Carmen Fariña is talking about consolidating her some schools. This is a direct reversal of the signature policy of her former boss, Mike Bloomberg. Bloomberg, of course, had to look in a mirror every morning and ask it who was the reformiest of all, and as long as he kept closing schools it said,

Working teachers drop and crawl cause you, Mayor Mike, are reformiest of all.

Now Bill Gates, whose assful of wonders produced the small school initiative, backed up on it when he found out it didn't work. But because NYC is the first to adopt the worst ideas, and the last to drop them, Bloomberg plodded on regardless. I mean, why have one principal in a building when you could just as easily have five? And why have students abide by one set of rules when you can have five? As an added bonus, you could always dump in a Moskowitz Academy, have the whole thing refurbished, and make students in the other four schools feel like total crap because they aren't worthy.

But that's not the only benefit of small schools as far as Mayor Mike is concerned. After all, with Fair Student Funding, whatever that is supposed to mean, the fact is that every school has to be concerned with teacher salary. After all it now comes out of the school budget rather than central. So wouldn't you know it, principals with very small schools tend not to hire teachers with big salaries.

That's just part of it, though. I talk to teachers in schools that have inquiry teams that meet each and every day. Every single person in the school does that. Now there's supposed to be a C6 menu, and if you don't get one of your first three choices, you get another three. That means there should be six choices, at the very least. So could it be that every single person in the school happened to make the same choice? That's quite a coincidence.

Actually, this tends to happen when there is no chapter leader and no knowledge that there is a contract, or rules, or any of those messy things. And if you start a school with 20 teachers, all of whom are untenured rank beginners, you tend not to have a whole lot of union activism. After all, being chapter leader can be like swimming in a pool of sharks, and you're unlikely to opt for that when you have yet to master the doggie paddle. Also, while I've seen untenured teachers as chapter leaders, I certainly wouldn't recommend it to anyone. After all, when you can be fired for a bad haircut (and new teachers are unlikely to find time to seek out a good one), you might not want to be bringing multiple grievances to your principal. Also, you may want to spend time learning your job rather than going to Multiple Meetings About Everything.

In fact, it's likely newer and smaller schools have no chapter leader. I've been to class size grievance hearings where I've met teachers from small schools who weren't chapter leaders. They'd tell me their principals asked them to go. Now I will grant you it's a special kind of principal who will appoint people to grieve school class sizes. And given that, I'd suppose that most of them just go unreported.

If you have no union presence, it's a Principal's Paradise. Do whatever the hell you wish, and no one raises a peep. Will the young teachers get tenure and decide it's time to rise up and enforce the contract? Or will they simply become accustomed to doing Whatever the Hell the Principal Wishes and stay that way?

Bloomberg's magic mirror told him this was the way to go, but I'm not sure teachers who just follow instructions and question nothing are ideal role models. Isn't it our job to not only teach, but also model critical thinking? How can you do that when you aren't permitted to question anything, let alone criticize it?

Fariña is looking at a more practical problem. Why is she paying all these people to do all these things that are redundant, wasteful, and unnecessary? Of course consolidation is a reasonable solution, and hopefully she'll see fit to restore community schools, and even communities themselves. I mean, sure her boss is still pushing mayoral control, which does the exact opposite, but maybe this is a baby step in the right direction.

So if we put together five schools, will one competent chapter leader emerge? Will one principal who truly understands leadership rise to the top?

Only time will tell.

I have never in my life, before Obama, seen a Democratic President who was anti-public education. Diane Ravitch wrote that he gave GW Bush a third term in education. I'd argue he went well beyond that. To me, it was a Nixon goes to China thing. A Republican could likely not have passed Race to the Top, because the Democrats would have blocked at least some of it. I mean, waving cash in front of broke states so they'd support charter schools and judge teachers by Bill Gates-inspired junk science?

But Obama did it, and every day, without exception, people on my staff tell me how it makes them feel. Honestly, I don't have any issues with my direct supervisor, but I don't know about the reports I get. Actually she gives me good advice, and I generally use it. But what the hell do I do with that piece of paper I get at the end? If it says I'm effective, what the hell do I care why? Should I read how it relates to the Danielson checklist, the one Danielson herself says is simplistic and ridiculous? Or should I stuff it in my bag and forget about it until next time?

By 2008 I was pretty tired of GW Bush. I voted for Hillary over Obama in the primary. I did this because my union leadership had endorsed her, and though I was already wary of their advice, I figured they must have some reason to have done so. Also Obama was already coming out in favor of charters. On the other hand, so was union leadership. I watched a video of Obama telling the NEA he'd do things with them, not to them. He looked a lot better than a highly compromised John McCain and an outright preposterous Sarah Palin, so he got my vote in the general.

And it's pretty simple to me. This is one thing we do right, more or less, unlike health care, unlike elder care, unlike making sure children don't live in poverty. And someone like Obama comes along, fails to stand with working people, as promised, and fails to stand for the Employee Free Choice Act, as promised. Those were the things that got me to vote for him. I give him credit for making a little progress with health care. But I will never again vote for anyone who is not an unequivocal supporter of public education, not for President, and not for dog catcher.

