The New York Post is engaged in yet another series of articles on the perfidy of teachers. This series basically tells the world that teachers have too many job protections. It does this by giving examples of teachers who have jobs despite the fact that, for example, a dog the teacher owned killed someone. This teacher's boyfriend went to prison for this, but the teacher herself did not. This suggests to me the state felt her boyfriend responsible, but the Post is not persuaded. None of this innocent until proven guilty nonsense for Rupert Murdoch.

In any group, you can find examples of outrageous behavior, or at least behavior a tabloid can claim to be outrageous. You can always air accusations about individuals, even if courts and/ or arbitrators have determined them to be without merit. So why limit such stories to teachers?

We could target racial groups, and say, hey, look at this guy. We could target religious groups, and say hey, look what someone says this woman did. Of course, that would make us bigots. In fact, that's the MO of bigots pretty much everywhere.

So if Rupert Murdoch engages in despicable manipulative behavior with his propagandist rag, would it be rational or justifiable to paint all publishers with the same brush?

And when the New York Post blatantly stereotypes teachers, tarring the whole group with the actions of a small group, are they any better than racists or bigots?  Why or why not?

Chancellor Walcott yesterday announced the formation of new "Children First" networks that would specialize in giving guidance to schools that are about to be closed.

I really loved this column from Joe Nocera in the Times, even if it made me a bit sad to read it on this last day of spring break. Nocera points out that a young man named Saquan came close to experiencing academic success at the Bronx's M.S. 223, only for his teacher and principal to see much of their hard work slip away when Saquan moved back to Brooklyn.

The NY Times declares that new Chancellor Dennis Walcott has a knack for conciliation. Certainly Walcott is charming and well-spoken. And he has asked for a new tone, something that would go a long way toward easing the toxic relationship between Tweed on the one hand, and parents and teachers on the other. Unfortunately, and not noted in the three page article, Walcott has been part of this administration every step of the way.

Furthermore, he's embraced Mayor Bloomberg's insistence on sidestepping the contract by eliminating reverse-seniority layoffs. In case you're on the fence on this issue, note that the city is sitting on a 3.1 billion dollar surplus, ridding the city of 8.2% of working teachers will save only 369 million, and there is, in fact, no need to lay off anyone at all.

You wouldn't know that from reading the article. After 9 years of failed programs from Bloomberg and company, do they really merit yet another puff piece? Shouldn't the press alert us to these things?

A free press ought to be a bulwark against billionaires like Mayor Bloomberg and their propaganda. When I read pieces like these, I wonder where the analysis is.

Feel free to offer your own.

I've been reading Steinbeck's The Grapes of Wrath this week, something I've meant to do for decades, and I can't help but notice that the entire theme of the book is being played out today, all over the United States. The richest people, despite having more money than they and their descendents can possibly use, are determined to keep it all, get more, and the hell with everyone else.

And the wrath of the rich is directed against those who organize, those with voices. In Steinbeck's book, anyone who stood up was labeled a "red." They were dispatched to jails, their camps were destroyed, they were tossed out of town. In these United States, union is rapidly becoming a foreign concept. Since Reagan destroyed PATCO unions have been waning, and working conditions have gotten worse. The road to middle class is tougher every day, to the benefit of no one, even the rich folks who think they've got it made:

"And the great owners, who must lose their land in an upheaval, the great owners with access to history, with eyes to read history and to know the great fact: when property accumulates in too few hands it is taken away. And that companion fact: when a majority of the people are hungry and cold they will take by force what they need. And the little screaming fact that sounds through all history: repression works only to strengthen and knit the repressed."

- John Steinbeck, The Grapes of Wrath, Chapter 19

We're not yet at that point, of course. But Scott Walker of Wisconsin has pushed us one step closer. And one day the galoots who vilify teachers are going to realize the folly of complaining because we've got decent jobs. The idiocy of depriving us, our children, and their children of decent jobs, of crying "My job sucks so yours needs to suck more," is a national disease.

America needs to stand up. We, the teachers, are the last vestige of vibrant unionism in the country, and that's why we're under such vicious and constant attack. America needs to learn that, rather than take away protections and benefits for teachers, it needs to demand them for everyone.  When I'm face to face with billionaire Michael Bloomberg, who'd just as soon reduce us to serfdom as look at us, I'm very pleased that 80,000 working teachers are standing by my side, whether they know it or not.

Actually, we have the right idea. We have the idea that America needs to emulate. Join us, America. We're ready when you are. You can trust us. Why?

Because we're teachers, and it's our job to share worthwhile knowledge with everyone we can.

The school choices I hear the most about these days, having made the leap to teaching high school, are those that my school's seniors are busy making as they sort through their college acceptances. I got a bit of nostalgia for my middle school days as I read this article from GothamSchools about the convoluted high school admissions process here in NYC. Unfortunately, for someone such as myself, it raises more questions that it answers.

