Posts Tagged 'New Action'

UFT Delegate Assembly Minutes – October 14, 2026

No commentary. Just the minutes…

President’s Report

Michael Mulgrew welcomes everyone to the first DA of the school year. It’s going to be an interesting year.

Moment of silence for UFT Rep Ilyana Frias. Tells an inspiring story about Ilyana and how she fought for us and our students.

Welcomes new delegates and chapter leaders. MM thanks everyone for their unionism.

Federal

The upcoming elections are everything. It’s going to get nastier. We have folks working and coordinating with different groups in NYC, NYC, and nationally regarding election interference. Better to be safe than sorry. We want people to have the ability to vote without being harassed, go to voting stations without issue. Coordinating nationally through the AFT. Phone banks up and running. When we’re doing our political work, we have committees who vet candidates. Vetting done by volunteers. Simple – how do you feel about our profession? Do you support it or not? How do you feel about unions? Collective bargaining? In the end, we give a recommendation. If you don’t want to support it, don’t support it. But if your priority is your profession, the union, and collective bargaining, you may want to listen to our recommendations. If not, vote how you want. Politics are so toxic at this point. If people ask why we’re supporting a specific candidate, it’s to keep our livelihood safe.

National voucher program – It is NOT a scholarship program. We had a big disagreement with our governor. We’ve made our position very clear. I believe the governor believes she can do something no other state can do – I don’t believe she can do it. The regulations came out. They’re clear. The IRS gets to set the rules, not the DOE. Once they set the rules, there is no appeal. State cannot change those rules. We’ve been approached by a lot of different people who want to make sure the money gets to public education. The governor said our state is opting in. It is what it is. Goes back to politics. That is not protecting public education. I want to thank colleagues from Texas. They’ve given us lots of information and data about how it’s hurt public education in Texas.

State

Class Size – Putting together legislative agenda for January. Last October, the main thrust was Tier 6 for legislative agenda. 80 buses to Albany, petitions, and the rest of it. Not done with Tier 6, especially the contribution part and the different numbers they’re using to decide pension. We have a COLA bill for retirees. Ran into serious opposition from actuaries. COLA is not right. It’s at such a low level. Even our friends in Albany, elected officials said we can’t do this cost in our budget. We don’t have the right to argue with actuary, but doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be argued with. Big challenge on COLA and that we want the 8.25% back for the TDA. Comes down to “What does it cost?” I’m fed up with the actuaries coming to affect us. Used to have actuaries there for a very long time. Whether you’re in City, State, hospitals, everyone needs actuaries. This new crop of actuaries are very aggressive and overestimating costs. Those are the challenges we’re going to face in Albany. Currently facing them with NYC actuaries. Paid family leaves was a massive victory. Took 6 weeks extra to fight with them for charging us way too much. Had to keep going in and proving them wrong.

Class Size – If 10 years ago, I said 70% of classes adhered to class sizes the rest of the state has, we’d think it impossible. For close to 40 years, we tried to figure out how to get class sizes similar to the rest of the state. I met someone in charge of the petitions in the Bronx. Loophole that the mayor has the right to remove one resolution. Tried to pass this before but the mayor at the time removed it. The mayor and lots of elected officials didn’t want it. Charter school industry was apoplectic about us getting this law. Two reasons they didn’t want us getting the Class Size law – 1) It cost too much. We got Albany to finally fully fund foundation aid. That was the funding we needed to pay for Class Size. 2) “It’s impossible to do.” They came up with crazy estimates. We told them to give us a law and we’ll make sure it gets done. In the law, it says we have the same authority as the Board of Ed and principal’s union. If we’re not in compliance with the law in any particular year, we lose money. UFT would not come to agreement with DOE about what’s in evaluation law by trying to make us at-will employees. We gave up money to save that from happening. Want to make it clear. We don’t want to do that.

