Interview of Jack Rimmel Frymier by Robert W. Butche

Abstract

Dr. Frymier’s service in the Army in WWII inspired him to pursue a career of teaching, which he did at several institutions including Valparaiso, Indiana University (at Ft. Wayne), and the University of Miami, where he earned his Doctorate in 1957 with a specialty in curriculum studies. His dissertation was a study of aural perceptions of authoritarians and non-authoritarians in two very different cultural environments that compared inner-city high school students in Detroit with rural schools in Alabama. Art Combs was his dissertation director. Boyd Bode, later at Ohio State, was another inspiration for his studies. After graduation he taught briefly at both Temple and Auburn Universities before accepting a position in public school administration in Orlando, Florida. Having spent some 15 years in the South as a student and administrator he felt increasingly uncomfortable with the conservative values there, and in 1962 he accepted a position at Ohio State. Nonetheless he credits his Orlando experience with shaping his entire later career since it involved working directly with hundreds of teachers and dozens of administrators and lots of parents. The Dean of the College of Education at Ohio State in 1962 was Donald Perry Cottrell who directed what was then the largest college on campus. At the time it included many units no longer housed in Education, including the School of Music, the School of Nursing, Physical Education. Psychology, and Fine Arts. Frymier immediately was favorably impressed with Ohio State, which he found to be a mature institution, indeed a “great university.” The faculty of the Department of Education he also found to be outstanding, including Earl Anderson and Ted Jenson who were successively Chairmen of the Department. Soon after his arrival at Ohio State controversies developed over the closing of University School and reorganizing the College of Education. Frymier opposed closing University School, a laboratory school that facilitated research and independent thinking. Some saw it as a training ground for future professors of education. The faculty was strong and talented, including Alex Frazier, the Director, Bob Havighurst, who taught science, and Bill Van Til. The entire field of Education was undergoing dramatic changes. At Ohio State new faculty brought new approaches, including those of Egon Goba, Director of the Bureau of Educational Research, and new Associate Dean, David Clark. Both were “very bright” with powerful intellects, and they led the fight both to abolish University School and reorganize the College of Education. Frymier concluded their unstated goal was to win more budget lines for research. Ultimately they prevailed and University School was closed and the College reorganized. Both decisions were wrong, Frymier believed, and he felt that later events proved him right. These controversial decisions were closely and bitterly fought, and split the College. Frymier concedes, however, that the intellectual discussions centered around these issues shaped much of his later career, and persuaded him of the power of data as a way to make decisions. John Ramseyer was a long-time and influential member of the College of Education. At one time he was Director of University School. Frymier liked him very much, and believed he had been supportive of Frymier’s career. He also reinforced Frymier’s belief that University School, a laboratory school, was an essential asset. Closing it was a “dumb, dumb idea,” in part because it lessened opportunities for faculty research, especially at the high school level. Clark and Egon were “flat-out wrong” to close it. Ramseyer also chaired a committee that advocated reorganizing the College of Education. On this issue Frymier and Ramseyer disagreed. Ramseyer was selected as the first head of the newly reorganized School of Education. “He tried to make it work, but it didn’t work.” In light of the massive reorganization of the old College of Education faculty relations were strained, and Frymier worked with others to organize the Lake Hope Conference with the goal of restoring a sense of harmony. Various simulation exercises were tried over three days that on the whole were quite successful. Gradually over the next year new structures evolved based on faculty input at the conference. Luverne Cunningham was named Dean of the College of Education in 1967, and he had responsibility for implementing the Lake Hope initiatives. He had been hired as Dean after a unanimous recommendation of the selection committee, and an unprecedented trip to Chicago by Novice Fawcett to persuade him to take the job. Frymier considered Cunningham a “great Dean” who was “absolutely phenomenal.” He was Dean during the Vietnam era that had a tremendous impact on the College of Education. For the university it was a time of student protests, and simultaneously demands from Black students that their voices and demands be heard. Confrontations were common, even in classes, and insults and epithets were hurled. Frymier escaped possible serious injury when a rock was hurled at his head from an angry gathering of Black students. Frymier believed that the College of Education was targeted by angry Blacks precisely because it was “probably the most liberal segment on campus” in its willingness to accommodate Blacks. There was also stress between university administrators and the faculty. In partial response, Frymier chaired a committee to consider the wisdom of establishing a new position of University Ombudsman. Considerable discussion ensued as to the precise powers of such an official, and to what extent he or she could make recommendations for change. Frymier referenced the Founding Fathers and the Constitution to establish that in the university, as in government, it was necessary to have a system based on laws and not of men. Rather, then, than relying on the good will of a single individual, such as an ombudsman, he recommended instead establishing a kind of judicial or evaluative review component throughout the university, at every college and departmental level, that would receive criticisms of the university from both faculty and students. He cites as an example the course Education 108, a required course for all education majors, which, because of sudden budget constraints, was changed from multiple sections of 20-30 students, to a single huge class of 1,100 students taught by a TA with guest lectures from professors. Yet ultimately the only answer to student complaints about this course might be one man – the Dean – saying something like “You must take this class and in this format at this time because I say you must.” How much better it would be, he argued, to have in place a university-wide evaluation review process. A government of laws, not of men. Ultimately Frymier’s committee recommended that the office ombudsman not be established, but this negative recommendation was voted down by the Faculty Council, and the Office of Ombudsman was, in fact, created. He concedes that the office of ombudsman has, in fact, helped. The Curriculum and Foundations area was always of