Some people have been getting awfully mad at me for not supporting Hillary Clinton. I've been called a Bernie Bro, a fanatic, and accused of massive ignorance. But when Hillary Clinton stands in public and says she wouldn't keep any school open that isn't above average, it speaks volumes. It says to me she has no understanding whatsoever of what school closings entail. It says she certainly can't be bothered reading Diane Ravitch. Some people blabber nonsense about how it was out of context, but frankly, there is no context under which this makes sense.

I work two miles north of what was once Jamaica High School, and I remember very clearly when it was closed under false stats. James Eterno and I were pretty specific about why that was, and to this date no one has bothered to refute us. It was excruciating to watch Bloomberg's stooges recite false stats and ignore an entire community trying to save their school.

At the time, my school had 4600 students and was bursting at the seams. We worked very hard to reduce the numbers before the building collapsed, either literally or via one of Bloomberg's various school closing squads. It's pretty terrifying thinking someone will close your school and put all of your colleagues into the purgatory that is the ATR for no reason whatsoever. And even now, with alleged hippie commie de Blasio in charge, no one's made much of an effort to put the ATR to work full time.

I've since learned a whole lot more reasons not to vote for Hillary Clinton. But that's the one that really did it for me. I voted for Bernie Sanders in the NY State primary, but honestly he's not perfect in K-12 either. When he talks school closings I'll cross him off my list too. I don't care how you vote, who you vote for, or why. I simply can't support anyone who will close public schools.

I ask Santa to stop closing schools for Christmas. It's among the worst policies ever. Sure I have selfish reasons. I don't want any of my colleagues to become ATRs, and I don't want to be one myself. Despite all the noise and nonsense that swirls around this job, I still love it. While politicians talk smack about what needs to be done, I know what I do is very important. I know a smile from a kid is a more hopeful sign than a good grade on a standardized test, or rigor and grit, or whatever it is the reformies are selling.

A kid's smile shows an openness, a willingness to be there, and a willingness to learn. It's something you treasure, something you can't force, and something you don't tamper with. A kid will follow a teacher who elicits a smile. Wouldn't you? And for all I know, that teacher who makes the kid smile could be in a so-called failing school. What if we have a whole community with low test scores? Does that mean we take the public school, the heart of the community, and replace it with a Moskowitz test-prep factory where kids pee their pants rather than stop filling in bubbles?

Should we trust a politician who says with one breath she wants to help struggling schools, and with the next that she will close them? That's a hard sell, for me at least, because I cannot determine which side of her mouth is credible. Is it a slip when she says she will close all schools that aren't above average? Probably yes. If average is a midpoint, that would mean closing half of all schools, and as Mercedes Schneider pointed out, it would necessitate perpetually recalculating to close even more.

So yes, Hillary misspoke. But that doesn't mean she won't be closing schools. And for those who say the feds can't close schools, I point you to President Barack Obama's Race to the Top, which mandated all sorts of school closures. Sure, it gave states a choice on how to do it, but it became virtual national policy when cash-starved states had to agree or be frozen out. (They don't call it the bully pulpit for nothing.)

So here's the thing--I'm finished voting for Democrats just because they make me puke a little less than their GOP opponents. Would Hillary make better Supreme Court appointments than Donald Trump? Probably. Would she be a better President than him? Certainly. But that's a low bar.

If Hillary wants me to consider voting for her, she will walk back that comment. She will not simply say that she didn't mean to say she'd close schools that weren't "above average." She will not simply says she meant she'd close schools that weren't "good." What does "good" even mean? In reformy, it means high standardized test scores. Anyone taking a good look at the situation knows that test scores are precisely aligned with income. If we were to cure poverty, something politicians assiduously avoid, this would not be an issue.

I ask Santa to support schools rather than close them. I ask Hillary to support Santa.

Because honestly, who can vote for a politician who opposes Santa? Not me.

Hillary Clinton opened her mouth the other day, and said she wouldn't keep open any school that wasn't better than average. She later clarified to say she meant good, rather than better than average. To me, that was not much of a distinction. I work in a good school, even by reformy standards, but I don't delude myself that it's because we are all super teachers. I'd say it's because we have super kids, and that any school with such kids can do well. Just ask Geoffrey Canada, who had to dismiss entire cohorts to make himself look good. Ask Eva Moskowitz, with her "got to go" list.

For anyone who hasn't noticed, there is a direct correlation between high poverty, high needs, and low test scores. Kids like the ones I serve are a drag on any school, because it turns out people who don't know English tend to score poorly on standardized tests in English. Perhaps one day someone will do a study and prove it, and we'll all be amazed. Until then, schools dominated by ELLs will be targeted. For example there was the one in Rhode Island, where they wanted to fire all the teachers. Obama and Duncan thought that was fantastic. (If I recall correctly, the teachers were ultimately kept on, but under diminished working conditions. Another victory for the reformies.)