We knew they couldn’t get to 80% this school year because they didn’t have a construction plan in place. We were ready for this. We agreed to help extend this law, only if we get the whole construction plan and how much time it’s going to take for each school. Every plan is not final, but in motion. We will get to 70% this year. The last 30% will be difficult. A lot of it has to do with programming. A lot of it is about the need for new space. Each school should be having a conversation about their class size plan. We don’t want the DOE telling you what your class size plan should be. They don’t know your building. We found out during COVID they don’t even know the size of every school. Class Size law is not about your school, but about the total number of classes. Teachers asking if they’re getting paid for oversized classes. You all need to be on the same page. For this year, the DOE is allowed to have 30% of their classes not in compliance. Last year, a bunch of people looked at their school lists at the end of November. There were questions at December DA asking why classes are exempt on their class size plan. That class was officially used by the DOE to get credit for a plan in place that that class would come into compliance in the next 1-2 years. That can be used for being in compliance for that school year. We said any chance you use towards an exemption for credit to the state means you were irresponsible. As always, you get to put that burden on the teacher, but now you’re going to pay that teacher. It’s only the classes that they’re using as exemptions. We get that list in November. Compliance doesn’t necessarily mean they hit 70%, but that they have a plan to hit it. Percentage from last year doesn’t stay the same. Teachers retired, how many were hired? Wanted 6,000-7,000. Don’t have that yet. Have to wait to see about hiring. Next phase is next year. Supposed to be at 80%. Should be more exemptions next year. If you’re being used as a waiver, you will get paid extra for oversized classes. This goes on forever. We’re going to get this done. We can do this in NYC. The amount of space required isn’t near what was estimated. We still have our contractual limits. The number of classes that even 10 years ago would’ve been about 40%. But now we will be at 70% for this year. We have a lot of people working on this. Every year, it will require maintenance. Every year the DOE will come to us and ask for exemptions. If we find it’s legit, that’s fine, but then those teachers should get a check. Have your meetings with your principals about Class Size. If you need to speak about space, speak about space. We’ll come in and help. Programming changes need to be looked at. After we finish this year, we’re focusing on the remaining 30%. I hear you, specialized high schools. You are not exempt from the Class Size law. We’ll figure out how to create more space.

City

Paraprofessional Bill – Passed. Got a new judge. Parties have an agreement that we are now an active part of the lawsuit. Parties agreed. Will respond with what our arguments should be. Not announcing them here. Want them to be surprised. Trying to make this permanent. Leadership of the para chapter understands everything going back and forth. Frustrating. The DOE lost the argument. Their argument is that it doesn’t matter that we need at least 9,000 substitutes a day. If we have people in the position, then it’s not a vacancy. It’s called a substitute for a reason. It’s a substitute because you need a permanent. You need a substitute every day to make sure it’s taken care of for one day. The DOE was saying we don’t have a problem. We have all the paras we need. 70-80% of DA raises hands when asked if their schools are short on paras. More stress for us and our members. Para bill is in place. Trying to make it permanent.

IRMAA Audits – IRMAA is a process that every piece of software or digital platform that every DOE tech goes through to make through its safe. I’m the employer, you’re using this software with children, I have to make sure it’s safe. Makes sense. But, according to DOE, they made sure every piece of software went through IRMAA audit. Only ones we approved, not the ones in school. That’s why we don’t have access to certain platforms. Magic Classroom is now safe. They knew this. Why would you wait until the second week of school to turn off IRMAA software that did not qualify? Should’ve been checked in July. That’s the frustration. The IRMAA audit continues. Still a couple platforms being utilized. Someone corrects Mulgrew about the name of the program – Magic School.

MTSS – If someone said they wanted to set up a literacy program for schools to help identify if students are on grade level, what their deficiencies are, what we need to do to get them to grade level, we would say fine. But that’s not what we got. We got a mess. In 2021, a regulation about academic intervention was changed. State said you’re not doing what you’re supposed to do. Supposed to tell us about what you’re doing about academic intervention for those that need it. Never mentioned MTSS. DOE studies situation for two years and birthed MTSS. They said we’re going to mess up the entire school system. There’s supposed to be a screener. Fine. We usually do that anyway. First week of school.

