New Action – UFT

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 Staten Island 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 Staten Island…

Staten Island

31R001 – P.S. 001 Tottenville (based on 47 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 96% (down 1%)

Teacher Influence: 87% (up 10%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 95% (up 1%)

Comments: All results are above city average.

31R002 – I.S. R002 George L. Egbert (based on 85 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 94% (up 11%)

Teacher Influence: 58% (up 3%)

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

31R003 – P.S. 003 The Margaret Gioiosa School (based on 41 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 96% (down 4%)

Teacher Influence: 79% (down 7%)

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

Comments: All results are way above city average.

31R004 – P.S. 004 Maurice Wollin (based on 74 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 89% (down 5%)

Teacher Influence: 70% (down 7%)

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

Comments: Teacher-principal trust is above city average.

31R005 – P.S. 005 Huguenot (based on 29 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 100% (same)

Teacher Influence: 97% (down 3%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 100% (same)

Comments: All results are way above city average.

31R006 – P.S. 6 Corporal Allan F. Kivlehan School (based on 45 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 100% (same)

Teacher Influence: 86% (up 2%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 98% (down 2%)

Comments: All results are way above city average. Instructional leadership has had a 100% positive rating each year since 2024.

31R007 – I.S. 007 Elias Bernstein (based on 59 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 96% (up 1%)

Teacher Influence: 79% (up 1%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 96% (up 2%)

Comments: All results are way above city average.

31R008 – P.S. 8 Shirlee Solomon (based on 30 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 100% (up 1%)

Teacher Influence: 90% (up 8%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 100% (up 2%)

Comments: All results are way above city average.

31R009 – Naples Street Elementary School (based on 42 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 99% (down 1%)

Teacher Influence: 95% (down 4%)

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

Comments: All results are way above city average.

31R010 – Fort Hill Collaborative Elementary School (R010) (based on 22 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 100% (up 1%)

Teacher Influence: 98% (down 1%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 100% (same)

Comments: All results are way above city average.

31R011 – P.S. 11 Thomas Dongan School (based on 17 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 83% (up 10%)

Teacher Influence: 55% (up 12%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 68% (up 23%)

Comments: Teacher influence and teacher-principal trust are well below city average despite significant improvements from last year.

31R013 – P.S. 013 M. L. Lindemeyer (based on 30 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 98% (same)

Teacher Influence: 83% (up 5%)

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

Comments: All results are way above city average.

31R016 – P.S. 016 John J. Driscoll (based on 29 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 99% (down 1%)

Teacher Influence: 90% (down 10%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 100% (same)

Comments: All results are way above city average.

31R018 – P.S. 018 John G. Whittier (based on 28 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 79% (down 3%)

Teacher Influence: 57% (up 14%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 69% (up 2%)

Comments: All results are below city average.

31R019 – P.S. 019 The Curtis School (based on 46 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 90% (up 5%)

Teacher Influence: 56% (same)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 83% (up 11%)

31R020 – P.S. 020 Port Richmond (based on 15 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 75% (down 2%)

Teacher Influence: 40% (up 8%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 50% (down 4%)

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

31R021 – P.S. 21 Margaret Emery-Elm Park (based on 29 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 99% (down 1%)

Teacher Influence: 83% (down 4%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 99% (same)

Comments: All results are way above city average.

31R022 – P.S. 022 Graniteville (based on 48 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 87% (down 4%)

Teacher Influence: 54% (down 3%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 81% (down 4%)

31R023 – P.S. 023 Richmondtown (based on 34 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 99% (down 1%)

Teacher Influence: 81% (same)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 98% (down 2%)

Comments: All results are way above city average.

31R024 – I.S. 024 Myra S. Barnes (based on 112 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 99% (same)

Teacher Influence: 75% (up 3%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 99% (up 2%)

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

31R026 – P.S. 026 The Carteret School (based on 27 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 94% (down 1%)

Teacher Influence: 70% (down 18%)

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

31R027 – I.S. 027 Anning S. Prall (based on 83 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 57% (up 11%)

Teacher Influence: 36% (up 7%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 42% (up 11%)

Comments: All results are well below city average despite improvements.

31R028 – The Eagle Academy for Young Men of Staten Island (based on 40 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 92% (up 2%)

Teacher Influence: 76% (down 2%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 96% (up 2%)

Comments: All results are above city average.

