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

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

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

Instructional Leadership

Teacher Influence

Teacher-Principal Trust

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

Instructional Leadership

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Teacher Influence

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

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

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

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

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

Teacher-Principal Trust

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Instructional Leadership: 89% (Same as 2025)

Teacher Influence: 67% (Same as 2025)

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

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

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

Manhattan

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

Instructional Leadership: 97% (down 3%)

Teacher Influence: 84% (down 1%)

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

Comments: All results are way above city average.

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

Instructional Leadership: 89% (down 11%)

Teacher Influence: 74% (down 12%)

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

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

Instructional Leadership: 82% (down 7%)

Teacher Influence: 44% (down 5%)

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

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

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

Instructional Leadership: 59% (down 6%)

Teacher Influence: 38% (down 14%)

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

Comments: All results are well below city average.

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

Instructional Leadership: 98% (same)

Teacher Influence: 60% (down 17%)

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

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

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

Instructional Leadership: 91% (down 1%)

Teacher Influence: 73% (up 22%)

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

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

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

Instructional Leadership: 71% (up 8%)

Teacher Influence: 48% (up 8%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 58% (up 17%)

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

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

Instructional Leadership: 85% (down 7%)

Teacher Influence: 60% (down 2%)

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

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

Instructional Leadership: 84% (same)

Teacher Influence: 69% (down 4%)

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

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

Instructional Leadership: 95% (up 11%)

Teacher Influence: 62% (up 4%)

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

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

Instructional Leadership: 100% (same)

Teacher Influence: 96% (down 2%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 100% (up 1%)

Comments: All results are way above city average.

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

Instructional Leadership: 99% (up 6%)

Teacher Influence: 81% (up 15%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 100% (up 5%)

Comments: All results are way above city average.

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

Instructional Leadership: 91% (down 1%)

Teacher Influence: 72% (up 6%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 92% (same)

Comments: All results are above city average.

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

Instructional Leadership: 97% (up 1%)

Teacher Influence: 83% (same)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 99% (same)

Comments: All results are above city average.

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

Instructional Leadership: 98% (down 1%)

Teacher Influence: 90% (down 4%)

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

Comments: All results are way above city average.

01M363 - Neighborhood School (based on 7 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 93% (up 13%)

Teacher Influence: 89% (same)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 98% (up 12%)

Comments: All results are above city average.

01M364 - Earth School (based on 12 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 84% (up 6%)

Teacher Influence: 53% (down 4%)

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

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

Instructional Leadership: 100% (up 1%)

Teacher Influence: 81% (up 11%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 100% (up 1%)

Comments: All results are way above city average.

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

Instructional Leadership: 94% (up 3%)

Teacher Influence: 93% (up 6%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 95% (up 6%)

Comments: All results are above city average.

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

Instructional Leadership: 89% (down 4%)

Teacher Influence: 81% (down 9%)

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

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

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

Instructional Leadership: 94% (down 5%)

Teacher Influence: 86% (down 8%)

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

Comments: All results are above city average.

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

Instructional Leadership: 97% (down 1%)

Teacher Influence: 88% (up 3%)

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

Outliers: All results are way above city average.

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

Instructional Leadership: 94% (up 3%)

Teacher Influence: 74% (down 2%)

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

Comments: All results are above city average

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

Instructional Leadership: 99% (up 1%)

Teacher Influence: 100% (up 11%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 100% (up 3%)

Comments: All results are way above city average.

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

Instructional Leadership: 83% (up 4%)

Teacher Influence: 88% (up 12%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 94% (up 12%)

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

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

Instructional Leadership: 90% (down 1%)

Teacher Influence: 91% (down 5%)

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

Comments: All results are above city average.

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

Instructional Leadership: 91% (down 7%)

Teacher Influence: 60% (down 9%)

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

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

Instructional Leadership: 95% (down 5%)

Teacher Influence: 67% (down 13%)

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

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

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

Instructional Leadership: 76% (up 9%)

Teacher Influence: 61% (up 5%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 69% (up 14%)

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

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

Instructional Leadership: 88% (up 2%)

Teacher Influence: 68% (up 7%)

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

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

Instructional Leadership: 97% (up 1%)

Teacher Influence: 86% (up 10%)

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

Comments: All results are way above city average.

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

Instructional Leadership: 91% (up 15%)

Teacher Influence: 69% (up 17%)

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

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

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

Instructional Leadership: 95% (up 2%)

Teacher Influence: 74% (up 3%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 99% (same)

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

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

Instructional Leadership: 85% (up 3%)

Teacher Influence: 66% (up 8%)

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

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

Instructional Leadership: 99% (down 1%)

Teacher Influence: 84% (down 5%)

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

Comments: All results are way above city average.

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

Instructional Leadership: 75% (up 24%)

Teacher Influence: 59% (up 18%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 68% (up 19%)

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

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

Instructional Leadership: 96% (up 2%)

Teacher Influence: 79% (down 6%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 95% (same)

Comments: All results are way above city average.

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

Instructional Leadership: 96% (up 3%)

Teacher Influence: 63% (down 6%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 95% (same)

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

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

Instructional Leadership: 86% (up 10%)

Teacher Influence: 51% (down 3%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 77% (same)

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

Instructional Leadership: 85% (down 8%)

Teacher Influence: 63% (down 8%)

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

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

Instructional Leadership: 89% (same)

Teacher Influence: 65% (up 15%)

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

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

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

Instructional Leadership: 96% (up 2%)

Teacher Influence: 69% (up 4%)

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

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

Instructional Leadership: 56% (down 21%)

Teacher Influence: 48% (down 21%)

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

Comments: All results are way below city average.

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

Instructional Leadership: 93% (down 3%)

Teacher Influence: 51% (down 12%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 94% (same)

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

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

Instructional Leadership: 81% (down 5%)

Teacher Influence: 59% (up 14%)

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

Comments: Teacher-principal trust is below city average.

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

Instructional Leadership: 87% (up 4%)

Teacher Influence: 49% (up 4%)

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

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

Instructional Leadership: 99% (up 3%)

Teacher Influence: 73% (down 2%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 99% (up 2%)

Comments: All results are way above city average.

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

Instructional Leadership: 94% (down 1%)

Teacher Influence: 81% (up 1%)

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

Comments: All results are above city average.

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

Instructional Leadership: 98% (up 4%)

Teacher Influence: 89% (up 10%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 99% (up 10%)

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

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

Instructional Leadership: 87% (up 2%)

Teacher Influence: 73% (down 9%)

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

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

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

Instructional Leadership: 98% (down 2%)

Teacher Influence: 98% (up 8%)

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

Comments: All results are way above city average.

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

Instructional Leadership: 88% (down 3%)

Teacher Influence: 64% (down 16%)

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

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

Instructional Leadership: 98% (same)

Teacher Influence: 81% (same)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 98% (up 5%)

Comments: All results are way above city average.

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

Instructional Leadership: 85% (up 2%)

Teacher Influence: 61% (up 5%)

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

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

Instructional Leadership: 100% (same)

Teacher Influence: 88% (down 2%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 100% (same)

Comments: All results are way above city average.

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

Instructional Leadership: 91% (down 1%)

Teacher Influence: 66% (down 6%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 93% (same)

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

Instructional Leadership: 99% (same)

Teacher Influence: 82% (down 2%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 99% (up 6%)

Comments: All results are way above city average.

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

Instructional Leadership: 99% (up 4%)

Teacher Influence: 85% (down 1%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 99% (up 3%)

Comments: All results are way above city average.

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

Instructional Leadership: 94% (up 10%)

Teacher Influence: 65% (up 12%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 95% (up 14%)

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

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

Instructional Leadership: 68% (down 8%)

Teacher Influence: 42% (down 17%)

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

Comments: All results are below city average.

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

Instructional Leadership: 96% (down 2%)

Teacher Influence: 76% (down 3%)

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

Comments: All results are above city average.

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

Instructional Leadership: 94% (down 2%)

Teacher Influence: 88% (down 3%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 96% (same)

Comments: All results are way above city average.

.

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

Instructional Leadership: 71% (down 7%)

Teacher Influence: 63% (down 9%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 81% (same)

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

Instructional Leadership: 89% (up 7%)

Teacher Influence: 77% (up 1%)

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

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

Instructional Leadership: 86% (down 2%)

Teacher Influence: 67% (down 8%)

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

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

Instructional Leadership: 94% (up 33%)

Teacher Influence: 67% (up 13%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 91% (up 25%)

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

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

Instructional Leadership: 58% (down 11%)

Teacher Influence: 40% (down 15%)

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

Comments: All results are well below city average.

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

Instructional Leadership: 89% (up 5%)

Teacher Influence: 84% (up 4%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 92% (up 1%)

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

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

Instructional Leadership: 67% (up 1%)

Teacher Influence: 53% (same)

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

Comments: All results are below city average.

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

Instructional Leadership: 76% (up 16%)

Teacher Influence: 84% (up 8%)

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

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

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

Instructional Leadership: 98% (up 2%)

Teacher Influence: 98% (up 24%)

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

Comments: All results are way above city average.

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

Instructional Leadership: 94% (up 3%)

Teacher Influence: 94% (up 1%)

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

Comments: All results are above city average.

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

Instructional Leadership: 69% (down 4%)

Teacher Influence: 47% (down 13%)

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

Comments: All results are well below city average.

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

Instructional Leadership: 68% (down 8%)

Teacher Influence: 57% (down 16%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 73% (same)

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

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

Instructional Leadership: 72% (up 2%)

Teacher Influence: 68% (down 8%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 74% (up 5%)

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

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

Instructional Leadership: 96% (up 3%)

Teacher Influence: 87% (up 8%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 95% (up 6%)

Comments: All results are way above city average.

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

Instructional Leadership: 87% (down 9%)

Teacher Influence: 72% (down 16%)

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

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

Instructional Leadership: 93% (down 1%)

Teacher Influence: 75% (down 3%)

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

Comments: All results are above city average.

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

Instructional Leadership: 77% (down 1%)

Teacher Influence: 66% (down 7%)

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

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

Instructional Leadership: 87% (up 1%)

Teacher Influence: 78% (down 4%)

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

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

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

Instructional Leadership: 95% (down 5%)

Teacher Influence: 91% (down 8%)

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

Outliers: All results are way above city average.

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

Instructional Leadership: 89% (down 11%)

Teacher Influence: 68% (down 28%)

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

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

Instructional Leadership: 94% (up 20%)

Teacher Influence: 64% (up 19%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 95% (up 24%)

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

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

Instructional Leadership: 92% (down 7%)

Teacher Influence: 76% (down 5%)

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

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

Instructional Leadership: 81% (up 20%)

Teacher Influence: 63% (up 18%)

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

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

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

Instructional Leadership: 60% (down 3%)

Teacher Influence: 49% (down 7%)

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

Comments: All results are well below city average.

02M376 - NYC iSchool (based on 39 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 97% (up 1%)

Teacher Influence: 91% (up 2%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 99% (up 4%)

Comments: All results are way above city average.

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

Instructional Leadership: 97% (up 2%)

Teacher Influence: 86% (down 6%)

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

Comments: All results are way above city average.

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

Instructional Leadership: 94% (down 1%)

Teacher Influence: 84% (down 2%)

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

Comments: All results are above city average.

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

Instructional Leadership: 99% (same)

Teacher Influence: 84% (up 4%)

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

Comments: All results are way above city average.

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

Instructional Leadership: 71% (down 16%)

Teacher Influence: 68% (down 24%)

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

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

Instructional Leadership: 80% (down 9%)

Teacher Influence: 62% (down 9%)

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

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

Instructional Leadership: 83% (down 13%)

Teacher Influence: 82% (down 5%)

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

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

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

Instructional Leadership: 91% (up 3%)

Teacher Influence: 79% (up 2%)

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

Comments: All results are above city average.

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

Instructional Leadership: 78% (up 4%)

Teacher Influence: 70% (up 3%)

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

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

Instructional Leadership: 100% (up 5%)

Teacher Influence: 72% (up 10%)

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

Comments: All results are above city average.

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

Instructional Leadership: 98% (up 6%)

Teacher Influence: 84% (up 12%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 94% (up 11%)

Comments: All results are above city average.

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

Instructional Leadership: 85% (up 4%)

Teacher Influence: 67% (down 3%)

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

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

Instructional Leadership: 91% (up 3%)

Teacher Influence: 81% (up 1%)

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

Comments: All results are above city average.

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

Instructional Leadership: 97% (up 7%)

Teacher Influence: 88% (up 7%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 98% (up 10%)

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

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

Instructional Leadership: 94% (up 15%)

Teacher Influence: 91% (up 11%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 98% (up 24%)

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

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

Instructional Leadership: 92% (up 4%)

Teacher Influence: 86% (up 6%)

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

Comments: All results are above city average.

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

Instructional Leadership: 84% (down 3%)

Teacher Influence: 88% (same)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 93% (up 2%)

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

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

Instructional Leadership: 78% (down 6%)

Teacher Influence: 60% (down 2%)

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

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

Instructional Leadership: 61% (down 19%)

Teacher Influence: 57% (down 20%)

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

Comments: All results are well below city average.

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

Instructional Leadership: 97% (up 13%)

Teacher Influence: 75% (same)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 99% (up 19%)

Comments: All results are way above city average.

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

Instructional Leadership: 96% (up 1%)

Teacher Influence: 83% (up 7%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 100% (up 4%)

Comments: All results are way above city average.

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

Instructional Leadership: 84% (down 8%)

Teacher Influence: 77% (down 17%)

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

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

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

Instructional Leadership: 87% up 13%)

Teacher Influence: 65% (same)

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

.

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

Instructional Leadership: 94% (up 2%)

Teacher Influence: 89% (down 3%)

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

Comments: All results are way above city average.

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

Instructional Leadership: 38% (down 23%)

Teacher Influence: 25% (down 30%)

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

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

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

Instructional Leadership: 94% (down 3%)

Teacher Influence: 84% (down 9%)

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

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

Instructional Leadership: 83% (down 5%)

Teacher Influence: 86% (same)

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

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

Instructional Leadership: 93% (down 1%)

Teacher Influence: 90% (down 1%)

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

Comments: All results are way above city average.

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

Instructional Leadership: 87% (down 1%)

Teacher Influence: 80% (up 8%)

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

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

Teacher Influence: 58% (down 15%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 90% (same)

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

Instructional Leadership: 100% (n/a)

Teacher Influence: 100% (n/a)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 100% (n/a)

Comments: Results from the 2025 survey were not available.

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

Instructional Leadership: 97% (down 1%)

Teacher Influence: 80% (down 6%)

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

Comments: All results are above city average.

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

Instructional Leadership: 92% (down 4%)

Teacher Influence: 75% (up 4%)

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

Comments: All results are above city average.

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

Instructional Leadership: 94% (up 9%)

Teacher Influence: 84% (down 2%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 96% (up 5%)

Comments: All results are way above city average.

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

Instructional Leadership: 99% (up 1%)

Teacher Influence: 78% (up 18%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 100% (up 5%)

Comments: All results are way above city average.

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

Instructional Leadership: 100% (up 3%)

Teacher Influence: 98% (up 10%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 100% (up 1%)

Comments: All results are way above city average.

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

Instructional Leadership: 71% (down 17%)

Teacher Influence: 73% (down 3%)

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

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

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

Instructional Leadership: 76% (down 1%)

Teacher Influence: 65% (down 3%)

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

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

Instructional Leadership: 73% (down 17%)

Teacher Influence: 80% (down 8%)

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

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

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

Instructional Leadership: 93% (up 11%)

Teacher Influence: 75% (up 15%)

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

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

Instructional Leadership: 84% (same)

Teacher Influence: 77% (down 6%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 85% (same)

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

Instructional Leadership: 88% (up 10%)

Teacher Influence: 74% (up 18%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 94% (up 24%)

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

Instructional Leadership: 90% (up 1%)

Teacher Influence: 78% (up 2%)

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

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

Instructional Leadership: 63% (down 14%)

Teacher Influence: 72% (down 4%)

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

Comments: Instructional leadership is well below city average.

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

Instructional Leadership: 90% (same)

Teacher Influence: 88% (up 4%)

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

Comments: Teacher influence is way above city average.

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

Instructional Leadership: 81% (up 2%)

Teacher Influence: 71% (up 3%)

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

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

Instructional Leadership: 86% (up 1%)

Teacher Influence: 84% (down 5%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 92% (same)

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

Instructional Leadership: 93% (down 6%)

Teacher Influence: 99% (up 3%)

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

Comments: All results are above city average.

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

Instructional Leadership: 81% (down 7%)

Teacher Influence: 66% (down 12%)

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

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

Instructional Leadership: 62% (down 19%)

Teacher Influence: 44% (down 15%)

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

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

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

Instructional Leadership: 68% (down 24%)

Teacher Influence: 54% (down 29%)

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

Comments: All results are below city average.

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

Instructional Leadership: 79% (down 21%)

Teacher Influence: 83% (down 14%)

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

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

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

Instructional Leadership: 81% (down 7%)

Teacher Influence: 68% (down 1%)

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

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

Instructional Leadership: 99% (down 1%)

Teacher Influence: 98% (up 1%)

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

Comments: All results are way above city average.

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

Instructional Leadership: 67% (down 17%)

Teacher Influence: 48% (down 13%)

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

Comments: All results are well below city average.

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

Instructional Leadership: 84% (down 1%)

Teacher Influence: 68% (down 7%)

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

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

Instructional Leadership: 96% (same)

Teacher Influence: 89% (up 8%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 100% (up 5%)

Comments: All results are way above city average.

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

Instructional Leadership: 96% (up 4%)

Teacher Influence: 86% (up 4%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 99% (up 5%)

Comments: All results are way above city average.

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

Instructional Leadership: 98% (up 1%)

Teacher Influence: 83% (up 7%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 97% (up 4%)

Comments: All results are way above city average.

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

Instructional Leadership: 98% (up 2%)

Teacher Influence: 96% (up 7%)

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

Comments: All results are way above city average.

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

Instructional Leadership: 79% (up 6%)

Teacher Influence: 49% (up 4%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 71% (up 9%)

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

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

Instructional Leadership: 100% (up 1%)

Teacher Influence: 87% (up 7%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 99% (up 4%)

Comments: All results are way above city average.