**NOTE: I MISSED A LOT FROM HERE UNTIL THE END OF MM’S REPORT. APOLOGIES IF IT’S CLUNKY and INCOMPLETE.**

Don’t know why this turned into Frankenstein’s monster. We do screeners in the beginning of the year, figure out students’ strengths and weaknesses. Doesn’t mean every child goes to level 2.

We can do one academic program in a classroom. DOE thinks we can do 4 or 5. Hurts and confuses children. Teachers need appropriate training and materials. And now they have limits on screen time. Good luck doing this. Parents opting children out of academic support programs. If you had the WIN program before your kids got to school, your admin doesn’t know what the hell they’re doing. Nobody’s been appropriately trained. Schools saying every child needs to be in this thing. Ridiculous.

CEP – nobody’s looking at these. Legal documents. Section 6 covers this. Supplying DRs with that section highlighted. You need to know if a child should be in Tier 2 or Tier 3. We need to start using CEPs to appropriately judge if a child is in Tier 2 or Tier 3. Doesn’t need to be scheduled. Can be done in all different ways, but damage has been done. One intervention program per teacher once they’re appropriately trained and have the materials.

Last week, the DOE sent out guidance for teachers to monitor screen time. Do we let kids turn screens on for Election Day? We’re going to go by COVID protocols. I have no idea what’s going on up there. They’ll say it doesn’t count. We have guidelines for this stuff. Virtual learning during Covid was treated like regular classrooms.

We were trending up. Protecting our school system. They want communities to lose confidence in schools, get frustrated.

Contract campaign is our focus this year. Teach-in the Thursday before Halloween. MM holds vote to see if people want additional contract campaign training for their schools. 

634-223 vote for additional campaign training.

MM: Teach-in leads to survey. Very important. Never use DOE email. Only personal emails. Emails must be updated to receive surveys. Need lots of people responding. More people = more power.

Point of order – will substitute members also get the survey?

MM – Yes.

Staff Director’s Report (Mike Sill)

– CL meeting tomorrow

– Anti-bullying at 9am tomorrow.

– 10/18: Making Strides Walk for Brooklyn, Queens, LI

– 10/20: Toilet learning workshops for Pre-K, 3K, Paras

– 10/25: Making Strides Walk

– 10/28: Third meeting of 750 member negotiating team. 4pm at 52 Broadway.

– 11/12: School secretary chapter meeting on tenure.

– 11/17: HS Huddle

– Toy and coat drives already underway.

– Raffle at the end of DA. Proceeds to Disaster Relief Fund.

MM: Our union is one of the best fundraisers in this country for Strides. We do this with get pride. It’s amazing to see all the schools show up. Thanks to Welfare Fund for the UFT Golf Outing. Money goes to Disaster Relief Fund.

Question Period

1. Today is day 23 of the school year. I’ve had up to 7 mandatory trainings. What is the union doing about that? There’s a lot that needs to be done and we don’t have the time.

MM: Anyone on negotiating committee needs to hear what he just said. The number of mandatory meetings is out of control. Not possible. The employer will say they’re not mandating all of it. City Council and State also mandate training. As long as they make sure training is within our work hours, it’s fine. Don’t tell us to watch mandated Webinar on our own time. Take us out of our classes to let us watch them. I understand the Safety training, especially with our climate. Of course, fire drills are important. But bloodborne pathogens – we get it. We don’t have the time to do it. Either you pick and choose or you pony up the bucks.

2. Class Size law – Keep hearing about the Capital Plan. Will there be another round for schools to apply for funding for additional staff?

MM: Yes. There is a line in your budget that is specifically for Class Size funding. Your school is going to need it. There will be another round this year. Only way we can get it done. Schools need more funding for additional staff.

3. When Chancellor Samuels introduced himself to principals, he doubled down on NYC Reads. Three curricula offered. It’s not developmentally appropriate. Expect us to teach 90 minutes to kindergarteners. What are we doing to defend our students?