31R029 – P.S. 029 Bardwell (based on 46 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 98% (same)

Teacher Influence: 61% (down 10%)

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

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

31R030 – P.S. 030 Westerleigh (based on 59 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 98% (up 1%)

Teacher Influence: 69% (up 5%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 98% (up 2%)

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

31R031 – P.S. 031 William T. Davis (based on 28 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 84% (down 8%)

Teacher Influence: 53% (down 6%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 66% (down 22%)

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

31R032 – P.S. 032 The Gifford School (based on 22 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 94% (up 2%)

Teacher Influence: 90% (up 11%)

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

31R034 – I.S. 034 Tottenville (based on 105 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 98% (same)

Teacher Influence: 66% (down 5%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 98% (same)

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

31R035 – P.S. 35 The Clove Valley School (based on 20 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 99% (up 2%)

Teacher Influence: 75% (up 21%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 92% (up 12%)

31R036 – P.S. 036 J.C. Drumgoole (based on 20 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 90% (down 3%)

Teacher Influence: 72% (up 2%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 81% (down 6%)

31R038 – P.S. 038 George Cromwell (based on 30 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 97% (up 1%)

Teacher Influence: 73% (up 3%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 87% (up 5%)

31R039 – P.S. 39 Francis J. Murphy Jr. (based on 47 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 96% (down 1%)

Teacher Influence: 75% (up 1%)

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

31R041 – The Stephanie A. Vierno School (based on 45 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 95% (up 1%)

Teacher Influence: 71% (up 9%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 93% (up 6%)

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

31R042 – P.S. 042 Eltingville (based on 66 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 98% (down 1%)

Teacher Influence: 66% (up 2%)

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

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

31R044 – P.S. 044 Thomas C. Brown (based on 20 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 77% (down 12%)

Teacher Influence: 39% (down 16%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 71% (down 17%)

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

31R045 – P.S. 45 John Tyler (based on 58 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 90% (down 2%)

Teacher Influence: 78% (up 5%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 90% (up 5%)

31R046 – P.S. 046 Albert V. Maniscalco (based on 21 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 97% (down 2%)

Teacher Influence: 66% (down 16%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 96% (down 4%)

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

31R047 – CSI High School for International Studies (based on 30 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 96% (down 2%)

Teacher Influence: 87% (up 7%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 91% (up 3%)

Comments: All results are above city average.

31R048 – P.S. 048 William G. Wilcox (based on 56 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 95% (down 3%)

Teacher Influence: 73% (down 5%)

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

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

31R049 – I.S. 49 Berta A. Dreyfus (based on 51 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 95% (down 1%)

Teacher Influence: 67% (down 1%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 93% (up 3%)

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

31R050 – P.S. 050 Frank Hankinson (based on 50 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 98% (down 1%)

Teacher Influence: 80% (up 1%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 98% (up 1%)

Comments: All results are way above city average.

31R051 – I.S. 051 Edwin Markham (based on 106 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 96% (down 2%)

Teacher Influence: 63% (down 10%)

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

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

31R052 – P.S. 052 John C. Thompson (based on 47 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 99% (up 2%)

Teacher Influence: 70% (up 11%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 99% (up 5%)

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

31R053 – The Barbara Esselborn School (based on 41 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 100% (same)

Teacher Influence: 79% (down 6%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 100% (up 2%)

Comments: All results are way above city average.

31R054 – P.S. 054 Charles W. Leng (based on 20 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 85% (down 3%)

Teacher Influence: 56% (down 3%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 80% (down 3%)

31R055 – P.S. 055 Henry M. Boehm (based on 45 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 82% (down 4%)

Teacher Influence: 57% (up 9%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 69% (down 8%)

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

31R056 – P.S. 56 The Louis Desario School (based on 55 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 96% (up 3%)

Teacher Influence: 81% (up 14%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 96% (up 4%)

Comments: All results are way above city average.

31R057 – P.S. 057 Hubert H. Humphrey (based on 27 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 95% (up 3%)

Teacher Influence: 61% (up 13%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 97% (up 3%)

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

31R058 – Space Shuttle Columbia School (based on 64 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 94% (down 1%)

Teacher Influence: 55% (up 8%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 92% (down 2%)

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

31R059 – The Harbor View School (based on 20 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 91% (down 4%)

Teacher Influence: 75% (up 1%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 86% (down 1%)

31R060 – P.S. 060 Alice Austen (based on 38 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 92% (down 2%)

Teacher Influence: 58% (down 6%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 65% (down 16%)

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

31R061 – I.S. 061 William A. Morris (based on 73 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 79% (up 6%)

Teacher Influence: 46% (up 11%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 66% (up 10%)

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

31R062 – The Kathleen Grimm School for Leadership and Sustainability (based on 30 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 98% (down 1%)

Teacher Influence: 87% (down 4%)

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

Comments: All results are above city average.

31R063 – Marsh Avenue School for Expeditionary Learning (based on 35 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 71% (up 10%)

Teacher Influence: 69% (up 18%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 59% (up 17%)

Comments: Instructional leadership and teacher-principal trust are well below city average despite improvements. Last year, each category dropped between 24-48%.

