2026 School Survey Results: Which School Is Right for You? – Manhattan Results

The 2026 School Survey results were released on Tuesday, August 11, four days after our open transfer period came to an end, even though superintendents and principals were granted access to the results in early June. The timing is terrible and is something that must be rectified in the future, but that is a discussion best left for another day. Back on topic, many UFT members may be wondering if they transferred to the right school or if they made the right choice by remaining at their current school. Many of us ask our colleagues, friends, or go on social media to find out these answers, and although they are helpful, the responses are largely anecdotal.

Each year, we are given the opportunity to anonymously respond to a survey about our respective schools. It is our chance to truthfully share our opinions regarding a myriad of topics, including school safety, classroom behavior, and academic success. While an all-encompassing article is much too ambitious, we have instead chosen to hyperfocus solely on data pertaining to administrators – specifically principals. This post specifically focuses on Manhattan schools.

It should be noted that these surveys can be flawed in many ways and these results are not an exact science. People may lie on their surveys. Some may feel pressured to say good (or bad) things. Some schools have very few responses, so huge increases/decreases may be the result of just a small handful of teachers. Some schools may have a new principal and/or other admin. The results should not serve as a be-all and end-all deciding factor when determining the effectiveness of school leadership, but this anonymous survey is the closest thing we have to an accurate representation. Everything else is anecdotal and proven to be infinitely more flawed than the annual school survey.

We will post the data for the following three categories for every NYC public school:

Instructional Leadership

Teacher Influence

Teacher-Principal Trust

Each of these categories comes with a handful of questions. The questions for each category are as follows:

Instructional Leadership

1. The principal/school leader at this school makes clear to the staff their expectations for meeting instructional goals.

2. The principal/school leader at this school understands how children learn.

3. The principal/school leader at this school sets high standards for student learning.

4. The principal/assistant principal(s) at this school supports teachers in implementing what they have learned in professional development.

5. The principal/assistant principal(s) at this school carefully tracks student academic progress.

6. The principal/assistant principal(s) at this school knows what’s going on in my classes.

7. The principal/assistant principal(s) at this school provides teachers with formative feedback to improve practice.

8. The principal/school leader at this school participates in instructional planning with teams of teachers.

Teacher Influence

1. At this school, the principal/school leader encourages feedback through regular meetings with families and teacher leaders.

2. How much influence do teachers have over school policy in hiring new professional personnel?

3. How much influence do teachers have over school policy in planning how discretionary school funds should be used?

4. How much influence do teachers have over school policy in selecting instructional materials and/or curriculum used in classrooms?

5. How much influence do teachers have over school policy in setting standards for student behavior?

Teacher-Principal Trust

1. I feel respected by the principal/school leader at this school.

2. The principal/school leader at this school is an effective manager who makes the school run smoothly.

3. The principal/school leader has confidence in the expertise of the teachers at this school.

4. I trust the principal/school leader at their word (to do what they say that they will do).

5. The principal/school leader looks out for the personal welfare of the staff members.

6. The principal/school leader places the needs of children ahead of personal interests.

7. The principal and assistant principals function as a cohesive unit.

Dissecting each individual question would make this project impossibly large, so we will stick to giving you the overall grade principals received in each of the three categories. We will point out any changes in scoring in these three categories from 2025 to 2026. For example, if you see “(up 2%)” next to a number, it means that percentage went up 2% from 2025 to 2026. High and low scoring schools are in bold. There are also comments made for schools when necessary.

The 2026 survey had nearly 67,000 responses. For the sake of comparison, the overall averages for each category are as follows:

Instructional Leadership: 89% (Same as 2025)

Teacher Influence: 67% (Same as 2025)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 87% (Same as 2025)

Please note that although many schools may be bolded, it does not mean that they were necessarily above or below average in every category. Results were weighted with teacher-principal trust counting the most, followed by instructional leadership, and teacher influence, in that order.

Without further ado, the 2026 school survey results for principals/administrators in Manhattan…

Manhattan

01M015 – P.S. 015 Roberto Clemente (based on 24 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 97% (down 3%)

Teacher Influence: 84% (down 1%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 95% (down 3%)

Comments: All results are way above city average.

01M020 – P.S. 020 Anna Silver (based on 27 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 89% (down 11%)

Teacher Influence: 74% (down 12%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 88% (down 11%)

01M034 – P.S. 034 Franklin D. Roosevelt (based on 29 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 82% (down 7%)

Teacher Influence: 44% (down 5%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 81% (up 3%)

Comments: Teacher influence is well below city average. Only 21% of respondents said teachers have influence over school policy in hiring new professional personnel.

01M063 – The STAR Academy – P.S. 63 (based on 26 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 59% (down 6%)

Teacher Influence: 38% (down 14%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 31% (down 18%)

Comments: All results are well below city average.

01M064 – P.S. 064 Robert Simon (based on 15 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 98% (same)

Teacher Influence: 60% (down 17%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 94% (up 2%)

Comments: Instructional leadership and teacher-principal trust are above city average.

01M110 – P.S. 110 Florence Nightingale (based on 25 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 91% (down 1%)

Teacher Influence: 73% (up 22%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 86% (down 3%)

Comments: 64% of respondents said that teachers have influence over school policy in hiring new professional personnel, up from just 17% in 2025.

01M134 – P.S. 134 Henrietta Szold (based on 17 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 71% (up 8%)

Teacher Influence: 48% (up 8%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 58% (up 17%)

Comments: Despite some improvements, all results are well below city average.

01M140 – P.S. 140 Nathan Straus (based on 38 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 85% (down 7%)

Teacher Influence: 60% (down 2%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 85% (down 5%)

01M142 – P.S. 142 Amalia Castro (based on 42 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 84% (same)

Teacher Influence: 69% (down 4%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 87% (down 2%)

01M184 – P.S. 184m Shuang Wen (based on 51 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 95% (up 11%)

Teacher Influence: 62% (up 4%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 93% (up 13%)

01M188 – P.S. 188 The Island School (based on 37 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 100% (same)

Teacher Influence: 96% (down 2%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 100% (up 1%)

Comments: All results are way above city average.

01M292 – Orchard Collegiate Academy (based on 23 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 99% (up 6%)

Teacher Influence: 81% (up 15%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 100% (up 5%)

Comments: All results are way above city average.

01M315 – The East Village Community School (based on 56 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 91% (down 1%)

Teacher Influence: 72% (up 6%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 92% (same)

Comments: All results are above city average.

01M332 – University Neighborhood Middle School (based on 24 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 97% (up 1%)

Teacher Influence: 83% (same)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 99% (same)

Comments: All results are above city average.

01M361 – The Children’s Workshop School (based on 18 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 98% (down 1%)

Teacher Influence: 90% (down 4%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 95% (down 1%)

Comments: All results are way above city average.

01M363 – Neighborhood School (based on 7 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 93% (up 13%)

Teacher Influence: 89% (same)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 98% (up 12%)

Comments: All results are above city average.

01M364 – Earth School (based on 12 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 84% (up 6%)

Teacher Influence: 53% (down 4%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 83% (down 3%)

01M378 – School for Global Leaders (based on 24 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 100% (up 1%)

Teacher Influence: 81% (up 11%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 100% (up 1%)

Comments: All results are way above city average.

01M448 – University Neighborhood High School (based on 36 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 94% (up 3%)

Teacher Influence: 93% (up 6%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 95% (up 6%)

Comments: All results are above city average.

01M450 – East Side Community School (based on 64 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 89% (down 4%)

Teacher Influence: 81% (down 9%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 97% (down 2%)

Comments: Teacher influence and teacher-principal trust are above city average.

01M458 – Forsyth Satellite Academy (based on 17 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 94% (down 5%)

Teacher Influence: 86% (down 8%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 95% (down 4%)

Comments: All results are above city average.

01M515 – Lower East Preparatory High School (based on 43 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 97% (down 1%)

Teacher Influence: 88% (up 3%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 99% (up 1%)

Outliers: All results are way above city average.

01M539 – New Explorations into Science, Technology and Math High School (based on 77 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 94% (up 3%)

Teacher Influence: 74% (down 2%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 96% (up 4%)

Comments: All results are above city average

01M650 – Cascades High School (based on 12 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 99% (up 1%)

Teacher Influence: 100% (up 11%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 100% (up 3%)

Comments: All results are way above city average.

01M696 – Bard High School Early College (based on 46 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 83% (up 4%)

Teacher Influence: 88% (up 12%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 94% (up 12%)

Comments: Teacher-principal trust has improved from 62% in 2024 to 94% in 2026.

01M839 – Tompkins Square Middle School (based on 20 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 90% (down 1%)

Teacher Influence: 91% (down 5%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 94% (up 3%)

Comments: All results are above city average.

02M001 – P.S. 001 Alfred E. Smith (based on 27 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 91% (down 7%)

Teacher Influence: 60% (down 9%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 91% (down 8%)

02M002 – P.S. 002 Meyer London (based on 40 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 95% (down 5%)

Teacher Influence: 67% (down 13%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 94% (down 5%)

Comments: Instructional leadership and teacher-principal trust are above city average.

02M003 – P.S. 003 Charrette School (based on 49 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 76% (up 9%)

Teacher Influence: 61% (up 5%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 69% (up 14%)

Comments: Despite improvements, all results are below city average.

02M006 – P.S. 6 Lillie D. Blake (based on 31 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 88% (up 2%)

Teacher Influence: 68% (up 7%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 87% (up 3%)

02M011 – P.S. 011: The Sarah J. Garnet Elementary School (based on 46 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 97% (up 1%)

Teacher Influence: 86% (up 10%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 95% (down 3%)

Comments: All results are way above city average.