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

Instructional Leadership: 84% (same)

Teacher Influence: 81% (up 2%)

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

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

Instructional Leadership: 93% (up 2%)

Teacher Influence: 67% (down 3%)

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

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

Instructional Leadership: 73% (down 13%)

Teacher Influence: 38% (down 31%)

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

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

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

Instructional Leadership: 79% (up 3%)

Teacher Influence: 65% (up 12%)

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

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

Instructional Leadership: 89% (down 8%)

Teacher Influence: 73% (down 6%)

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

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

Instructional Leadership: 79% (up 1%)

Teacher Influence: 41% (down 11%)

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

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

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

Instructional Leadership: 84% (down 7%)

Teacher Influence: 51% (down 19%)

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

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

Instructional Leadership: 92% (up 2%)

Teacher Influence: 63% (up 8%)

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

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

Instructional Leadership: 74% (up 9%)

Teacher Influence: 47% (down 3%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 70% (up 6%)

Comments: All results are below city average.

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

Instructional Leadership: 98% (up 2%)

Teacher Influence: 81% (up 7%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 93% (up 2%)

Comments: All results are above city average.

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

Instructional Leadership: 92% (down 2%)

Teacher Influence: 54% (down 23%)

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

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

Instructional Leadership: 94% (up 5%)

Teacher Influence: 52% (down 19%)

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

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

Instructional Leadership: 99% (same)

Teacher Influence: 100% (up 1%)

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

Comments: All results are way above city average.

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

Instructional Leadership: 99% (same)

Teacher Influence: 94% (down 3%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 100% (same)

Comments: All results are way above city average.

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

Instructional Leadership: 78% (up 1%)

Teacher Influence: 68% (up 2%)

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

03M256 - Lafayette Academy (based on 27 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 96% (up 2%)

Teacher Influence: 90% (up 2%)

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

Comments: All results are way above city average.

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

Instructional Leadership: 99% (up 12%)

Teacher Influence: 89% (up 8%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 97% (up 12%)

Comments: All results are way above city average.

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

Instructional Leadership: 87% (down 2%)

Teacher Influence: 76% (up 7%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 94% (up 1%)

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

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

Instructional Leadership: 87% (up 1%)

Teacher Influence: 79% (up 1%)

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

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

Instructional Leadership: 75% (up 4%)

Teacher Influence: 46% (down 4%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 64% (up 1%)

Comments: All results are well below city average.

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

Instructional Leadership: 88% (down 8%)

Teacher Influence: 60% (down 16%)

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

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

Instructional Leadership: 32% (same)

Teacher Influence: 27% (up 3%)

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

Comments: All results are catastrophically below city average.

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

Instructional Leadership: 74% (down 18%)

Teacher Influence: 59% (down 17%)

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

Comments: All results are below city average.

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

Instructional Leadership: 93% (down 7%)

Teacher Influence: 82% (down 3%)

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

Comments: All results are above city average.

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

Instructional Leadership: 86% (up 7%)

Teacher Influence: 65% (down 2%)

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

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

Instructional Leadership: 87% (down 4%)

Teacher Influence: 74% (down 3%)

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

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

Instructional Leadership: 95% (down 2%)

Teacher Influence: 84% (up 10%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 98% (up 3%)

Comments: All results are way above city average.

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

Instructional Leadership: 94% (up 18%)

Teacher Influence: 80% (up 18%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 93% (up 16%)

Comments: All results are above city average.

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

Instructional Leadership: 89% (up 3%)

Teacher Influence: 86% (up 1%)

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

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

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

Instructional Leadership: 76% (up 10%)

Teacher Influence: 57% (up 5%)

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

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

Instructional Leadership: 78% (up 9%)

Teacher Influence: 54% (up 5%)

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

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

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

Instructional Leadership: 68% (up 3%)

Teacher Influence: 70% (up 12%)

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

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

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

Instructional Leadership: 74% (down 9%)

Teacher Influence: 75% (down 8%)

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

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

Instructional Leadership: 85% (down 9%)

Teacher Influence: 87% (up 1%)

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

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

Instructional Leadership: 87% (down 5%)

Teacher Influence: 87% (up 5%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 90% (same)

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

Instructional Leadership: 94% (up 8%)

Teacher Influence: 63% (up 2%)

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

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

Instructional Leadership: 93% (up 12%)

Teacher Influence: 62% (down 1%)

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

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

Instructional Leadership: 84% (down 6%)

Teacher Influence: 62% (down 1%)

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

Comments: Teacher-principal trust is above city average.

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

Instructional Leadership: 93% (up 6%)

Teacher Influence: 70% (up 12%)

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

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

Instructional Leadership: 97% (same)

Teacher Influence: 90% (down 2%)

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

Comments: All results are way above city average.

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

Instructional Leadership: 87% (down 4%)

Teacher Influence: 73% (down 5%)

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

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

Instructional Leadership: 87% (down 5%)

Teacher Influence: 51% (down 11%)

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

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

Instructional Leadership: 85% (up 11%)

Teacher Influence: 77% (up 28%)

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

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

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

Instructional Leadership: 98% (up 4%)

Teacher Influence: 77% (up 26%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 99% (up 4%)

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

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

Instructional Leadership: 95% (down 4%)

Teacher Influence: 60% (down 10%)

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

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

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

Instructional Leadership: 93% (up 2%)

Teacher Influence: 51% (down 9%)

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

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

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

Instructional Leadership: 99% (same)

Teacher Influence: 80% (up 7%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 100% (up 3%)

Comments: All results are way above city average.

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

Instructional Leadership: 92% (up 5%)

Teacher Influence: 61% (down 6%)

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

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

Instructional Leadership: 90% (down 3%)

Teacher Influence: 75% (down 4%)

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

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

Instructional Leadership: 59% (down 15%)

Teacher Influence: 35% (down 22%)

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

Outliers: All results are well below city average.

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

Instructional Leadership: 97% (down 3%)

Teacher Influence: 66% (down 20%)

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

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

Instructional Leadership: 100% (up 9%)

Teacher Influence: 79% (down 2%)

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

Comments: All results are way above city average.

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

Instructional Leadership: 86% (up 10%)

Teacher Influence: 56% (down 2%)

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

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

Instructional Leadership: 85% (down 6%)

Teacher Influence: 59% (down 21%)

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

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

Instructional Leadership: 93% (down 7%)

Teacher Influence: 93% (down 7%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 100% (same)

Comments: All results are above city average.

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

Instructional Leadership: 87% (down 2%)

Teacher Influence: 69% (up 1%)

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

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

Instructional Leadership: 92% (up 1%)

Teacher Influence: 58% (down 4%)

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

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

Instructional Leadership: 93% (up 2%)

Teacher Influence: 74% (same)

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

Comments: All results are above city average.

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

Instructional Leadership: 98% (up 2%)

Teacher Influence: 91% (up 1%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 98% (up 3%)

Comments: All results are way above city average.

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

Instructional Leadership: 93% (up 6%)

Teacher Influence: 89% (up 4%)

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

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

Instructional Leadership: 99% (up 3%)

Teacher Influence: 100% (up 4%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 97% (up 4%)

Comments: All results are way above city average.

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

Instructional Leadership: 97% (up 2%)

Teacher Influence: 86% (down 3%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 99% (up 5%)

Comments: All results are way above city average.

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

Instructional Leadership: 87% (down 5%)

Teacher Influence: 80% (down 10%)

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

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

Instructional Leadership: 91% (down 4%)

Teacher Influence: 59% (down 6%)

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

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

Instructional Leadership: 90% (up 8%)

Teacher Influence: 60% (down 1%)

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

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

Instructional Leadership: 52% (down 25%)

Teacher Influence: 49% (down 25%)

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

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

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

Instructional Leadership: 91% (down 6%)

Teacher Influence: 81% (up 7%)

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

Comments: All results are above city average.

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

Instructional Leadership: 76% (down 1%)

Teacher Influence: 42% (down 16%)

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

Comments: All results are well below city average.

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

Instructional Leadership: 86% (down 8%)

Teacher Influence: 48% (down 22%)

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

Comments: Teacher influence is well below city average.

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

Instructional Leadership: 88% (up 9%)

Teacher Influence: 62% (up 24%)

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

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

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

Instructional Leadership: 81% (down 9%)

Teacher Influence: 38% (down 6%)

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

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

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

Instructional Leadership: 98% (down 1%)

Teacher Influence: 84% (down 2%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 99% (same)

Comments: All results are way above city average.

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

Instructional Leadership: 82% (up 4%)

Teacher Influence: 49% (up 9%)

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

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

Instructional Leadership: 100% (same)

Teacher Influence: 74% (down 6%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 100% (up 1%)

Comments: All results are way above city average.

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

Instructional Leadership: 93% (up 11%)

Teacher Influence: 72% (up 10%)

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

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

Instructional Leadership: 89% (down 7%)

Teacher Influence: 59% (down 6%)

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

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

Instructional Leadership: 85% (up 11%)

Teacher Influence: 57% (up 19%)

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

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

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

Instructional Leadership: 99% (up 3%)

Teacher Influence: 70% (up 2%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 97% (up 5%)

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

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

Instructional Leadership: 99% (up 1%)

Teacher Influence: 73% (down 9%)

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

Comments: All results are above city average.

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

Instructional Leadership: 97% (up 9%)

Teacher Influence: 75% (up 9%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 90% (up 16%)

Comments: All results are above city average.

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

Instructional Leadership: 94% (up 2%)

Teacher Influence: 65% (same)

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

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

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

Instructional Leadership: 98% (up 10%)

Teacher Influence: 83% (up 17%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 96% (up 18%)

Comments: All results are way above city average.

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

Instructional Leadership: 98% (up 4%)

Teacher Influence: 76% (down 5%)

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

Comments: All results are above city average.

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

Instructional Leadership: 88% (down 1%)

Teacher Influence: 52% (down 1%)

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

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

Instructional Leadership: 82% (down 8%)

Teacher Influence: 67% (down 10%)

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

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

Instructional Leadership: 92% (up 2%)

Teacher Influence: 72% (up 21%)

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

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

Instructional Leadership: 47% (up 2%)

Teacher Influence: 48% (up 14%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 47% (up 8%)

Comments: All results are well below city average.

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

Instructional Leadership: 80% (up 7%)

Teacher Influence: 58% (down 3%)

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

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

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

Instructional Leadership: 87% (down 7%)

Teacher Influence: 65% (down 20%)

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

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

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

Instructional Leadership: 86% (up 7%)

Teacher Influence: 63% (up 7%)

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

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

Instructional Leadership: 90% (up 5%)

Teacher Influence: 77% (down 6%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 98% (up 5%)

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

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

Instructional Leadership: 92% (down 4%)

Teacher Influence: 51% (down 17%)

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

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

Instructional Leadership: 97% (up 1%)

Teacher Influence: 76% (up 4%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 99% (same)

Comments: All results are way above city average.

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

Instructional Leadership: 78% (down 6%)

Teacher Influence: 82% (up 8%)

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

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

Instructional Leadership: 91% (up 2%)

Teacher Influence: 60% (down 3%)

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

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

Instructional Leadership: 93% (down 3%)

Teacher Influence: 61% (down 6%)

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

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

Instructional Leadership: 97% (up 19%)

Teacher Influence: 56% (down 5%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 99% (up 13%)

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

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

Instructional Leadership: 88% (same)

Teacher Influence: 63% (up 7%)

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

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

Instructional Leadership: 84% (down 8%)

Teacher Influence: 59% (down 5%)

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

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

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

Instructional Leadership: 75% (up 5%)

Teacher Influence: 50% (up 16%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 70% (up 12%)

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

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

Instructional Leadership: 97% (down 2%)

Teacher Influence: 77% (down 9%)

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

Comments: All results are above city average.

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

Instructional Leadership: 72% (up 1%)

Teacher Influence: 55% (up 6%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 65% (same)

Comments: All results are well below city average.

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

Instructional Leadership: 95% (same)

Teacher Influence: 83% (down 1%)

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

Comments: All results are above city average.

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

Instructional Leadership: 88% (up 4%)

Teacher Influence: 52% (up 3%)

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

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

Instructional Leadership: 93% (down 1%)

Teacher Influence: 64% (up 2%)

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

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

Instructional Leadership: 100% (up 4%)

Teacher Influence: 96% (up 6%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 100% (up 9%)

Comments: All results are way above city average.

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

Instructional Leadership: 98% (up 1%)

Teacher Influence: 74% (up 9%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 98% (up 1%)

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

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

Instructional Leadership: 91% (down 7%)

Teacher Influence: 61% (down 24%)

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

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

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

Instructional Leadership: 96% (up 1%)

Teacher Influence: 69% (down 3%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 97% (same)

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

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

Instructional Leadership: 92% (up 13%)

Teacher Influence: 53% (up 7%)

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

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

Instructional Leadership: 100% (up 5%)

Teacher Influence: 87% (up 15%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 100% (up 4%)

Comments: All results are way above city average.

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

Instructional Leadership: 61% (down 6%)

Teacher Influence: 43% (down 6%)

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

Comments: All results are well below city average.

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

Instructional Leadership: 99% (up 3%)

Teacher Influence: 73% (up 4%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 100% (up 2%)

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

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

Instructional Leadership: 90% (up 15%)

Teacher Influence: 61% (up 10%)

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

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

Instructional Leadership: 90% (down 6%)

Teacher Influence: 62% (down 10%)

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

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

Instructional Leadership: 93% (up 5%)

Teacher Influence: 70% (same)

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

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

Instructional Leadership: 90% (up 10%)

Teacher Influence: 77% (up 4%)

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

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

Instructional Leadership: 94% (down 5%)

Teacher Influence: 77% (down 3%)

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

Comments: All results are way above city average.

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

Instructional Leadership: 95% (down 1%)

Teacher Influence: 71% (down 3%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 94% (same)

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

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

Instructional Leadership: 85% (down 7%)

Teacher Influence: 60% (down 6%)

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

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

Instructional Leadership: 96% (down 2%)

Teacher Influence: 79% (down 4%)

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

Comments: All results are way above city average.

06M314 - Muscota (based on 10 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 95% (down 4%)

Teacher Influence: 88% (down 4%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 100% (same)

Comments: All results are way above city average.

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

Instructional Leadership: 100% (up 1%)

Teacher Influence: 93% (up 7%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 100% (up 3%)

Comments: All results are way above city average.

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

Instructional Leadership: 88% (up 10%)

Teacher Influence: 75% (up 19%)

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

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

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

Instructional Leadership: 99% (same)

Teacher Influence: 77% (down 7%)

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

Comments: All results are way above city average.

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

Instructional Leadership: 99% (up 1%)

Teacher Influence: 78% (down 3%)

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

Comments: All results are way above city average.

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

Instructional Leadership: 96% (same)

Teacher Influence: 91% (up 3%)

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

Comments: All results are way above city average.

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

Instructional Leadership: 78% (up 6%)

Teacher Influence: 73% (up 2%)

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

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

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

Instructional Leadership: 70% (down 28%)

Teacher Influence: 33% (down 34%)

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

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

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

Instructional Leadership: 83% (down 7%)

Teacher Influence: 58% (down 15%)

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

Comments: All results are below average.

.

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

Instructional Leadership: 91% (down 2%)

Teacher Influence: 63% (down 17%)

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

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

Instructional Leadership: 91% (down 6%)

Teacher Influence: 76% (down 6%)

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

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

Instructional Leadership: 93% (up 7%)

Teacher Influence: 86% (up 9%)

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

Comments: All results are above city average.

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

Instructional Leadership: 95% (up 9%)

Teacher Influence: 81% (up 6%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 95% (up 9%)

Comments: All results are above city average.

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

Instructional Leadership: 97% (up 18%)

Teacher Influence: 76% (up 27%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 98% (up 24%)

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

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

Instructional Leadership: 94% (down 5%)

Teacher Influence: 80% (down 9%)

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

Comments: All results are above city average.

.

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

Instructional Leadership: 91% (down 1%)

Teacher Influence: 68% (up 9%)

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

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

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

Instructional Leadership: 86% (down 2%)

Teacher Influence: 68% (down 9%)

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

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

Instructional Leadership: 88% (down 3%)

Teacher Influence: 88% (down 2%)

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

Manhattan D75

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

Instructional Leadership: 72% (down 3%)

Teacher Influence: 52% (down 13%)

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

Comments: All results are below city average.

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

Instructional Leadership: 95% (down 2%)

Teacher Influence: 69% (down 3%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 93% (same)

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

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

Instructional Leadership: 83% (down 1%)

Teacher Influence: 59% (down 1%)

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

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

Instructional Leadership: 85% (up 9%)

Teacher Influence: 54% (up 8%)

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

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

Instructional Leadership: 74% (down 1%)

Teacher Influence: 48% (up 5%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 68% (up 4%)

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

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

Instructional Leadership: 86% (up 5%)

Teacher Influence: 49% (down 2%)

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

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

Instructional Leadership: 36% (down 29%)

Teacher Influence: 22% (down 13%)

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

Comments: All results are well below city average.

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

Instructional Leadership: 98% (up 4%)

Teacher Influence: 82% (down 5%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 98% (up 7%)

Comments: All results are way above city average.

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

Instructional Leadership: 98% (same)

Teacher Influence: 80% (same)

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

Comments: All results are way above city average.

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

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

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

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

All that being said, hopefully this information helps clarify where our COPE contributions are going as we take a look at the final installment of this series. All dollar amounts are for 2024 and 2025, combined.

11. Kings County Democratic County Committee: $6,750

Contributions: 2024 United Federation of Teachers COPE: $6,750

The KCDCC is home to over 40 district leaders throughout Brooklyn and is led by Assemblymember Rodneyse Bichotte Hermelyn, who has a history of standing up for public education against private and charter minions like Andrew Cuomo. Since 2021, Bichotte Hermelyn has served on the Education Committee, which oversees, reviews, and provides input on education policies. However, due to party in-fighting and other factors, the assemblymember’s tenure as chair of the Brooklyn democrats may be coming to an end. Bichotte Hermelyn received $3,000 from NYSUT contributions in 2022.