special interest to Frymier. Numerous faculty were briefly mentioned (p. 52) as part of this area. Graduate students, especially doctoral candidates, were the core constituency. In a theoretical sense instruction at the graduate level was divided into three key levels: (1) the foundation level, (2) a theory level, and a (3) practicum level. These three theoretical levels were then envisioned within four separate areas: Curriculum, Instruction, Supervision, and Evaluation. In effect it was a kind of four by three matrix, with at least one course in each of those twelve cells. Students for these programs were recruited from all around the country. Once Frymier became Chairman of the Department of Education he altered scheduling of responsibility between teaching, research, and service for members of his department so as to permit them either a single quarter or an entire year for exclusive concentration on any one of the three core areas. Even so none of the three could be permanently ignored. For example, Edgar Dale, who had always done research only was invited to do some teaching. Some who had always done 100% teaching got involved in research. The bottom line was to devise the best method for training graduate students. Overseas Frymier and other faculty, and numerous graduate students, benefited through personal involvement over one year with the Nuffeld Humanities Curriculum Project in London. It was a good experience for everybody. Frymier reflects on the contributions of various members of the College of Education. Harold Alberty, who along with his wife, Elsie, also a professor, spent most of his career trying to develop the idea of a core curriculum, but became “disappointed,” indeed cynical, at the end of his career, when his ideas were not widely accepted. Frymier, then just starting out, resolved to balance his career interests among three or four different areas so that he would not face the end of life convinced his one great issue had never been resolved. Ironically some years after his death Alberty’s influence continues to resonate in the Department. “Block scheduling,” commonly used today, is in a sense derived from the concept of core curriculum Alberty advocated 50 years ago. Elsie Alberty had a successful career in her own right, and became Chairperson of the Department. She was not a star, but did a “steady yeoman’s-like job.” The research of the Alberty’s and other faculty members, as well as that of certain graduate students, was utilized by Frymier to write his first book The Nature of Educational Method. It was a synthesis of other people’s research. His personal contribution was in his conceptualization of educational methods. Unlike John Dewey, the great educator of the past, Frymier approached his subject through psychology not philosophy, although both ended up with similar conclusions. He wrote several other books, and strove to make each one a new and fresh study. One of his best-known books was A School for Tomorrow that was published while Frymier was president of ASCD (American Society for Curriculum Development?). Several other OSU faculty were involved with this book, including Jack Hough, Kelly Duncan, Charlie Galloway, and Jerry Reagan. A fortuitous consequence of A School for Tomorrow was that it led to a close relationship over many years with the Annehurst School, an elementary school in Westerville. For Frymier personally it was a “profound experience,” as it led to the creation of the Annehurst Curriculum Classification System, which was a practical way to individualize instruction. In essence it was a systematic way to classify curriculum materials according to a student’s individual qualities that affected learning. The impact of this new system was nationwide. Among other things it led to a series of conferences called the Crooked Run Conferences. Although the Annehurst System clearly brought improvement in curriculum materials in many quarters, its permanent influence was limited. Not many schools today continue to use this method. During Frymier’s long tenure at Ohio State there were many changes in the field of education. One area that underwent a great deal of change was the concept of philosophy as a basis of education. Earlier professors, such as Boyd Bode, Harold Alberty, and Hank Hulfish had stressed the value of philosophy, but after the reorganization of the College the earlier spirit of collegiality declined as areas once linked together in the same Department now became separate and fragmented. There was then a loss of support for philosophy and teacher education, although several professors, such as Jerry Reagan, Phil Smith, and Kelly Duncan, continued their personal interest in the area. Similarly there was a decline in the interest in the history of education. The two most prominent names in this field at Ohio State were Bob Sutton and Bernie Mehl. Frymier lamented the decline of interest in philosophy of education and history of education. Both, he said, are absolutely essential. The current emphasis on “accountability in education,” [such as the “No Child Left Behind Act],” has led to “an absolute tragic set of circumstances” where today the only rationale for curriculum planning is what’s on the state test. He also regrets recent moves to legalize vouchers, and to privatize the public schools. “It’s a tragic thing for public education in America,” and is “probably about as low level as politicians and others can sink.” In the long run this misguided emphasis on “accountability” is bound to fail. Another key recent trend has been for greatly increased federal and state mandates, requirements, and compulsions. Mandates coming from the federal government are, by law, reviewed from time to time, and are often modified down the line, but no such review exists for state mandates. These are usually coercive, and frequently destructive. The newer alternative and magnet schools do provide elective options, since they reinforce concepts such as latitude, freedom, and flexibility, and that is a good thing. Charter schools, on the other hand, Frymier sees as a threat to public schools since they are basically a device to privatize, and sometimes have close ties to churches. He is concerned about the breakdown in the wall of separation of church and state since without the wall, he argues, one cannot have both a strong state and strong church at the same time. Frymier retired from Ohio State in 1984 after taking early retirement. He worked variously over several years with Phi Delta Kappa, the University of Nebraska, ASCD, and the OSU Regional Campuses.

Leading Themes Building a personal interest in curriculum studies through 15 years of study and work in the South Controversial decisions to close University School & reorganize College of Education Contributions of Luvern Cunningham, Dean, and various faculty of the College of Education Disputed creation of University Office of Ombudsman Impact of the Annehurst Curriculum Classification System Deleterious effects of declining interest in philosophy of education, and history of education Tragic impact on public education of the “accountability,” voucher, and privatization movements