02M033 – P.S. 033 Chelsea Prep (based on 42 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 91% (up 15%)

Teacher Influence: 69% (up 17%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 86% (up 14%)

Comments: The number of responses nearly tripled from 2025, when only 16 people filled out the survey. 80% of respondents said that they feel the principal is an effective manager, a 40% upswing from 2025.

02M040 – P.S. 040 Augustus Saint-Gaudens (based on 37 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 95% (up 2%)

Teacher Influence: 74% (up 3%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 99% (same)

Comments: Teacher-principal trust is way above city average.

02M041 – P.S. 041 Greenwich Village (based on 33 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 85% (up 3%)

Teacher Influence: 66% (up 8%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 88% (up 5%)

02M042 – P.S. 042 Benjamin Altman (based on 57 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 99% (down 1%)

Teacher Influence: 84% (down 5%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 94% (down 6%)

Comments: All results are way above city average.

02M047 – 47 – The American Sign Language and English Secondary School (based on 15 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 75% (up 24%)

Teacher Influence: 59% (up 18%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 68% (up 19%)

Comments: There has been stellar improvement in each category, but the results are still below city average.

02M051 – P.S. 051 Elias Howe (based on 34 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 96% (up 2%)

Teacher Influence: 79% (down 6%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 95% (same)

Comments: All results are way above city average.

02M059 – P.S. 059 Beekman Hill International (based on 39 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 96% (up 3%)

Teacher Influence: 63% (down 6%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 95% (same)

Comments: Instructional leadership and teacher-principal trust are way above city average.

02M077 – P.S. 77 Lower Lab School (based on 20 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 86% (up 10%)

Teacher Influence: 51% (down 3%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 77% (same)

02M089 – P.S. 89 (based on 22 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 85% (down 8%)

Teacher Influence: 63% (down 8%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 93% (down 5%)

02M104 – J.H.S. 104 Simon Baruch (based on 73 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 89% (same)

Teacher Influence: 65% (up 15%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 95% (up 3%)

Comments: 75% of respondents said that teachers have influence over school policy in hiring new professional personnel, a 50% increase from 2025.

02M111 – P.S. 111 Adolph S. Ochs (based on 33 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 96% (up 2%)

Teacher Influence: 69% (up 4%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 90% (up 1%)

02M114 – East Side Middle School (based on 32 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 56% (down 21%)

Teacher Influence: 48% (down 21%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 49% (down 23%)

Comments: All results are way below city average.

02M116 – P.S. 116 Mary Lindley Murray (based on 39 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 93% (down 3%)

Teacher Influence: 51% (down 12%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 94% (same)

Comments: Instructional leadership and teacher-principal trust are above city average.

02M124 – P.S. 124 Yung Wing (based on 45 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 81% (down 5%)

Teacher Influence: 59% (up 14%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 73% (up 2%)

Comments: Teacher-principal trust is below city average.

02M126 – P.S. 126 Jacob August Riis (based on 53 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 87% (up 4%)

Teacher Influence: 49% (up 4%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 90% (up 10%)

02M130 – P.S. 130 Hernando de Soto (based on 46 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 99% (up 3%)

Teacher Influence: 73% (down 2%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 99% (up 2%)

Comments: All results are way above city average.

02M131 – M.S. 131 (based on 36 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 94% (down 1%)

Teacher Influence: 81% (up 1%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 95% (down 3%)

Comments: All results are above city average.

02M135 – The Urban Assembly School for Emergency Management (based on 27 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 98% (up 4%)

Teacher Influence: 89% (up 10%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 99% (up 10%)

Comments: All results are way above city average. Instructional leadership has gone up 24% since 2024. Teacher influence has increased 28% since 2024. Teacher-principal trust has skyrocketed 46% since 2024).

02M139 – Stephen T. Mather Building Arts & Craftsmanship High School (based on 36 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 87% (up 2%)

Teacher Influence: 73% (down 9%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 90% (down 3%)

Comments: Teacher influence has decreased 14% over the past two years.

02M150 – P.S. 150 (based on 25 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 98% (down 2%)

Teacher Influence: 98% (up 8%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 99% (down 1%)

Comments: All results are way above city average.

02M151 – Yorkville Community School (based on 33 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 88% (down 3%)

Teacher Influence: 64% (down 16%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 88% (down 5%)

02M158 – P.S. 158 Bayard Taylor (based on 52 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 98% (same)

Teacher Influence: 81% (same)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 98% (up 5%)

Comments: All results are way above city average.

02M167 – J.H.S. 167 Robert F. Wagner (based on 40 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 85% (up 2%)

Teacher Influence: 61% (up 5%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 88% (up 4%)

02M177 – Yorkville East Middle School (based on 27 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 100% (same)

Teacher Influence: 88% (down 2%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 100% (same)

Comments: All results are way above city average.

02M183 – P.S. 183 Robert L. Stevenson (based on 38 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 91% (down 1%)

Teacher Influence: 66% (down 6%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 93% (same)

02M198 – P.S. 198 Isador E. Ida Straus (based on 34 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 99% (same)

Teacher Influence: 82% (down 2%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 99% (up 6%)

Comments: All results are way above city average.

02M212 – P.S. 212 Midtown West (based on 28 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 99% (up 4%)

Teacher Influence: 85% (down 1%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 99% (up 3%)

Comments: All results are way above city average.

02M217 – P.S./I.S. 217 Roosevelt Island (based on 48 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 94% (up 10%)

Teacher Influence: 65% (up 12%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 95% (up 14%)

Comments: Instructional leadership and teacher-principal trust are above city average.

02M225 – Ella Baker School (based on 25 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 68% (down 8%)

Teacher Influence: 42% (down 17%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 78% (down 5%)

Comments: All results are below city average.

02M234 – P.S. 234 Independence School (based on 35 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 96% (down 2%)

Teacher Influence: 76% (down 3%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 94% (down 2%)

Comments: All results are above city average.

02M255 – M.S. 255 Salk School of Science (based on 26 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 94% (down 2%)

Teacher Influence: 88% (down 3%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 96% (same)

Comments: All results are way above city average.

.

02M260 – The Clinton School (based on 40 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 71% (down 7%)

Teacher Influence: 63% (down 9%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 81% (same)

02M267 – East Side Elementary School, PS 267 (based on 24 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 89% (up 7%)

Teacher Influence: 77% (up 1%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 90% (up 8%)

02M276 – Battery Park City School (based on 45 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 86% (down 2%)

Teacher Influence: 67% (down 8%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 86% (down 4%)

02M280 – Manhattan Early College School for Advertising (based on 28 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 94% (up 33%)

Teacher Influence: 67% (up 13%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 91% (up 25%)

Comments: The school has seen significant improvement in all categories since 2024. Instructional leadership has gone up 46%, teacher influence has increased 25%, and teacher-principal trust has climbed 40% over the past two years..

02M281 – The River School (based on 36 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 58% (down 11%)

Teacher Influence: 40% (down 15%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 38% (down 4%)

Comments: All results are well below city average.

02M282 – Urban Assembly Maker Academy (based on 52 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 89% (up 5%)

Teacher Influence: 84% (up 4%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 92% (up 1%)

Comments: Teacher influence and teacher-principal trust are above city average.

02M288 – Food and Finance High School (based on 40 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 67% (up 1%)

Teacher Influence: 53% (same)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 78% (up 5%)

Comments: All results are below city average.

02M289 – I.S. 289 (based on 21 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 76% (up 16%)

Teacher Influence: 84% (up 8%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 89% (up 16%)

Comments: 100% of respondents said the principal places the needs of children ahead of personal interests.

02M290 – P.S. 290 Manhattan New School (based on 38 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 98% (up 2%)

Teacher Influence: 98% (up 24%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 98% (up 2%)

Comments: All results are way above city average.

02M294 – Essex Street Academy (based on 31 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 94% (up 3%)

Teacher Influence: 94% (up 1%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 94% (down 2%)

Comments: All results are above city average.

02M296 – High School of Hospitality Management (based on 11 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 69% (down 4%)

Teacher Influence: 47% (down 13%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 62% (down 10%)

Comments: All results are well below city average.

02M297 – M.S. 297 (based on 28 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 68% (down 8%)

Teacher Influence: 57% (down 16%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 73% (same)

Comments: All results are well below city average. Instructional leadership has fallen 23% since 2024. Teacher influence has dropped 29% in the same time period.

02M298 – Pace High School (based on 34 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 72% (up 2%)

Teacher Influence: 68% (down 8%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 74% (up 5%)

Comments: Instructional leadership and teacher-principal trust are below city average.

02M300 – The Urban Assembly School of Design and Construction (based on 6 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 96% (up 3%)

Teacher Influence: 87% (up 8%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 95% (up 6%)

Comments: All results are way above city average.

02M303 – The Facing History School (based on 37 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 87% (down 9%)

Teacher Influence: 72% (down 16%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 91% (down 7%)

02M305 – The Urban Assembly Academy of Government and Law (based on 20 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 93% (down 1%)

Teacher Influence: 75% (down 3%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 94% (up 2%)

Comments: All results are above city average.

02M308 – Lower Manhattan Arts Academy (based on 20 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 77% (down 1%)

Teacher Influence: 66% (down 7%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 86% (down 3%)

02M312 – New York City Lab Middle School for Collaborative Studies (based on 54 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 87% (up 1%)

Teacher Influence: 78% (down 4%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 94% (up 3%)

Comments: Teacher influence and teacher-principal trust are above city average.

02M313 – The James Baldwin School: A School for Expeditionary Learning (based on 16 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 95% (down 5%)

Teacher Influence: 91% (down 8%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 99% (down 1%)

Outliers: All results are way above city average.