Another prominent member of the party is Senator Roxanne Persaud, a longtime NYSUT endorsee. Persaud seems to be more hesitant than her colleagues in regards to her stance on public, charter, and private schools. Persaud acknowledges an “obligation to public schools” and opposes co-locations, but supports parent choice, although she did not go into detail as to what that may look like. Additionally, her responses in this interview regarding public funding of religious schools came off as vague and non-committal, to say the least. NYSUT gave Persaud $2,500 in 2022.

Other KCDCC notables include Assemblymember Nikki Lucas and former party head Frank Seddio. Seddio received $2,010 from the UFT in 2023. NYSUT contributed $4,700 to Lucas in 2022.

12. Michael McMahon (District Attorney, Richmond County): $5,000

Contributions: 2024 United Federation of Teachers - COPE: $2,500; 2025 United Federation of Teachers - COPE: $2,500

The UFT and McMahon have a long running relationship. In 2008, when Randi Weingarten was UFT President, she called him “a champion for children and working people,” while throwing the union’s support behind him when he ran for the congressional seat vacated by Vito Fossella. McMahon’s congressional reign was short-lived, but he has served as Staten Island’s DA since 2015. As mentioned earlier, McMahon was on the receiving end of $5,000 from the UFT from 2022-2023.

13. Melinda Katz: $2,500

Contributions: 2024 United Federation of Teachers: $2,500

Melinda Katz is the current District Attorney for Queens County. Katz previously served as Queens Borough President and held positions as an NYC Councilwoman (2002-2009), and as a member of the New York State Assembly (1994-1999). Katz has proven to be friendly towards our union and public education in general. In 2008, Katz co-sponsored a resolution to “reform city school planning to better address the problem of overcrowding.”

In 2017, when 3,500+ students, teachers, parents, and alumni signed a petition to remove Interim Acting Principal Rosemarie Jahoda from Townsend Harris H.S., Katz stepped up by writing a letter to former Chancellor Carmen Fariña in support of their cause (source: Chalkbeat). Jahoda was ousted two months later.

14. Charles D. Fall (Assemblymember, 61st Assembly District): $2,250

Contributions: 2024 United Federation of Teachers COPE: $1,500; 2025 United Federation of Teachers COPE: $750

Charles D. Fall is listed as one of the many legislative supporters in the UFT’s push to fix Tier 6. Fall, along with Jessica Scarcella-Spanton, also helped raise $6.5 million for a new athletic complex at P.S. 57 in Park Hill on Staten Island. Fall received a total of $2,700 from NYSUT and the UFT in 2023.

15. Michael Reilly (Assemblymember (R), 62nd Assembly District): $2,000

Contributions: 2024 United Federation of Teachers: $1,000; 2025 United Federation of Teachers: $1,000

A rarity on here, Michael Reilly is a Republican assemblymember on Staten Island, where he has served since 2019. Reilly serves as a member of the Education, Governmental Employees, and Higher Education committees, to name a few. Reilly once served as president of the Community Education Council (CEC) in Staten Island. He also won some fans earlier this year when he penned a letter to Mayor Mamdani advocating for schools to be closed after the winter storm that hit us. The UFT and NYSUT both endorsed Reilly during his initial run back in 2018.

16. Manny De Los Santos (Assemblymember, 72nd Assembly District): $1,000

Contributions: 2024 United Federation of Teachers: $1,000

De Los Santos is a former school social worker who assumed his current position in 2022, A recent recipient of NYSUT and UFT endorsements, De Los Santos “was a sponsor of the state class size law and helped push through the latest reforms to fix Tier 6.” De Los Santos received $4,700 in contributions from NYSUT in 2022.

17. West Side Democrats, Inc.: $800

Contributions: 2024 United Federation of Teachers COPE: $800

From their website, West Side Democrats Inc. “are working hard to support local officials, while also pitching in for candidates in key districts to elect a diverse group of Democratic leaders to office. Together, we are organizing, mobilizing, and campaigning to expand Democratic representation and ensure that progressive voices are leading the way forward.” They operate specifically out of the Upper West Side in Manhattan in the 67th and 69th Assembly Districts. Much smaller than other party groups, the West Side Dems only have three elected officials - Rep. Jerry Nadler, Assemblymember Linda B. Rosenthal, and Assemblymember Micah Lasher.

Nadler has been firmly pro-public schools in his decades long career, which will be coming to an end in 2027 when he retires. His opposition to private and charter vouchers, curtail student loan interest rates, voting in favor of millions of dollars of grants to Black and Hispanic colleges, and backing financial aid to public schools are just some of the positions he has taken that have benefitted us and our students.

Rosenthal has served in her role since 2006. She has a long history as a member of the Health and Housing Committees, amongst others. Rosenthal has been Chair of the Housing Committee since 2023. Rosenthal often focuses on the health and safety of school age children.

Lasher, on the other hand, is dirtier than a coal miner’s fingernails. Although he now claims to see the value of public schools, Lasher is a former Bloomberg lapdog who was instrumental in the creation of Tier 6, relentlessly pushed charters, and played a key role in Bloomberg’s dismantling of public schools, which we still haven’t - and possibly will never - recover from. Forgive and forget, we cannot.

18. Jeffrey Dinowitz (Assemblymember, 81st Assembly District): $700

Contributions: 2024 United Federation of Teachers: $700

Dinowitz’s tenure started back in 1994 (!!). The UFT and the assemblyman have a longstanding history that has mutually benefited both parties. Much to the Post’s dismay, Dinowitz opposes charter schools, which is a huge win for us. Dinowitz received $8,150 in contributions from the UFT and NYSUT from 2022-2023.

19. Khaleel Anderson (Assemblymember, 31st Assembly District): $500

Contributions: 2024 UFT COPE: $500

Anderson assumed office in 2020, where he became the youngest African American assemblymember ever. He was just 24 years old at the time. A former D75 student, Anderson has championed paraprofessionals. One point of hesitation comes from an Anderson quote from 2017 when he said, “Co-locations work, but not when you’re co-locating in a building that already houses six other schools” in reference to Channel View School for Research’s opposition to a seventh co-located school in their building. Co-locations have been around a long time, but they skyrocketed under Bloomberg during his reign of terror on public schools.

20. Jaime R. Williams (Assemblymember, 59th Assembly District): $175

Contributions: 2024 United Federation of Teachers: $175

Williams has served in her current role since 2016. She has sponsored the LET US WORK Act to rehire unvaccinated workers. Interestingly enough, the Working Families Party backed her opponent, Jibreel Jalloh, in the June Democratic primary after Williams ran with them in 2022. Williams received $8,000 in NYSUT contributions from 2022-2023.

Hopefully this series of articles has helped shed some light and unraveled some of the mystery surrounding our COPE donations.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Contributions: 2024 UFT: $12,000

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. United for NYC’s Future: $250,000

Contributions: 2025 UFT: $250,000

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. Eleanor Roosevelt Legacy Committee: $160,700

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Part 2 coming soon.

When trying to figure out how to realistically tackle these seemingly insurmountable obstacles, we often get the same responses: Contact your local council member or legislator. Write letters. Call their offices. Tag them on social media. Wear blue in solidarity. Take bus rides up to Albany to try to sway lawmakers into cosigning Tier 6 enhancements. While all that may help and could be effective, we also need to be practical. Fixing Tier 6 and getting paras the RESPECT check they rightfully deserve will cost a lot of money. The RESPECT check alone would cost north of a quarter billion dollars per year. The improvements recently made to Tier 6 will cost the state $557 million annually. If we propose a way to fund these endeavors, as well as further upgrades in the future, those in charge will be more inclined to listen. One solution originally proposed by Michael Shulman of New Action is to restore the Stock Transfer Tax (STT).

The STT is a miniscule tax (five cents) on any stock trade worth more than $20. It served as a valuable revenue stream for New York State until 1981, when those taxes went right back to Wall Street. It is a drop in the bucket, but because of the sheer volume of daily trades, the STT would collect in the vicinity of $14 billion per year. Many other countries throughout Europe, Asia, and South America implement a tax on financial transactions, so this isn’t unprecedented. It’s also important to note that the STT has substantial political backing. Last April, Senator James Sanders Jr. and Assemblymember Phil Steck, spoke out in favor of restoring the STT. Steck also proposed a bill in 2021 to reinstate the STT. The bill has more than 50 co-sponsors, but has not seen any progress. That has to change.

Restoring the STT may not be the be-all end-all solution to fully reforming Tier 6, increasing pay for our paraprofessionals, or repairing our other monetary issues. We certainly would not be the sole recipients of the windfall. Nevertheless, it is a pragmatic suggestion that could actually grab the ears of our legislators rather than appealing to their generous nature. Mayor Mamdani has repeatedly dwelled on the city’s budget deficit, which may set the stage for difficult contract negotiations next year. The STT could be a step in the right direction to solving some of our current and forthcoming problems sooner rather than later.

Highs

1. The Fix Tier 6 Campaign (age)

Synopsis: The retirement age to receive an unreduced pension was lowered from 30/63 to 30/58. This shaves five years off retirement for Tier 6 members who started in their late 20s or younger. This will help thousands of UFT members as they get to retire earlier without taking a financial shellacking. To a lesser extent, the age change also helps educators who began their teaching careers at 29-32 years old. Under 30/63, a 29 year old just starting out in the profession would have had to work until 63 to avoid a penalty to their pension contributions. Now they can retire at 59, assuming they didn’t take extended time off at any point. Someone who starts out at 32 could hypothetically retire at 62 (instead of 63) without incurring a hit to their pension. Educators positively impacted by this save their time and their money. Don’t let anybody minimize this. 30/58 is a big win, regardless of how we got there or what other unions have.

2. The Class Size Law

Synopsis: 60% of all NYC schools had to be in compliance with the class size law this past school year. Teachers and students throughout the city are benefitting from more manageable classroom settings, as well as increased engagement through individualized and small group attention.

Beyond the obvious educational advantages that come with the class size mandate is something just as important - job security. Student enrollment is freefalling and shows no signs of stopping, as studies reveal that NYC schools are at risk of losing 150,000 students over the next ten years. Schools are already feeling the pressure. The Citizens Budget Commission announced that, “The number of school-age children enrolled in NYC public schools has fallen by 163,046 between school years 2014-15 and 2023-24.” Reducing class sizes keeps educators out of the jackpot. Without the class size law, we’d likely face mass-excessing throughout the city and possibly even job losses.

3. Foundation Aid Formula

Synopsis: There was a change in the Foundation Aid formula, which will increase the amount of funding for ELLs, homeless, and foster students. As a result, NYC schools are expected to receive nearly $900 million in additional funding. The update to the funding formula was long overdue and certainly helps NYC schools, “where more than 150,000 students experienced homelessness last year and one in every six students is learning English as a new language.” The Foundation Aid formula hadn’t been updated since 2007.

4. Hold Harmless

Synopsis: Hold harmless is an essential school funding policy that began during Covid. Hold harmless ensures that schools maintain their budgets despite shrinking student enrollment. Michael Elsen-Rooney of Chalkbeat explains, “Schools get their budgets in the spring for the coming academic year based on their projected enrollment. Then in the middle of the school year, money is either added or taken away from that initial allocation based on the number of students who actually showed up.” Since 2020, schools have been keeping the money initially allotted to them despite enrollment dropoffs. According to Chancellor Samuels, that trend will continue next school year.

Lows

1. The Fix Tier 6 Campaign (pension contributions)

Synopsis: Pension contribution rates for Tier 6 NYCTRS and NYSTRS members remain unchanged while other Tier 6 workers received slightly reduced pension contributions.

The new pension contribution rates for other Tier 6 members are as follows:

$45,000 and under: 3% (same)

$45,001-$55,000: 3% (down from 3.5%)

$55,001-$75,000: 3% (down from 4.5%)

$75,001-$100,000: 4% (down from 5.75%)

$100,001-$125,000: 5.25% (down from 6%)

$125,001 and up: 5.75% (down from 6%)

The money saved doesn’t amount to much (although members making between $55,001-$100,000 benefit decently), but it doesn’t bode well that we weren’t included in the contribution decrease. Tier 6 contribution rates are astronomical. Tier 6 educators conservatively contribute $150,000 more towards pension contributions over the course of our careers than early Tier 4 members. And in many cases, that figure is modest. Imagine how much that comes out to if Tier 6 members had the chance to invest that money over the course of their careers. To be clear, this is not a knock on Tier 4 members. They deserve what they have. But it needs to be equalized. When you factor in investment opportunities, the difference could reach high six digits/low seven digits per member by the time we retire. More than half of active educators are in Tier 6.

2. The Class Size Law

Synopsis: You may be noticing a pattern. A little good, a little bad. Although the class size law has helped us immensely, it has been extended two years. 80 percent of classes throughout the city were supposed to be in compliance with the mandate next year, followed by 100 percent in 2027-28. Instead, only 70 percent of classes will have to be in compliance next year, followed by 80 percent in 2027-28, 90 percent in 2028-29, and 100 percent by 2029-2030, not counting exemptions. The delay means hundreds of millions less in funding for NYC schools and thousands fewer new teacher hires than originally promised for the upcoming school year.

3. The Federal Tax-Credit Scholarship

Synopsis: Governor Hochul has expressed her support for the federal tax-credit scholarship, 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. In January, Chalkbeat published an alarming piece about the school choice tax credit program. Chalkbeat reporter Lily Altavena 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 financially benefit 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 support our communities. You can learn more and take action to stop this attack on public schools here.

4. Abusive Administrators

Synopsis: Self-explanatory. Although we do not have data to provide us with exact numbers, the anecdotal evidence is overwhelming. If social media is any indication, educators throughout NYC are facing retaliatory, unfair, and unreasonable administrators. Granted, social media is more conducive to people who tend to vent rather than regale us with stories about glorious, flawlessly run schools with competent and compassionate leadership, so it may not be the most accurate measure, but it’s hard to ignore when tales of abusive admin continue to run rampant. There doesn’t seem to be much in the way of checks and balances. Under state law, untenured employees are considered “at will” and can be discontinued at the drop of a hat, which has been weaponized by school administrators. Principals have entirely too much power, running their schools like fiefdoms rather than academic institutions where educators are valued and treated as professionals.

It’s been a mixed bag of a year. These are just some of the broad strokes. Anyone that says everything is great isn’t telling the whole story. On the flip side, those who claim all hope is lost and that the sky is falling are being equally disingenuous. The upcoming school year will be very telling as to the future of our union. In addition to everything mentioned above, our contract expires in November 2027 and we’re still waiting on the paraprofessional RESPECT check. We must continue to work together and support each other so we can collectively improve our lot, both within our schools and in the broader union landscape. Ascension or descension. The choice is ours.

The DA hit the ground running this year, voting on eight resolutions in October (one of which was deemed moot) and an additional five in November. Over the next seven months, we voted on a total of ten resolutions, only voting on one most of the time. The number of resolutions voted on by month this school year is as follows:

October - 8 (1 moot)

November - 5

December - 2

January - 2

February - 1

March - 1

April - 1

May - 1

June - 2

The massive dip since November is problematic. Many vital resolutions have been left to languish since the DA only voted on ten since December. One proposed resolution that we were unable to vote on calls for the DOE to respond to low survey scores, implement improvement plans, and enforce ethical administration of our annual school surveys. Year after year, school staff fill out these surveys, yet nothing happens to help struggling schools and chapters with subpar leadership. Imagine if our union was able to successfully convince the DOE to get involved and mediate or otherwise try to mend problems within our schools based on the annual school survey results. Members would not only feel more empowered since their voices would be heard, but perhaps some of those seemingly impossible-to-solve issues would be remedied, or at least negotiated to the point where they become tolerable.

A different resolution sought to urge the DOE and school construction to prioritize and allocate resources to schools in need of adequate Wi-Fi bandwidth, an issue many of us grapple with on a regular basis.

Another resolution proposed an adjustment to staffing in 3K and Pre-K classrooms, advocating for there to be at least two adults in every 3K and Pre-K classroom, which would greatly benefit early childhood educators and students.

There’s a resolution currently sitting ninth in the queue (not kidding) demanding a more legitimate role for educators and families who serve on C-30 committees. As we all know, the C-30 process is a complete farce and waste of time. The principal (or superintendent) hires whoever they want, regardless of the input given by the rest of the committee. The C-30 process badly needs a remodel. At this pace, we’ll never have the opportunity to push this proposal forward.

A resolution seeking human oversight and accountability regarding AI in schools - an issue that becomes more important by the second - is currently last in a long line of its lingering siblings. Alas, we wait.

There’s more, but you get the point. Thirteen resolutions untouched and ignored. Many have been sitting there for months. It’s not just about the resolutions that have been left hanging, either. Think about the ones that are never even brought up during the motion period because people are dissuaded from proposing a resolution to the following month’s agenda when they see there are a dozen others ahead of theirs.

We need to vote on more resolutions moving forward. Allotting a specific amount of time to tackle resolutions every month might help. Occasionally holding a bonus DA meeting when resolutions get badly backlogged may be another possible solution. Someone once suggested decoupling the resolution period from the President’s Report and holding multiple meetings each month, allowing us more time to vote. Whatever the solution(s) may be, we need to prioritize voting on as many resolutions as possible in the future.

A chapter leader shared her troubling story of harassed, retaliated against, and ultimately brought up on trumped up 3020a charges by her principal. Unfortunately, stories of abusive administrators ruining the careers of our colleagues are running rampant, if social media is any indication. Principals have complete dominion and are allowed to lie about and retaliate against us with impunity. This is a serious issue that is spreading like a bad rash and can no longer be ignored.

Now, the DA minutes…

President’s Report

Moment of silence for former Chapter Leader Joe Seidel from Automotive and Townsend Harris.