Despite this explanation in Diane Ravitch's blog, and the convoluted story to which it links, I cannot rationalize this as Hillary having misspoken. While the feds don't directly close schools, they've had massive influence in school closings anyway. For Hillary to even utter such a sentence indicates to me that she has drunk deeply of the reformy Kool-Aid that says teachers and schools are to blame. She does  not seem to have read Ravitch or considered what this reformy movement is all about. It also kind of dashes my hopes that she will advocate for a rational teacher evaluation system. The fact that Eli Broad contributes to her gives me even more pause.

Every day I talk to great teachers whose morale is in the toilet, who casually mention what else they can do for a living, and others who drop hints that they will dump this gig and go work in Macy's or wherever the first moment they can afford it, or the day they're vested. This will have little effect on Hillary or her rich friends, who sidestep the nonsense they impose on public schools by paying to send their kids elsewhere. But you're not gonna see kids I teach at Dalton anytime soon.

I'm also troubled by the viciousness of her supporters. On Facebook I've seen people suggest that those of us reluctant to support her are massive idiots. When the first story about her quote surfaced it was on the Weekly Standard, and there were outraged ad hominem attacks even though the story simply offered the quote. Later there was video, and multiple sources, and crickets from those who attacked the conservative publication.

The irony here is that my vote, beyond the primary, is ultimately of very little importance. If Hillary grabs the nomination and has trouble in New York, she's a dead duck. Personally, I'm not at all keen on voting for candidates of any party who don't support public education. When Andrew Cuomo campaigned the first time for governor, he ran on a platform of going after unions. I voted Green both times Andy ran. And while Obama fooled me once, after he gave GW a third term in education I voted for Dr. Jill Stein, Green candidate, for President. I am not greatly swayed by arguments that Hillary sucks less than any GOP candidate, even though she may. She's still a horrorshow.

It would take a lot to get me to pull the lever for anyone who talks like that. Frankly, with Democrats like that, who needs Republicans?

I don't know what to make of UFT President Michael Mulgrew. A year ago, he was shaking his fist and telling the whole world he was gonna punch it in the face and push it in the dirt if it laid a finger on his precious Common Core. At last week's Delegate Assembly, he seemed to be not only reveling in its impending death, but also taking credit for it. We did this, and we did that, so Cuomo's commission happened.

As usual, I think Mulgrew is passing out the party hats a little prematurely. Like all things reformy, you cut off one head of Common Core and it merely grows another. I'm much more impressed with the Carol Burris version, which lays out what New Yorkers really want:

A whopping 86 percent responded that New York should abandon the Common Core and return to the former New York State standards. The slow plod toward standards review recommended in the report is hardly the “overhaul” that parents will expect.

Burris doesn't precisely envision the withering and dying of Common Core. While Mulgrew boasts that teachers will help develop the next iteration about the standards, he and Weingarten said exactly the same about Common Core. I can't recall how many times I heard leadership defend CCSS as teacher developed, though sources I trust say otherwise. In any case, involvement has multiple facets. When your principal decrees everyone is working nights and weekends for free and that's that, he may consider it consultation. Those who mark papers all night likely view it otherwise.

It is indeed progress that the new ESSA doesn't mandate junk science. But Mulgrew also says that this is a bad time for us to ask for changes on anything, and as far as I can tell, we're still gonna be judged 50% on it. And it's tough for me to forget Mulgrew thanked the Heavy Hearts for enabling this atrocity. Whether it's Common Core junk science or garden variety junk science is not particularly comforting to me.

Leadership likes to cite teachers who'd have been granted bad ratings but were saved by junk science. That's nice, but I am personally acquainted with teachers who'd been granted good ratings but were sunk by junk science. To my mind, advocating junk science at 50% is akin to playing Russian Roulette with three bullets in the chamber. Personally, I can't get all excited simply because we've painted the bullets a marginally more attractive color.

Mulgrew asked a member who inquired about the 50% if she wanted to have principals determine 80% of the rating. The DA booed at that idea, but junk science is just a crapshoot. Spin the wheel and hope for the best. That's not what teachers want. That's what reformies want. Anything that results in fewer unionized teachers is good with them. Who cares if they fire good teachers or bad teachers as long as there are more charter schools with no union at all? Maybe we should dump junk science and simply demand rational administrators across the board. Or is that an impossible demand?

Mulgrew says we shouldn't worry about school closings, that they're basically part of life when not presided over by Michael Bloomberg, but I don't buy that either. I love what I do, but I do not envision a whole lot of principals asking me to do it. If my school were closed, I would very likely be consigned to the ATR pool for the rest of my career. While there may be some who are happy there, I'm not one of them. I love to teach, and I can't for the life of me figure why we gave up seniority transfers for the ATR. TNTP did some ridiculous paper on mutual consent, but basically if you're an ATR you have to go where they send you unless the principal doesn't want you. Mutual consent appears to be whatever the principal damn well pleases.