02M316 – The Urban Assembly School of Business for Young Women (based on 10 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 89% (down 11%)

Teacher Influence: 68% (down 28%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 90% (down 10%)

02M340 – Sixth Avenue Elementary School (based on 28 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 94% (up 20%)

Teacher Influence: 64% (up 19%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 95% (up 24%)

Comments: Instructional leadership and teacher-principal trust are above city average.

02M343 – The Peck Slip School (based on 32 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 92% (down 7%)

Teacher Influence: 76% (down 5%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 88% (down 12%)

02M347 – The 47 American Sign Language & English Lower School (based on 42 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 81% (up 20%)

Teacher Influence: 63% (up 18%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 82% (up 15%)

Comments: The number of responses increased from 18 in 2025 to 42 in 2026. The results from 2024-2026 have been inconsistent. 2024 and 2026 churned out rather average data, while 2025 was a real down year in all three categories.

02M374 – Gramercy Arts High School (based on 31 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 60% (down 3%)

Teacher Influence: 49% (down 7%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 56% (down 4%)

Comments: All results are well below city average.

02M376 – NYC iSchool (based on 39 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 97% (up 1%)

Teacher Influence: 91% (up 2%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 99% (up 4%)

Comments: All results are way above city average.

02M392 – Manhattan Business Academy (based on 36 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 97% (up 2%)

Teacher Influence: 86% (down 6%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 97% (up 2%)

Comments: All results are way above city average.

02M393 – Business of Sports School (based on 37 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 94% (down 1%)

Teacher Influence: 84% (down 2%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 94% (down 6%)

Comments: All results are above city average.

02M394 – Emma Lazarus High School (based on 17 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 99% (same)

Teacher Influence: 84% (up 4%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 97% (up 3%)

Comments: All results are way above city average.

02M395 – A School Without Walls (based on 7 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 71% (down 16%)

Teacher Influence: 68% (down 24%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 67% (down 12%)

02M397 – Spruce Street School (based on 37 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 80% (down 9%)

Teacher Influence: 62% (down 9%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 86% (down 4%)

02M399 – The High School for Language and Diplomacy (based on 14 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 83% (down 13%)

Teacher Influence: 82% (down 5%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 76% (down 22%)

Comments: All three categories saw a notable decrease. Last year, each category skyrocketed between 28% and 37%.

02M400 – High School for Environmental Studies (based on 58 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 91% (up 3%)

Teacher Influence: 79% (up 2%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 91% (up 3%)

Comments: All results are above city average.

02M407 – Institute for Collaborative Education (based on 8 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 78% (up 4%)

Teacher Influence: 70% (up 3%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 87% (down 10%)

02M408 – Professional Performing Arts High School (based on 26 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 100% (up 5%)

Teacher Influence: 72% (up 10%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 91% (down 2%)

Comments: All results are above city average.

02M411 – Baruch College Campus High School (based on 22 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 98% (up 6%)

Teacher Influence: 84% (up 12%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 94% (up 11%)

Comments: All results are above city average.

02M412 – N,Y,C. Lab School for Collaborative Studies (based on 35 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 85% (up 4%)

Teacher Influence: 67% (down 3%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 89% (up 6%)

02M413 – School of the Future High School (based on 41 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 91% (up 3%)

Teacher Influence: 81% (up 1%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 91% (up 2%)

Comments: All results are above city average.

02M414 – N.Y.C. Museum School (based on 27 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 97% (up 7%)

Teacher Influence: 88% (up 7%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 98% (up 10%)

Comments: All results are way above city average. From 2024 to 2026, instructional leadership has increased 23%, teacher influence has increased 19%, and teacher-principal trust has increased 21%.

02M416 – Eleanor Roosevelt High School (based on 40 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 94% (up 15%)

Teacher Influence: 91% (up 11%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 98% (up 24%)

Comments: All results are way above city average. 98% of respondents said the principal at this school is an effective manager who makes the school run smoothly, a 40% increase from 2025.

02M418 – Millennium High School (based on 53 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 92% (up 4%)

Teacher Influence: 86% (up 6%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 93% (up 5%)

Comments: All results are above city average.

02M419 – Landmark High School (based on 29 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 84% (down 3%)

Teacher Influence: 88% (same)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 93% (up 2%)

Comments: Teacher influence and teacher-principal trust are above city average.

02M420 – High School for Health Professions and Human Services (based on 78 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 78% (down 6%)

Teacher Influence: 60% (down 2%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 77% (down 6%)

02M422 – Quest to Learn (based on 40 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 61% (down 19%)

Teacher Influence: 57% (down 20%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 49% (down 26%)

Comments: All results are well below city average.

02M425 – Leadership and Public Service High School (based on 15 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 97% (up 13%)

Teacher Influence: 75% (same)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 99% (up 19%)

Comments: All results are way above city average.

02M427 – Manhattan Academy for Arts & Language (based on 19 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 96% (up 1%)

Teacher Influence: 83% (up 7%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 100% (up 4%)

Comments: All results are way above city average.

02M432 – Murray Hill Academy (based on 24 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 84% (down 8%)

Teacher Influence: 77% (down 17%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 69% (down 27%)

Comments: Teacher-principal trust is well below city average. All results dropped after substantial gains in 2025. Only 46% of respondents said the principal and assistant principals function as a cohesive unit, a 47% freefall from 2025..

02M437 – Hudson High School of Learning Technologies (based on 15 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 87% up 13%)

Teacher Influence: 65% (same)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 86% (up 12%)

.

02M438 – International High School at Union Square (based on 25 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 94% (up 2%)

Teacher Influence: 89% (down 3%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 98% (up 2%)

Comments: All results are way above city average.

02M439 – Manhattan Village Academy (based on 8 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 38% (down 23%)

Teacher Influence: 25% (down 30%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 41% (down 23%)

Comments: All results are well below city average. The amount of responses decreased from 19 in 2025 to just eight in 2026.

02M442 – Ballet Tech, NYC Public School for Dance (based on 10 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 94% (down 3%)

Teacher Influence: 84% (down 9%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 90% (down 10%)

02M449 – Vanguard High School (based on 32 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 83% (down 5%)

Teacher Influence: 86% (same)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 91% (down 6%)

02M459 – Manhattan International High School (based on 29 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 93% (down 1%)

Teacher Influence: 90% (down 1%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 97% (up 2%)

Comments: All results are way above city average.

02M475 – Stuyvesant High School (based on 119 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 87% (down 1%)

Teacher Influence: 80% (up 8%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 85% (up 1%)

02M489 – High School of Economics and Finance (based on 25 responses) Instructional Leadership: 89% (up 3%)

Teacher Influence: 58% (down 15%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 90% (same)

02M500 – Unity Center for Urban Technologies (based on 14 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 100% (n/a)

Teacher Influence: 100% (n/a)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 100% (n/a)

Comments: Results from the 2025 survey were not available.

02M507 – Urban Assembly Gateway School for Technology (based on 41 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 97% (down 1%)

Teacher Influence: 80% (down 6%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 93% (up 4%)

Comments: All results are above city average.

02M519 – Talent Unlimited High School (based on 32 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 92% (down 4%)

Teacher Influence: 75% (up 4%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 96% (down 1%)

Comments: All results are above city average.

02M520 – Murry Bergtraum High School for Business Careers (based on 11 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 94% (up 9%)

Teacher Influence: 84% (down 2%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 96% (up 5%)

Comments: All results are way above city average.

02M527 – P.S. 527 – East Side School for Social Action (based on 32 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 99% (up 1%)

Teacher Influence: 78% (up 18%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 100% (up 5%)

Comments: All results are way above city average.

02M529 – Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis High School (based on 26 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 100% (up 3%)

Teacher Influence: 98% (up 10%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 100% (up 1%)

Comments: All results are way above city average.

02M531 – Repertory Company High School for Theatre Arts (based on 15 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 71% (down 17%)

Teacher Influence: 73% (down 3%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 64% (down 19%)

Comments: Instructional leadership and teacher-principal trust are well below city average.

02M533 – Union Square Academy for Health Sciences (based on 45 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 76% (down 1%)

Teacher Influence: 65% (down 3%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 80% (up 5%)

02M534 – Harvest Collegiate High School (based on 35 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 73% (down 17%)

Teacher Influence: 80% (down 8%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 81% (up 2%)

Comments: 66% of respondents said the principal makes clear to the staff their expectations for meeting instructional goals, a 20% decline from 2025.

02M542 – Manhattan Bridges High School (based on 15 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 93% (up 11%)

Teacher Influence: 75% (up 15%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 90% (up 18%)

02M543 – New Design High School (based on 31 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 84% (same)

Teacher Influence: 77% (down 6%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 85% (same)

02M544 – Independence High School (based on 14 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 88% (up 10%)

Teacher Influence: 74% (up 18%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 94% (up 24%)

02M545 – High School for Dual Language and Asian Studies (based on 15 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 90% (up 1%)

Teacher Influence: 78% (up 2%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 89% (down 4%)

02M546 – Academy for Software Engineering (based on 32 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 63% (down 14%)

Teacher Influence: 72% (down 4%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 83% (down 2%)

Comments: Instructional leadership is well below city average.

02M550 – Liberty High School Academy for Newcomers (based on 25 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 90% (same)

Teacher Influence: 88% (up 4%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 93% (up 3%)

Comments: Teacher influence is way above city average.

02M551 – Urban Assembly New York Harbor School (based on 46 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 81% (up 2%)

Teacher Influence: 71% (up 3%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 80% (down 9%)

02M560 – High School M560 – City As School (based on 27 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 86% (up 1%)

Teacher Influence: 84% (down 5%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 92% (same)

02M565 – Urban Academy Laboratory High School (based on 15 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 93% (down 6%)

Teacher Influence: 99% (up 3%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 91% (down 6%)

Comments: All results are above city average.