Federal

Been talking about federal tax credit/voucher program for past few months. Coming to us very shortly. Guidelines/regulations supposed to be out over the next few days or next week. This was in the Big Beautiful Bill. Wherever they’ve done tax credits or vouchers, it’s been an abysmal failure just based on education results, not to mention separation of church and state. They were smart in how they packaged this one. They keep saying the same thing - it’s not a voucher program, it’s a tax credit program. At this moment, there’s no cap on it. How will federal government afford that? $1,700 tax credit you can donate to schools. It’s a way to pull people from public schools. What happens is that slowly, over the years, the tax credit gets raised. More of a burden on states to fund public schools because no federal funding will go to state. Everything will become a tax credit for vouchers. Met with AFT 2 weeks ago. Completely up to state governor, not legislature, if they want to opt in. Our governor has said that she’s very interested in anything that will help the middle class get tax breaks. Had a brief conversation. We are gearing up for that fight. All of the state federations in the AFT - AFT sending letter to all democratic governors not to do this. They’ve carefully put together a package where they have lots of talking points about. Will let public schools use this. Majority of parents we serve in public schools aren’t looking for tax credits. Looking to pay basic grocery bills. This is a giveaway to more affluent families. Will start over summer when regulations come up. Will try to have it out by the midterm elections.

AI - Lots of opinions on AI. Some want it banned completely. The AFLCIO took a position that we need guardrails on AI. Datacenters - I don’t know how you would stop them. Massive projects and infrastructure deals that are going to move forward. People want a complete moratorium or local community has to approve it. But AFLCIO has all of the construction unions. Will move data centers to impoverished areas. In terms of us with AI, we continue down the path that we have to have more guardrails for children’s and our own privacy. We finally have gotten to the point where we are training teachers to use AI to write IEPs, use AI for things beyond the lesson plan. Unrealistic to block students from using AI. This is the stuff where as new technology emerges, we’ll train people to get what we need out of AI platform. Not simple. AI companies go to where the money is. Administrators and school boards control the money. Administrators want to come up with a system that will do observations. That’s been their thing all across the country. Thousands of teachers are not observed every year in NYC. They want AI to do it for them. We’re not going to let that happen. What helps our children best? That’s what we want.

State

State budget is finally done. Still don’t have school budgets. Thanks DA for advocacy. Made a significant step forward in fixing Tier 6. Would not be sitting here talking about age 58. Other unions made choices based on what they need. Every year we knocked off the age saved people $9,000 per year in pension contributions. If you knock off 5 years, that’s $45,000. We also wanted to remove the penalties. If you were going to retire 16 years from now at 58 in Tier 6, before this legislation passed, you would’ve lost 25% of your pension, which is ridiculous, because you already paid for it. That’s why Tier 6 is so bad. Aggressively negative. But we are not done. We have to get to 55. Have to get the contributions. Those are all very important things. Have to move forward.

We wanted to fix the foundation aid formula. People got on bus to Albany and lobbied. We were able to get homelessness and other things included in budget to help fund NYC schools. Community schools got a lot of money. State has moved forward. Over $20 million to community schools. Teacher centers also got funded.

Supposedly all the grades are getting a new math curriculum next year except 9th grade. We know it won’t be helpful. Teacher centers are very important.

City

Class Size - We have a class size working group that meets on a weekly basis with the chancellor’s office and CSA. Schools submitting plans are highly successful. Budget in place so that everyone hired for class size is a separate line item. That’s a big deal because of school budgets. Teachers hired for class size must be a separate line item. We got to 60%. Law is 4 years old but requires work from the DOE. Two major things that they didn’t do over the last 4 years - the capital space plan, what construction we need to do. It’s a lot less than we thought but we have no plan. No construction started. If you’re going to build more classrooms for more classes, you need more staff. DOE doesn’t recruit themselves. Didn’t design a plan. When they said we need an extension, we told them we need a complete commitment on a capital construction plan and a recruitment strategy for NYC. After the budget was done, we came to a place with the DOE and chancellor - and they had an analysis for every district and every school. Three categories - 1) they needed a small construction project (simpler), 2) large construction (extension, annex, new building, etc.), 3) program correctly. Said they can fix a few hundred schools just by helping programming. Just starting the construction projects now. NY Post says we shook them down for $20 million going in our members’ pockets. Didn’t shake them down. Held them accountable. They said the only way to get this done is to give a bunch of exemptions. We said no. We want it done correctly. Reorganization will be part of our school system for decades. There are schools this year that if they did their capital plans, would’ve had their space done by now and they would’ve gotten to 80%. Schools being used for space exemptions may be eligible for the differential, as well as schools with funded positions who were unable to hire teachers due to recruitment problems. If you’re a teacher in a classroom with a hard-to-staff differential, you MAY be eligible for the differential. Won’t know until November 15. An exemption class helps move them toward 80% even though it’s not in compliance. Those are classes eligible for differential. Differential for this year, larger differential for next year.

I believe there’s a meeting tomorrow with chancellor and principals. Once that meeting is over, we expect everyone to get their budgets. I’d appreciate it if they say it’s unacceptable. There were years where budgets were not done until July and August but schools received preliminary budgets. Not done this year. No budget, no line, how can we hire anyone? They put us in a bad position. Not the way you want to start. Budgets out with less than two weeks left of school.

Lots of emails about the chancellor. We believe in due process. We know that the procurement process at the DOE is beyond broken. It’s a disgrace. Does not serve the school system. The chancellor has been very supportive of us. But due process is due process. In this political environment, who knows what’s really going on? I have to think about the working relationship he has with our union. Right now, I’d say he has a very good working relationship with us. But we don’t need any more distractions.

One big thing on agenda that has not been accomplished yet. Respect. Next two weeks are about budgets. SBOs coming in by the hundreds. Thanks CLs. The SBO process is off the chart. Next year’s calendar is insane because of all of the holidays. Need to continue pressure on the RESPECT check. Had a hearing today at City Hall. Shout out to Priscilla Castro, paraprofessional CL. Gave testimony in favor of RESPECT check. There is movement. Costing process almost finished but pressure has to remain. We’re all happy about the Knicks, the World Cup. They’re building little bleachers everywhere. Huge ship armada coming in. Pushed back Fleet Week. All happening inside of NYC. Need to keep pressure on for the RESPECT check.

TRS and para executive committee elections are done. Thanks Tom Brown and para execs. Get to work.

Early voting starts Saturday. Lots of contested elections. All will be settled in next few weeks. Everything turns to midterm elections. Thankfully we get a little bit of a break. Retirees are very interested in politics. One of the biggest strengths of our union.

Certain things we need to get done in June. In case of endorsements, we bring executive board in. No nefarious stuff going on.

Midterms in November are clearly very important for us. Much at stake for public education. Also need to begin the process of negotiating a contract. We will have the largest negotiation committee in our history, hands down. More than what’s in this room by far. Almost 700 people will be on the negotiating committee. Notice will go out next week. June 24 virtual welcome. Lay out the process. All about educating ourselves, educating new people on negotiation committee. It’s not a joke. We will be sitting across the table from the City. Our strategy is that we want our members doing the work talking to them. Shame them because they have no idea what you do. That’s how we have in last two rounds of bargaining - every contract has had changes in them, not a single giveback. No givebacks. Only positive changes. You have to come up with your plan. Have to represent. When we get paras done, City can’t use that against us in negotiations. Enough with having workers paying for other workers’ raises. It becomes about educating everyone. Each one will come up with their own list of demands, Come to consensus. That’ll be fun with 700 people. Even in committees, these are very important things. Educating and training people. Massive time commitment. Had a couple of instances in the past. Guide for committee comes from membership. Nobody can hijack the committee with an agenda. We know what the number one issue is before surveys are sent out - money. First and foremost. We’d like to figure out a way for more vacation days. City hates it. Might be a way it opens up. Maybe they look for something and we negotiate. There are certain titles in this union that have a basic, sound argument as to why they might need more. Each title in this union will come up with what their demands are, vote on it, then start the process with DOE. We probably will not set the pattern. Many unions are still waiting for contracts from the last round. We got in. Did the smart thing. Got our raises. Someone will set the pattern before us. Don’t like it but it is what it is. School opening late in September. People are upset about ending on a Monday. If I’m CL, first thing I’m asking principal is if we’re really having pd on June 28

Staff Director’s Report (missed some of this)

- 5k on Saturday

- RTC gen membership Tuesday

- Student debt webinar

- Game On June 18

- Hispanic affairs committee on 6/26

- 11 days left of school.

- NYSUT for get out the vote rally in Peekskill

- Celebrates people retiring this year

- Pride month parade on June 28. UFT is one of largest groups in that parade.

- Caribbean American month

- Puerto Rican Day parade this Sunday

Question Period

1. Fair student funding. Can we make effort to getting it funded per class instead of per student? Do it per class in suburbs.

MM: anything designed by Klein or Bloomberg is bad for schools. Designed after retail stores. We don’t have right to negotiate funding. Not covered by collective bargaining. Got around this with class size law. Over a billion dollars in outside contracts. We pay for all this.

Adams and de Blasio didn’t work. Lots of people hired and we don’t know who they are.

2. All day PD during virtual days. Had people asked to come in to work to sit in front of computer all day being interrupted by everything happening in school just to sit in front of the computer and go home. Can we push DOE to allow for these teachers to engage in virtual PD remotely?

MM: Yes.

3. Policy for dual certified teachers. Can the principal make you teach under a different license every year, giving you a split schedule?

MM: You may be dual certified but you’re licensed under one. You may be split schedule, but you must have four classes under that license. Tell them you have to teacher under license.

4. I received 3020a charges and have been removed from my classrooms, I’ve been retaliated against because of my chapter leader activism. My attorney said I’m not alone. Has 5 cases in last few weeks from teachers and CLs. Trumped up charges. Nothing egregious. This is my 27th year. I’ve chosen to stay when I had opportunities to leave. My membership is living in fear. I’m BEGGING union for support. Begging to keep my job. If you hold a principal accountable in the DOE, you’ll be retaliated against. I’ve had three reassignments in the past week. Reassigned to my home. What is the union going to do? It’s not for lack of advocacy. How will you help me, Mr. Mulgrew?

MM: I was happy to see you and call on you. Won’t go into specifics about your situation but there have been many discussions already. We fully expect to protect you first and foremost as an educator and chapter leader. We have a lot of information from inside your building because we’ve visited. Want people in the union to understand the situation. We’ve had principals removed. I never want to sugarcoat that the union has a magic wand. There’s no two chapter leaders that are the same. If you choose to be a CL, you’re putting your butt on the line. There’s an obligation on our behalf to say you’ve gone above and beyond. I’m sorry for what you’re going through but you’re not going to go through this alone.

Motions directed to the agenda

1: Motion to add a resolution to this month’s agenda. RESOLUTION TO FIGHT AGAINST PRIVATE SCHOOL VOUCHERS

Vote - Yes: 748 No: 123 (online) Yes: 250 No: 19 (in person) 88%. Placed on this month’s agenda.

2: Motion to add a resolution to next month’s agenda. Copays. Copays are a hidden premium and a tax for being sick. UFT has pledged for premium free healthcare but you can’t call it free when you have to pay every time you go to the doctor. Retirees have gone from $0 to thousands per year with copays. Wants negotiators through the MLC to recognize copays as hidden premiums. Must make rolling back copays a priority at bargaining table.

Question: Why is resolution not moving this towards our healthcare committee rather than doing this here?

MM: Told retirees that if this comes to floor, I have to call it out of order. Ruled out of order because it needs to go through healthcare committee, which was overwhelmingly supported by everyone. All financial and technical matters need to go through healthcare committee. Everyone here is against copays. If healthcare committee can actually come up with something, they recommend it to the Delegate Assembly. If we tell City we’re not paying copays anymore, they’ll say “fine” and take it out of our raises. We’re not going to do something that hurts us later on, If we can lessen copays, we want to do it, but that would have to go through the healthcare committee. They directed us throughout the NYCE PPO, as the resolution you all passed told them to do. We can say yes to this. The City’s position will simply be that if we don’t want to pay for these, we have to pay now. Arbitrator will rule for them. Healthcare costs are a constant problem. This union has dealt with many complicated issues. Don’t want to divide. Don’t want in-service using part of their raises due to copays. We’re uniquely different than other unions. Our retirees get more than other retirees in NYC. We don’t want things that will divide us. We won’t let healthcare divide us. It is clearly out of order. We will vote on if Chair is correct.

Question: Thought we can bring this to the DA.

MM: Anything on healthcare has to go to the healthcare committee. Healthcare committee comes back with recommendation, then DA votes upon it. If this reso said we want this issue to be sent to the healthcare committee and come back with a recommendation, this would not be out of order.

Question: Check Roberts Rules. This is debatable.

MM: It’s my first time running a meeting.

Question: Was healthcare committee elected or chosen by leadership?

MM: Resolution itself brought by retiree group said what makeup had to be - all representative caucuses within the union.

Vote - Do you support the ruling of the chair (that this reso is out of order because it tries to supercede what DA has voted on this year about anything substantive regarding healthcare has to go through the healthcare committee first): Yes: 606 No: 229 (online) Yes: 189 No: 79 (in person) 72%. THIS RESOLUTION IS OUT OF ORDER.

Resolutions

AGENDA ITEM #1 – RESOLUTION TO EXTEND THE HYBRID DA RULES

RESOLVED, that the rules of order adopted in June 2021 be continued for the 2026-27 school year and that in June 2027 UFT delegates will revisit the question of the nature of the Delegate Assemblies for the following year, if not sooner; and be it

RESOLVED, that the UFT will continue to look for the best methods to safeguard Delegate Assembly participation.

Question: Can we have video of these meetings to see who’s talking? It’s boring listening from home.

MM apologizes for boringness

Vote - Yes: 888 No: 28 (online) Yes: 218 No: 35 (in person). 95%. PASSES

AGENDA ITEM #2 – ENDORSEMENT OF CANDIDATES FOR CITY OFFICES: CONTINGENCY RESOLUTION

RESOLVED, the United Federation of Teachers’ Delegate Assembly authorizes the Executive Board to consider, make or modify endorsements during the summer in order to have a timely impact on any such campaigns.

Objection: Exec Board may endorse people without DA support who do not help the UFT and our students.

MM: This provision is only for unforeseen circumstances, like someone being arrested. If we have to call a special DA for September before endorsing, we can do that.

Vote - Yes: 558 No: 143 (online) Yes: 177 No: 63 (in person). 78%. PASSES

Have a nice summer. Thanks to people retiring.

Meeting ends.

For educators trying to decide whether they should return to their school or interview elsewhere, the public release date of the annual survey results is tantalizing. Traditionally, the data from the annual school surveys is made available to the public in early-mid August, just as Open Market is closing or has already closed. Imagine families trying to decide the best schools for their children and having to use year-old results to try to make their determination. Imagine an educator making an important, career-altering decision to change schools in July only to find out a month later that the school has plummeted over the past year and has less than stellar ratings. Imagine passing up on an offer from a school that has turned it around in the last year and is now lauded by students, families, and staff. New teachers and those definitely looking to transfer are most negatively impacted by the (lack of) timeliness with which results are made available. There have been educators who did their due diligence by researching the annual survey stats before making a decision, only to find that they had been misled. They took a job based on lofty principal ratings but later discovered that those belonged to the previous principal. The new principal had dreadful stats and turned out to be a nightmare. Our jobs are difficult enough. We shouldn’t be subjected to parsing through outdated data when making big decisions regarding our livelihoods.

For the past two years, New Action Caucus has published the survey results, with a focus on teacher-principal trust, teacher influence, and instructional leadership. However, by the time everything is published, it’s too late. Educators are locked into their positions for the upcoming school year and would only be able to leave if they are granted a release by their principal, a risky proposition to say the least, especially if they deny you.

All of this seems tremendously unfair to everyone involved, but this is the way it’s always been, so we accept it. But we shouldn’t, especially since superintendents have had access to the survey results since June 2 and principals have had access since June 3.

It makes sense that school leaders and superintendents have access to the survey results. The best of them may look at the results and hopefully reflect on what’s working and what isn’t and what they can do to improve their schools. Petty leaders may use the results for more nefarious purposes, such as targeting and tormenting their respective staffs. Regardless of what, if anything, superintendents and principals do with the information, the rest of us should be incensed that we will not have access to these very same results for another two months. The argument can easily be made that the survey data is much more imperative and time sensitive for educators, students, and families. After all, we’re the ones who must choose the best environment for ourselves and our loved ones. What benefit is it to give early access to school leadership instead of making the results publicly available to everyone? Why even keep up the facade of transparency when 99% of us are working off of year-old data?

It’s bad enough that the annual school survey results aren’t released until Open Market closes, but the situation becomes flat out unacceptable once you realize that the data is readily available to those in power, but not for the rest of us. It would be nice to know what the staff thinks of their principal or what the students think about school safety before going on that July interview. Instead, we’re left with outdated and possibly inaccurate information to help put the pieces together. We are not being treated fairly and we are not being given a sufficient opportunity to figure out our next steps.

School leaders are encouraged to review results with their staff, but how many principals actually do that? While that information may be valuable, we already know how we feel about our own schools. Moreso, the rest of the schools throughout the city would still remain a complete mystery. The annual school survey results need to be released to everybody as early as possible, not just school leaders and superintendents. Considering Open Market begins in April, the argument can be made that even early June is too long to wait. We deserve access to up-to-date information so that we have the chance to make career decisions that are best for us and our families.

2. However, while all other Tier 6 workers received slightly reduced pension contributions, we (NYCTRS and NYSTRS members) were excluded.

The new pension contribution rates for all other Tier 6 members are as follows:

$45,000 and under: 3% (same)

$45,001-$55,000: 3% (down from 3.5%)

$55,001-$75,000: 3% (down from 4.5%)

$75,001-$100,000: 4% (down from 5.75%)

$100,001-$125,000: 5.25% (down from 6%)

$125,001 and up: 5.75% (down from 6%)

The money saved doesn’t amount to much (although members making between $55,001-$100,000 benefit decently), but it doesn’t bode well that we weren’t included in the contribution decrease. Tier 6 contribution rates are astronomical. Tier 6 teachers conservatively contribute $150,000 more towards pension contributions over the course of our careers than early Tier 4 members. And in most cases, that number is low. Imagine how much that comes out to if Tier 6 members had the chance to invest that money over the course of their careers. By the way, this is not a knock on Tier 4 members. They deserve what they have. But it needs to be equalized. More than half of active educators are in Tier 6.

3. There was a change in the Foundation Aid formula, which will increase the amount of funding for ELLs, homeless, and foster students. As a result, NYC schools are expected to receive nearly $900 million in additional funding.