(written after she found out she was dying of cancer).

I would have gone to bed when I was sick instead of pretending the earth would go into a holding pattern if I weren't there for the day.

I would have burned the pink candle sculpted like a rose before it melted in storage.

I would have talked less and listened more.

I would have invited friends over to dinner even if the carpet was stained, or the sofa faded.

I would have eaten the popcorn in the 'good' living room and worried much less about the dirt when someone wanted to light a fire in the fireplace.

I would have taken the time to listen to my grandfather ramble about his youth.

I would never have insisted the car windows be rolled up on a summer day because my hair had just been done.

I would have sat on the lawn and not worried about grass stains.

I would have cried and laughed less while watching television and more while watching life.

I would never have bought anything just because it was practical, wouldn't show soil, or was guaranteed to last a lifetime.

Instead of wishing away nine months of pregnancy, I'd have cherished every moment and realized that the wonderment growing inside me was the only chance in life to assist God in a miracle.

When my kids kissed me impetuously, I would never have said, 'Later. Now go get washed up for dinner.' There would have been more 'I love you's' More 'I'm sorry's.'

But mostly, given another shot at life, I would seize every minute, look at it, and really see it . . live it and never give it back.       STOP SWEATING THE SMALL STUFF!!!

Don't worry about who doesn't like you, who has more, or who's doing what.  Instead, let's cherish the relationships we have with those who do love us.

Well, happy spring break, y'all. I'm coming to you live from one of the five boroughs, where I'm staycationing for this particular break. It works for me, though. After all, if I'd gone somewhere, I might have missed Chancellor Walcott's heartwarming speeches from the weekend, in which he promised not to do any teacher-trash-talking. However, in pretty much the same breath, he sounded the death knell on layoffs yet again.

Welcome to the tenure of Chancellor Dennis Walcott, who bemoans the "poisonous debate" in NYC, claiming it's hurting kids. Doubtless the new chancellor would much prefer that city parents and teachers sit down and shut up, Mayor Bloomberg's preferred mode of debate. After all, Walcott has been an integral part of Board of Education "reform," resulting in a Panel for Educational Policy on which 8 of 13 members either vote with the mayor or get fired before getting a chance to vote against him.

Walcott bemoans the toxic atmosphere that's pervaded city-community relations, failing to note that he's fostered it every step of the way. He fails to see any problem with charters invading public schools, usurping libraries and getting better facilities and favored treatment. He fails to see the animosities his administration has caused by depriving neighborhoods of schools, or by placing five layers of administration in buildings that got by just as well with one.

Outrageously, Walcott has the audacity to push the highly polarizing plan to eliminate seniority rights for teachers while ostensibly calling for civility. In a display of what can only be called chuzpah, he contends that seniority would not factor in layoff decisions under that scenario, ignoring the fact that one of his "reforms" was making salary school based. Somehow, this is labeled "fair funding," and somehow, this boneheaded move was approved by Randi Weingarten's UFT.

If Walcott wants a dialogue, public school parents and teachers would welcome it. If he wants to stand there peddling the same tired old nonsense, insisting on "accountability" for unionized teachers while accepting none whatsoever for the outrageous failures of the last decade, no informed person, no active parent or teacher, and knowledgeable community member not on Bloomberg's payroll will take him seriously.

If you want to do better, Mr. Walcott, we're all ears. Please don't insult our intelligence by placing a ribbon on the same old garbage we've been hearing for the last long, long decade.

by guest blogger Krista Peterson

For the past decade, it seems like the number of schools, companies, and construction practices have all swayed towards more “green” materials and practices. Even with an overall positive swing in more sustainable materials and practices, there is still some material use that’s having a negative impact, primarily in many New York City schools. From the use of dangerous heating oil to toxic forms of insulation, many NYC schools are in need of a slight makeover.

It’s been recently estimated that around 9,000 buildings in New York are using a dirty heating oil to help sustain heat and create hot water; nearly 450 of them are schools. Essentially, these buildings are burning “sludge” to heat up their buildings. These buildings amount for nearly 90 percent of the city’s soot pollution, heavily topping the releases from all cars. This fuel, also dubbed “No. 6 oil” is essentially leftover petroleum that is extremely heavy and thick. The health problems associated with No. 6 oil include lung inflammation, emphysema, and possible cardiovascular issues.

State government and the city have both passed acts that are geared to clean up some instances of dirty
heating oil, but none affect the use of No. 6 oil, which is widely considered the most threatening and
dangerous. Mayor Bloomberg has even pushed through two laws on heating oil, but neither address no.
6. Luckily, the Department of Environmental Protection is reviewing a possible rule that would push out the use of No. 6 oil, forcing a switch to low-sulfur No. 4 oil. Still, administration refuses to outright ban the use of No. 6 oil because of the financial burden that would ensue.