All in all, last week's DA was pretty uneventful and unsurprising.With Friedrichs hanging over our heads, it's tough to stay calm, as Mulgrew urged. But panicking won't do much good either, so I'm gonna have to agree with him on that, at least.

Looks like the geniuses at NYSED have done it again. Even after they field test the questions, they still don't work, so they get to erase them. These, of course, are the tests written by Pearson, which are much better than tests you or I could write. After all, the folks at Pearson have never met any of your students, don't know them from a hole in the wall, and are therefore the only people on earth who are qualified to judge them, or you, or whether your schools stay open.

One of the coolest things about the state tests is that they set the cut scores after they grade them. So if John King says 70% of our kids are gonna fail, well, that's just the way it is. If they say you need to answer 50 questions to pass, and too many kids do it, they can say they need 55. Or if not enough kids pass, they can say they need 45, and so on. Nice work if you can get it, and when you can toss out any questions that skew your results the wrong way, your success is fairly assured.

Here's the thing--that's exactly why head ed. Merryl Tisch decided we couldn't grade our students' Regents exams. Some teachers, horror of horrors, were finding kids who scored 64, and finding ways to bump the scores up to 65. What an awful thing to do, when the kid who scored 64 could simply spend another year studying whatever it was he or she missed by one point. Spending an entire year agonizing over one stinking point builds grit, or rigor, or whatever the hell it is that we're supposed to want for our kids.

Now NY State doesn't go scrimping around for one stinking point. NY State determines what results it wants, and manipulates the scores so they prove whatever. Want all the kids to pass so you look like geniuses? Want all the kids to fail so you can give more schools to Moskowitz? Want to have a sudden improvement? Want a crisis? You can get anything you want in Merryl Tisch's restaurant.

Now, since NYSED blatantly twists the scores to do whatever, they kind of assume we will too. I mean, have you known people who lie and cheat and say any damn thing to suit their purposes? In my experience, people like that tend to suspect the worst of others. They're very free with accusations, usually angry ones, that other people behave as they do. So don't take it personally if NYSED doesn't trust you.

They don't trust anyone, since they can't trust themselves. Because they are a bunch of lying manipulative weasels, they assume we are too. The only bad thing is how many people believe it.

We're gonna have to do something about that.

Boys and Girls High School is in trouble. For one thing, it's only graduating 40% of those boys and girls. This makes it look bad, and since there are no excuses for looking bad, there must be steps taken. The step favored by Mike Bloomberg would be to close the school and send all those boys and girls elsewhere.

This was a useful tool to Bloomberg, because once the boys and girls showed up in another building, he could then blame that building and close it too. In fact, he even closed some of the new schools he opened when they failed to produce results. Thus you have an endless stream of failing schools, you close them, open new ones, and nothing whatsoever is your fault. It's a thing of beauty.

Of course when you're closing and opening schools people notice it's not working. It's then necessary to expand the blame. Since nothing whatsoever can ever be your fault, you blame the teachers. Of course you've always blamed the teachers, but now you can take action. You attack their method of layoffs, saying you simply cannot afford to get rid of the new teachers. They are all wonderful and all the experienced teachers suck. The only way to fairly dismiss teachers is to give you absolute power to fire anyone you like, arbitrarily and capriciously. The good thing about that is if you don't get what you want, you can now blame the law.

And that's what's happening in the Vergara case. Kids can't learn because their teachers suck. It's not that they failed to study. It's not that they have learning disabilities. It's not that there's rampant poverty, and it doesn't matter that every single so-called failing school comes from an area of rampant poverty, even though it does. It's not that there are huge learning problems associated with rampant poverty, even though there are. If only we'd hired magical teachers poverty wouldn't matter at all.

This is very convenient for politicians, because it's a real pain in the ass to deal with poverty. That would entail actually helping the people they're elected to serve, and that's a pretty tough thing to do. Better to blame the teachers.

So now, in the US, we have rich people who want to stay that way. They don't want to pay more taxes to help the poor people. Instead they bring high-profile lawsuits so America believes it's the teachers failing our kids. And they really can't lose. If they win, they save big bucks by dumping the teachers who get higher salaries. And if they lose, they can continue to say you see, those teachers suck, and that's why kids aren't graduating from Boys and Girls High School.

And Eva Moskowitz can open charters, screen out the kids who she thinks will fail, and dump the kids who actually do fail. Then she gets a 100% graduation rate, and all the failing kids get dumped back into Boys and Girls High School, or some other public school that can be vilified in the press as failing. It's a win-win!

Except for the actual kids who are failing at Boys and Girls High School, because no one administering an education system has ever lifted a finger to help them.

Stunningly blunt article in the Daily News today on how Bloomberg's signature initiative, school closings, has been an abject failure. It's important to note that the US Education Department favors similar programs, based on Arne Duncan's Renaissance 2012, also an abject failure.

