In response to this post about the recent arbitrator's ruling that NYC speech teachers may "review already covered material" during their additional 37.5 minutes of paid work under recent contract settlements but don't have to actually teach new stuff, EdWize's Leo Casey is understandably not digging it, and says something about how I did a Humpty Jig and raises questions about who is the master. I'm not sure what he means either, but his main point: those teachers shouldn't be teaching new material but should instead be providing tutoring work. Read it, because his perspective is obviously important. (This paragraph was edited.)

Other NYC teachers note that in cases where their schools extended class periods by a few minutes to include the additional 37.5 minutes they are sure as heck working.

Just look at how absurd this whole discussion is... It used to seem like there was a fair way to provide teachers with (deserved) increases in take-home pay that outpaced raises for other municipal unions by extending the time meaningfully spent with NYC students. But now even that seems questionable. Is this hopeless?

UPDATE: One smart reader notes this is not a big deal, a wrinkle to be expected with a one-size-fits-all, top-down contract.