MM: 90 straight minutes to a kindergartener. We won’t even let them sit in front of a screen for 90 minutes because we know it doesn’t help. That’s why I say they’re out of their minds with MTSS. If you don’t understand that kids need to play, you should leave the school system. DOE out of control with outside contracts. Very few companies pushing play. Of course we want children fluent on how to use the screen, but don’t want them being damaged by putting them in front of them. Screenings, diagnostics, progress monitoring. Nothing about play for kindergarteners who now hate school. Hate their teachers for doing this to them. What is your school doing? Make sure it’s in your Consultation notes. Consultation notes give us direct evidence.

4. What ia Tier 1, 2, and 3? For Middle Schools: district pushing for stations in middle schools for small group intervention during ELA, but looks like they’re modeling it after elementary, but with a new name.

MM: You don’t need to have WIN periods. Not mandated. Tier 1 = on level. Tier 2 = some intervention. Tier 3 = severe intervention. Hands over to Vaccaro.

MV: Don’t need a Win period. Calling centers “stations” now. Writing stations instead of centers. Pushing hard for Tier 3 to be pull out. Not there yet, but almost there. MM met with DOE last week.

5. Class exemption: Do principals and district personnel have say in exemption checks? Example: 7th grade teachers get money, but 6th grade teachers don’t.

MM: We have this conversation internally. Money can make colleagues angry at each other. We’re getting there. We’re going to get there. We fought for this law. They’re not happy about this law. Tried to get the law stalled. We’re the UFT, you’re the City. Changing mayors doesn’t mean you get a do-over. As a union, we’re responsible for our actions. You’re the City of New York. New mayor supported Class Size. No do-overs because his people at the DOE say it’s tough.

Motions directed to the agenda

1: Motion to add a resolution to this month’s agenda. RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF INTRO 1008.

MM interrupts to clarify: This needs a two-thirds vote. Person can present motion, not motivate it. If you wanted it for next month, then you only need for majority.

Speaker #1 continued: Time limit, I’m proposing this to protect retiree health benefits. Retiree health benefits and collective bargaining go hand in hand. Able to protect wages, healthcare, future retirement benefits. When we think about this legislation, this addresses healthcare for Medicare eligible. For union to negotiate future benefits for future members. We do not have to choose between protecting benefits for retired and those who can negotiate later on. Legislation should establish a floor of protection, not a ceiling on collective bargaining.

Vote – Yes: 653 No: 127 (online) Yes: 259 No: 31 (in person) 85%. Placed on this month’s agenda.

2. Janella Hinds moves to reorder agenda so agenda item #5 (reso to support NYS legislation to prohibit use of victim intoxication as a defense in sex crime cases) is moved to the top.

Vote – Yes: 518 No: 242 (online) Yes: 224 No: 56 (in person) 81%. Moved to number 1.

Resolutions

AGENDA ITEM #5 (moved up to #1) – RESOLUTION SUPPORTING NEW YORK STATE LEGISLATION TO PROHIBIT THE USE OF VICTIM INTOXICATION AS A DEFENSE IN SEX CRIME CASES

Resolved, that the UFT will promote member conversations to destigmatize sexual violence; and be it further

Resolved, that the UFT will lobby in conjunction with NYSUT to pass New York State Senate Bill S.54-A.

Speaker objects to voting. Cites Amy Arundell incident in with an image of her face was placed in a urinal with the caption “Piss on my face” at 52 Broadway during last year’s DA under Mulgrew’s administration.

Second speaker says this isn’t about Amy, but about young men and women who are victims.

Vote – Yes: 703 No: 51 (online) Yes: 250 No: 17 (in person). 93%. PASSES

Ends with raffle.

2026 Annual School Survey Findings: Parsing the Data to Come Up With Actionable Solutions

Last week, New Action Caucus released the results of the 2026 Annual School Survey for all five boroughs, focusing entirely on data pertaining to administrators – specifically principals. An endeavor as massive as this was a large undertaking, making it easy to get lost in a sea of statistics. So, upon completion of our project, we wanted to help further unpack some thoughts and things we discovered…

1. The 2026 School Survey results were released to the public (that unfortunately includes all UFT titles and other school staff) 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. This is a serious issue that we must fight against. The date of release, in addition to being a tremendous disservice to us, is disrespectful to educators throughout New York City. The results are available more than two months before we are given a chance to look at them. There is no rational explanation as to why we should have to wait on a survey release that can have a large impact on our careers, while many of us weigh the option of switching schools.