It's pretty clear that high-needs students do not, in fact, disappear, no matter how many schools you close (except at charter schools). Also, poverty does not simply disappear when you treat the nation's teachers like second class citizens.

Since all public schools get letter grades, largely based on how many high-needs students they happen to serve, shouldn't we be giving Tweed one given they've been doing this for a decade and it doesn't work? Will Arne Duncan or Bill Gates read this and determine they've been moving the nation backwards for no good reason?

More to the point, will Daily News readers remember this the next time they read an editorial stating that Bloomberg is a savior and the teacher union is trying to subvert the education of our youngest and most vulnerable?

Only time will tell.

NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg, pictured at left, says the arbitrator exceeded his authority when he ruled for the union. The arbitrator, according to Mayor4Life, should not have considered the union's arguments. Evidently, the city feels its opponents have no authority to make arguments, let alone have them heard, and that only the city's arguments should be considered. Listen to our side, ignore the other, and then make an informed decision.

There is precedent for that, of course. The city has a fake school board, called the PEP. On this board, Mayor Bloomberg has 8 of 13 votes, and if he gets wind anyone is going to vote against him, he fires those people before they even get a chance. That's why the PEP has never, ever voted against him. This, in Mayor Bloomberg's view, represents democracy. After all, he has all that money, so how could he possibly be wrong about anything?

In the Mayor's view, evidently, when you enter into binding arbitration, it's only binding if you win. If you lose, the important thing is to loudly cry it's inappropriate, and make preposterous statements like this one:

“These are kids who, if they are there for one more year, will never recover in their entire lives...”

Oddly, these same kids have survived a decade of mayoral control, with Bloomberg having pretty much absolute dominion over the fake school board. Were the mayor's words true, why on earth did he wait until the last possible year? Hasn't  he already had ten years to stop the deadly and irreparable harm that one year in these schools (some of which do not even meet his own department's requirements for closure) would cause?

Sorry, but if this mayor really wanted to improve schools, he'd stop indulging in nonsensical grandstanding, and start reforming things in ways that would really help kids. Instead of cuts to school budgets, he'd offer more money. Instead of whatever Bill Gates happened to pull out of his hind quarters, there would be programs emulating Finland, which offers lower class sizes, teacher respect and autonomy, and by many accounts, the best education in the world.

You've had ten years of failure, Mayor Bloomberg. It's no surprise your arguments ring hollow with the arbitrator, and these days, it's a miracle you're able even to persuade the paid hacks who spit out the absurd newspaper editorials that support you.

UFT has won the arbitration against closing 24 schools. Teachers will be able to return to their jobs if they haven't found jobs elsewhere. Teachers who have found jobs elsewhere can take them if they wish. Finally, someone is standing up to the living lunacy that is Tweed.

Last week I met a young woman who'd found a teaching job at one of the "turnaround" schools. Her mom works in my school. I congratulated her, as she was in a discipline in which finding a job was pretty tough. Then she asked me if there was anything she needed to worry about.

I had to tell her that UFT was in arbitration to stop the school closings. She was shocked. No one had told her. It's kind of amazing that none of the folks on the 18D panel or anywhere else deemed that worth mentioning.

"Let's hope the UFT loses," said her mom, who is not a teacher.

I had to tell them that I was sorry, but I was very much on the side of the UFT. We were likely looking at thousands of ATR teachers, wandering around, unable to find permanent spots, for no other reason than being in the wrong place in the wrong time. That's unethical, despicable, if not outright criminal, and it appears the arbitrator thought so too.

I feel very sorry for the young woman, but she will find a job elsewhere and get over it. I did the same, multiple times, when I started out. Still, it probably won't be all that rosy for those folks who've already been rejected to go work for the very people that rejected them either. What idiocy to go forth with such a hurtful process when there was no need.

There were multiple news stories last week that wrote of the closures as though they were absolute fact. It made me worry that they were. I'm glad to see their crystal balls were faulty after all.

It's nice to get a little good news for a change. Given yesterday's SCOTUS ruling, I'm hoping there's a cresting trend. There has been so much needless destruction under the idiotic policies of Michael Bloomberg, Joel Klein, What's-her-name, and Dennis Walcott. It's time to build on this victory and move ahead into a city, country, and world we can proudly call not insane.

 by special guest blogger Turnaround Teacher

I am working at one of the dozens of high schools that Mayor Mike, in his wisdom, has decided to "turnaround." "Turnaround" really means "closing," with all teachers put in excess and forced to reapply for their own jobs. Rumors circulate about how many teachers will be re-hired, but we all know that if only 50% of the staff is rehired, the school gets some extra $1.5 million.

The teachers at our school are all obviously feeling various emotions about these events. Angry and pissed-off are probably the most common, followed closely by worried and sad. But of all the things the school is going through, I think the one that teachers find the most degrading is that we have to re-apply for our own jobs. The inference is that we are teachers of a failing school, so we must all be bad teachers. That's certainly what the NY Post blares in its papers every day, and I'd gather it's what the general public thinks as well.

