That's a pretty catchy headline.  I think it's about as accurate as this one:

Klein celebrates no layoffs, hits the bar with young teachers

That appeared in GothamSchools a few days ago.   Not only did it suggest no layoffs, but it appeared under the heading "Bullet Dodged."  In all fairness, the reporter had no way of knowing Mayor Bloomberg had misled the public about his layoff intentions.   Even though he'd lied in the past, even though he'd called revoking term limits "disgusting" before having them revoked,  even though he'd blatantly violated the Taylor Law by unilaterally announcing the terms of a contract without specifically mandated negotiation, there was truly no way for the Gotham reporter to know just how disingenuous he was being at that particular moment.

In fact, no less than the New York Times had just praised Mayor Bloomberg for making a "sensible choice."  They had no issue with his flagrant disregard for law, and their headline read "Jobs Saved: 4400."   If the venerable New York Times, with all its resources, couldn't determine Bloomberg would change his mind three days later, how would one single reporter from GothamSchools figure it out?

However, the Gotham headline was still shocking--it conjured images of the Chancellor getting to know teachers. I found this hard to accept, as his years of vilifying us and our unions suggest he hates us and everything we stand for. 

The article went on to point out that actually he was meeting a more selective group, "Educators 4 Excellence," some young teachers who specifically want senior teachers fired, on the premise that they may not be as good as new teachers.  These teachers appear to trust the judgment of serial liars Klein and Bloomberg to make these determinations.   Or perhaps they simply assume their asses will be covered if seniority goes down the tubes.

They have good reason to believe they'd survive non-seniority-based layoffs--Klein went and specifically praised one of them for going to the Grand Canyon, so you know they wouldn't feel the wrath of their new drinking buddy.  (Perhaps when they become older, if their activism subjects them to being fired at the whims of autocrats like Bloomberg and Klein, they won't have families to support, they won't need health insurance, and they won't have bills to pay, so it won't matter al all.)

The thing that really gave me pause was the "point of clarification" at the end of the piece.  "Clarification" is a funny word.  I always remember Mayor Bloomberg, after having promised to get rid of trailers by 2012, then clarifying to say he would not get rid of trailers.  This "clarification" explained while this faux-grassroots group was called "entirely unfunded," its website was actually paid for by Education Reform Now, the same front group that funded the faux-grassroots commercials urging people not to listen to the teachers' union.  The English teacher in me suggests the word "correction" is more in order.  (Sharp Miss Eyre, on simply seeing the website, suggested they had extra funding months ago.)

The group's co-founder attempts to change the subject by saying he paid for the party himself.  This, of course, comes well after it was falsely reported to be "entirely unfunded," and I've seen no previous attempt on the part of this individual to make that correction publicly.  So--was Gotham misled by the fake-grassroots group?  Or was the reporter simply making an assumption based on the info the fake-grassroots group failed to report? 

In any case, after that admission, far more newsworthy than the cutesy headline, comes this:

Stone told me today that he and Morris have only begun to look for outside funding for the group...

It's kind of incredible, after having specifically revealed that the group had already received outside funding, that anyone could seriously entertain the notion it had "only begun" to look for it, let alone report it with no hint of irony.  Even more incredible is the notion that this group, sitting there with uber-"reformer" Joel Klein, would have to struggle in any way whatsoever to get funding.  What with the hedge-fund managers that have already funded them, it's not very tough to figure out where more money will come from.  Plenty of billionaires and hedge fund managers are ready and willing to throw money at causes that weaken union and hurt working people.

If you want to see a real grassroots group, take a look at GEM.  Agree with them or not, but they are upfront with their agenda, and have no hedge fund managers pulling their strings. When's the last time you saw a feature about GEM anywhere?  Personally, I'd like to see one at the New York Times, at GothamSchools, and everywhere else, and soon.

As for my headline, these teachers may not be thugs.  But they're most certainly doing the bidding of moneyed interests, whatever else they may believe.

It's kind of incredible to see the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States ask what the difference is between email and pagers.  I mean, these are the people who are supposedly making the most important decisions in the country, and their chief is utterly out of touch with the way a large number of us communicate.  I wonder whether or not he knows telegrams are extinct.

