Moskowitz says it’s not “if” she’s going to run for mayor, but when. Photo by Andrew Schwartz

Q: What’s been the biggest challenge for you since you opened Harlem Success 1 in 2006?
A: I would say the politics. I thought I was leaving politics. I was taking a rest from the brutal campaign trail and the opposition research and the kind of mud flinging. We are one of the only schools in the nation that offers science five days a week. [In the] New York City public school system, if you are lucky you have science one day a week, starting in 4th grade. Our kindergartners will have done 135 experiments by the end of kindergarten. And you sort of say to yourself, “Isn’t that like motherhood and apple pie? Why would anyone protest that, why would there be opposition to science five days a week?” It seems sort of crazy on the one hand. But if you know anything about New York City, or you know anything about educational politics, then you realize it’s actually not crazy because it’s challenging the status quo in all sorts of ways.

Q: One of the complaints about charters has been turnover, that teachers aren’t supported enough and that they are overworked. How has turnover been at Harlem Success?
A: Very little problem with turnover. At Harlem Success Academy 2, 100 percent of the teachers came back. At Harlem Success Academy 3, 97 percent of the teachers came back. I had a few teachers here who got pregnant and, interestingly enough, they are coming back. We have a paid maternity leave, which, by the way, the teachers union does not, and has never fought for, even though they have an 88 percent female work force.

Q: Tell me what a typical workday is like for you.
A: I’ve got three kids of my own, so I’ve got to get everybody marching in the same direction. But I generally get here at 7:15. And I’m in a little bit of an unusual situation right now because I am principal of [Harlem Success 1], in addition to all of my other duties. But I make sure that someone is at the gate greeting all of the scholars and family. I walk the cafeteria to make sure that we serve breakfast starting at 7:20, so I want to make sure that it is calm, well-supervised.

Q: Your son goes here?
A: No, they are at Harlem Success Academy 3. I would prefer not to talk about my kids. A reporter asked me when she did the New York Times story. I had never said anything about it before. They’re just little kids and I don’t want to burden them with my public profile.

Here’s the one thing I will say on the record: Where you send your kid to school is a really personal decision. And to me, what’s important is if you believe in parent choice, you should believe in it for yourself and other people. What is sometimes problematic about, let’s say elected officials, is not that they send their kids to private schools. But they believe in parent choice for themselves, but when it comes to other people, they say you must go to the public local zoned schools. The only people who can figure out where my kids go to school are my husband and myself.

Q: You come in to school on Saturdays. How do you have a life for yourself?
A: I do in the sense that first, I have an incredible husband and he’s very supportive. I’m fortunate in that my in-laws and my parents live in the city and are very, very involved. But like a typical mom, I was at basketball practice and tap dance this weekend. We do it. We have a lot of tag teaming in my family to make it work. It’s really, really important to me to be home for the bedtime stories and the help with the homework and the silly moments in the evening. But it’s really hard. I’m pretty tired. I haven’t seen a movie in quite a long time.

Q: Running the charter network sounds like a very compelling, engaging and rewarding profession. Would you ever consider getting back into politics for a mayoral race or something?
A: Yes. I haven’t decided when. I do plan to run for mayor. I don’t know when. Again, that will be another very personal decision. My kids are young, and this project is so important to me and politics is also a crazy business. So I can’t really speak to when I would go forward.

Q: Do you guys have special needs students or ESL students? I think some charters don’t.
A: That’s education mudslinging. I have 18 percent special ed here. I have 12 percent ELL [English Language Learners]. Remember, I’m in central Harlem. The bulk of my families are African American. I’m going to the Bronx, where I expect my ELL population will be more like 100 percent, because it depends on the neighborhood. But this is just not true. The thing that is frustrating is that it’s verifiable, and I get very frustrated that journalists simply take the United Federation of Teachers’ press release and they print it.

Q: Last year, the Daily News wanted to highlight how much you were being paid, which was somewhere over $300,000 for salary and bonus. Is that fair compensation for the work you do?
A: I can’t really answer the question of whether it’s fair. I assure you that if my bosses thought that they could get someone cheaper, they would. I can tell you statistically that Geoff Canada [of Harlem Children’s Zone] makes much more than I do and has fewer schools, and Deborah Kenny [of Harlem Village Academy] makes much more than I do and has fewer schools.

A first year associate of a law firm makes 175K, right? Why shouldn’t we? I thought for years and years we were saying in the liberal community that it’s unfair that things that are valuable in life, people do not get compensated. That’s certainly how I feel about teachers. That’s certainly how I feel about school leaders. Why would we tear that down? Why would someone say that it’s obscene? Obscene? For doing good? For working really hard at an enterprise that is just incredibly challenging?