Of course, the teachers actually teaching in the school are too busy to really think about how much this situation sucks. Besides putting together our portfolios and scouring the open market vacancies every night, everyone knows that June is the time for the annual student begathon. This is when students who have done absolutely nothing all year long all of a sudden decide that they really, really doesn't want to go to summer school. So they go to the teachers, and the script is always the same:

"Hi, Mr./Ms. ____." (Lowers head. The too-cool-for-school attitude that they've sported all year is gone.)

"Hi, ___. What can I do for you?"

"Um, I know I'm not passing your class right now, but is there, um, uh, any way I can make up the work?" (Head rises a little, to see the reaction of the teacher. If the teacher turns away, that's bad. If the teacher gives an exasperated sigh, that's good.)

For us Living Environment teachers, the yearly begathon is more complicated than most other subject teachers. Living Environment students are required to complete about 28 labs to qualify to take the Regents Exam. For most students this requirement is a piece of cake, as most teachers do labs weekly, and often more than once a week. But there's always a handful of students who don't have 28, even after the multiple Saturday make-up sessions and repeated warnings by the teachers.

But despite finding themselves in a predicament that is entirely their fault, the students also have the upper hand in this begathon. They have the upper hand because they know that underneath, most teachers are softies at heart. So if they lower their heads, apologize for that time (or the multiple times) they screamed and cursed and called the teacher names, and perhaps cry a little, the teacher will give in. And at our school, that's exactly what is happening every day, every period, with every Living Environment teacher. Lunch and prep periods are now really "desperate last minute make-up lab" periods. One teacher I know has an after-school session, and every day, after 11th period, I see a swarm of students following her into a classroom. She has a daughter and husband at home, but she has been staying till 6:00 every day to accommodate the students.

She's not alone. My 8th period I now spend in an empty classroom along with another teacher, as we conduct joint emergency lab makeup sessions. Having another teacher in there helps me a lot, for situations like "Hey I really have to use the bathroom. Can you help ____ with that lab and ____ with another lab?" So I run to the bathroom, run back, just in time for the other teacher to ask me, "Hey, can you help ___ with the labs, I need to run to the office to print out more labs." It's like a Cooperative Team Teaching Emergency Lab Makeup class.

Sometimes I ask myself, "Why am I doing this? I'm getting fired in less than a month." I'm sure that many teachers have thought the same thing, as yet another kid initiates a begathon. But we're giving our students one last chance, because we want them to succeed, even if they weren't good students, didn't come to class, didn't do much to deserve to pass the class. In other words, we're treating them the way the Mayor is NOT treating us -- with compassion and consideration, because that's what teachers should do.

So as I see this begathon play out every day, every period, with every teacher, and I see even the strictest ones give that exasperated sigh and reach for a stack of labs, I think, "If this school is really full of bad teachers that deserve to be fired, then I'm proud to be among all these bad teachers."

Yesterday morning I watched NBC 4 announce that Mayor Bloomberg would replace 50% of the teachers in the schools he was closing. Actually that's President Obama's model. Bloomberg has opted to follow the model in article 18D of the contract he negotiated with the UFT, which states that 50% of most senior qualified staff must be retained. Does that mean 50% of working teachers will keep their jobs? Not necessarily. But the folks at NBC 4 couldn't be bothered to look up details.

They also commented that this would be decided at the PEP. It's kind of incredible that they would not bother to inform their viewers that 8 of the 13 PEP members are selected by Mayor Bloomberg and vote as he says, or are fired before they get a chance to dissent. It reminded me of things I read and saw when I was in East Berlin in 1984. And it's pathetic that it's what we get in mainstream media today.

There was also a comment about federal funds available via turnaround. But the good folks at NBC couldn't be bothered to look into the fact that this was based on Obama's model, which Bloomberg is no longer following.

I called and complained. The woman who answered the phone said they couldn't possibly comment on how the PEP could vote, despite their 100% record. She had no response for my remarks about 18D vs. federal turnaround plans. She said I should write up something and send it in. I told her I couldn't because I had to go to work.

The woman said she was already working. I pointed out that when I worked, I actually had to do things. Then I wished her a nice day.

But for our colleagues at two dozen schools, and their debased neighborhoods, it's far from a nice day. I'm very sorry they have to go through such pointless nonsense simply to appease the megalomania of the richest man in New York, who considers NYPD his army and the DOE his personal fiefdom.

I wrote this last night and set it to post this morning. For me there's no mystery whatsoever about the PEP vote.

This is what happens when you give the richest man in the city absolute power. How could we not have predicted this?

What on earth is the point of Bloomberg's turnarounds? Why is he closing 26 schools, renaming them, and taking in all the same kids?