02M570 – Satellite Academy High School (based on 9 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 81% (down 7%)

Teacher Influence: 66% (down 12%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 84% (up 2%)

02M575 – Manhattan Comprehensive Night and Day High School (based on 51 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 62% (down 19%)

Teacher Influence: 44% (down 15%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 60% (down 22%)

Comments: All results are well below city average. Only 47% of respondents said that the principal at this school is an effective manager who makes the school run smoothly, a 28% collapse since 2025.

02M580 – Richard R. Green High School of Teaching (based on 13 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 68% (down 24%)

Teacher Influence: 54% (down 29%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 74% (down 17%)

Comments: All results are below city average.

02M586 – Harvey Milk High School (based on 6 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 79% (down 21%)

Teacher Influence: 83% (down 14%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 62% (down 38%)

Comments: Teacher-principal trust is well below city average.

02M600 – The High School of Fashion Industries (based on 115 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 81% (down 7%)

Teacher Influence: 68% (down 1%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 81% (down 7%)

02M605 – Humanities Preparatory Academy (based on 19 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 99% (down 1%)

Teacher Influence: 98% (up 1%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 99% (down 1%)

Comments: All results are way above city average.

02M615 – Chelsea Career and Technical Education High School (based on 24 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 67% (down 17%)

Teacher Influence: 48% (down 13%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 67% (down 13%)

Comments: All results are well below city average.

02M630 – Art and Design High School (based on 76 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 84% (down 1%)

Teacher Influence: 68% (down 7%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 77% (down 6%)

02M655 – The High School for Climate Justice (based on 30 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 96% (same)

Teacher Influence: 89% (up 8%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 100% (up 5%)

Comments: All results are way above city average.

02M896 – Lower Manhattan Community Middle School (based on 32 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 96% (up 4%)

Teacher Influence: 86% (up 4%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 99% (up 5%)

Comments: All results are way above city average.

03M009 – P.S. 009 Sarah Anderson (based on 42 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 98% (up 1%)

Teacher Influence: 83% (up 7%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 97% (up 4%)

Comments: All results are way above city average.

03M054 – J.H.S. 054 Booker T. Washington (based on 63 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 98% (up 2%)

Teacher Influence: 96% (up 7%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 99% (up 1%)

Comments: All results are way above city average.

03M075 – P.S. 075 Emily Dickinson (based on 70 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 79% (up 6%)

Teacher Influence: 49% (up 4%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 71% (up 9%)

Comments: Despite improvements, all results are below city average.

03M084 – P.S. 084 Lillian Weber (based on 53 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 100% (up 1%)

Teacher Influence: 87% (up 7%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 99% (up 4%)

Comments: All results are way above city average.

03M087 – P.S. 087 William Sherman (based on 28 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 84% (same)

Teacher Influence: 81% (up 2%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 90% (up 2%)

03M145 – P.S. 145 The Bloomingdale School (based on 47 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 93% (up 2%)

Teacher Influence: 67% (down 3%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 88% (down 3%)

03M149 – P.S. 149 Sojourner Truth (based on 21 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 73% (down 13%)

Teacher Influence: 38% (down 31%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 77% (down 11%)

Comments: All results are below city average. 10% of respondents said that teachers have influence over school policy in hiring new professional personnel, a 52% freefall from 2025.

03M163 – P.S. 163 Alfred E. Smith (based on 41 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 79% (up 3%)

Teacher Influence: 65% (up 12%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 81% (up 3%)

03M165 – P.S. 165 Robert E. Simon (based on 33 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 89% (down 8%)

Teacher Influence: 73% (down 6%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 86% (down 7%)

03M166 – P.S. 166 The Richard Rodgers School of the Arts and Technology (based on 25 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 79% (up 1%)

Teacher Influence: 41% (down 11%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 54% (down 1%)

Comments: Teacher influence and teacher-principal trust are well below city average.

03M180 – P.S. 180 Hugo Newman (based on 27 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 84% (down 7%)

Teacher Influence: 51% (down 19%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 91% (down 5%)

03M185 – The Locke School of Arts and Engineering (based on 31 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 92% (up 2%)

Teacher Influence: 63% (up 8%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 88% (down 4%)

03M191 – The Riverside School for Makers and Artists (based on 43 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 74% (up 9%)

Teacher Influence: 47% (down 3%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 70% (up 6%)

Comments: All results are below city average.

03M199 – P.S. 199 Jessie Isador Straus (based on 46 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 98% (up 2%)

Teacher Influence: 81% (up 7%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 93% (up 2%)

Comments: All results are above city average.

03M241 – STEM Institute of Manhattan (based on 19 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 92% (down 2%)

Teacher Influence: 54% (down 23%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 86% (down 6%)

03M242 – P.S. 242 – The Young Diplomats Magnet Academy (based on 18 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 94% (up 5%)

Teacher Influence: 52% (down 19%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 83% (down 2%)

03M243 – M.S. 243 Center School (based on 17 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 99% (same)

Teacher Influence: 100% (up 1%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 97% (up 3%)

Comments: All results are way above city average.

03M245 – M.S. M245 The Computer School (based on 24 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 99% (same)

Teacher Influence: 94% (down 3%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 100% (same)

Comments: All results are way above city average.

03M247 – M.S. M247 Dual Language Middle School (based on 18 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 78% (up 1%)

Teacher Influence: 68% (up 2%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 87% (up 4%)

03M256 – Lafayette Academy (based on 27 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 96% (up 2%)

Teacher Influence: 90% (up 2%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 98% (up 2%)

Comments: All results are way above city average.

03M258 – Community Action School – MS 258 (based on 24 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 99% (up 12%)

Teacher Influence: 89% (up 8%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 97% (up 12%)

Comments: All results are way above city average.

03M291 – West End Secondary School (based on 50 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 87% (down 2%)

Teacher Influence: 76% (up 7%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 94% (up 1%)

Comments: Teacher-principal trust and teacher influence are above city average. The number of responses nearly doubled from 27 in 2025 to 50 in 2026.

03M307 – The Urban Assembly School for Media Studies (based on 45 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 87% (up 1%)

Teacher Influence: 79% (up 1%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 87% (down 4%)

03M333 – P.S. 333 Manhattan School for Children (based on 31 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 75% (up 4%)

Teacher Influence: 46% (down 4%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 64% (up 1%)

Comments: All results are well below city average.

03M334 – The Anderson School (based on 23 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 88% (down 8%)

Teacher Influence: 60% (down 16%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 94% (down 3%)

03M402 – The Urban Assembly School for Green Careers (based on 19 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 32% (same)

Teacher Influence: 27% (up 3%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 23% (down 6%)

Comments: All results are catastrophically below city average.

03M403 – The Global Learning Collaborative (based on 34 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 74% (down 18%)

Teacher Influence: 59% (down 17%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 75% (down 18%)

Comments: All results are below city average.

03M404 – Innovation Diploma Plus (based on 9 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 93% (down 7%)

Teacher Influence: 82% (down 3%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 91% (down 4%)

Comments: All results are above city average.

03M415 – Wadleigh Secondary School for the Performing & Visual Arts (based on 32 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 86% (up 7%)

Teacher Influence: 65% (down 2%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 77% (up 3%)

03M417 – Frank McCourt High School (based on 31 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 87% (down 4%)

Teacher Influence: 74% (down 3%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 91% (down 2%)

03M421 – West Prep Academy (based on 23 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 95% (down 2%)

Teacher Influence: 84% (up 10%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 98% (up 3%)

Comments: All results are way above city average.

03M452 – P.S. 452 (based on 17 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 94% (up 18%)

Teacher Influence: 80% (up 18%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 93% (up 16%)

Comments: All results are above city average.

03M479 – Beacon High School (based on 48 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 89% (up 3%)

Teacher Influence: 86% (up 1%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 92% (down 6%)

Comments: Since 2024, instructional leadership has increased 50%, teacher influence has climbed 23%, and teacher-principal trust has improved by 40%.

03M485 – Fiorello H. LaGuardia High School of Music & Art and Performing Arts (based on 118 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 76% (up 10%)

Teacher Influence: 57% (up 5%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 83% (up 8%)

03M492 – High School for Law, Advocacy and Community Justice (based on 36 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 78% (up 9%)

Teacher Influence: 54% (up 5%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 81% (up 15%)

Comments: All results have improved for two straight years. Instructional leadership has increased by 16%, teacher influence has grown by 18%, and teacher-principal trust has improved by 22% since 2024.

03M494 – High School of Arts and Technology (based on 30 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 68% (up 3%)

Teacher Influence: 70% (up 12%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 72% (down 6%)

Comments: Instructional leadership and teacher-principal trust are below city average.

03M541 – Manhattan/Hunter Science High School (based on 11 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 74% (down 9%)

Teacher Influence: 75% (down 8%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 87% (down 7%)

03M610 – Young Women’s School (based on 36 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 85% (down 9%)

Teacher Influence: 87% (up 1%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 84% (down 7%)

03M859 – Special Music School (based on 13 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 87% (down 5%)

Teacher Influence: 87% (up 5%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 90% (same)

03M860 – Frederick Douglass Academy II Secondary School (based on 21 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 94% (up 8%)

Teacher Influence: 63% (up 2%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 90% (up 3%)

03M862 – Mott Hall II (based on 29 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 93% (up 12%)

Teacher Influence: 62% (down 1%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 82% (up 4%)

04M007 – P.S. 007 Samuel Stern (based on 45 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 84% (down 6%)

Teacher Influence: 62% (down 1%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 95% (up 1%)

Comments: Teacher-principal trust is above city average.