4. Mayoral control will be extended for two more years. Regardless of who’s in office, mayoral control has been a disaster for educators and students alike. It’s been around for nearly 25 years, and whether it was Bloomberg, de Blasio, or Adams, it’s never turned out well for us.

5. 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. 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.

6. The Class Size mandate will be extended two years. Under the original agreement, 80% of all classes were supposed to meet the compliance threshold next school year, followed by 100% the year after that. Instead, the expectation is that 70% of all classes will meet the Class Size mandate next school year, 80% the year after that, 90% for the 2028-2029 school year, and 100% for 2029-2030.

Class Size wasn’t even accounted for in the state budget. The city was supposed to hire 6,000 new educators for next year in order to comply with the Class Size law. Instead, it looks as though only 1,000 new educators will be hired. Additionally, there will likely be fewer openings for those looking to transfer. Speaking of which…

7. If you’re looking to transfer for the next school year, you may do so between mid April and early August without having to get a release from your principal. Open Market is officially open, but don’t expect to see many postings yet. Schools often/always wait to get their budgets for the next school year before releasing their postings. June, July, and (very early) August are the most opportune times to find a new position. After early August, you will not be able to transfer unless you are granted a release by your principal.

8. If you are interested in earning your +30 differential, the cheapest option is usually ASPDP (aka A+) credits. Summer registration opens June 8. Courses begin on June 15. 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 sizable pay bump we receive.

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

9. The TRS Trustee election results were revealed yesterday. Tom Brown won decisively. David Kazansky came in a distant second place with Frank Panebianco bringing up the rear. Hopefully next year’s trustee election will garner as much attention as this year’s.

10. You can request to view your file at any time. Email your principal to arrange a suitable time. You can have any letter(s) removed three years after the latest incident referred to in the letter. If there is a disciplinary letter in your file that you were never informed of, take a picture of it and send an email to your principal (cc your chapter leader) stating that you want the letter removed. If this happens, be blunt in your email. You can say that you found something in your file that shouldn’t be there and ask them to let you know when to check your file again to make sure it’s no longer there, or else you will file a grievance.

11. Special Education complaints: If there are compliance issues, whether they be students not receiving services, lack of substitute teachers when colleagues call out, IEP issues/violations, or anything else, please file a special education complaint with the UFT here.

Michael Mulgrew emphasized that our pensions are in the hands of the trustees and they - not Mayor Mamdani - have final say when deciding on pension restructuring. Mulgrew referenced the City’s fiscal crisis in the 1970s and how the trustees agreed to invest when membership didn’t want to. Turned out to be a great investment. It’s unclear if this is foreshadowing or simply an anecdotal but it’s something to keep an eye on.

During the motion period, there was a proposed resolution to add to next month’s agenda eschewing geopolitical motivated resolutions in favor of resolutions focused on core union issues. No matter which side you’re on, Michael Shulman’s impassioned response against the resolution certainly swung the vote, which failed by one percentage point. Written words cannot do justice to the impact of Shulman’s response.

Lastly, an amendment was made to the lone resolution voted on, striking a WHEREAS that proclaimed that Mayor Mamdani has “definitely ended the immediate danger that UFT and other NYC municipal retirees would lose our traditional Medicare and be transferred into a Medicare Advantage plan against our will, as Mamdani has unequivocally committed himself to the UFT’s position in support of maintaining traditional Medicare.”

The speaker who proposed the amendment cited Intro 1096 and referenced Mayor Mamdani’s various changes of heart (mayoral control, etc.) since taking office. The majority of the DA agreed, amending the resolution. No personal commentary here, but it speaks to the overall mindset of the DA. There is a noticeable division between those who have confidence in the word of the mayor and those who do not.

Now for the DA minutes…

President’s Report

Moment of silence for teacher in District 6 in the Bronx. Her and her son passed away in the Inwood fire.

Moment of silence for friend of Mulgrew. Previous President of 1199 - George Gresham.

Thanks to chapter leaders for running TRS elections. Not easy when DOE runs an election.

Introduces new assistant secretary of the UFT - Khiera Pena.

Federal

One of the aspects of the Big Beautiful Bill is the tax credit/voucher program. Anyone can donate up to $1700 to a public institution except for public schools. The bill is clear about the fact that you can start donating to private educational institutions - religion, private schools, or anything else. People trying to privatize education. Trying to erode faith and funding in public education. That will become very front and center in June, July, and August here and across the U.S. Governor told folks she would support this bill. That’s the next challenge and drama before us. Working with other people and groups who have been by our side for many fights.

I’ve never seen someone dismiss a lawsuit against themselves.

State

The State legislative session officially ends June 4. Budget was due April 1. It’s May 20. Not done yet. Next week everything has to get done. When budget is completed earlier in session, usually local taxes and other important stuff get done. Things pushed out of budget like mayoral control gets done during that time. But it’s all going to get done now because legislative session ends June 4. Primaries on June 23. State union has rightfully said they don’t want to do endorsements until budget is done. Makes sense. That’s what’s going to happen over the next 2-3 weeks because this thing is going to shut down. First bill was about school funding. NYC receiving $860 million increase in education funding. All the lobbying we’ve done - this is what happens. Went above $250 million more than what governor put into budget. Already had built-in increases we normally don’t see. Significant win for us. In balance with foundation formula with the rest of the state. Lobbied for changes in foundation formula. Requires more money to educate our students because they need more services. Once the bill is printed, it sits - literally - on a desk - and then gets voted on. Did not agree with governor on 4 years for mayoral control. 2 years only. That’s inside of this bill. Nothing yet on Tier 6. Nothing about pensions and class size at this point but will be coming soon. Tier 6 is always about age. Always ugliness. Always fights. We focused on years. Most important thing. Majority of members starts before 25. Every year you pay contributions. Other thing Tier 6 has is massive penalties. If you retire at 55, pension is basically cut in half. That’s why we’re pushing hard on age. And contributions - whatever we get this year - significant progress. I think we’re going to be happy but we’re never done. Not done until job is complete. Go back at it. We lit up Albany. Rich people did it to the workers. Every year that goes by, we get Tier 6 members in the legislature. We like to tell them that. We don’t stop. That’s the UFT. That’s our real superpower. We keep grinding at them. Excited to see where it’s headed.

Class Size - finally having meaningful conversations about their capital plan. Has the School Construction Authority (SCA) finished a project on time and on budget in the last 30 years? No. Before they even start, the cost doubles. A constant thing. Department of Ed has basically visited every school. They have a preliminary breakdown of every school that’s going to need a construction project. Big projects and small. You can do small construction project with school facilities. SCA is the one that builds annexes, extensions, and entire new schools. We’ve analyzed the list. Now have to go to schools ourselves. Then there’s a group of schools - we have to have a special committee - to help schools program properly. Big problem with programming. DOE has identified a bunch of schools with problems with programming. They said every superintendent has a team of expert programmers on their staff. I think they just slap a name or title on anybody at this point. They’ve said we need to train people to program in a different way. If you have a cadre of experts in each superintendent’s office, why do we have so many problems with programming? This is a big deal. These are the challenges as we get to the last 40% of Class Size. Hiring teachers, specifically certain titles. Everyone knows the traditional ones - math, science, special ed, any title with bilingual in front of it - is a massive shortage area. Then there’s just enough teachers themselves. The hard to staff issue is now going to come up. Have provisions in our contract. Some of that may work but need to come up with something else. Should not be collectively bargaining. Should be a plan to get us in compliance. So if you can’t attract certain titles, you need to deal with that.

Certain neighborhoods that we need schools built in will be difficult to build schools in. Competing with developers looking for lots for sale. We need to come up with a plan to deal with this issue. When the mayor makes an announcement and says “we’re only going to hire 1,000 teachers,” he can’t say that because there’s a law about compliance. You’ve heard me talk enough about the City’s budget this year. City always claims they’re broke but they have $7.5 billion in reserve.

Pension stuff - whatever you want, you have to send to our trustee boards. Let them work and make a decision. They are there for a reason. Most famous example - 1970s fiscal crisis. Members said no. Trustees said yes. Way over 15% return on our money. Anytime an issue comes up, people will automatically say no. The reason why you have people who are experts and study it and this is their life, you let them work. People just like to run political campaigns. If I say “we should go left,” they’ll automatically say “we should go right.” Hope this is all settled by the next Delegate Assembly. Rest of state voted on budgets which they don’t have.

Saturday’s Spring Conference - phenomenal panel of teachers. A lot of elected officials were there early. Said they didn’t understand all of the intricacies that goes into Class Size at the school level.

City

If we go back 10 years and it was 92 degrees on May 20 on a school day, more than half of schools would be a complete sweltering mess. 40 heat complaints over the last two days. But we gotta stay on it at all times. School facilities started a program two years ago that informed the principal that if there’s a room without a cooling device, to let them know. Some principals didn’t tell them. Didn’t want to be responsible for air conditioners, paying for new ones. Told principals we’ll take air conditioner from your office. Let students go to your office.

City’s budget - what’s our priority? The Para RESPECT check at all times. Now it’s heating up. Julie Menin spoke. She was very loud with her fist in the air yelling, “I am passing the Para RESPECT check legislation!” Paras will do some work this week asking the mayor. We know he supported this bill. Want to check in. In my conversations with him, I said he has to talk about this publicly. And he did. He testified and said “We need to start doing something. We should not spend millions per year in lawsuits because we don’t have appropriate staffing in our schools.” That was about paras. We want to turn the heat up. They’re not going to hand us anything. Moving forward on that. Going to be a big deal. They increased budget on lawsuits. Bit DOE in the ass. How do you feel that one of your agencies would rather spend billions on lawsuits rather than spending $300 million for appropriate personnel?

SBOs. Calls on Debbie Poulos.

Poulos: Hold on SBOs. 4 pre-approved that we just renewed an hour ago. One pre-approved for an Election Day block. No longer PD. November PTC to be swapped with Election Day. Election Day would be just 3 hours remote instruction. Everyone will be home. The day of your half day for PTC would be a full day. Because it’s not an even swap, everyone gets two hours remote time - OPW. We were not able to get anything for in person in November and March. Could not get those in person. Only September and May.

Mulgrew: You can’t remove any instructional time this year. We are literally at 180. Some popular SBOs not available.

LIRR strike - If you had any issues in terms of being late on Monday, please let us know. If principal didn’t approve it and it was less than three hours, let us know. You can email MSill@uft.org. Thankfully that got settled quickly. The governor told everyone to work remotely. Lots of emails about that. We were in contact constantly with DOE telling school leaders it won’t be easy for folks traveling from Long Island.

City budget supposed to be done and balanced by July 1. It’s June 30 close of business. Should be there July 1. Education funding will be in good shape.

June 23 is Primary Day. Congressional and State. The State hopefully next weekend, if majority of budget is done, NYSUT will start moving on endorsement. NYSUT has already submitted congressional endorsements to AFT. Lander-Goldman race is controversial down here. No agreement upon it. Disagreement between UFT and PSC. We basically have an understanding with the AFT that if you have an incumbent with a 100% voting record, you try to support that candidate. NYSUT said we can split. PSC is endorsing Lander. UFT is pushing Goldman. We have a congressional person who voted 100% on every issue for the AFT. Period. The other candidate wants to run but if we set an example that even if you’ve done everything we’ve asked, that will have ramifications in a lot of different places (some people hiss at MM). The other candidate knew what he was getting into - AFT told us clearly that Goldman voted 100% with us. That goes forward. Main people in NYC in congressional - the Reynoso race. A lot of assembly races that will be interesting. Thanks to political action department. Talk to candidates. Not easy. If you have a problem with it, please volunteer to be part of that process.

June 5 clerical day for elementary and middle schools is remote.

High Schools - remember remote day you received earlier this year when elementary was not remote.

What’s happening with Albany budget is not acceptable. It’s May 20 and schools don’t have initial budgets. Will get very messy fast. Don’t have answers for schools who submitted plans for hiring teachers for class size. School districts around us are hiring. Disadvantage. Need a better process. Not working for us. Too much at stake. Work we’ve done is amazing. Got Tier 6 in budgets. First two steps are great. Need more. It will help all positions. Thank you for all work we’ve done. Confident we will make progress. Budget needs to get done on time. Much easier to lobby when they know we’re serious about an issue.

Staff Director’s Report (missed some of this)

- Staten Island craft workshop yoga

- AI virtual showcase at 52 Broadway

- AANHPI banquet

- Bunch of Pathways to Parenthood workshops

- June 2 Albert shaker scholarship

- June 5 (missed)

- June 6 UFT Family Day

- June 13 UFT 5k

- Four Mondays left

- Happy Memorial Day, Eid Mubarak, Pride Month

Question Period

1. Question about Robert’s Rules. Always had a speaker for and against before ending debate. RR says you need an opportunity for debate. If debate isn’t offered, what happens to resolution that’s passed

MM: Can say we were out of order as a body if there was no opportunity.

2. For elementary, what guidance as to what can be done for clerical day? What to do at home?

MM: Chapter leaders - make sure you know what can happen if you ask certain questions.

3. Do gyms require air conditioning units?

MM: Yes. Gym is a class. All instructional spaces get an AC.

4. Preference sheets. Admin sometimes requests to know if we’re planning on staying or retiring.

MM: Can grieve. Go to the superintendent quick with that. They can’t back that up.

5. Admin questioning grading policy. Want us to pass chronically absent students. What can we do?

MM: Teacher can say “my grades are my grades.” Would have to consult with teacher. Can’t jump to “kids cutting all the time.” If they get all the work done and pass the Regents and things like that. If admin is saying blanketly to pass children, file a grievance, get it out of the building as fast as possible. Principals want a passing percentage so they can brag. But it’s not real. Then children pass who don’t know the subject. That’s a sham, especially if student didn’t show mastery of the subject. Mastery of subject is key. There are seat time requirements for credit recovery. We’ve gotten many schools in trouble for that.

6. What is maximum number of ICT students in ICT class, self-contained with new class size law?

MM: Depends how many students are in the room. It’s always a max of 40%. If there’s 10 in a room, max is 4. Dictated by the size of the class.

7. Question about endorsement process. You said there was a disagreement about Goldman and Lander. How was that process arrived at that UFT would recommend Goldman without coming to the Delegate Assembly?

MM: At State level, we need to work with NYSUT. Need their input, not just ours. AFT is very much about voting records. It’s all about the voting records. If somebody is 100% and an incumbent, unless there’s something crazy that nobody knows about, we go with them. AFT was very strong on supporting an incumbent that supported AFT with all their issues. AFT recommended to us. We agreed because we had no issues with that person.

8. Remote days. What counts as students’ attendance? Some parents email the principal saying they can’t log on.

MM: Did they log on? Some sort of participation. Part of principal’s rating is based on attendance. Should have this conversation on school and district level. Students have to log on. Can’t say they were there if they weren’t logged on.

Motions directed to the agenda

1: Motion to add a resolution to next month’s agenda. Resolution to ensure human oversight and accountability in AI based decision making in schools.

Opposition Argument: Don’t trust principals. Teachers should be specifically mentioned.

Vote - Yes: 696 No: 113 (online) Yes: 213 No: 14 (in person) 88%. Placed on next month’s agenda.

2: Motion to add a resolution to next month’s agenda. Resolution maintaining focus on core union priorities. Mentions too much focus on issues going on half a world away. Controversial global issues can cause reputational harm. UFT does not have a mandate to do this or adopt official positions.

Opposition Argument: Goes against past policy and practice. May be people opposed to international issues. There’s never been a limit on membership to bring questions. Freedom of speech. I can give a list of resolutions that have come across this body. It would prevent people with powerful feelings of international issues from bringing them up.

Vote - Yes: 434 No: 403 (online) Yes: 84 No: 140 (in person) 49%. Not placed on next month’s agenda.

Resolutions

AGENDA ITEM #1 – UFT ORGANIZING CAMPAIGN TO DEFEND SOCIAL SECURITY, MEDICARE, AND MEDICAID RESOLUTION

Proposed amendment to strike the first WHEREAS from the resolution (citing 1096, Mamdani flip-flops). It reads: WHEREAS the election of UFT endorsed Zohran Mamdani as Mayor of New York City has definitively ended the immediate danger that UFT and other NYC municipal retirees would lose our traditional Medicare and be transferred into a Medicare Advantage plan against our will, as Mamdani has unequivocally committed himself to the UFT’s position in support of maintaining traditional Medicare

Vote on Amendment to Resolution - Yes: 408 No: 253 (online) Could not hear in person vote count. PASSES. The first WHEREAS is struck.

Vote on Resolution as amended: - Yes: 538 No: 115 (online) Yes: 165 No: 41 (in person). 82%. Resolution PASSES as amended.

Meeting ends.

2. Preference sheets information:

a. Fill out your top 3 choices for next school year even if you don’t plan on staying at your current school.

b. ALWAYS make a copy of your preference sheet. Save them for a few years to keep a paper trail.

c. If you didn’t get your first choice this year, you should (not mandatory for middle and high school teachers) get it next year. According to our contract, elementary school teachers may file a grievance if, “For two years in succession the elementary school teacher has been denied his/her first priority of program preference” (Article 7C1e, p.32). If there are any problems with your tentative schedule for next year, contact your chapter leader immediately because...

d. You have two days to file a reorganization grievance if there are any issues. The turnaround process to file a reorganization grievance is much quicker than other types of grievances.

e. You can request a co-teacher and/or ICT assignment, even if there isn’t a designated space to do so on the preference sheet.

f. Admin is not allowed to ask you if you plan on returning to the school next year or if you plan on retiring. If these questions appear, contact your chapter leader and/or district rep.

g. Elementary teachers should receive tentative programs by June 15.

h. Teachers in junior high schools and high schools should be informed of subjects, grade levels, any special or unusual classes to be taught no later than 10 school days prior to the end of the year.

i. Teachers in junior high schools should receive their programs no later than 5 days before the last day of school.

j. Teachers in high schools should receive their programs no later than the day before the last day of school.

k. Admin can amend teachers’ programs after the deadline, but teachers can grieve their amended program within two days of being notified.

