Metro

Waffling Walcott

Is this déjà vu? Or are city schools cursed all over again with a case of Cathie Black II?

Not since former Schools Chancellor Black, forced out of the city’s most important job after barely 100 days, joked that the answer to school crowding is “birth control’’ has a top education official blundered so miserably.

To the horror of parents around the city, Black’s replacement, Dennis Walcott, demonstrated last week that he is not an educator at heart. Like Willy Loman, he’s a bumbling salesman who just wants to be liked.

Score one for the teachers union! Walcott was asked if he supports a compromise now being tossed around in Albany that would kiss the backsides of the most militant members of the United Federation of Teachers.

His answer? A resounding yes!

The Post fought to win the legal right to publish the ratings of more than 12,000 teachers, by name.

In February, we let ’em rip. This paper revealed how some 12,000 city teachers were doing. Finally. The teachers union was apoplectic.

Parents were delighted.

But now, Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver is eyeing a move that would neuter the rankings, rendering the grades awarded to your kids’ teachers — good, bad or woefully incompetent — utterly meaningless.

Under Silver’s compromise, teacher ratings would no longer be released to the public, but only to parents. This means families could learn that a kid’s teacher is, say, doing crossword puzzles or daydreaming of porn on the clock, only after a child is bumped up a grade.

Walcott’s reaction? Depressing.

Asked whether he supports the Silver plan, Walcott didn’t hesitate. He bucked the Bloomberg administration, which wants more teacher transparency, not less.

“Parents should be the key recipient of the data,’’ Walcott told The Post’s Yoav Gonen in a detailed interview.

“If that’s the type of discussion that’s taking place [in Albany] . . . I would be supportive of that.’’

Two days later, (presumably after a stern talking-to), Walcott backtracked.

“Transparency is what I and the mayor believe in, making sure that the public has the information,’’ he said.

Still, Walcott’s record on protecting bad apples — he has repeatedly said the public’s right to know should not trump teachers’ rights not to be “denigrated’’ — served to embolden the union in its ongoing quest to protect rotten teachers by concealing the ratings.

“Dennis has been pretty supportive of not doing this teacher-in-the-newspaper thing. He’s been pretty consistent on that,’’ crowed United Federation of Teachers President Michael Mulgrew.

Frustrated parents were furious at signs of weakness.

“I’m confused about what the Department of Ed does, and a lot of parents feel the same way,’’ groused Manhattan mom Jill Tafrate.

Like many adults, she scooped up The Post when teacher ratings were published, and was pleased to see that educators at her daughter’s elementary school scored relatively well. But now, she fears she won’t be able to pick a decent middle school for Sophia, 9, and Max, 5.

“Both my parents are schoolteachers, and I’m very sympathetic to how difficult the job is. But I feel strongly that teachers should be accountable for what they do and how they teach.

“They’re wimps!’’ she said of the Ed Department. “Unions run the schools, and that’s why bad teachers slip through the cracks. It’s a waste of time to backpedal.

“What’s the point of chickening out [on teacher rankings] now?’’

Dad Bryan Davis of Inwood was pleased, and stunned, when he got the chance to eye teacher rankings.

“If I had this information back when my son was in elementary school, we would not have sent him to his school,’’ said Davis, executive director of Parents Making a Difference

“My child only has one life . . . We need the most accurate information to make the most informed choices.

“Keeping this information public will only benefit the children of New York City.’’

Sadly, adults in charge of education don’t always have children’s best interests at heart.

CBS has a stupid pet named Letterman

David Letterman is routinely demolished in the ratings by Jay Leno. In 2009, the married father admitted he bedded a bevy of underlings on the CBS payroll, in his office.

Then he “joked’’ that Sarah Palin’s 14-year-old daughter, Willow, was “knocked up’’ by slugger Alex Rodriguez when mom and daughter visited Yankee Stadium. His excuse?

The funnyman claimed he was referring not to the the rape of a minor. His intended target was Palin’s 18-year-old daughter, Bristol — a young lady who never set foot on the ball field.

Now, as the nation recoils from the use of the “C’’ word by leftist misogynists such as Bill Maher, Letterman is having his contract renewed for at least two years by CBS, for a sum estimated at more than $30 million a year. Holding court in the wee hours since 1982, this makes him the longest-running late-night host, ever — eclipsing the classy Johnny Carson, who put in 30 years.

There’s no accounting for taste.

‘Floozy’ hasn’t got a fighting chance

When will women of easy morals and nonexistent virtue quit trying to make a buck off freaky rich-and-famous men?

You can’t fault the dames for trying, I guess.

Angelica Cecora, who engaged in energetic three-way intercourse with former boxing champ Oscar De La Hoya in a Manhattan hotel suite, accused the cross-dressing pugilist of imprisoning her between bouts of dressing in ladies’ undies and taking illicit drugs.

But a judge tossed the suit, calling it a “frivolous’’ action brought by an alleged hooker. He ordered Cecora to pay a $500 fine and De La Hoya’s legal fees. Her lawyer vows to appeal.

Doesn’t anyone work for a living anymore?

Autism’s sad effect

With one in 88 children today diagnosed with autism, one thing is certain: It’s hell on families.

In her new book, “If I Could Tell You,’’ Hannah Brown demonstrates that autism is a marriage killer. One estimate (heavily contested) puts the divorce rate of parents of autistic kids at 80 percent. But Brown says nearly all her friends with afflicted children were left by their husbands. Herself included.

Her tales of autism won’t reunite families, but they prove you’re not alone.

What a bunch of boobs

Here’s a finding of major mammary import.

A national survey of 2,089 women ages 18-25 finds that a whopping 41 percent of gals would prefer having large breasts to high intelligence. Further, more than a quarter of respondents said they’d gladly swap their IQs for a more generous chest.

Why? Nearly a third of women who answered pesky questions posed by a leading consumer Web site, CouponCodes4u.com, said big boobs would make them “feel happier.’’

The rest, I suppose, can afford breast-augmentation surgery and, hopefully, retain their brains. The world has become a scary place.