On a local level, NYC Schools Chancellor Joel Klein has this to say about the legislation to eliminate last-in, first-out for NYC teachers:

“Nobody I’ve talked to thinks seniority is a rational way to go,”

I take the Chancellor at his word.  But it's pretty clear he doesn't get out much.  He's in a bubble, just like Chief Justice Roberts.  But Klein is not simply resistant to newfangled trends like computers--he's the head of a school system, and holds such disdain for working teachers that he doesn't bother even talking to them.  It's certainly true there are some teachers who don't like the current system, as the article attests.  I've been in their position and I don't blame them.

Clearly Klein talks to whom he wishes, and ignores absolutely everyone else.  As a model, he trots out DC Chancellor Michelle Rhee, who fired hundreds of teachers due to budget cuts, and then--Oops!--found 34 million, lost it, and found 29 million.   Perhaps he finds that sort of creative mathematics inspirational.  On the other hand, to an objective observer, it appears more delusional.  And having our jobs at the mercy of someone as disingenuous as Rhee, or blatantly and deliberately out of touch as Klein is simply unacceptable.

Such attitudes are hardly what I'd demand from a role model or teacher, let alone a schools chancellor.

It's interesting to see that one of the two geniuses who proposed the death of last-in first-out for teachers , and for teachers only (not for firefighters, police, or anyone else), and for NYC teachers (not for Long Island or Westchester teachers), is downplaying his expectations of success.  I mean, I didn't actually want it to succeed, so there won't be any tears here.  But did he actually expect it to succeed at first?

Perhaps he did.  We're in an economic downturn, and the shock doctrine suggests that demagogues can use such things to their advantage.  Certainly Hurricane Katrina allowed Bush and company to privatize New Orleans schools, doubtless putting a nice piece of change into the pockets of some of their good buds.  And Arne Duncan, personally appointed by President Merit Pay, thought that was swell too, the best thing that ever happened.  After all, the kids who perished were probably poor and bringing down the test grades anyway.

Even more interesting, perhaps, is the fact that neither Bing nor Diaz, his fellow great thinker, knew what the law they needed to replace so desperately actually entailed:

He and Diaz also flubbed a description of the law their proposed legislation would alter, claiming incorrectly that current rules would lay off teachers without regard to the subject areas they teach.

I mean, there they are,  passionately demanding only the most qualified people be employed, and they don't even know what the hell they're talking about.

Are these the guys who want to choose who stays and who goes?  I certainly hope local residents send these guys packing ASAP.

Personally, I got into teaching strictly for the money.  That 13K I made the first year changed everything.  Having that financial cushion freed me up to spend my time with strictly fun activities, like teaching summer school.  I also got to spend Tuesday and Thursday nights and all day Saturdays teaching college, and Friday and Saturday nights playing fiddle in Pennsylvania and Darkest New Jersey.   I know teachers who dispatch taxis, run kennels, and do all sorts of diverting things with their spare time.   Why should they have all the fun?  That’s why we need this bill to fire all the senior teachers and lay off teachers based on something more than mere seniority.

These are the proverbial interesting times we've always heard about.  Those of you who keep up know that a NY State Senator is sponsoring a bill to remove the last-in, first-out law that regulates layoffs.

It's no coincidence that this is happening now, in the era of Bloomberg, Rhee, and Obama.  One of Obama's promises to the NEA was, "I'll do it with ya, not to ya."  Those words, however, have proven to be as empty as those of "change" and "hope."

For those of us who've been around the block once or twice, the "change" will be having no more job.  And the "hope" will be that we're not overqualified for that gig at Taco Bell.

This is a time for us to stand tall, because we cannot tolerate this.  The middle class is under attack, and the very best place in which to stick a knife is to teachers, the last bastion of vibrant unionism in this country.

Call your state senator, and call your assembly person.  Tell them that you believe teachers are important.  Tell them you don't want to rely on the good graces of Michael Bloomberg and Joel Klein to keep your jobs.  You don't have to tell them you've seen no evidence of good graces from Tweed, but if you think that will punch up your message, tell them that too.

This is national idiocy.  People all over have tough times, and think if they screw things up for teachers, they will somehow be better off.  If Americans were smart, they'd march to Albany with torches and pitchforks, demanding they, too, have unions and job protections--just like the teachers do.

That's what Americans need.  Let's not allow Wal-Mart to dictate how we run education, or how we compensate our working people.