We have kids here in domestic violence shelters, lots of homeless kids, we have kids whose mothers or fathers are getting incarcerated during the school year. I have been educating their kids for four years and the kid just lost their father. How are we going to respond as a school because the father’s now incarcerated?

In American politics, you can’t defend how much you make. Everybody who doesn’t make as much is going to be jealous. It’s just a lose-lose. Maybe I should have done this in reverse—I should have first done the schooling then gone into politics. Once you’re a public figure, everything is fair game. And so I’m not going to let questions about my salary prevent me from serving kids the way they need to be served.

–
Transcript has been edited for brevity and clarity.

The Brooklyn resident, who grew up on the Upper West Side, said he became interested in covering Second Avenue subway construction after the 2006 elections, when Sen. Charles Schumer promised federal support for the project. Thinking work would speed along, Kabak began writing regular dispatches. Once he saw there was (sadly) not enough activity to devote an entire blog to, he began covering transit on a more general, citywide level. But the “Second Avenue” name stuck, and in January, the Village Voice named Kabak one of the city’s top bloggers.

We caught up with Kabak, who is about to celebrate his 27th birthday, at a Park Slope coffee shop to talk transit.

Q: How did you get to become so knowledgeable about transit?
A: Most of it’s just self-taught. When I was a little kid, I used to love riding the subway. My parents used to take me to the Transit Museum, and I really got into the importance of trains as a way of life in the city. I started the blog in 2006, and since then I’ve mostly delved into the material.

Benjamin Kabak also contributes to a Yankees blog, River Avenue Blues. Photos by Daniel S. Burnstein

Q: Obviously, the MTA takes you seriously and responds to your questions. What’s your relationship like with them?
A: It’s pretty good. They’ve been very helpful. As I’ve gotten more readership and more on their radar, they’ve been more responsive to me. I think it’s more of an opportunity—it’s not their forum, but it gives me a chance to write more in depth about a lot of the issues facing the MTA, more so than some of the papers would. They’ve invited me on their press tours, they’ve included me in a couple of briefings, so it’s been a good relationship.

Q: What’s your take on MTA chairman and CEO Jay Walder’s tenure?
A: So far, I think he’s done a pretty good job. When he showed up, I don’t think he anticipated having to deal with a $700 million budget shortfall. He came into a situation where he thought that the state had provided enough money for the agency to sustain itself. And then, when the budget happened, a lot of what he’d hoped to accomplish had to be put on hold, just until he can make sure that the finances are shored up. But he’s saying the right things, and I think it’s just a matter, at this point, of whether he can enact what he’s saying.

Q: One thing that you’re really passionate about is the proposal to cut student MetroCards. A lot of people are angry at the MTA about that, but you’re saying their anger is misplaced. Tell our readers whom they should be ticked off at.
A: I think they should be ticked off at the state and city. This has its origins in 1995, when the MTA was introducing student MetroCards and they worked out an agreement where the city and state and MTA would each pay for one-third of the cost of the program. Since then, the city and state contributions haven’t increased at all. So the MTA has been left holding the bag for increased costs, paying for more students. And the state actually, last year, dropped its contributions.

I think the real issue is that the city and state are willing to pay for student transit in every other district, but they’re not willing to pay here for the costs of sending students to school. I like the MTA’s saying, “We’re not a yellow school bus provider, we’re a transit provider.” So should they really be expected to incur $200 million in losses because the city and state won’t pony up or donate the money?

Q: What do you think is the biggest hindrance to improved service?
A: I harp on the workers a lot, and I don’t mean to be anti-union because I think they do a lot of good, but the MTA pays out a lot in pensions. Some of it is the management structure. There are definitely proposals out there to overhaul the way the agencies are run. But I think one of the biggest expenses is debt service on a lot of [the MTA’s] capital budgets.

Q: Don’t we have George Pataki to blame for that?
A: Yup, we do. Pataki and Giuliani, too. They stopped guaranteeing a lot of money for the MTA and relied heavily on municipal bonds. If you pay for a project with bonds, and you do it the right way and don’t let the bonds come due until [the project’s] open, you’ll have revenue service to pay off those bonds.

Q: So why did George Pataki and Rudy Giuliani agree to these terms? Did they think that by then the Second Avenue subway would be completed?
A: I think it’s an issue of not saddling the state with these expenses, issuing the bonds to cover the project and thinking, “We’ll be well out of office when the bonds mature.”