The financial burden would be particularly heaviest on removal from schools. The mayor has plans
to reduce just over 100 schools from No. 6 use in the next 10 years. The problem with removal from
schools is that a number of obstacles present themselves in the process, adding the financial burden.
Before any type of switch to the piping and fuel could occur, asbestos would have to be removed
from the insulation. This is a commonly used fiber throughout the past century that is now commonly
removed because of its connection to diseases like mesothelioma and asbestosis. Having this material
removed before any type of piping work is necessary because of the possible life threatening health
risks to any of the workers, for example, mesothelioma life expectancy can be extremely severe after
repeated exposure and diagnosis.

Essentially, given the price that it would cost to even eliminate the oil from 100 schools, the total cost
for repair in all the effected schools would near $5 billion dollars. Maybe the smartest way to go about
the removal of this type of oil is to keep pressure on the talked about proposal from the DEP, that would
phase out use of the material, instead of an overall removal. In any case, even the proposal from the
DEP has yet to be pushed through. In the end, it will take the help and support of the administration to
get a removal process off the ground, at the least. In the meantime, it seems as if the DEP, Mayor, and
other city officials are stalling because of the possible financial problems that could ensue.

Newly christened chancellor Dennis Walcott is very smart. He thinks on his feet and speaks very well. He is comfortable before the press and speaking to community members. He's certainly better equipped for the job of chancellor than his immediate predecessor, a preposterous figure.

Walcott will not make idiotic utterances about using birth control to control overcrowding, as both Black and Klein did. You won't see him making juvenile noises at PEP meetings. He's a seasoned politician, and not prone to blatant stupidity. In fact, for Mayor Bloomberg, he's a huge improvement over both Black and Klein.

I know you're waiting for a "but." Here it is--Walcott is wedded to Mayor4Life's policies, which are abysmal failures. He's been with Joel Klein every step of the way, from school closings, to favored charter schools, to leaving children freezing at bus stops, to spending hundreds of millions on computer systems that don't work, to fraudulent test scores, to taking hundreds of millions to reduce class sizes that ended up higher, to now, where financial genius Michael Bloomberg determines a 3.1 billion dollar surplus is a financial emergency so dire that we need to get rid of almost ten percent of working teachers.

Walcott will look better, but represents more of the same. I was at a UFT rally in Queens yesterday, where State Senator Tony Avella suggested the only solution was a mayoral recall. The crowd went wild, and shouts of "Recall, Recall," punctuated the speeches of every speaker that followed, including that of UFT President Michael Mulgrew.

Not a bad idea at all. Is it viable?

"It's not question of whether there will be layoffs, but when." Thus saith, in so many words, the heir apparent to the Chancellor position, Dennis Walcott. This is how he is going to start his tenure, then; not with a bang but with a whimper, so to speak.

Just saw that NY State is meeting to consider whether or not Deputy Mayor Dennis Walcott will get a waiver to be chancellor. If they've learned anything from the debacle of Cathie Black, or the abject failure of Joel Klein, they will insist Bloomberg select an educator.

However, look for Steiner, having set the bar low enough for socialite Cathie Black, to show no integrity whatsoever and do whatever Mayor4Life Bloomberg golly goshdarn feels like.

That's how this post at NYC Public School Parents blog left me. Nice as it is to read stuff Bill Gates doesn't veto, when you read things like this, you know exactly what journalists are not doing. Why should Leonie Haimson be finding the outrageous contradictions of the Tweedies while tabloid editorial writers, and even some reporters, write ridiculous echoes of billionaire Mike Bloomberg's utterly invalid notions about education?


Can you believe people get paid for this, many times our salaries, and yet the public is like a demented Queen of Hearts calling for the heads of teachers? Newly annointed Chancellor Walcott, though much more articulate and less of an embarrassment than socialite Cathie Black, spouts the same discredited ideas that Bloomberg and Klein have been spewing for a decade. He speaks of the "tremendous job the DOE is doing with our schools," despite the fact that the only prescription they have for improving them is closing them, replacing them, and then closing and replacing the schools they closed and replaced them with.


When faced with the consequences of their idiotic and unnecessary plan to fire almost ten percent of working teachers, they seemed to have no idea how it would affect class size, eventually deciding class size would go up by 1.5. Exactly whose hind quarters that figure came from I couldn't say.


We deserve better from our elected officials. Though Mike Bloomberg bought the office fair and square after weaseling around the term limits law NYC voters twice affirmed, we deserve better from him. And NYC's kids deserve a chancellor who will serve them, rather than the richest man in New York City.


The fact is, this city does not exist for the benefit of Mike Bloomberg. What would it take to make him realize that? A conscientious press corps would preclude this nonsense. Until then, what's a city to do?

I was in the teachers' room at school last week when I heard that Chancellor Black was to be no more. The attitude in the room might have been politely described as jubilant. I have yet to meet the real working teacher that was at all excited or motivated by her leadership, and no one I know seems to find her departure to be a great loss.