The first reason is fairly obvious--to humiliate and inconvenience thousands of teachers by forcing them to reapply for their own jobs. This will certainly be a miserable experience for all of them, whether or not they succeed in getting their jobs back. That's how folks like Bloomberg build morale. As a side bonus, the numbers of ATR teachers are likely to explode. Though it's an incredible and idiotic use of city money and their time, he can use them as a convenient scapegoat while dragging his filth through the NY papers.

Another reason, I'm told, is this--if XYZ high school needs to make a certain graduation rate next year so as not to be closed, all we need to do is change the name to ABC high school, and voila! They don't need to meet that standard anymore! Michael Bloomberg has magically arranged for them to meet some lower standard and he isn't "accountable" anymore.

Of course, even if he were accountable, he could always blame those darn unionized teachers. They want classrooms instead of trailers. They want blackboards instead of hammers and chisels. Look, here's one demanding a computer instead of an abacus! Is there any end to their gall?

Smoke and mirrors. Bloomberg's got nothing more to offer. The turnarounds will not improve the education of the kids who live in those neighborhoods. It insults the heritage of these schools, and the neighborhoods that they're in. But Bloomberg doesn't care. Because now, even though fewer kids graduate, he may be able to meet arbitrary standards that are now lower than they'd have been otherwise.

It's endlessly ironic that this mayor has staked his reputation on education, he knows nothing whatsoever about it, and doesn't even care to learn. He's expert at PR, and it appears nothing else matters.

One morning, bright and early, Ms. Finnerty got an email from the principal.

Please come to my office period 2.

Ms. Finnerty was confused. She taught period 2.

Are you sure you didn't mean period 3? I teach period 2.

Moments later, there was a response.


I know very well you teach period 2. Of course we will cover your period 2 class. Please be sure to leave a lesson so the person who covers you can teach something of value that period.

Wow. That didn't sound good. Ms. Finnerty searched her memory for what could be so important her class needed covering, and drew a blank. Period 2 she reported to the principal's office.

"Sit down," said the principal. The principal then started fumbling with her collar. Ms. Finnerty sat down, but was inwardly concerned. The principal only fumbled with her collar when she was angry.

"You came into the building this morning carrying two Macy's bags," the principal announced.

This was true. Ms. Atkinson had two sons a little older than Ms. Finnerty's son, and had just given her some clothes her son could wear.

"How did you know that?" asked Ms. Finnerty.

"Ah!" the principal practically shouted, standing, and beginning to pace around like a detective from a black and white potboiler. "How do I know? Because I saw you!"

Ms. Finnerty was getting worried. She didn't know that Macy's bags weren't allowed in school. Why would they forbid Macy's bags? It's not such a bad store. They don't sell narcotics or anything. Well, not as far as she knows...

"That's right, I saw you!" repeated the principal. "And you didn't even say hello to me!"

"I didn't see you," said Ms. Finnerty.

"Let me tell you something, Ms. Finnerty. I am the principal. I am the educational leader of this school.  You walked into this building this morning and did not even acknowledge my existence! That is simply unacceptable!"

From that day on, Ms. Finnerty's professional life deteriorated. In June, she was fortunate enough to find another principal who was happy to hire her. And she would have lived happily ever after, if only Mayor Bloomberg had not decided to close her new school for no reason whatsoever.

 Good morning New York. I'm Dennis "Waffles" Walcott, NY City Schools Chancellor.

You know, we here at Tweed take the education of our youngsters very seriously. That's why, two years ago, Mayor Bloomberg decided to utilize the "transformation model" for 33 schools in the city. I fully supported this great innovation, as supporting our schools is something it's important for us to do. Also, using the Danielson Framework was helpful. While some people, including Danielson, felt our rubric was kind of a "gotcha" thing, I thought we did a pretty good job, especially since none of us had actually been trained in how to use the darn thing. I fully supported the way we used it.

Now, once we and the UFT were unable to come to an agreement on evaluation, I fully supported Mayor Bloomberg's decision to keep the federal money via the federal "turnaround" plan, which entails replacing the principal and at least 50% of staff. After all, we need that money to enact valuable reforms. When the UFT and the city came to a preliminary agreement on evaluation, I fully supported Mayor Bloomberg's decision to do the turnaround model anyway. After all, the UFT ought to know that we do what the mayor wants, when he wants, and how he wants, and that I fully support this approach.

Mayor Bloomberg also took the step of removing 7 schools who'd received As or Bs in our progress reports. We looked pretty stupid closing those schools, so when Mayor Bloomberg took them off the list, I fully supported him. 

Of course, there is that nasty contract that the UFT insists we use, just because we negotiated and signed it. While I think it's unreasonable, it turns out that the federal "turnaround" model violates the contract, which says we must allow a minimum of 50% of the most senior teachers to keep their jobs. Mayor Bloomberg wisely decided to follow this model rather than face a losing lawsuit, and I fully supported him.

So now it looks like we won't get the federal money after all. That was the main reason Mayor Bloomberg decided to use the turnaround model. But he has decided to go ahead with it anyway, and I fully support him. After all, it will be a nice change for kids to come to a school that's brand new, with lots of different teachers. Why? Because Mayor Bloomberg says it will, and I fully support him.

