Posts Tagged 'NYC'

UFT News – September 2026 (Unofficial)

Published October 6, 2026 Uncategorized 1 Comment
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

1. We just got a 3.5% raise on September 14. Now would be a good time to raise your TDA contributions if that’s something you’ve been looking to do. Timing TDA bumps with pay raises is an easy way to increase our retirement without feeling it in our paychecks. Don’t hesitate!

2. Three weeks ago, the NYS Board of Regents shared info about the Class of 2028 expectations. They said Regents exams will no longer be mandated for graduation. They announced that Portrait of a Graduate will be enacted next school year. What do we know about Portrait of a Graduate? Practically nothing. We know that portfolios will likely be involved. That’s about it. Back in April, we were told that Portrait of a Graduate wouldn’t roll out until the 2028-2029 school year. They moved up the start date by a year and we still have zero information even though we’re less than a year away from implementation. Hopefully, the UFT fights to push back the start date until we know what we’re dealing with.

3. If you are interested in earning your +30 differential, the cheapest option is usually ASPDP (aka A+) credits. The link to the ASPDP site is here: https://pci.nycenet.edu/aspdp/ Fall Registration opened on September 28. Classes run between 10/5/26 and 1/8/27. You can take up to 12 credits per semester. Each three credit course costs about $300 in total, meaning you can get your +30 for $3,000. It’s a great deal if you have the time and money, considering the permanent $9,000 pay increase teachers receive.

Recommended providers: Teach & Kids Learn and Long Island Learning Institute for Educators (LILIE),

4. Governor Hochul has expressed her support for the federal tax-credit scholarship. This is a school voucher program that will rob tax money from public schools and public works in order to fund private schools. This is a blatant, anti-public school initiative that could have serious consequences. Sign the petition against school vouchers HERE. In January, Chalkbeat published an alarming piece about the school choice tax credit program. The author explains, “families can donate up to $1,700 to scholarship-granting organizations and receive an equivalent tax credit back.” Allowing families to receive tax credit to basically fund private schools reduces the amount of tax dollars that go into our communities. In fact, in 2022, Kentucky’s Supreme Court “ruled that Kentucky’s tax credit scholarship program is unconstitutional.” As Peter Greene explains, “In a tax credit scholarship program, corporations or individuals contribute money to a ‘scholarship’ fund that will pay part of some student’s tuition at a private school. The state then counts that contribution towards taxes.” In other words, tax dollars are reallocated to private schools instead of going to public schools, projects, and programs that would otherwise benefit our communities.

5. A few months ago, the Class Size mandate was extended by two years. As part of the deal, the City agreed to give teachers differential pay for oversized classes. Unfortunately, only a very small portion of teachers will receive the $8,500 differential this year. Only teachers from schools that filed for an exemption will be eligible to receive the differential. 

Under the original agreement, 80% of all classes were supposed to meet the compliance threshold this school year, followed by 100% in 2027-2028. Instead, the expectation is that 70% of all classes will meet the Class Size mandate this school year, 80% next year, 90% for the 2028-2029 school year, and 100% for 2029-2030.

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

Published September 1, 2026 Uncategorized Leave a Comment
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

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

Published August 28, 2026 Uncategorized Leave a Comment
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

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

  • 416,496 hits