04M012 – Tag Young Scholars (based on 24 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 93% (up 6%)

Teacher Influence: 70% (up 12%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 91% (up 4%)

04M037 – River East Elementary (based on 25 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 97% (same)

Teacher Influence: 90% (down 2%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 97% (down 1%)

Comments: All results are way above city average.

04M038 – P.S. 38 Roberto Clemente (based on 21 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 87% (down 4%)

Teacher Influence: 73% (down 5%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 83% (up 5%)

04M057 – James Weldon Johnson (based on 45 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 87% (down 5%)

Teacher Influence: 51% (down 11%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 82% (down 9%)

04M072 – The Lexington Academy (based on 34 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 85% (up 11%)

Teacher Influence: 77% (up 28%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 83% (down 8%)

Comments: The number of responses doubled from 2025 to 2026.

04M083 – P.S. 083 Luis Munoz Rivera (based on 26 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 98% (up 4%)

Teacher Influence: 77% (up 26%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 99% (up 4%)

Comments: All results are way above city average. 100% of respondents said that the principal encourages feedback through regular meetings with families and teacher leaders.

04M096 – P.S. 096 Joseph Lanzetta (based on 38 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 95% (down 4%)

Teacher Influence: 60% (down 10%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 92% (down 4%)

Comments: Instructional leadership and teacher-principal trust are above city average.

04M102 – P.S. 102 Jacques Cartier (based on 25 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 93% (up 2%)

Teacher Influence: 51% (down 9%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 94% (up 7%)

Comments: Instructional leadership and teacher-principal trust are above city average.

04M108 – P.S. 108 Assemblyman Angelo Del Toro Educational Complex (based on 47 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 99% (same)

Teacher Influence: 80% (up 7%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 100% (up 3%)

Comments: All results are way above city average.

04M112 – P.S. 112 Jose Celso Barbosa (based on 18 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 92% (up 5%)

Teacher Influence: 61% (down 6%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 82% (down 3%)

04M146 – P.S. 146 Ann M. Short (based on 29 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 90% (down 3%)

Teacher Influence: 75% (down 4%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 88% (down 1%)

04M155 – P.S. 155 William Pace (based on 12 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 59% (down 15%)

Teacher Influence: 35% (down 22%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 45% (down 26%)

Outliers: All results are well below city average.

04M171 – P.S. 171 Patrick Henry (based on 7 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 97% (down 3%)

Teacher Influence: 66% (down 20%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 96% (up 1%)

04M182 – The Bilingual Bicultural School (based on 22 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 100% (up 9%)

Teacher Influence: 79% (down 2%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 100% (up 11%)

Comments: All results are way above city average.

04M206 – P.S. 206 Jose Celso Barbosa (based on 96 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 86% (up 10%)

Teacher Influence: 56% (down 2%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 93% (up 12%)

04M224 – M.S. 224 Manhattan East School for Arts & Academics (based on 15 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 85% (down 6%)

Teacher Influence: 59% (down 21%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 83% (down 14%)

04M310 – The Judith S. Kaye School (based on 12 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 93% (down 7%)

Teacher Influence: 93% (down 7%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 100% (same)

Comments: All results are above city average.

04M372 – Esperanza Preparatory Academy (based on 46 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 87% (down 2%)

Teacher Influence: 69% (up 1%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 86% (down 2%)

04M375 – Mosaic Preparatory Academy (based on 24 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 92% (up 1%)

Teacher Influence: 58% (down 4%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 84% (up 3%)

04M377 – Renaissance School of the Arts (based on 17 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 93% (up 2%)

Teacher Influence: 74% (same)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 93% (down 1%)

Comments: All results are above city average.

04M435 – Manhattan Center for Science and Mathematics (based on 94 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 98% (up 2%)

Teacher Influence: 91% (up 1%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 98% (up 3%)

Comments: All results are way above city average.

04M495 – Park East High School (based on 37 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 93% (up 6%)

Teacher Influence: 89% (up 4%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 88% (up 5%)

04M497 – Central Park East I (based on 12 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 99% (up 3%)

Teacher Influence: 100% (up 4%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 97% (up 4%)

Comments: All results are way above city average.

04M505 – Edward A. Reynolds West Side High School (based on 30 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 97% (up 2%)

Teacher Influence: 86% (down 3%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 99% (up 5%)

Comments: All results are way above city average.

04M555 – Central Park East High School (based on 39 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 87% (down 5%)

Teacher Influence: 80% (down 10%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 92% (down 3%)

04M680 – The Heritage School (based on 19 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 91% (down 4%)

Teacher Influence: 59% (down 6%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 88% (down 1%)

04M825 – Isaac Newton Middle School for Math & Science (based on 24 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 90% (up 8%)

Teacher Influence: 60% (down 1%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 85% (up 2%)

04M964 – Central Park East II (based on 17 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 52% (down 25%)

Teacher Influence: 49% (down 25%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 51% (down 36%)

Comments: All results are well below city average. 24% of respondents said that the principal is an effective manager who makes the school run smoothly, a 56% drop from 2025.

05M030 – P.S. 030 Hernandez/Hughes (based on 31 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 91% (down 6%)

Teacher Influence: 81% (up 7%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 92% (down 3%)

Comments: All results are above city average.

05M036 – P.S. 036 Margaret Douglas (based on 12 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 76% (down 1%)

Teacher Influence: 42% (down 16%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 53% (down 10%)

Comments: All results are well below city average.

05M046 – P.S. 046 Arthur Tappan (based on 41 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 86% (down 8%)

Teacher Influence: 48% (down 22%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 76% (down 14%)

Comments: Teacher influence is well below city average.

05M092 – P.S. 092 Mary McLeod Bethune (based on 15 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 88% (up 9%)

Teacher Influence: 62% (up 24%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 87% (up 26%)

Comments: Astronomical gains were made in teacher-principal trust.

05M123 – P.S. 123 Mahalia Jackson (based on 18 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 81% (down 9%)

Teacher Influence: 38% (down 6%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 66% (down 18%)

Comments: Teacher influence and teacher-principal trust are well below city average.

05M125 – P.S. 125 Ralph Bunche (based on 35 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 98% (down 1%)

Teacher Influence: 84% (down 2%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 99% (same)

Comments: All results are way above city average.

05M129 – P.S. 129 John H. Finley (based on 9 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 82% (up 4%)

Teacher Influence: 49% (up 9%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 78% (down 2%)

05M133 – P.S. 133 Fred R Moore (based on 34 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 100% (same)

Teacher Influence: 74% (down 6%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 100% (up 1%)

Comments: All results are way above city average.

05M148 – Eagle Academy for Young Men of Harlem (based on 17 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 93% (up 11%)

Teacher Influence: 72% (up 10%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 80% (down 1%)

05M154 – P.S. 154 Harriet Tubman (based on 14 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 89% (down 7%)

Teacher Influence: 59% (down 6%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 86% (down 5%)

05M157 – The Urban Assembly School for Global Commerce (based on 18 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 85% (up 11%)

Teacher Influence: 57% (up 19%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 84% (up 24%)

Comments: All results notably improved after decreasing significantly in 2025.

05M161 – P.S. 161 Pedro Albizu Campos (based on 58 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 99% (up 3%)

Teacher Influence: 70% (up 2%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 97% (up 5%)

Comments: Instructional leadership and teacher-principal trust are way above city average.

05M175 – P.S. 175 Henry H Garnet (based on 22 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 99% (up 1%)

Teacher Influence: 73% (down 9%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 93% (down 1%)

Comments: All results are above city average.

05M194 – P.S. 194 Countee Cullen (based on 16 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 97% (up 9%)

Teacher Influence: 75% (up 9%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 90% (up 16%)

Comments: All results are above city average.

05M197 – P.S. 197 John B. Russwurm (based on 24 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 94% (up 2%)

Teacher Influence: 65% (same)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 93% (up 3%)

Comments: Instructional leadership and teacher-principal trust are above city average.

05M200 – P.S. 200 – The James McCune Smith School (based on 20 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 98% (up 10%)

Teacher Influence: 83% (up 17%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 96% (up 18%)

Comments: All results are way above city average.

05M285 – Harlem Renaissance High School (based on 11 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 98% (up 4%)

Teacher Influence: 76% (down 5%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 96% (down 3%)

Comments: All results are above city average.

05M286 – Urban Assembly Academy for Future Leaders (based on 11 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 88% (down 1%)

Teacher Influence: 52% (down 1%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 83% (down 4%)

05M304 – Mott Hall High School (based on 31 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 82% (down 8%)

Teacher Influence: 67% (down 10%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 86% (down 7%)

05M318 – Thurgood Marshall Academy Lower School (based on 15 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 92% (up 2%)

Teacher Influence: 72% (up 21%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 76% (up 14%)

05M362 – Columbia Secondary School (based on 17 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 47% (up 2%)

Teacher Influence: 48% (up 14%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 47% (up 8%)

Comments: All results are well below city average.

05M369 – Urban Assembly School for the Performing Arts (based on 14 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 80% (up 7%)

Teacher Influence: 58% (down 3%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 67% (down 3%)

Comments: Teacher-principal trust is well below city average.

05M371 – School of Earth Exploration and Discovery Harlem (SEED Harlem) (based on 9 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 87% (down 7%)

Teacher Influence: 65% (down 20%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 67% (down 25%)

Comments: Each category saw a significant decline after huge improvements in 2025.

05M499 – Frederick Douglass Academy (based on 42 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 86% (up 7%)

Teacher Influence: 63% (up 7%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 80% (up 7%)

05M514 – New Design Middle School (based on 14 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 90% (up 5%)

Teacher Influence: 77% (down 6%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 98% (up 5%)

Comments: Teacher-principal trust is way above city average.