31R064 – Gaynor McCown Expeditionary Learning School (based on 28 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 98% (down 2%)

Teacher Influence: 81% (down 4%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 98% (down 2%)

Comments: All results are way above city average.

31R065 – P.S. 65 The Academy of Innovative Learning (based on 15 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 100% (up 6%)

Teacher Influence: 93% (up 6%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 94% (up 6%)

Comments: All results are above city average.

31R068 – Port Richmond School for Visionary Learning (based on 39 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 80% (up 7%)

Teacher Influence: 54% (up 10%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 67% (down 2%)

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

31R069 – P.S. 069 Daniel D. Tompkins (based on 49 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 95% (up 4%)

Teacher Influence: 54% (up 3%)

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

31R072 – I.S. 072 Rocco Laurie (based on 124 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 93% (same)

Teacher Influence: 59% (down 6%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 94% (up 1%)

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

31R074 – P.S. 74 Future Leaders Elementary School (based on 30 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 96% (down 4%)

Teacher Influence: 80% (down 7%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 96% (down 4%)

Comments: All results are way above city average.

31R075 – I.S. 075 Frank D. Paulo (based on 119 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 99% (same)

Teacher Influence: 72% (down 7%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 98% (up 1%)

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

31R078 – P.S. 78 (based on 34 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 95% (same)

Teacher Influence: 66% (up 1%)

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

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

31R080 – The Michael J. Petrides School (based on 104 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 97% (down 1%)

Teacher Influence: 82% (up 4%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 97% (same)

Comments: All results are way above city average.

31R084 – The Waverly Academy of Empowered Learners (based on 30 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 99% (down 1%)

Teacher Influence: 59% (down 31%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 98% (down 2%)

Comments: Instructional leadership and teacher-principal trust are way above city average. 55% of respondents said that the teachers have influence over school policy in selecting instructional materials and/or curriculum used in classrooms, a 45% drop from 2025.

31R085 – The Young Women’s Leadership School of Staten Island (based on 23 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 93% (down 3%)

Teacher Influence: 76% (up 10%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 97% (up 3%)

Comments: All results are above city average.

31R440 – New Dorp High School (based on 231 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 90% (up 2%)

Teacher Influence: 65% (up 3%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 89% (up 3%)

31R445 – Port Richmond High School (based on 149 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 93% (down 3%)

Teacher Influence: 75% (up 1%)

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

Comments: All results are above city average.

31R450 – Curtis High School (based on 167 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 96% (up 3%)

Teacher Influence: 66% (up 1%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 97% (up 3%)

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

31R455 – Tottenville High School (based on 239 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 95% (up 2%)

Teacher Influence: 71% (up 3%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 92% (up 2%)

Comments: All results are above city average.

31R460 – Susan E. Wagner High School (based on 144 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 83% (up 1%)

Teacher Influence: 53% (up 1%)

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

31R470 – Concord High School (based on 19 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 92% (down 1%)

Teacher Influence: 68% (down 12%)

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

31R600 – Ralph R. McKee Career and Technical Education High School (based on 25 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 84% (down 5%)

Teacher Influence: 70% (up 10%)

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

31R605 – Staten Island Technical High School (based on 79 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 89% (up 3%)

Teacher Influence: 79% (up 2%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 91% (same)

31R861 – Staten Island School of Civic Leadership (based on 46 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 58% (down 16%)

Teacher Influence: 27% (down 13%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 41% (down 17%)

Comments: All results are well below city average.

Staten Island D75

75R025 – South Richmond High School I.S./P.S. 25 (based on 66 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 92% (up 10%)

Teacher Influence: 69% (up 10%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 92% (up 17%)

75R037 – The David Marquis School of the Arts (based on 17 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 84% (down 9%)

Teacher Influence: 60% (down 8%)

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

Comments: Fewer than half of the over 40 respondents from 2025 filled out this year’s survey,

75R089 – Staten Island Rise Academy (based on 22 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 99% (n/a)

Teacher Influence: 87% (n/a)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 100% (n/a)

Comments: All results are above city average.

75R373 – P.S. R373 (based on 41 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 79% (down 7%)

Teacher Influence: 47% (down 4%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 71% (down 12%)

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

75R721 – The Richard H. Hungerford School (based on 82 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 95% (up 11%)

Teacher Influence: 77% (up 11%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 90% (up 12%)

We at New Action want you to know that we don’t only see you, but we represent you. If you ever get the feeling that filling out these surveys is like shouting into the void, please know that New Action will be here – every year – to publish and spread the word regarding our thoughts and feelings on our administrators, whether they be good, bad, or anywhere in-between.

For everyone curious as to where their school stands amongst our union colleagues, we at New Action hope you found this information useful. Again, these survey results may not be a foolproof way to determine which school is right for us, but they are the best indicators we have at our disposal. If you have any feedback or questions, please let us know.