3. UFT members on payroll as of 4/1/2026 should have already received or should soon be receiving their retention bonus. You must have worked at least 30 days between 4/1/25 and 3/21/26 to receive some sort of bonus. Based on how much time you’ve worked, your bonus may be prorated. If you’ve worked full-time over that stretch, you’re entitled to the full $1,000 (not including taxes). If you were hired after 4/1/25, you will get a prorated bonus. TDA contributions are deducted from the retention bonus.

Q Bank employees: Full time pedagogues (teachers, secretaries, guidance counselors, psychologists, social workers, lab specialists), paraprofessionals and substitute paraprofessionals) should receive their bonus on or around May 1.

H bank employees: Full-time school nurses, therapists, audiologists, sign language interpreters, education analysts/officers, associate education analysts/officers and administrative analysts/officers should receive their bonus on or around May 7.

4. The 2026-2027 school year calendar has finally been released. Teachers return September 8. Students return September 10. We teach remotely on Election Day. We do not get off for Easter Monday or the first day of Passover. The school year ends on June 28, which is within contract guidelines despite what others may say. According to Article 6C of the contract: “Teachers shall be in attendance on duty thereafter on all days of the school year except for the last two weekdays of the month of June.” Having said that, we have long winter and spring breaks, no real huge stretches without a day(s) off, and we come back from summer break nearly a week later than we did this year.

5. As of May 2026, all DOE employees who receive their regular, recurring paychecks via direct deposit, but who receive paper checks for per session work, will need to enroll in direct deposit for per session payments. Enrollment must be completed by May 28 via the DOE Payroll Portal. If you do not enroll by the May 28 deadline, per session checks issued as of June 16 and later will be direct deposited into the bank account currently used for your regular paycheck.

6. If you’re looking to transfer schools for the next school year, you may do so between mid April and early August without having to get a release from your principal. Open Market is officially up and running, but don’t expect to see many postings yet. Schools often/always wait to get their budgets for the next school year before releasing their postings. June, July, and (very early) August are the most opportune times to find a new position. After early August, you will not be able to transfer unless you are granted a release by your principal.

7. You can request to view your file whenever you want. Email your principal to arrange a suitable time. You can have any letter(s) removed three years after the latest incident referred to in the letter. If there is a disciplinary letter in your file that you were never informed about or that otherwise shouldn’t be there, take a picture of it and send an email to your principal (cc your chapter leader) stating that you want the letter removed. If this happens, be blunt in your email. You can say that you found something in your file that shouldn’t be there and ask them to let you know when to check your file again to make sure it’s no longer there, or else you will file a grievance.

8. Our current contract expires November 2027. The UFT is forming a negotiating committee for next year’s contract talks. The 2022 committee consisted of 500 members. The deadline to apply is May 14. You can apply here. You can also ask your chapter leader or district rep for more info on how to apply. A memberwide survey will be emailed at some point asking us about our wants and needs for the upcoming contract negotiations.

9. Three trustee candidates will run in the May TRS election. This is very important since the seven member board manages our pensions. The three potential candidates (Tom Brown, David Kazansky, and Frank Panebianco) all have experience in the position. Tom Brown is the incumbent. The other two are no longer members of Unity and do not currently hold trustee positions, although they served in the past. Voting will occur next week.

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, the hyperfocus here is 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. People may lie on their surveys. Some may feel pressured to say good/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 new administration. The results should not serve as a be-all 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.

For each school, data is posted for the following three categories:

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 only the overall grade principals received in each of the three categories is factored in here. Any changes in scoring in these three categories from 2024 to 2025 is also pointed out. For example, if you see “(up 2%)” next to a number, it means that percentage went up 2% from 2024 to 2025. High and low scoring schools are in bold. There are also comments made for schools when necessary.

The 2025 survey had nearly 67,000 responses. For the sake of comparison, the overall averages for each category are as follows:

Instructional Leadership: 89% (1% higher than 2024)

Teacher Influence: 67% (1% higher from 2024)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 87% (2% higher than 2024)

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 most, followed by instructional leadership, and teacher influence, in that order.

Without further ado, the 2025 school survey results for Staten Island principals/administrators…

Staten Island

31R001 - P.S. 001 Tottenville (based on 38 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 97% (up 1%)

Teacher Influence: 77% (up 5%)

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

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

31R002 - I.S. R002 George L. Egbert (based on 79 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 83% (up 7%)

Teacher Influence: 55% (up 8%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 78% (up 16%)

31R003 - P.S. 003 The Margaret Gioiosa School (based on 23 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 100% (same)

Teacher Influence: 86% (down 5%)

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

Comments: All results are way above city average.

31R004 - P.S. 004 Maurice Wollin (based on 81 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 94% (same)

Teacher Influence: 77% (down 2%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 94% (down 1%)

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

31R005 - P.S. 005 Huguenot (based on 23 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 100% (same)

Teacher Influence: 100% (up 2%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 100% (up 1%)

Comments: All results are way above city average.

31R006 - P.S. 6 Corporal Allan F. Kivlehan School (based on 52 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 100%

Teacher Influence: 84% (up 16%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 100%

Comments: All results are way above city average.

31R007 - I.S. 007 Elias Bernstein (based on 57 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 95% (down 2%)

Teacher Influence: 78% (up 7%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 94% (down 1%)

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

31R008 - P.S. 8 Shirlee Solomon (based on 25 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 99% (up 3%)

Teacher Influence: 82% (down 1%)

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

Comments: All results are way above city average.

31R009 - Naples Street Elementary School (based on 40 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 100%

Teacher Influence: 99% (up 3%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 100%

Comments: All results are way above city average.

31R010 - Fort Hill Collaborative Elementary School (R010) (based on 20 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 99% (same)

Teacher Influence: 99% (up 5%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 100% (up 4%)

Comments: All results are way above city average.

31R011 - P.S. 11 Thomas Dongan School (based on 22 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 73% (up 29%)

Teacher Influence: 43% (up 21%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 45% (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 32 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 98% (down 1%)

Teacher Influence: 78% (down 7%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 100% (up 3%)

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

31R016 - P.S. 016 John J. Driscoll (based on 15 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 100% (up 1%)

Teacher Influence: 100% (up 6%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 100% (same)

Comments: All results are way above city average.

31R018 - P.S. 018 John G. Whittier (based on 37 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 82% (down 3%)

Teacher Influence: 43% (up 6%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 67% (down 7%)

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

31R019 - P.S. 019 The Curtis School (based on 45 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 85% (down 3%)

Teacher Influence: 56% (down 7%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 72% (up 1%)

31R020 - P.S. 020 Port Richmond (based on 22 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 77% (down 4%)

Teacher Influence: 32% (down 5%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 54% (down 14%)

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

31R021 - P.S. 21 Margaret Emery-Elm Park (based on 36 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 100% (up 6%)

Teacher Influence: 87% (up 1%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 99% (up 4%)

Comments: All results are way above city average.

31R022 - P.S. 022 Graniteville (based on 65 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 91% (down 1%)

Teacher Influence: 57% (up 1%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 85% (down 3%)

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

Instructional Leadership: 100% (same)

Teacher Influence: 81% (same)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 100% (up 2%)

Comments: All results are way above city average.

31R024 - I.S. 024 Myra S. Barnes (based on 107 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 99% (up 1%)

Teacher Influence: 72% (up 5%)

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

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

31R026 - P.S. 026 The Carteret School (based on 26 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 95% (down 5%)

Teacher Influence: 88% (up 8%)

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

Comments: All results are above city average.

31R027 - I.S. 027 Anning S. Prall (based on 69 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 46% (down 15%)

Teacher Influence: 29% (down 1%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 31% (down 13%)

Comments: All results are well below city average.

31R028 - The Eagle Academy for Young Men of Staten Island (based on 36 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 90% (down 4%)

Teacher Influence: 78% (up 6%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 94% (same)

Comments: Teacher-principal trust is above city average.

31R029 - P.S. 029 Bardwell (based on 44 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 98% (same)

Teacher Influence: 71% (up 8%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 99% (up 2%)

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

31R030 - P.S. 030 Westerleigh (based on 51 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 97% (up 3%)

Teacher Influence: 64% (down 9%)

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

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

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

Instructional Leadership: 92% (up 4%)

Teacher Influence: 59% (up 4%)

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

31R032 - P.S. 032 The Gifford School (based on 20 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 92% (up 1%)

Teacher Influence: 79% (up 9%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 85% (up 9%)

31R034 - I.S. 034 Tottenville (based on 90 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 98% (up 2%)

Teacher Influence: 71% (up 4%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 98% (up 4%)

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

31R035 - P.S. 35 The Clove Valley School (based on 25 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 97% (down 3%)

Teacher Influence: 54% (down 18%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 80% (down 17%)

31R036 - P.S. 036 J.C. Drumgoole (based on 26 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 93% (up 5%)

Teacher Influence: 70% (same)

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

31R038 - P.S. 038 George Cromwell (based on 29 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 96% (up 9%)

Teacher Influence: 70% (up 27%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 82% (up 14%)

31R039 - P.S. 39 Francis J. Murphy Jr. (based on 38 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 97% (down 3%)

Teacher Influence: 74% (down 12%)

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

31R041 - The Stephanie A. Vierno School (based on 44 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 94% (up 3%)

Teacher Influence: 62% (down 5%)

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

31R042 - P.S. 042 Eltingville (based on 68 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 99% (up 1%)

Teacher Influence: 64% (up 1%)

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

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

31R044 - P.S. 044 Thomas C. Brown (based on 26 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 89% (up 8%)

Teacher Influence: 55% (up 6%)

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

31R045 - P.S. 45 John Tyler (based on 36 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 90% (down 2%)

Teacher Influence: 73% (up 6%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 85% (down 6%)

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

Instructional Leadership: 99% (down 1%)

Teacher Influence: 82% (up 6%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 100% (same)

Comments: All results are way above city average.

31R047 - CSI High School for International Studies (based on 26 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 98% (up 7%)

Teacher Influence: 80% (up 7%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 88% (up 2%)

31R048 - P.S. 048 William G. Wilcox (based on 55 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 98% (up 3%)

Teacher Influence: 78% (down 5%)

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

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

31R049 - I.S. 49 Berta A. Dreyfus (based on 45 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 96% (up 4%)

Teacher Influence: 68% (up 7%)

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

31R050 - P.S. 050 Frank Hankinson (based on 45 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 99% (same)

Teacher Influence: 79% (down 2%)

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

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

31R051 - I.S. 051 Edwin Markham (based on 102 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 98% (up 1%)

Teacher Influence: 73% (up 4%)

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

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

31R052 - P.S. 052 John C. Thompson (based on 43 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 97% (down 3%)

Teacher Influence: 59% (down 19%)

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

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

31R053 - The Barbara Esselborn School (based on 43 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 100% (up 3%)

Teacher Influence: 85% (down 2%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 98% (same)

Comments: All results are way above city average.

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

Instructional Leadership: 88% (down 4%)

Teacher Influence: 59% (same)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 83% (down 1%)

31R055 - P.S. 055 Henry M. Boehm (based on 40 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 86% (down 5%)

Teacher Influence: 48% (up 3%)

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

31R056 - P.S. 56 The Louis Desario School (based on 34 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 93% (up 5%)

Teacher Influence: 67% (up 7%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 92% (up 8%)

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

31R057 - P.S. 057 Hubert H. Humphrey (based on 35 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 92% (up 1%)

Teacher Influence: 48% (down 9%)

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

Comments: Instructional leadership and teacher-principal trust are above city average. Teacher influence is well below city average.

31R058 - Space Shuttle Columbia School (based on 58 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 95% (same)

Teacher Influence: 47% (down 15%)

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

Comments: Instructional leadership and teacher-principal trust are above city average. Teacher influence is well below city average.

31R059 - The Harbor View School (based on 21 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 95% (up 13%)

Teacher Influence: 74% (up 10%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 87% (up 13%)

31R060 - P.S. 060 Alice Austen (based on 43 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 94% (up 9%)

Teacher Influence: 64% (up 22%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 81% (up 31%)

31R061 - I.S. 061 William A. Morris (based on 80 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 73% (up 4%)

Teacher Influence: 35% (same)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 56% (up 6%)

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

31R062 - The Kathleen Grimm School for Leadership and Sustainability (based on 27 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 99% (same)

Teacher Influence: 91% (down 3%)

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

Comments: All results are way above city average.

31R063 - Marsh Avenue School for Expeditionary Learning (based on 32 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 61% (down 32%)

Teacher Influence: 51% (down 24%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 42% (down 48%)

Comments: All results are well below city average.

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

Instructional Leadership: 100% (up 2%)

Teacher Influence: 85% (up 3%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 100% (up 3%)

Comments: All results are way above city average.

31R065 - P.S. 65 The Academy of Innovative Learning (based on 21 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 94% (up 1%)

Teacher Influence: 87% (up 16%)

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

31R068 - Port Richmond School for Visionary Learning (based on 32 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 73% (down 5%)

Teacher Influence: 44% (down 3%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 69% (down 3%)

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

31R069 - P.S. 069 Daniel D. Tompkins (based on 40 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 91% (down 3%)

Teacher Influence: 51% (down 21%)

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

31R072 - I.S. 072 Rocco Laurie (based on 123 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 93% (up 4%)

Teacher Influence: 65% (up 10%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 93% (up 6%)

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

31R074 - P.S. 74 Future Leaders Elementary School (based on 26 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 100% (up 14%)

Teacher Influence: 87% (up 19%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 100% (up 35%)

Comments: All results are way above city average.

31R075 - I.S. 075 Frank D. Paulo (based on 123 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 99% (up 2%)

Teacher Influence: 79% (up 8%)

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

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

31R078 - P.S. 78 (based on 36 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 95% (same)

Teacher Influence: 65% (down 2%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 93% (up 2%)

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

31R080 - The Michael J. Petrides School (based on 87 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 98% (down 1%)

Teacher Influence: 78% (down 3%)

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

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

31R084 - The Waverly Academy of Empowered Learners (based on 16 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 100% (same)

Teacher Influence: 90% (up 2%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 100% (same)

Comments: All results are way above city average.

31R085 - The Young Women’s Leadership School of Staten Island (based on 11 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 96% (down 4%)

Teacher Influence: 66% (down 10%)

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

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

31R440 - New Dorp High School (based on 222 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 88% (up 2%)

Teacher Influence: 62% (up 3%)

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

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

Instructional Leadership: 96% (up 4%)

Teacher Influence: 74% (up 4%)

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

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

31R450 - Curtis High School (based on 156 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 93% (up 5%)

Teacher Influence: 65% (up 4%)

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

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

31R455 - Tottenville High School (based on 222 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 93% (same)

Teacher Influence: 68% (up 2%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 90% (same)

31R460 - Susan E. Wagner High School (based on 151 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 82% (up 10%)

Teacher Influence: 52% (up 12%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 74% (up 12%)

31R470 - Concord High School (based on 17 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 93% (up 7%)

Teacher Influence: 80% (up 2%)

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

31R600 - Ralph R. McKee Career and Technical Education High School (based on 21 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 84% (down 5%)

Teacher Influence: 60% (same)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 77% (down 7%)

31R605 - Staten Island Technical High School (based on 75 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 86% (same)

Teacher Influence: 77% (same)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 91% (same)

31R861 - Staten Island School of Civic Leadership (based on 37 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 74% (down 6%)

Teacher Influence: 40% (up 7%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 58% (down 11%)

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

Staten Island D75

75R025 - South Richmond High School I.S./P.S. 25 (based on 50 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 82% (same)

Teacher Influence: 59% (down 3%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 75% (down 2%)

75R037 - The David Marquis School of the Arts (based on 44 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 93% (up 8%)

Teacher Influence: 68% (up 3%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 91% (up 1%)

75R373 - P.S. R373 (based on 69 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 86% (up 11%)

Teacher Influence: 51% (up 2%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 83% (up 10%)

75R721 - The Richard H. Hungerford School (based on 74 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 84% (down 1%)

Teacher Influence: 66% (down 1%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 78% (down 3%)

Hopefully you have found this information useful. The 2026 results should be made available to us sometime in August. Until then.

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, the hyperfocus here is on data pertaining to administrators - specifically principals. This post specifically focuses on Queens schools.

It should be noted that these surveys can be flawed in many ways. People may lie on their surveys. Some may feel pressured to say good/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 new administration. The results should not serve as a be-all 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.

For each school, data is posted for the following three categories:

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 only the overall grade principals received in each of the three categories is factored in here. Any changes in scoring in these three categories from 2024 to 2025 is also pointed out. For example, if you see “(up 2%)” next to a number, it means that percentage went up 2% from 2024 to 2025. High and low scoring schools are in bold. There are also comments made for schools when necessary.

The 2025 survey had nearly 67,000 responses. For the sake of comparison, the overall averages for each category are as follows:

Instructional Leadership: 89% (1% higher than 2024)

Teacher Influence: 67% (1% higher from 2024)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 87% (2% higher than 2024)

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 most, followed by instructional leadership, and teacher influence, in that order.

Without further ado, the 2025 school survey results for Queens principals/administrators…

Queens

24Q005 - I.S. 5 - The Walter Crowley Intermediate School (based on 87 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 90% (up 8%)

Teacher Influence: 63% (up 15%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 85% (up 13%)

24Q007 - P.S. 007 Louis F. Simeone (based on 92 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 95% (up 7%)

Teacher Influence: 70% (up 8%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 90% (up 7%)

24Q012 - P.S. 012 James B. Colgate (based on 34 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 93% (up 1%)

Teacher Influence: 67% (up 1%)

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

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

24Q013 - P.S. 013 Clement C. Moore (based on 54 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 41% (down 58%)

Teacher Influence: 21% (down 41%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 20% (down 77%)

Comments: All results are well below city average.

Teacher-principal trust plummeted 77%, one of the worst declines in all of NYC.