Q: In the current plan for select bus service on the M15, there are no cameras to enforce staying in lanes, or a separated bus lane. Do you think that select bus service is even worth it at this point?
A: I think it will definitely help, and there are enough elements there to speed up the trips. From an implementation standpoint, I’d much rather see a dedicated lane, and whatever they can do to give [buses] priority signals. I think what the DOT has run into is that a lot of businesses, vocal businesses at least, are going to complain about taking away a parking lane and taking away curbside access. Anything that can speed up bus service in New York should at least be given a shot to work.

Q: You contribute to another blog because you’re a big Yankees fan.
A: Yes, two of my friends and I run a blog called River Avenue Blues. It’s a nice way for me to keep writing. I did a lot of journalism in college. Didn’t go into it afterward, but wanted to keep writing. I miss having an editor, sometimes.

Q: I’ve often wondered that about bloggers, being an editor myself. How do you get by?
A: It’s tough to self-edit your work. My mom will often send me typos when I make them, but it’s not the same in terms of structuring your stories.

Transcript has been edited for brevity and clarity.

A one-time supporter of testing and No Child Left Behind, Ravitch argues that “accountability” has been used to punish teachers and schools, and that testing has become an ends in itself, rather than a way to measure and improve student knowledge. Tossed out along the way have been the so-called peripheral elements of a classroom: history, literature, arts, science and foreign language. It’s a losing formula, says the New York University professor and Brookings Institute senior fellow, that has implications for our country’s future economic viability.

We caught up with Ravitch, who grew up in Houston, Texas, in her Brooklyn Heights brownstone, where she spoke with us about her new book.

Q: One of the most interesting things about your book was that you have a change of opinion, in fact a reversal of your support of charters, school choice and No Child Left Behind. You even talk about the importance of admitting error in your introduction. Was that hard to do?
A: Well, it was a process that took place over several years. It wasn’t like one day I woke up and said, “Ah! I’m wrong.” But some of the stories [in the media about the book] say that I made a U-turn or a 180, and that’s not right. Where I haven’t changed at all is the fundamental belief that all children should have a rich education with a curriculum of the arts and sciences, and literature and foreign languages. I’d say it was that fundamental belief that made me realize that the lessons and strategy we’re using these days are taking us even farther away from that core philosophical commitment, the belief that all children should have that kind of wonderful education.

Diane Ravitch sees a role for charter schools in public education. Photos by Daniel S. Burnstein

Q: You wrote that having a well-conceived curriculum is an achievable goal, despite the culture war that erupted when we first tried to implement a national curriculum in the 1990s. Do you still think that’s possible?
A: If you want to improve education, you have to start off with a very good idea of what education is. And NCLB [No Child Left Behind] does not proceed from that assumption. It doesn’t begin with the premise of, “What is good education?” It begins with the premise of, “How to get test scores up?” And in any human endeavor, whether education or anything else, when you have a single statistical measure, you then corrupt the goal of the organization to meet that measure. For instance, if you say to a principal, “I want you to have 100 percent graduation rate,” that’s easy to achieve. You just graduate everybody, give them all a diploma. Sure, they won’t be able to read and write, but that’s an easy number. You want to have them all pass a test? Then dumb the test down.

Q: Were you surprised that education wasn’t a bigger factor in Mayor Bloomberg’s re-election in November?
A: Well, it was a very big issue for the mayor, and I think that you have to have a certain level of investigation just to know that there’s a dispute about the quality of the numbers. I had written articles in the New York Times and elsewhere about how the state tests had become easier over time. I think there seemed to be some general knowledge of that. But the DOE has a very successful public relations operation, and I think they convinced the public and the mayor, through his campaign—and it certainly was a well-funded campaign—that the numbers were good numbers.

Q: How would you like to see charter schools working in New York City?
A: I could see a partnership in which charter schools existed as they were originally supposed to: to take the kids who were the least motivated and help them figure out what methods and materials could we use to help these kids become excited about school. What could we do to make the transition easier for kids who don’t speak English, who are immigrant kids? There are all kinds of children with problems at school—certainly kids with disabilities would be another area.

Q: It might be difficult to sell this idea when many parents have felt very threatened by charter schools taking public school space.
A: Well, that’s the thing about New York City: You have 3 percent or less of the kids in charter schools. Think about how much angst is spilled on charter schools. You have the chancellor championing charter schools. Who’s championing the other 97 percent? It’s like the president of Macy’s telling you to shop at Gimbel’s—“We have a big department store, but we’re terrible.”