05M517 – Teachers College Community School (based on 13 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 92% (down 4%)

Teacher Influence: 51% (down 17%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 87% (down 9%)

05M670 – Thurgood Marshall Academy for Learning and Social Change (based on 44 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 97% (up 1%)

Teacher Influence: 76% (up 4%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 99% (same)

Comments: All results are way above city average.

05M692 – High School for Mathematics, Science and Engineering at City College (based on 34 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 78% (down 6%)

Teacher Influence: 82% (up 8%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 79% (up 2%)

06M004 – P.S. 004 Duke Ellington (based on 30 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 91% (up 2%)

Teacher Influence: 60% (down 3%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 85% (down 1%)

06M005 – P.S. 005 Ellen Lurie (based on 52 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 93% (down 3%)

Teacher Influence: 61% (down 6%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 89% (down 1%)

06M008 – P.S. 008 Luis Belliard (based on 12 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 97% (up 19%)

Teacher Influence: 56% (down 5%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 99% (up 13%)

Comments: Instructional leadership and teacher-principal trust are way above city average.

06M018 – P.S. 018 Park Terrace (based on 23 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 88% (same)

Teacher Influence: 63% (up 7%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 82% (down 8%)

06M028 – P.S. 028 Wright Brothers (based on 32 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 84% (down 8%)

Teacher Influence: 59% (down 5%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 66% (down 10%)

Comments: Teacher-principal trust is well below city average.

06M048 – P.S. 048 P.O. Michael J. Buczek (based on 25 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 75% (up 5%)

Teacher Influence: 50% (up 16%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 70% (up 12%)

Comments: Despite improvements, all results are well below city average.

06M052 – Harold O. Levy School (based on 17 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 97% (down 2%)

Teacher Influence: 77% (down 9%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 94% (down 6%)

Comments: All results are above city average.

06M098 – P.S. 098 Shorac Kappock (based on 12 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 72% (up 1%)

Teacher Influence: 55% (up 6%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 65% (same)

Comments: All results are well below city average.

06M103 – Dos Puentes Elementary School (based on 35 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 95% (same)

Teacher Influence: 83% (down 1%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 92% (down 5%)

Comments: All results are above city average.

06M115 – P.S. 115 Alexander Humboldt (based on 26 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 88% (up 4%)

Teacher Influence: 52% (up 3%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 78% (up 5%)

06M128 – P.S. 128 Audubon (based on 49 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 93% (down 1%)

Teacher Influence: 64% (up 2%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 88% (down 5%)

06M132 – P.S. 132 Juan Pablo Duarte (based on 26 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 100% (up 4%)

Teacher Influence: 96% (up 6%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 100% (up 9%)

Comments: All results are way above city average.

06M143 – J.H.S. 143 Eleanor Roosevelt (based on 24 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 98% (up 1%)

Teacher Influence: 74% (up 9%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 98% (up 1%)

Comments: Instructional leadership and teacher-principal trust are way above city average.

06M152 – P.S. 152 Dyckman Valley (based on 34 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 91% (down 7%)

Teacher Influence: 61% (down 24%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 88% (down 5%)

Comments: 45% of respondents said that teachers have influence over school policy in planning how discretionary school funds should be used, a 35% fall from 2025.

06M153 – P.S. 153 Adam Clayton Powell (based on 41 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 96% (up 1%)

Teacher Influence: 69% (down 3%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 97% (same)

Comments: Instructional leadership and teacher-principal trust are way above city average.

06M173 – P.S. 173 (based on 38 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 92% (up 13%)

Teacher Influence: 53% (up 7%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 92% (up 15%)

06M178 – Professor Juan Bosch Public School (based on 42 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 100% (up 5%)

Teacher Influence: 87% (up 15%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 100% (up 4%)

Comments: All results are way above city average.

06M187 – P.S./I.S. 187 Hudson Cliffs (based on 56 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 61% (down 6%)

Teacher Influence: 43% (down 6%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 56% (down 1%)

Comments: All results are well below city average.

06M189 – P.S. 189 (based on 41 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 99% (up 3%)

Teacher Influence: 73% (up 4%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 100% (up 2%)

Comments: Instructional leadership and teacher-principal trust are way above city average.

06M192 – P.S. 192 Jacob H. Schiff (based on 22 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 90% (up 15%)

Teacher Influence: 61% (up 10%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 79% (up 11%)

06M209 – Hamilton Grange Middle School (based on 17 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 90% (down 6%)

Teacher Influence: 62% (down 10%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 83% (down 13%)

06M210 – P.S./I.S. 210 Twenty-first Century Academy for Community Leadership (based on 40 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 93% (up 5%)

Teacher Influence: 70% (same)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 87% (up 1%)

06M211 – Inwood Early College for Health and Information Technologies (based on 14 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 90% (up 10%)

Teacher Influence: 77% (up 4%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 87% (up 10%)

06M223 – The Mott Hall School (based on 30 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 94% (down 5%)

Teacher Influence: 77% (down 3%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 97% (down 3%)

Comments: All results are way above city average.

06M278 – Paula Hedbavny School (based on 29 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 95% (down 1%)

Teacher Influence: 71% (down 3%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 94% (same)

Comments: Instructional leadership and teacher-principal trust are above city average.

06M293 – City College Academy of the Arts (based on 14 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 85% (down 7%)

Teacher Influence: 60% (down 6%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 83% (down 6%)

06M311 – Amistad Dual Language School (based on 45 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 96% (down 2%)

Teacher Influence: 79% (down 4%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 95% (down 2%)

Comments: All results are way above city average.

06M314 – Muscota (based on 10 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 95% (down 4%)

Teacher Influence: 88% (down 4%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 100% (same)

Comments: All results are way above city average.

06M319 – M.S. 319 – Maria Teresa (based on 29 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 100% (up 1%)

Teacher Influence: 93% (up 7%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 100% (up 3%)

Comments: All results are way above city average.

06M322 – Middle School 322 (based on 21 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 88% (up 10%)

Teacher Influence: 75% (up 19%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 94% (up 16%)

Comments: There were significant strides made in each category from 2025.

06M324 – M.S. 324 Patria Mirabal (based on 20 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 99% (same)

Teacher Influence: 77% (down 7%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 97% (down 2%)

Comments: All results are way above city average.

06M328 – Community Math & Science Prep (based on 18 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 99% (up 1%)

Teacher Influence: 78% (down 3%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 95% (down 3%)

Comments: All results are way above city average.

06M346 – Community Health Academy of the Heights (based on 46 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 96% (same)

Teacher Influence: 91% (up 3%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 94% (down 3%)

Comments: All results are way above city average.

06M348 – Washington Heights Expeditionary Learning School (based on 24 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 78% (up 6%)

Teacher Influence: 73% (up 2%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 80% (up 1%)

Comments: The number of responses dropped from 59 in 2025 way down to 24 in 2026.

06M366 – Washington Heights Academy (based on 30 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 70% (down 28%)

Teacher Influence: 33% (down 34%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 44% (down 56%)

Comments: All results are way below city average. 32% of respondents said that the principal is an effective manager who makes the school run smoothly, a 68% freefall from 2025. 36% of respondents said that they trust the principal at their word, a 64% plummet since 2025.

06M368 – The William Lynch School (based on 25 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 83% (down 7%)

Teacher Influence: 58% (down 15%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 70% (down 19%)

Comments: All results are below average.

.

06M423 – High School for Excellence and Innovation (based on 21 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 91% (down 2%)

Teacher Influence: 63% (down 17%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 87% (down 8%)

06M462 – The College Academy (based on 27 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 91% (down 6%)

Teacher Influence: 76% (down 6%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 87% (down 9%)

06M463 – High School for Media and Communications (based on 29 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 93% (up 7%)

Teacher Influence: 86% (up 9%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 95% (up 2%)

Comments: All results are above city average.

06M467 – High School for Law and Public Service (based on 41 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 95% (up 9%)

Teacher Influence: 81% (up 6%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 95% (up 9%)

Comments: All results are above city average.

06M468 – High School for Health Careers and Sciences (based on 28 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 97% (up 18%)

Teacher Influence: 76% (up 27%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 98% (up 24%)

Comments: All results are way above city average. 100% of respondents said that the principal looks out for the personal welfare of the staff members, a 28% climb from 2205..

06M513 – Castle Bridge School (based on 20 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 94% (down 5%)

Teacher Influence: 80% (down 9%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 95% (down 4%)

Comments: All results are above city average.

.

06M528 – I.S. 528 Bea Fuller Rodgers School (based on 19 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 91% (down 1%)

Teacher Influence: 68% (up 9%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 93% (up 1%)

Comments: Instructional leadership and teacher-principal trust are above city average.

06M540 – A. Philip Randolph Campus High School (based on 77 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 86% (down 2%)

Teacher Influence: 68% (down 9%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 91% (down 2%)

06M552 – Gregorio Luperon High School for Science and Mathematics (based on 42 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 88% (down 3%)

Teacher Influence: 88% (down 2%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 90% (down 4%)

Manhattan D75

75M035 – P.S. 035 (based on 42 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 72% (down 3%)

Teacher Influence: 52% (down 13%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 72% (down 14%)

Comments: All results are below city average.

75M079 – P.S. M079 – Horan School (based on 55 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 95% (down 2%)

Teacher Influence: 69% (down 3%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 93% (same)

Comments: Instructional leadership and teacher-principal trust are above city average.

75M094 – P.S. M094 (based on 27 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 83% (down 1%)

Teacher Influence: 59% (down 1%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 82% (down 7%)

75M138 – P.S. 138 (based on 69 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 85% (up 9%)

Teacher Influence: 54% (up 8%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 90% (up 13%)

75M169 – P.S. M169 – Robert F. Kennedy (based on 76 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 74% (down 1%)

Teacher Influence: 48% (up 5%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 68% (up 4%)

Comments: Teacher influence and teacher-principal trust are well below city average.