Sure there are those nattering nabobs of negativity, who wonder how a school will get off to a good start when it can't actually program for next year, or plan anything whatsoever given it has no idea who will be working there next year, and that the school technically will not exist next year. I say, embrace the challenge! Mayor Bloomberg changes his plans all the time, for any reason, or for no reason at all, and all I can say is I fully support him.

Okay, now, you see that big guy in the picture? That's Mayor Mike. And the beautiful woman? Well, that's us I guess. What are those chains that bind us? Are they mayoral control? The UFT Contract? A stolen third term?

Whatever binds us, it'll be there for a good year-and-a-half. No sense letting him get too comfortable. I was at the closing hearing at Grover Cleveland High School on Monday, and I was just a little bit upset. I may have said one or two uncomplimentary things about Michael the Hut and his band of Tweedies. I could have researched good things about the school and made some kind of impassioned plea, but figured the DOE rep was probably playing a Pacman game under the table and just waiting for the moment he could go home.

Leo Casey pointed out that Cleveland did not meet the DOE's own criteria for a closing school. He asked what a parent would say if a teacher laid out requirements for passing, the kid met said requirements, and then failed anyway. As a parent, I would not be jumping up and down with happiness.

These hearings will be going on all month. You should catch one, or three, and stand up for the schools Bloomberg is closing in a fit of pique. Maybe if they hear enough of us, something will rattle around in their lizard brains and they'll come to their senses. Probably not. But if they're going to chain us, or our schools, to their repugnance, we might as well make it as difficult as we possibly can.

There's nothing quite like seeing an entire community lined up against Bloomberg "reforms." And there's nothing quite like seeing firsthand Tweed's indifference to education, community, reality, and anything else our billionaire mayor deems inconvenient. Come out. Sign up. Speak. Remember this administration as the abomination it is, and work like hell so history doesn't repeat itself in 2013.

A story in Gotham Schools points out that Mayor4Life Bloomberg, in his infinite wisdom, has decreed that "Turnaround Schools" will not, in fact, have to replace at least 50% of staff. In fact, the federal model on which this is supposedly based states schools would "rehire no more than 50% of existing staff."

However, article 18D of the UFT Teacher Contract, to which the city is a signatory, states that "at least fifty percent of the School's pedagogical positions shall be selected from among the appropriately licensed most senior applicants from the impacted School(s) who meet the School's qualifications."

And therein lies the conundrum. Should the Emperor set 50% as a maximum, to fulfill federal regulations and qualify for SIG money, or should he abide by the terms of the Contract to which he's agreed? Given an almost certain lawsuit if he defies the Contract (and likely a losing one), Bloomberg has opted for the latter. After all, even Regents Chancellor Meryl Tisch has determined Bloomberg's turnaround plan has nothing to do with helping children.

The fact is, Bloomberg is simply doing this in a fit of pique over his awful evaluation system. I want what I want, and if I can't have it, I'm taking my ball, going home, and closing 33 schools. When you're a billionaire mayor, you can do things like that.

Tonight, in accordance with city agreements, there will be a closing hearing at Grover Cleveland High School in Queens. The school will present its arguments, a panel will pretend to listen, and the panel will recommend closure. On April 26th, the PEP will pretend to listen to arguments and then vote to do whatever Michael Bloomberg has told told them to, because that's what mayoral control means--that no one in the entire city except Michael Bloomberg has a voice.

Panels all over the city will convene to determine which teachers get to stay at their schools and which become ATRs. In schools with hundreds of teachers, this will be incredibly time-consuming. There will be chaos, and it will be appropriately blamed on Bloomberg's juvenile decision to move ahead with this nonsense. Because he's avoided a time-consuming losing lawsuit, there will be somewhat less chaos.

But let's not applaud the mayor for making a boneheaded move marginally less idiotic. I don't expect to see "marginally less idiotic" as a campaign slogan anytime soon.

It's kind of amazing when anyone in authority speaks truth to Bloomberg. But Regents Chancellor Meryl Tisch is doing just that. I don't know whether or not someone tainted her breakfast cereal, but she seems to recognize that Bloomberg's political machinations have nothing whatsoever to do with putting "Children First, Always." Would that the local papers would share that cereal.

Bloomberg simply cannot fire teachers fast enough. I can't say why he doesn't simply jump on the new evaluation plan, but it appears that fair hearings for even 13% of targeted teachers is too much for Mayor4Life. His plan, simply denying every appeal no matter what, appears to be more to his liking. After all, the PEP simply does whatever he says. Why can't everyone simply do whatever he says?

Let's hope against hope this is a wakeup call for Mayor4Life. Maybe even the privileged have had enough of his absurd nonsense. Perhaps he will find himself unable, even with all his money, to buy himself that fourth term he fantasizes about.

And let's hope he lands somewhere where he won't be able to hurt working people any more than he already has.