24Q014 - P.S. 014 Fairview (based on 77 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 92% (up 11%)

Teacher Influence: 83% (up 18%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 85% (up 22%)

24Q016 - P.S. Q016 The Nancy Debenedittis School (based on 80 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 93% (up 1%)

Teacher Influence: 71% (up 3%)

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

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

24Q019 - P.S. 019 Marino Jeantet (based on 72 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 91% (down 3%)

Teacher Influence: 60% (down 1%)

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

24Q028 - P.S. 28 - The Thomas Emanuel Early Childhood Center (based on 21 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 93% (up 4%)

Teacher Influence: 63% (down 1%)

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

24Q049 - P.S. 049 Dorothy Bonawit Kole (based on 42 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 89% (up 3%)

Teacher Influence: 66% (up 2%)

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

24Q058 - P.S. 58 The School of Heroes (based on 45 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 79% (up 2%)

Teacher Influence: 46% (up 2%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 78% (same)

24Q061 - P.S. 061 Leonardo Da Vinci (based on 139 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 87% (up 1%)

Teacher Influence: 63% (down 1%)

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

24Q068 - P.S. 068 Cambridge (based on 38 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 95% (down 3%)

Teacher Influence: 69% (same)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 96% (down 2%)

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

24Q071 - P.S. 71 Forest (based on 26 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 98% (up 1%)

Teacher Influence: 85% (up 1%)

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

Comments: All results are above city average.

24Q073 - I.S. 73 - The Frank Sansivieri Intermediate School (based on 40 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 96% (up 5%)

Teacher Influence: 73% (up 7%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 92% (up 1%)

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

24Q077 - Joseph F. Quinn Intermediate School 77 (based on 45 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 57% (down 25%)

Teacher Influence: 33% (down 20%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 36% (down 24%)

Comments: All results are well below city average.

24Q081 - P.S. 81 Jean Paul Richter (based on 59 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 100% (same)

Teacher Influence: 86% (up 4%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 98% (down 1%)

Comments: All results are way above city average.

24Q087 - P.S./I.S. 087 Middle Village (based on 22 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 69% (down 18%)

Teacher Influence: 49% (down 21%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 60% (down 24%)

Comments: All results are well below city average.

24Q088 - P.S. 088 Seneca (based on 50 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 99% (up 3%)

Teacher Influence: 89% (up 3%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 97% (same)

Comments: All results are way above city average.

24Q089 - P.S. 89Q: The Jose Peralta School of Dreamers (based on 80 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 99% (up 5%)

Teacher Influence: 76% (up 3%)

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

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

24Q091 - P.S. 091 Richard Arkwright (based on 57 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 93% (same)

Teacher Influence: 63% (up 2%)

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

24Q093 - I.S. 093 Ridgewood (based on 85 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 97% (up 2%)

Teacher Influence: 80% (up 3%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 98% (same)

Comments: All results are way above city average.

24Q102 - P.S. 102 Bayview (based on 91 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 92% (up 6%)

Teacher Influence: 53% (up 3%)

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

24Q110 - P.S. 110 (based on 70 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 95% (up 1%)

Teacher Influence: 65% (up 1%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 94% (down 1%)

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

24Q113 - P.S./I.S. 113 Anthony J. Pranzo (based on 47 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 97% (up 5%)

Teacher Influence: 82% (up 9%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 98% (up 6%)

Comments: All results are way above city average.

24Q119 - P.S./I.S. 119 The Glendale (based on 79 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 98% (up 1%)

Teacher Influence: 74% (up 4%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 100% (up 3%)

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

24Q125 - I.S. 125 Thom J. McCann Woodside (based on 124 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 90% (up 6%)

Teacher Influence: 65% (up 8%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 93% (up 7%)

24Q128 - P.S. 128 The Lorraine Tuzzo, Juniper Valley Elementary School (based on 17 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 79% (up 12%)

Teacher Influence: 64% (up 13%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 78% (up 8%)

24Q143 - P.S. 143 Louis Armstrong (based on 124 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 99% (same)

Teacher Influence: 85% (same)

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

Comments: All results are way above city average.

24Q153 - P.S. 153 Maspeth Elem (based on 53 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 94% (down 2%)

Teacher Influence: 54% (up 2%)

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

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

24Q199 - P.S. 199 Maurice A. Fitzgerald (based on 42 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 95% (up 6%)

Teacher Influence: 50% (up 2%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 76% (up 7%)

24Q211 - P.S. 211 Elm Tree Elementary School (based on 75 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 96% (up 8%)

Teacher Influence: 70% (up 9%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 92% (up 8%)

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

24Q229 - P.S. 229 Emanuel Kaplan (based on 73 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 81% (down 8%)

Teacher Influence: 51% (down 7%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 74% (down 6%)

24Q236 - International High School for Health Sciences (based on 24 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 97% (up 8%)

Teacher Influence: 92% (up 3%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 100% (up 3%)

Comments: All results are way above city average.

24Q239 - P.S. 239 (based on 35 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 88% (same)

Teacher Influence: 62% (up 1%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 84% (down 4%)

24Q264 - Academy of Finance and Enterprise (based on 52 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 83% (down 7%)

Teacher Influence: 65% (down 8%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 75% (down 8%)

24Q267 - High School of Applied Communication (based on 28 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 78% (down 2%)

Teacher Influence: 50% (down 6%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 75% (down 10%)

24Q290 - A.C.E. Academy for Scholars at the Geraldine Ferraro Campus (based on 35 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 97% (up 5%)

Teacher Influence: 95% (up 6%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 98% (up 7%)

Comments: All results are way above city average.

24Q293 - Civic Leadership Academy (based on 42 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 95% (up 27%)

Teacher Influence: 76% (up 39%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 97% (up 47%)

Comments: All results are above city average.

24Q296 - Pan American International High School (based on 29 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 98% (down 1%)

Teacher Influence: 92% (down 4%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 100% (same)

Comments: All results are way above city average.

24Q299 - Bard High School Early College Queens (based on 45 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 85% (up 7%)

Teacher Influence: 80% (down 1%)

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

24Q305 - Learners and Leaders (based on 34 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 94% (up 1%)

Teacher Influence: 76% (up 2%)

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

24Q307 - Pioneer Academy (based on 23 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 90% (up 6%)

Teacher Influence: 56% (up 18%)

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

24Q311 - Corona Arts & Sciences Academy (based on 59 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 91% (up 5%)

Teacher Influence: 65% (down 2%)

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

24Q330 - Helen M. Marshall School (based on 39 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 93% (up 3%)

Teacher Influence: 67% (up 7%)

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

24Q343 - The Children’s Lab School (based on 32 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 97% (up 2%)

Teacher Influence: 89% (up 4%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 99% (up 5%)

Comments: All results are way above city average.

24Q419 - MS 419 (based on 46 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 94% (up 3%)

Teacher Influence: 84% (up 10%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 95% (up 8%)

Comments: All results are above city average.

24Q455 - Newtown High School (based on 84 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 95% (up 6%)

Teacher Influence: 75% (up 11%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 93% (up 8%)

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

24Q485 - Grover Cleveland High School (based on 69 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 89% (up 5%)

Teacher Influence: 68% (up 11%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 85% (up 11%)

24Q520 - Middle College High School at LaGuardia Community College (based on 22 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 86% (down 1%)

Teacher Influence: 82% (up 2%)

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

24Q530 - International High School at LaGuardia Community College (based on 23 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 59% (down 31%)

Teacher Influence: 73% (down 18%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 57% (down 30%)

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

24Q550 - High School for Arts and Business (based on 41 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 98% (up 4%)

Teacher Influence: 76% (up 5%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 90% (up 11%)

24Q560 - Robert F. Wagner Jr. Secondary School for Arts and Technology (based on 30 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 63% (down 10%)

Teacher Influence: 63% (down 1%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 72% (up 4%)

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

24Q585 - Maspeth High School (based on 79 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 90% (up 4%)

Teacher Influence: 71% (up 4%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 88% (same)

24Q600 - Queens Technical High School (based on 62 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 87% (up 8%)

Teacher Influence: 63% (up 8%)

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

24Q610 - Aviation Career & Technical Education High School (based on 105 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 87% (up 4%)

Teacher Influence: 68% (up 1%)

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

24Q744 - VOYAGES Preparatory (based on 17 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 96% (down 4%)

Teacher Influence: 80% (down 10%)

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

Comments: All results are above city average.

25Q020 - P.S. 020 John Bowne (based on 44 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 92% (down 2%)

Teacher Influence: 73% (up 4%)

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

25Q021 - P.S. 021 Edward Hart (based on 71 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 72% (down 7%)

Teacher Influence: 48% (up 2%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 54% (down 10%)

Comments: All results are well below city average.

25Q022 - P.S. 022 Thomas Jefferson (based on 42 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 94% (up 23%)

Teacher Influence: 79% (up 19%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 92% (up 24%)

Comments: All results are above city average.

All results rebounded from last year’s survey when there was a 15-20% decline in each category.

25Q024 - P.S. 024 Andrew Jackson (based on 89 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 94% (down 5%)

Teacher Influence: 75% (down 7%)

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

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

25Q025 - I.S. 025 Adrien Block (based on 70 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 71% (up 9%)

Teacher Influence: 42% (up 7%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 69% (up 17%)

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

25Q029 - P.S. 029 Queens (based on 59 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 100% (up 1%)

Teacher Influence: 96% (same)

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

Comments: All results are way above city average.

25Q032 - P.S. 032 State Street (based on 59 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 89% (down 2%)

Teacher Influence: 64% (up 7%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 88% (up 2%)

25Q079 - P.S. 079 Francis Lewis (based on 65 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 98% (same)

Teacher Influence: 83% (up 2%)

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

Comments: All results are way above city average.

25Q107 - P.S. 107 Thomas A. Dooley (based on 21 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 85% (up 13%)

Teacher Influence: 49% (up 16%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 64% (up 12%)

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

25Q120 - P.S. 120 Queens (based on 53 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 88% (down 3%)

Teacher Influence: 61% (down 6%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 85% (down 3%)

25Q129 - P.S. 129 Patricia Larkin (based on 60 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 80% (down 3%)

Teacher Influence: 44% (down 10%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 71% (down 2%)

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

25Q130 - P.S. 130 (based on 27 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 100% (up 1%)

Teacher Influence: 76% (down 6%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 98% (up 4%)

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

25Q154 - P.S. 154 Queens (based on 20 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 93% (up 4%)

Teacher Influence: 69% (up 15%)

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

25Q163 - P.S. 163 Flushing Heights (based on 17 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 98% (up 12%)

Teacher Influence: 77% (up 14%)

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

25Q164 - P.S. 164 Queens Valley (based on 38 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 85% (up 4%)

Teacher Influence: 50% (up 6%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 76% (up 11%)

25Q165 - P.S. 165 Edith K. Bergtraum (based on 38 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 74% (down 3%)

Teacher Influence: 48% (up 2%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 47% (up 4%)

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

25Q169 - P.S. 169 Bay Terrace (based on 26 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 100% (same)

Teacher Influence: 73% (down 2%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 99% (same)

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

25Q184 - P.S. 184 Flushing Manor (based on 32 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 97% (down 2%)

Teacher Influence: 73% (down 2%)

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

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

25Q185 - J.H.S. 185 Edward Bleeker (based on 80 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 86% (down 11%)

Teacher Influence: 53% (down 15%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 86% (down 11%)

25Q189 - J.H.S. 189 Daniel Carter Beard (based on 52 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 96% (up 3%)

Teacher Influence: 73% (down 4%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 91% (down 1%)

25Q193 - P.S. 193 Alfred J. Kennedy (based on 37 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 95% (up 9%)

Teacher Influence: 81% (up 11%)

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

Comments: All results are above city average.

25Q194 - J.H.S. 194 William Carr (based on 65 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 95% (same)

Teacher Influence: 74% (up 8%)

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

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

25Q200 - P.S./M.S. 200 - The Magnet School of Global Studies and Leadership (based on 37 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 80% (same)

Teacher Influence: 54% (up 4%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 71% (same)

25Q201 - P.S. 201 The Discovery School for Inquiry and Research (based on 26 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 98% (up 15%)

Teacher Influence: 67% (up 11%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 94% (up 18%)

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

25Q209 - P.S. 209 Clearview Gardens (based on 32 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 99% (up 7%)

Teacher Influence: 74% (up 15%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 99% (up 10%)

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

25Q214 - P.S. 214 Cadwallader Colden (based on 21 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 99% (up 2%)

Teacher Influence: 65% (same)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 99% (up 2%)

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

25Q219 - P.S. 219 Paul Klapper (based on 49 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 83% (up 3%)

Teacher Influence: 42% (up 2%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 67% (down 6%)

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

25Q237 - I.S. 237 (based on 72 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 86% (up 8%)

Teacher Influence: 56% (same)

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

25Q240 - Veritas Academy (based on 43 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 92% (up 9%)

Teacher Influence: 78% (up 13%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 86% (up 8%)

25Q241 - Queens High School for Language Studies (based on 30 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 89% (up 12%)

Teacher Influence: 81% (up 5%)

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

25Q242 - P.S. 242 Leonard P. Stavisky Early Childhood School (based on 24 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 97% (up 2%)

Teacher Influence: 85% (down 6%)

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

Comments: All results are above city average.

25Q244 - The Active Learning Elementary School (based on 33 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 94% (down 2%)

Teacher Influence: 85% (up 1%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 89% (down 7%)

25Q250 - I.S. 250 The Robert F. Kennedy Community Middle School (based on 24 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 91% (up 8%)

Teacher Influence: 74% (up 21%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 89% (up 15%)

25Q252 - The Queens School of Inquiry (based on 48 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 85% (up 11%)

Teacher Influence: 67% (down 3%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 81% (up 9%)

25Q263 - Flushing International High School (based on 20 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 94% (up 2%)

Teacher Influence: 96% (up 6%)

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

Comments: All results are way above city average.

25Q281 - East-West School of International Studies (based on 54 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 97% (up 21%)

Teacher Influence: 80% (up 9%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 96% (up 35%)

Comments: All results are above city average.

25Q285 - World Journalism Preparatory: A College Board School (based on 35 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 87% (up 7%)

Teacher Influence: 55% (down 8%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 81% (down 1%)

25Q294 - BELL Academy (based on 15 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 92% (up 11%)

Teacher Influence: 66% (up 12%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 80% (up 13%)

25Q379 - College Point Collaborative (based on 38 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 88% (up 9%)

Teacher Influence: 57% (up 6%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 79% (down 1%)

25Q425 - John Bowne High School (based on 109 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 89% (down 1%)

Teacher Influence: 61% (down 10%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 83% (down 1%)

25Q460 - Flushing High School (based on 84 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 61% (down 13%)

Teacher Influence: 39% (down 4%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 44% (down 20%)

Comments: All results are well below city average.

This is the second straight year that teacher-principal trust has dropped by 20% or more.

25Q499 - The Queens College School for Math, Science and Technology (based on 27 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 95% (down 3%)

Teacher Influence: 53% (down 12%)

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

25Q525 - Townsend Harris High School (based on 44 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 86% (up 1%)

Teacher Influence: 78% (down 6%)

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

25Q540 - Queens Academy High School (based on 13 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 77% (down 21%)

Teacher Influence: 72% (down 10%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 78% (down 19%)

25Q670 - Robert F. Kennedy Community High School (based on 37 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 75% (down 1%)

Teacher Influence: 42% (down 19%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 62% (down 13%)

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

25Q792 - North Queens Community High School (based on 8 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 63% (up 5%)

Teacher Influence: 48% (up 18%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 44% (up 20%)

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

26Q018 - P.S. 18 Winchester (based on 37 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 89% (down 5%)

Teacher Influence: 69% (down 15%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 80% (down 14%)

26Q026 - P.S. 026 Rufus King (based on 23 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 91% (down 4%)

Teacher Influence: 52% (down 13%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 82% (down 10%)

26Q031 - P.S. 031 Bayside (based on 21 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 100% (same)

Teacher Influence: 91% (up 3%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 100% (up 1%)

Comments: All results are way above city average.

26Q041 - P.S. 041 Crocheron (based on 32 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 100% (same)

Teacher Influence: 96% (up 11%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 100% (up 1%)

Comments: All results are way above city average.

26Q046 - P.S. 046 Alley Pond (based on 37 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 99% (up 10%)

Teacher Influence: 80% (up 26%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 99% (up 20%)

Comments: All results are way above city average.

26Q067 - J.H.S. 067 Louis Pasteur (based on 52 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 92% (up 6%)

Teacher Influence: 59% (up 10%)

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

26Q074 - J.H.S. 074 Nathaniel Hawthorne (based on 54 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 90% (same)

Teacher Influence: 68% (up 1%)

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

26Q094 - P.S. 094 David D. Porter (based on 17 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 100% (up 1%)

Teacher Influence: 89% (up 16%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 100% (up 1%)

Comments: All results are way above city average.

26Q098 - P.S. 098 The Douglaston School (based on 20 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 96% (same)

Teacher Influence: 85% (up 9%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 95% (up 7%)

Comments: All results are way above city average.

26Q115 - The James J. Ambrose School (based on 32 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 92% (down 3%)

Teacher Influence: 59% (up 4%)

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

26Q133 - P.S. 133 The Bellerose School of Excellence (based on 37 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 97% (same)

Teacher Influence: 88% (same)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 94% (up 1%)

Comments: All results are above city average.

26Q158 - M.S. 158 Marie Curie (based on 40 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 94% (up 24%)

Teacher Influence: 54% (up 14%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 96% (up 20%)

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

26Q159 - P.S. 159 (based on 35 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 99% (up 2%)

Teacher Influence: 87% (down 1%)

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

Comments: All results are above city average.

26Q162 - P.S. 162 John Golden (based on 30 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 84% (down 4%)

Teacher Influence: 75% (up 6%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 74% (down 9%)

26Q172 - Irwin Altman Middle School 172 (based on 46 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 89% (up 5%)

Teacher Influence: 58% (up 5%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 88% (down 2%)

26Q173 - P.S. 173 Fresh Meadows (based on 63 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 95% (up 1%)

Teacher Influence: 68% (down 4%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 96% (up 5%)

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

26Q178 - P.S./I.S. 178 Holliswood (based on 24 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 76% (down 5%)

Teacher Influence: 36% (down 8%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 70% (down 4%)

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

26Q186 - P.S. 186 Castlewood (based on 52 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 85% (down 6%)

Teacher Influence: 52% (down 16%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 80% (down 8%)

26Q188 - P.S. 188 Kingsbury (based on 27 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 99% (up 3%)

Teacher Influence: 75% (down 1%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 97% (up 7%)

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

26Q191 - P.S. 191 Mayflower (based on 29 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 100% (same)

Teacher Influence: 88% (down 1%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 100% (up 2%)

Comments: All results are way above city average.