75M226 – P.S. M226 (based on 41 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 86% (up 5%)

Teacher Influence: 49% (down 2%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 82% (up 4%)

75M721 – P.S. M721 – Manhattan Occupational Training Center (based on 18 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 36% (down 29%)

Teacher Influence: 22% (down 13%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 31% (down 25%)

Comments: All results are well below city average.

75M751 – Manhattan School for Career Development (based on 24 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 98% (up 4%)

Teacher Influence: 82% (down 5%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 98% (up 7%)

Comments: All results are way above city average.

75M811 – P.S. M811 – Mickey Mantle School (based on 51 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 98% (same)

Teacher Influence: 80% (same)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 97% (down 1%)

Comments: All results are way above city average.

Hopefully you found this helpful. Tomorrow, a look at the Bronx…

FOLLOW THE MONEY: WHICH LEGISLATORS BENEFIT FROM OUR UFT COPE DONATIONS? – PART II

Every two weeks, union dues and voluntary COPE donations come out of the paychecks of more than 100,000 active UFT members. Millions upon millions of dollars of our hard earned money go to maintaining, strengthening, and empowering our union. Union dues are not allowed to be used for political action, although a sizable portion of our dues (over 25%, according to this old Chalkbeat piece) goes to affiliates such as New York State United Teachers (NYSUT) and American Federation of Teachers (AFT), where the distinction between regular union activity and political activity seems less clear cut. To make things simple, we will not be looking at NYSUT and AFT political donations since there’s no way of knowing exactly how much of our money was used.

For the purpose of this short series of articles, we will only look at UFT COPE contributions, which are used to lobby legislators and political groups, among other things, such as phone banking, political flyers, buses, rallies, etc.

Hopefully, the following breakdown of the recipients of our COPE donations alleviates some of the mystery as to who benefited most from our contributions in 2024 and 2025. This is not meant to be an exposé by any means; it is simply meant to help our membership see where some of our money is going because we deserve to know.

Some of the dollar amounts may not be exact. These are all minimum figures. All research was done through the NYSBOE Public Reporting System and the New York City Campaign Finance Board. The UFT donates money under several names (UFT, United Federation of Teachers, UFT COPE, etc.), making it somewhat difficult to pin down exactly how much (and to whom) they donated.

All that being said, hopefully this information helps clarify where our COPE donations are going as we delve into Part 2. All dollar amounts are for 2024 and 2025, combined.

6. Democratic Committee of Richmond County: $15,500

Contributions: 2024 United Federation of Teachers: $10,000; 2025 UFT COPE: $5,500

Self-explanatory. Staten Island’s Democratic Party whose members include NYS Assemblyman Charles D. Fall, NYS Senator Jessica Scarcella-Spanton, NYC Council Member Kamillah Hanks, and District Attorney Michael McMahon.

In her time as senator of the 23rd district, representing the North Shore of Staten Island, Scarcella-Spanton has sponsored two noteworthy bills favoring public school teachers. One of the bills aimed to extend student loan forgiveness to SUNY and CUNY graduates that go into the public sector. The bill would grant qualified applicants $5,000 per year to pay off their student loans. Like many bills, it is still in committee, so it may be some time before we get wind of any progress.

Scarcella-Spanton was also one of many co-sponsors on a bill that would have “amend(ed) the education law in New York State to include arts and music education as necessary components of the public school curriculum.” This bill would have really helped out teachers of the arts, who often find themselves first on the chopping block when schools lack sufficient funding. Unfortunately, both bills died in 2024.

Scarcella-Spanton received $19,300 from NYSUT from 2022-2023. Fall and McMahon will both be featured in part three.

7. Eric Gonzalez (District Attorney, Kings County): $15,000

Contributions: 2024 United Federation of Teachers COPE: $5,000; 2025 United Federation of Teachers COPE: $10,000

The UFT and Brooklyn District Attorney Eric Gonzalez have a working history. The UFT Delegate Assembly endorsed Gonzalez in 2025. According to the 2025 Delegate Assembly resolution, Gonzalez’s “2020 Office Action Plan indicates his plans to collaborate with the Department of Education so that school-based offenses can be dealt with using restorative justice practices that allow young people to take responsibility for their actions, make amends to the people they have harmed, and avoid prosecution entirely.” The resolution goes on to acknowledge Gonzalez’s efforts to protect immigrant families and refers to him as a “strong ally for working people, our schools, and our community.”

8. Democratic Organization of Queens County: $13,800

Contributions: 2024 United Federation of Teachers COPE: $6,000; 2025 United Federation of Teachers COPE: $7,800

The name gives it away. Members Stacey Pheffer Amato, Edward Braunstein, Vivian E, Cook, David I. Weprin, Toby Ann Stavisky, and John Liu all received sizable contributions from NYSUT in 2022 and 2023.

Senator John Liu is the chairperson of the New York City Education Committee. He was also the former comptroller and one of the “key architects” of the class size law. Liu has been a beneficial ally in the fight against charter schools and has been an ardent supporter of public education.

Senator Stavisky has been in office since 1999. She currently serves the 11th district in Queens and is the Chair of the Committee on Higher Education. During the 2021-2022 legislative season, Stavisky also served on the Senate Education Committee.

Stavisky has co-sponsored several bills impacting educators and students alike. Stavisky is one of the co-sponsors on a bill that would make art and music courses compulsory. Stavisky has also co-sponsored bills that recognize Lunar New Year, Eid al-Fitr, Eid al-Adha, and Diwali as school holidays in districts with significant populations of students and families that celebrate those holidays.

Additionally, Stavisky lent her support to a bill that “aims to reform the processes of performance reviews, probationary terms, tenure assignments, and removal protocols for educators in the state of New York.” The bill, which unfortunately died in 2024, would have placed less emphasis on performance reviews for teachers and principals and focus more on educators “maintaining proper certification and effective overall service.”

9. Bronx Democratic County Committee – Housekeeping: $12,000

Contributions: 2024 UFT: $12,000

According to the mission statement on their website, the BDCC “represent a set of values that largely reflects that of the National Democratic Party. Our main goal as an organization is to help elect progressive Democratic candidates all across the borough of The Bronx that will be integral to fighting for the progress our communities deserve… we have steadfastly become the party that has fought for healthcare as a human right, increased minimum wage, union labor rights, and comprehensive immigration reform that includes a solution for our DREAMers both locally and nationwide. Our democratic elected officials, both on the local and national level, have been progressive champions of LGBTQIA+ rights, women’s rights and their reproductive rights, climate change, and the scientific evidence that supports it, as well as being strong proponents of criminal justice reform.”

The BDCC is comprised of dozens of elected officials, chief among them being Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rep. Ritchie Torres, Speaker Carl Heastie, Senator Robert Jackson, Senator Gustavo Rivera, Assemblymember Jeffrey Dinowitz, Council Member Eric Dinowitz, Bronx Borough President Vanessa Gibson, and Bronx District Attorney Darcel Clark. To do a deep dive into all of them would be a bit much, but many of the elected officials from the Bronx have been very supportive of public schools and educators. Some examples:

Senator Jackson represents the 31st District of New York. In 1992, as President of Community School Board 6 in Manhattan, Jackson led a lawsuit against the State of New York in order to get equitable funding for NYC students. Jackson felt NYC students weren’t receiving proportionate funding, and he was right. Despite comprising 39% of the student population of New York State, they were only receiving 32% state education aid (source: Baruch case study).

In 2008, Jackson, then serving in New York City Council’s 7th District, co-sponsored a resolution to reform city school planning to address overcrowding.

Most recently, to the benefit of all Tier 6 members, Jackson served as the primary sponsor on a bill that amended the calculation of our Final Average Salary (FAS). As a result, our three highest consecutive years of earnings will be used to calculate our FAS instead of our five highest consecutive years. In other words, future retirees can expect a little bit more money when they receive their pensions.

Furthermore, Jackson is an advocate for public schools. In 2022, pro-charter super PAC, New Yorkers for a Balanced Albany, spent nearly $100,000 in an effort to defeat Jackson in his re-election bid. Jackson still managed to trounce his opponent, Angel Vasquez, “a former teacher, who later worked as a deputy political director for the United Federation of Teachers.”

Gustavo Rivera has represented the 33rd Senate district in the Bronx for the last 15 years. Senator Rivera has also served as the Chair of the Senate Health Committee since 2018. As such, Rivera looms large as a person of tremendous importance.

Rivera is the sponsor of the New York Health Act (NYHA), a bill that twice has been approved by the Delegate Assembly (DA). While there are still some questions and moving parts that must be pinned down before unconditional support can be given, as long as NYHA offers all members – active and retired, in-state and out-of-state – equal or better healthcare without an increase in cost, it could be something worth considering in the future..

In addition, Senator Rivera has co-sponsored bills that benefit educators and students. Rivera supported the class size bill intended to reduce the maximum number of students per class. He also co-sponsored the SAFE for Kids Act, focused on limiting addictive social media feeds to students under 18 without parental consent. Finally, Rivera also advocated for the bill that would reform teacher and principal evaluations and removal procedures (see Toby Ann Stavisky above).

Rivera is also an ardent supporter of public schools. Rivera opposes the expansion of charters and pushes for increased funding to public schools. In 2022, New Yorkers for a Balanced Albany, a pro-charter super PAC, spent well over $100,000 to try to unseat Rivera in his bid for re-election. Rivera still defeated his opponent, Miguelina Camilo, despite the super PAC’s best efforts.