2. The DOE and UFT absolutely must do something about schools who repeatedly report low scores, specifically in Teacher-Principal Trust and Instructional Leadership. To be fair, the vast majority of schools fall within a reasonable range when compared to the City average. However, there are still a notable number of schools that consistently perform at the bottom of the barrel. One thing New Action/UFT strongly urges the UFT to do is reinstate the PINI (Principals in Need of Improvement) program, which the UFT scrapped over a decade ago. Spotlighting administrators with a history of mismanagement, retaliation, and disrespect, and programmatically dedicating union energy to affected chapters, may cause some abusive administrators to think before they act. At the very least, UFT members would be given the information and support they need to properly make choices concerning their future.

There also exists a resolution that hasn’t yet been voted on by the Delegate Assembly, that calls for the DOE to respond to low survey scores, implement improvement plans, and enforce ethical administration of our school surveys. Passing that resolution would be a strong start, but the UFT has a responsibility to prioritize chapters suffering from poor survey results, as well. If schools are constantly well below average, there needs to be a dedicated effort to aid those chapters. District Representatives (DRs) and chapter organizers/action teams can be asked to visit schools and help provide solutions and additional help. Whether that entails maintaining an increased presence in struggling schools, communicating more often with school leadership and chapters, or organizing and educating distressed chapters as to their rights, there needs to be actionable next steps that we can pursue for chapters in need of assistance.

3. There were nearly 1600 schools represented in the 2026 School Survey. Below is the share of Teacher-Principal Trust ratings by percentage:

20-29%: 4 schools

30-39%: 12 schools

40-49%: 34 schools

50-59%: 47 schools

60-69%: 85 schools

70-79%: 186 schools

80-89%: 397 schools

90-99%: 728 schools

100%: 99 schools

As you can see, a little more than half the schools are above average. Another 37% rate in the 70-89% range, and while low scores in the low 70s leave a lot to be desired, they’re not so dire that all hope is lost. That leaves approximately 10% of schools that scored in the 20-69% range, which is woefully below average.

4. Only 50 schools in all of NYC scored less than 50% in Teacher-Principal Trust. Of those 50, just 19 scored lower than 50% in both 2025 and 2026. These are the types of schools that deserve further attention from the DOE and the UFT, because there is no excuse for Teacher-Principal Trust scores to be at half the average of other NYC schools over consecutive years. Without making definitive declarations about leadership at those schools, they should at the very least be looked into.

5. Teacher Influence scores rank way behind Instructional Leadership and Teacher-Principal Trust. The average Teacher Influence rating was 67% compared to 89% for Instructional Leadership and 87% for Teacher-Principal Trust. Many schools recorded very low Teacher Influence scores but still maintained impressive Instructional Leadership and Teacher-Principal Trust scores, which is why Teacher Influence was not factored in nearly as much as the other two categories. Conversely, if Instructional Leadership or Teacher-Principal Trust came in significantly below standard, it almost always led to low scores in all areas, making those categories more accurate indicators.

6. Instructional Leadership was made up of eight questions – four were just about the principal while the other four pertained to the principal AND assistant principal(s) as a cohesive unit. These blended questions often give members difficulty because you may feel a specific administrator is doing a good job and another… not so much. Teacher-Principal Trust is a lot more straightforward.

7. 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. The survey also doesn’t differentiate assistant principals, treating all APs as a monolith, impossible to parse one from the other. Other schools may have a new principal. To this point, we took a small sampling of 15 schools with drastic declines in Teacher-Principal Trust and found that about half (eight) of them had a change of leadership. Unfortunately, time and logistics were not on our side, so we couldn’t track principal movement in every school. For these reasons, 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 hope these findings have been somewhat enlightening when breaking down the data at our disposal. Here’s wishing your school perfect scores on next year’s survey.

2026 School Survey Results: Which School Is Right for You? – Staten Island 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 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.


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
October 2026
M T W T F S S
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031  

Blog Stats

  • 416,495 hits