Q: When your children were growing up, was it difficult to maintain distance from their classrooms?
A: When they were little, I didn’t have any professional reputation. So I had nothing I could bring to the table other than being a concerned parent. With my first one, I pretty much backed off. With my second one, one time I went in and said something like, “Do you think Michael could learn to diagram sentences?” The teacher said, “Well, I know how to do that, but the kids here don’t do that.” “Well, could you teach Michael since you know how to do that?” He loved it, and in like two weeks, everyone in the class was diagramming sentences. They thought it was a game, and it’s actually fun, because you learn about the structure of language.

Q: Did you ever want to move back to Texas?
A: No, I like New York.

Q: You have some fond memories though?
A: Oh, yes. I actually just got a letter the other day asking me for a speaking engagement in Houston, and I said “Oh, yeah! I can’t wait to go for Mexican food and barbecue.”

Q: You must have strong opinions about barbecue.
A: There’s barbecue I like and barbecue I don’t like.

Q: Can you get good barbecue in New York?
A: Nothing is ever as good as you remember from home. I’ve had good barbeque at Blue Smoke and Virgil’s. I’m not too picky.

Q: Last question: Is your ex-husband, Lieutenant Gov. Richard Ravitch, about to become governor?
A: Who knows? He keeps telling me he’s not.

Q: So you have no insider information.
A: I’ve asked him a few times. He says, “No, no, the governor’s not resigning and I’ll do what I can to help.”

Transcript has been edited for brevity and clarity.

Q: One of your achievements last year was your credit card holder’s bill of rights, which was aimed at predatory lending practices. Have you personally had experience with this?
A: The only experience I had is that they changed the due date—usually you have 30 days—and they moved it up seven days so that I did not get my payment in on time, and then I got fined for not having it in on time. But they had changed it without telling me, and so that’s what this bill does—it’s very heavy on disclosure so that the consumer knows what the game plan is.

Rep. Carolyn Maloney is a fan of Half the Sky: Turning Oppression into Opportunity for Women Worldwide, by Nicholas Kristof and Sheryl WuDunn. Photo by Andrew Schwartz

I’d like to emphasize that not all banks do this. Some banks have been model citizens. Citibank actually implemented all of the recommendations and Chase implemented some of them even before the bill went into effect.

Q: As someone who has experienced behind-the-scenes pressure on her career choices, I imagine you must be somewhat sympathetic to Harold Ford. What do you make of people pressuring him to not challenge Sen. Gillibrand? Do you think he should run?
A: It’s totally up to him. It’s his choice, not mine. If he wants to run, he should run.

Q: What do you think of these folks in the Democratic Party who are putting pressure on candidates?
A: We have freedom of choice in this country, so people are expressing their point of view.

Q: In terms of wanting to run?
A: Yes.

Q: And also in terms of pressuring a candidate perhaps to stay out of a race? So you see both sides of it?
A: Yes.

Q: Do you have any regrets about not challenging Sen. Gillibrand, now that somebody else has expressed interest in the race?
A: No, because I had more cherished moments with my husband, who passed away recently, and so I was able to spend more time with him and my daughters.

Q: Speaking of primaries, you have one yourself this year. As somebody who says primaries are generally good for the political process, is that harder to agree with when you’re the one being challenged?
A: No.

Q: Are you excited to have a primary?
A: I always work hard. So I’ll just continue working hard for my constituents. I haven’t had the opportunity to meet her, except for recently once, and the New York Times reported that she just moved into the district to run against me.

Q: So that might make her not as familiar, potentially.
A: That’s up to the voters to decide.

Q: Are you reading any good books?
A: Right now I’m reading a lot of bills. Half the Sky [by Nicholas Kristof and Sheryl WuDunn]. I stayed up all night reading this. It’s a great book. I like public policy books. I like history.

Q: No chick lit or anything like that?
A: Maybe you could call Kristof’s book [chick lit], about the oppression of women worldwide and what we need to do to correct that.

Q: Has the government done enough to help the struggling shop owners on Second Avenue?
A: We need to do more, but we have tried to respond. The Chamber of Commerce has done a wonderful job and the MTA has started programs, signage. We’ve done programs with the community groups trying to focus on shopping on Second Avenue. I go down to the grocery store on Second Avenue.

I notice every two years when I’m campaigning a great deal in front of the subways—and you just notice when you’re riding the subways—the lines keep getting longer and longer. The Lexington Avenue subway is the most overcrowded subway in the nation. When they tore down the El, they promised they would build a Second Avenue subway, and it’s been many, many years and every time there’s a crisis they divert the money elsewhere. I am going to start doing a report every month on the progress, or lack of progress. We need to focus as a community to get this built as quickly as possible for the merchants, for the ability to move people quickly.

Transcript has been edited for brevity and clarity.