Some of the larger recipients of UFT, NYSUT, and/or AFT contributions went to Bronx legislatures in 2022-2023. Senator Heastle received $51,125 ($50,000 of which came from NYSUT) during that time period. NYSUT gave $19,800 to Senator Jackson in 2022. Senator Rivera was on the receiving end of $17,300 combined from NYSUT and the UFT. DA Clark received $10,000 in contributions from the UFT in 2023.

10. Alvin Bragg (District Attorney, Manhattan): $10,000

Contributions: 2025 United Federation of Teachers: $10,000

The most prolific DA in New York City best known for indicting Donald Trump. Earlier this year, Bragg successfully prosecuted High Volt Electric Corp. for stealing worker’s wages and defrauding the School Construction Authority. Bragg has been receiving UFT support since 2021 when the union first endorsed him. Bragg also received a $5,000 contribution from the UFT in 2023.

Please check back for the third and final installment of this series next week.

FOLLOW THE MONEY: WHICH LEGISLATORS BENEFIT FROM OUR UFT COPE DONATIONS? – PART I

Every two weeks, union dues and voluntary COPE donations come out of the paychecks of more than 100,000 active UFT members. Millions upon millions of dollars of our hard earned money go to maintaining, strengthening, and empowering our union. Union dues are not allowed to be used for political action, although a sizable portion of our dues (over 25%, according to this old Chalkbeat piece) goes to affiliates such as New York State United Teachers (NYSUT) and American Federation of Teachers (AFT), where the distinction between regular union activity and political activity seems less clear cut. To keep things simple, we will not be looking at NYSUT and AFT political donations since there’s no way of knowing exactly how much of our money was used.

For the purpose of this short series of articles, we will only look at UFT COPE contributions, which are used to lobby legislators and political groups, among other things, such as phone banking, political flyers, buses, rallies, etc.

Hopefully, the following breakdown of the recipients of our COPE donations alleviates some of the mystery as to who benefited most from our contributions in 2024 and 2025. This is not meant to be an exposé by any means; it is simply meant to help our membership see where some of our money is going because we deserve to know.

Some of the dollar amounts may not be exact. These are all minimum figures. All research was done through the NYSBOE Public Reporting System and the New York City Campaign Finance Board. The UFT donates money under several names (UFT, United Federation of Teachers, UFT COPE, etc.), making it somewhat difficult to pin down exactly how much (and to whom) they donated.

All that being said, hopefully this information helps clarify where our COPE donations are going. All dollar amounts are for 2024 and 2025, combined.

1. United for NYC’s Future: $250,000

Contributions: 2025 UFT: $250,000

United for NYC’s Future is a UFT-run committee that is also funded by NYSUT and the AFT. United for NYC’s Future has made $1.75 million in political contributions, all of which can be viewed here.

The committee’s largest contributions, just north of $225,000, went to Dermot Smyth, a UFT strategist (and former chapter leader) who made an unsuccessful bid for City Council in 2025.

Speaker Julie Menin raked in $210,000. Menin and UFT leadership have quickly developed a strong bond, as the Speaker has been one of the most vocal supporters of the Paraprofessional RESPECT Check, lambasting City Hall for not getting on board. While the para check has been getting all the headlines lately, Menin has also brought the fight to the DOE over school contracts “related to mandated programming, including related services, assistive technology, and interpretation and transcription services, as well as 352 contracts DOE itself identified as ‘not competitively bid.’” While many believe Speaker Menin is gunning for a 2029 mayoral run, it pays to partner with the City’s second-most powerful politician.

Newcomer Virginia Maloney, who just took office on January 1, received $161K in contributions. Maloney is a city council member out of District 4 who has already advocated on behalf of after-school programming for students in her community.

On the other hand, Maloney wants to expedite the process of foisting AI into public schools, which doesn’t come as much of a surprise considering her past position as a Product Manager at Meta. AI is becoming an increasingly problematic and threatening issue, especially since the UFT “announced a $23 million partnership with Microsoft, Open AI, and Anthropic” last year. Proponents of AI use the same talking points – that it’s here to stay and that it will assist, not replace educators – but I see way more cons than pros. Even if AI supporters are altruistic in what they say, bad actors will always find a way to infiltrate and make things worse, which could be a potential disaster for our profession. But that’s a discussion best left for another day.

Delving into everyone who received contributions from United for NYC’s Future would be quite an endeavor. The vast majority of the money went to City Council members. Borough Presidents Keith Powers and Vanessa L. Gibson and Comptroller Mark Levine are the only non-City Council members who brought in money from the UFT committee. Click on the link in the first paragraph for a complete list of recipients.

2. Eleanor Roosevelt Legacy Committee: $160,700

Contributions: 2024 United Federation of Teachers: $55,700; 2025 UFT Political Education Committee: $80,000; 2025 UFT PEC: $20,000; 2025 UFT COPE: $5,000

In total, the Eleanor Roosevelt Legacy Committee received about a quarter of all UFT campaign donations in fiscal years 2024 and 2025. According to their website, the Eleanor Roosevelt Legacy Committee “recruits, trains, and supports pro-choice Democratic women to run for state and local office throughout New York.” Their info page provides a bit more specificity, as it mentions that they helped fund then “little-known candidates like Kathy Hochul and Andrea Stewart-Cousins win their first elections.” The committee endorsed over 300 pro-choice female candidates in 2023, 160 of whom were victorious. In 2026, approximately 150 women across New York State received endorsements from the Eleanor Roosevelt Legacy Committee, including Kathy Hochul. Adrienne Adams, Letitia James, and Jessica González-Rojas, just to name a few.

3. NYS Democratic Assembly Campaign Committee (NYS DACC): $101,000

Contributions: 2024 United Federation of Teachers: $101,000

The NYS DACC is yet another committee of democratic candidates. The DACC totals 100 members, including Assembly Speaker Carl E. Heastie, Philip Ramos, Erik M. Dilan, Brian Cunningham, Jaime R. Williams, David Weprin, Jeffrey Dinowitz, Andrew Hevesi, Yudelka Tapia, Al Stirpe, Angelo Santabarbara, Nader J. Sayegh, and Nily Rozic, all of whom received $5,000 or more in campaign donations from the UFT, NYSUT, and/or AFT back in 2022-2023. To do a deep dive into every member would be arduous, but Carl E. Heastie, the Speaker of the New York State Assembly, deserves a quick look.

Heastie is a bit of a mixed bag when it comes to educational policy. According to this New York Times article from 2017, Heastie supported an extension of mayoral control, but refused “to bend to the Senate’s demands to increase the number of charter schools in the state as a condition to extend mayoral control of the city’s schools.” Heastie continues to support mayoral control, confirming another two year extension earlier this year.

On the other hand, Heastie was supportive of the class size reduction act, which serves as a benefit to schools, students, educators, and our livelihoods in general.

On other issues, Heastie seems to play the fence. When asked about Hochul’s proposed changes to the Foundation Aid formula back in 2024, Heastie said, “We would, of course, make sure the districts are whole, but we are open to re-examining the Foundation Aid formula. But we want to make sure that our rural and suburban districts aren’t harmed by any proposal.” Hochul intended to disrupt the formula for calculating Foundation Aid. Instead of using rate of inflation on a year-by-year basis, Hochul preferred to determine funding by using the average rate of inflation over a ten-year period. Given our soaring inflation since COVID, changing the funding formula to use a 10-year average would have decreased the amount of funding our schools receive.

The second change was just as subversive as the first. Hochul sought to essentially put an end to the “Save Harmless” contingency that ensures that schools will not lose funding if their enrollment drops. “Save Harmless” (also called “Hold Harmless”) has been enforced for decades. Liz Rozenberg of City & State New York explains that if Hochul were to get rid of this provision that has served as a lifeline for many schools, “50% of the 673 districts that receive foundation aid will lose funds” Funnily enough, Hochul received so much pushback from both sides of the aisle on this issue that she removed her proposal to end “Save Harmless” years ago (more info here), so it did not appear in the FY 2025 budget.

Any type of concession that would have favored Hochul’s agenda would have been a tragic mistake that would’ve removed major funding from our public schools.

4. Jim Owles Liberal Democratic Club: $30,000

Contributions: 2024 United Federation of Teachers: $10,000; 2024 UFT: $10,000; 2025 United Federation of Teachers – COPE: $10,000

The Jim Owles Liberal Democratic Club is a citywide political club that advocates for LGBTQ rights and endorses candidates who champion their cause. As such, the group routinely supports democratic candidates in local and national elections, many of whom receive sizable contributions from the UFT, AFT, and NYSUT. Their extensive board of governors includes the likes of NYS Comptroller Tom DiNapoli, NYC Comptroller Mark Levine, AOC, Manhattan Borough President Brad Hoylman-Sigal, Speaker Julie Menin, Assemblymember Grace Lee, State Senator Gustavo Rivera, and NYC Public Advocate Jumaane Williams.

5. Tenants Political Action Committee Inc.: $25,000

Contributions: 2024 United Federation of Teachers: $25,000

The Tenants Political Action Committee is exactly what it sounds like. Founded in 1997, the Tenants PAC organizes, lobbies, and fights for tenant protections, pro-tenant legislation, the expansion of rent control, and other similar issues. The UFT contributed the money right around the same time Zohran Mamdani announced his candidacy for mayor. It was the first time the UFT contributed money to the Tenants PAC since 2020.

Part 2 coming soon.


Learn more about

our UFT Caucus

Content Policy

Content of signed articles and comments represents the opinions of their authors. The views expressed in signed articles are not necessarily the views of New Action/UFT.
Follow New Action – UFT on WordPress.com
August 2026
M T W T F S S
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31  

Blog Stats

  • 413,878 hits