26Q203 - P.S. 203 Oakland Gardens (based on 47 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 97% (up 5%)

Teacher Influence: 76% (up 8%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 95% (up 9%)

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

26Q205 - P.S. 205 Alexander Graham Bell (based on 19 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 99% (up 1%)

Teacher Influence: 79% (up 11%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 100% (up 3%)

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

26Q213 - P.S. 213 The Carl Ullman School (based on 25 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 100% (same)

Teacher Influence: 78% (up 2%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 100% (same)

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

26Q216 - J.H.S. 216 George J. Ryan (based on 81 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 87% (up 11%)

Teacher Influence: 57% (up 7%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 91% (up 25%)

26Q221 - P.S. 221 The North Hills School (based on 41 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 99% (up 2%)

Teacher Influence: 63% (down 12%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 99% (up 3%)

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

26Q266 - P.S./I.S. 266 (based on 39 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 95% (down 2%)

Teacher Influence: 52% (down 10%)

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

26Q315 - Business Technology Early College High School (based on 36 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 92% (down 2%)

Teacher Influence: 79% (up 3%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 97% (up 8%)

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

26Q376 - P.S. 376 (based on 33 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 83% (up 5%)

Teacher Influence: 65% (up 6%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 76% (up 5%)

26Q390 - The CIVIC School of Bayside Hills (based on 15 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 89% (up 12%)

Teacher Influence: 85% (up 19%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 82% (up 16%)

Outliers: Instructional leadership and teacher-principal trust are well below city average.

26Q415 - Benjamin N. Cardozo High School (based on 160 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 85% (down 5%)

Teacher Influence: 59% (down 6%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 80% (down 8%)

26Q430 - Francis Lewis High School (based on 173 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 82% (down 4%)

Teacher Influence: 60% (down 5%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 77% (down 5%)

26Q435 - Martin Van Buren High School (based on 59 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 76% (down 4%)

Teacher Influence: 47% (up 3%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 61% (down 5%)

Comments: Teacher influence and teacher-principal trust are well below city average.

26Q495 - Bayside High School (based on 154 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 78% (up 1%)

Teacher Influence: 56% (up 5%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 73% (up 3%)

26Q566 - Queens High School of Teaching, Liberal Arts and the Sciences (based on 39 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 70% (up 1%)

Teacher Influence: 53% (up 6%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 70% (down 8%)

Comments: All results are below city average.

27Q042 - P.S./M.S. 042 R. Vernam (based on 48 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 86% (up 11%)

Teacher Influence: 46% (up 4%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 70% (up 3%)

Comments: Teacher influence and teacher-principal trust are below city average.

27Q043 - P.S. 043 (based on 34 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 58% (up 6%)

Teacher Influence: 23% (up 3%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 23% (up 6%)

Comments: All results are well below city average.

27Q045 - P.S. 045 Clarence Witherspoon (based on 13 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 79% (n/a)

Teacher Influence: 63% (n/a)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 74% (n/a)

27Q047 - P.S. 047 Chris Galas (based on 27 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 94% (up 2%)

Teacher Influence: 65% (down 1%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 83% (up 2%)

27Q051 - P.S. 051 (based on 17 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 94% (same)

Teacher Influence: 61% (down 7%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 77% (down 7%)

27Q053 - M.S. 053 Brian Piccolo (based on 21 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 96% (up 4%)

Teacher Influence: 77% (up 6%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 98% (up 11%)

Comments: Instructional leadership and teacher-principal trust are way above city average.

27Q056 - P.S. 056 Harry Eichler (based on 24 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 97% (up 7%)

Teacher Influence: 81% (up 6%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 95% (up 9%)

Comments: All results are well above city average.

27Q060 - P.S. 060 Woodhaven (based on 48 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 97% (down 1%)

Teacher Influence: 68% (down 5%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 99% (up 1%)

Comments: Instructional leadership and teacher-principal trust are way above city average.

27Q062 - P.S. 62 - Chester Park School (based on 55 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 93% (down 4%)

Teacher Influence: 69% (down 8%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 92% (down 1%)

Comments: Instructional leadership and teacher-principal trust are above city average.

27Q063 - P.S. 063 Old South (based on 71 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 81% (down 14%)

Teacher Influence: 37% (down 24%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 60% (down 26%)

Comments: Teacher influence and teacher-principal trust are well below city average.

27Q064 - P.S. 064 Joseph P. Addabbo (based on 16 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 79% (up 2%)

Teacher Influence: 64% (down 2%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 67% (down 3%)

Comments: Teacher-principal trust is well below city average.

27Q065 - P.S. 65 - The Raymond York Elementary School (based on 30 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 100% (same)

Teacher Influence: 76% (up 12%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 100% (same)

Comments: Instructional leadership and teacher-principal trust are way above city average.

27Q066 - P.S. 066 Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis (based on 36 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 100% (same)

Teacher Influence: 86% (up 1%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 100% (up 1%)

Comments: All results are way above city average.

27Q090 - P.S. 090 Horace Mann (based on 22 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 92% (up 3%)

Teacher Influence: 60% (up 12%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 86% (up 7%)

27Q096 - P.S. 096 (based on 12 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 78% (down 2%)

Teacher Influence: 37% (up 2%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 59% (up 6%)

Comments: Teacher influence and teacher-principal trust are well below city average.

27Q097 - P.S. 097 Forest Park (based on 49 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 92% (up 5%)

Teacher Influence: 51% (up 3%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 89% (up 9%)

27Q100 - P.S. 100 Glen Morris (based on 39 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 95% (up 3%)

Teacher Influence: 49% (down 4%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 91% (down 1%)

27Q104 - P.S. 104 The Bays Water (based on 51 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 100% (up 1%)

Teacher Influence: 91% (up 1%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 98% (up 3%)

Comments: All results are way above city average.

27Q105 - P.S. 105 The Bay School (based on 49 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 82% (down 8%)

Teacher Influence: 44% (down 3%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 74% (down 6%)

27Q106 - Lighthouse Elementary School (based on 20 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 90% (up 3%)

Teacher Influence: 41% (up 10%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 77% (down 4%)

Comments: Teacher influence is well below city average.

27Q108 - P.S. 108 Captain Vincent G. Fowler (based on 82 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 94% (up 2%)

Teacher Influence: 60% (up 10%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 91% (up 4%)

27Q114 - P.S./M.S. 114 Belle Harbor (based on 53 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 99% (same)

Teacher Influence: 78% (up 6%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 97% (down 2%)

Comments: Instructional leadership and teacher-principal trust are way above city average.

27Q123 - P.S. 123 (based on 44 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 99% (up 6%)

Teacher Influence: 75% (up 16%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 95% (up 8%)

Comments: Instructional leadership and teacher-principal trust are above city average.

27Q124 - P.S. 124 Osmond A Church (based on 46 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 96% (up 2%)

Teacher Influence: 61% (down 3%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 90% (up 2%)

27Q137 - M.S. 137 America’s School of Heroes (based on 120 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 91% (down 1%)

Teacher Influence: 64% (up 3%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 85% (same)

27Q146 - P.S. 146 Howard Beach (based on 41 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 90% (up 6%)

Teacher Influence: 63% (up 5%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 91% (up 3%)

27Q155 - P.S. 155 (based on 35 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 98% (down 2%)

Teacher Influence: 90% (down 2%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 97% (down 2%)

Comments: All results are way above city average.

27Q183 - P.S. 183 Dr. Richard R. Green (based on 36 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 63% (down 6%)

Teacher Influence: 41% (down 4%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 59% (up 4%)

Comments: All results are well below city average.

27Q197 - P.S. 197 The Ocean School (based on 31 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 96% (down 1%)

Teacher Influence: 68% (down 5%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 93% (up 2%)

Comments: Instructional leadership and teacher-principal trust are above city average.

27Q202 - J.H.S. 202 Robert H. Goddard (based on 72 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 95% (same)

Teacher Influence: 77% (down 2%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 93% (down 2%)

Comments: Instructional leadership and teacher-principal trust are above city average.

27Q207 - P.S. 207 Rockwood Park (based on 66 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 96% (same)

Teacher Influence: 69% (up 9%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 96% (up 4%)

Comments: Instructional leadership and teacher-principal trust are way above city average.

27Q210 - J.H.S. 210 Elizabeth Blackwell (based on 123 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 72% (down 2%)

Teacher Influence: 38% (down 3%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 61% (down 3%)

Comments: All results are well below city average.

27Q223 - P.S. 223 Lyndon B. Johnson (based on 41 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 93% (down 4%)

Teacher Influence: 75% (same)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 92% (down 5%)

Comments: Instructional leadership and teacher-principal trust are above city average.

27Q226 - J.H.S. 226 Virgil I. Grissom (based on 56 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 99% (up 2%)

Teacher Influence: 81% (up 8%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 96% (up 8%)

Comments: All results are way above city average.

27Q232 - P.S. 232 Lindenwood (based on 57 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 89% (down 3%)

Teacher Influence: 69% (up 12%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 89% (down 1%)

27Q253 - The Randolph Holder School for Social Justice (based on 42 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 98% (down 2%)

Teacher Influence: 72% (down 17%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 94% (down 6%)

Comments: Instructional leadership and teacher-principal trust are above city average.

27Q254 - P.S. 254 - The Rosa Parks School (based on 33 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 59% (down 18%)

Teacher Influence: 41% (down 18%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 41% (down 24%)

Comments: All results are below city average.

27Q260 - Frederick Douglass Academy VI High School (based on 30 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 86% (down 6%)

Teacher Influence: 61% (down 4%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 78% (down 5%)

27Q261 - Voyages Prep - South Queens (based on 18 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 100% (same)

Teacher Influence: 91% (down 3%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 100% (same)

Comments: All results are way above city average.

27Q262 - Channel View School for Research (based on 49 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 81% (down 3%)

Teacher Influence: 62% (down 1%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 71% (down 4%)

27Q273 - P.S. 273 (based on 23 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 87% (down 4%)

Teacher Influence: 72% (up 7%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 74% (up 1%)

27Q282 - Knowledge and Power Preparatory Academy VI (based on 18 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 70% (down 3%)

Teacher Influence: 37% (down 5%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 41% (down 14%)

Comments: All results are well below city average.

27Q297 - Hawtree Creek Middle School (based on 29 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 95% (up 1%)

Teacher Influence: 89% (up 1%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 96% (up 6%)

Comments: All results are way above city average.

27Q302 - Queens High School for Information, Research, and Technology (based on 36 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 89% (down 1%)

Teacher Influence: 80% (down 2%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 87% (same)

27Q306 - New York City Academy for Discovery (based on 31 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 95% (same)

Teacher Influence: 94% (up 3%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 89% (down 2%)

27Q308 - Robert H. Goddard Community High School of Communication Arts and Technology (based on 29 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 85% (down 11%)

Teacher Influence: 74% (down 8%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 82% (down 12%)

27Q309 - Academy of Medical Technology: A College Board School (based on 38 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 90% (up 10%)

Teacher Influence: 61% (up 5%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 94% (up 6%)

27Q314 - Epic High School - South (based on 11 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 73% (up 8%)

Teacher Influence: 56% (up 3%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 65% (up 13%)

Comments: Teacher-principal trust is well below city average.

27Q316 - Queens Explorers Elementary School (based on 25 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 94% (up 6%)

Teacher Influence: 76% (up 7%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 94% (up 18%)

Comments: Instructional leadership and teacher-principal trust are above city average.

27Q317 - Waterside Children’s Studio School (based on 33 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 97% (up 1%)

Teacher Influence: 87% (up 2%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 99% (up 2%)

Comments: All results are way above city average.

27Q318 - Waterside School for Leadership (based on 12 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 98% (up 24%)

Teacher Influence: 80% (up 23%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 95% (up 33%)

Comments: All results are above city average.

27Q319 - Village Academy (based on 35 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 95% (up 1%)

Teacher Influence: 84% (up 17%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 96% (up 6%)

Comments: All results are way above city average.

27Q323 - Scholars’ Academy (based on 82 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 82% (up 10%)

Teacher Influence: 68% (up 14%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 71% (up 11%)

27Q324 - Rockaway Park High School for Environmental Sustainability (based on 22 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 87% (up 5%)

Teacher Influence: 65% (down 2%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 84% (up 4%)

27Q333 - Goldie Maple Academy (based on 30 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 76% (up 2%)

Teacher Influence: 57% (up 10%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 65% (down 8%)

Comments: Teacher-principal trust is well below city average.

27Q334 - Epic High School - North (based on 10 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 78% (up 28%)

Teacher Influence: 61% (up 11%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 67% (up 11%)

Comments: Teacher-principal trust is well below city average.

27Q351 - Rockaway Collegiate High School (based on 19 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 91% (up 11%)

Teacher Influence: 73% (up 24%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 84% (up 12%)

27Q362 - Wave Preparatory Elementary School (based on 32 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 99% (down 1%)

Teacher Influence: 96% (up 7%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 98% (down 2%)

Comments: All results are way above city average.

27Q377 - S.T.A.R. Leadership Academy (based on 36 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 99% (up 3%)

Teacher Influence: 66% (down 9%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 96% (down 4%)

Comments: Instructional leadership and teacher-principal trust are above city average.

27Q400 - August Martin High School (based on 42 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 84% (up 8%)

Teacher Influence: 58% (up 6%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 64% (up 8%)

Comments: Teacher-principal trust is well below city average.

27Q475 - Richmond Hill High School (based on 105 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 81% (down 3%)

Teacher Influence: 54% (down 2%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 70% (down 7%)

27Q480 - John Adams High School (based on 90 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 89% (down 2%)

Teacher Influence: 59% (down 2%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 89% (down 3%)

27Q650 - High School for Construction Trades, Engineering and Architecture (based on 34 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 88% (up 4%)

Teacher Influence: 79% (up 4%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 89% (up 5%)

28Q008 - J.H.S. 008 Richard S. Grossley (based on 24 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 95% (same)

Teacher Influence: 64% (down 4%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 92% (down 1%)

Comments: Instructional leadership and teacher-principal trust are above city average.

28Q040 - P.S. 040 Samuel Huntington (based on 28 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 97% (up 2%)

Teacher Influence: 73% (down 1%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 94% (same)

Comments: Instructional leadership and teacher-principal trust are above city average.

28Q048 - David N. Dinkins School (based on 39 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 84% (down 1%)

Teacher Influence: 55% (up 9%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 76% (up 11%)

28Q050 - P.S. 050 Talfourd Lawn Elementary School (based on 24 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 96% (up 5%)

Teacher Influence: 65% (up 3%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 95% (up 9%)

Comments: Instructional leadership and teacher-principal trust are above city average.

28Q054 - P.S. 054 Hillside (based on 40 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 94% (down 2%)

Teacher Influence: 80% (up 11%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 91% (down 2%)

Comments: All results are above city average.

28Q055 - P.S. 055 Maure (based on 40 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 96% (up 2%)

Teacher Influence: 79% (up 10%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 95% (up 7%)

Comments: All results are above city average.

28Q072 - Catherine & Count Basie Middle School 72 (based on 30 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 94% (up 1%)

Teacher Influence: 66% (down 6%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 91% (up 2%)

28Q080 - P.S. 80 Thurgood Marshall Magnet School of Multimedia and Comm (based on 33 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 92% (up 11%)

Teacher Influence: 69% (up 16%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 83% (up 23%)

Comments: Teacher-principal trust rebounded after dropping 27% from 2023 to 2024.

28Q082 - P.S. 082 Hammond (based on 49 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 90% (up 13%)

Teacher Influence: 59% (up 6%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 81% (up 20%)

Comments: This is the second straight year that teacher-principal trust increased 20%.

28Q086 - P.S. Q086 (based on 37 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 93% (down 1%)

Teacher Influence: 50% (same)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 91% (up 8%)

28Q099 - P.S. 099 Kew Gardens (based on 50 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 99% (same)

Teacher Influence: 78% (up 1%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 98% (down 2%)

Comments: Instructional leadership and teacher-principal trust are way above city average.

28Q101 - P.S. 101 School in the Gardens (based on 38 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 90% (down 4%)

Teacher Influence: 56% (down 7%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 80% (down 4%)

28Q117 - P.S. 117 J. Keld / Briarwood School (based on 49 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 99% (up 4%)

Teacher Influence: 85% (up 1%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 97% (up 2%)

Comments: All results are way above city average.

28Q121 - P.S. 121 Queens (based on 47 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 95% (down 2%)

Teacher Influence: 77% (down 6%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 94% (down 1%)

Comments: Instructional leadership and teacher-principal trust are above city average.

28Q139 - P.S. 139 Rego Park (based on 43 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 94% (down 2%)

Teacher Influence: 80% (up 6%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 95% (up 3%)

Comments: All results are above city average.

28Q140 - P.S. 140 Edward K Ellington (based on 22 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 57% (down 43%)

Teacher Influence: 40% (down 48%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 38% (down 53%)

28Q144 - P.S. 144 Col Jeromus Remsen (based on 47 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 97% (down 1%)

Teacher Influence: 71% (down 8%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 97% (same)

Comments: Instructional leadership and teacher-principal trust are way above city average.

28Q157 - J.H.S. 157 Stephen A. Halsey (based on 82 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 98% (up 2%)

Teacher Influence: 68% (same)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 98% (up 2%)

Comments: Instructional leadership and teacher-principal trust are way above city average.

28Q160 - P.S. 160 Walter Francis Bishop (based on 32 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 98% (same)

Teacher Influence: 74% (down 11%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 97% (up 2%)

Comments: Instructional leadership and teacher-principal trust are way above city average.

28Q161 - P.S. 161 Arthur Ashe School (based on 44 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 97% (down 2%)

Teacher Influence: 84% (same)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 96% (down 2%)

Comments: All results are way above city average.

28Q167 - Metropolitan Expeditionary Learning School (based on 29 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 83% (up 12%)

Teacher Influence: 76% (up 2%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 97% (up 7%)

Comments: Teacher-principal trust is way above city average.

28Q174 - P.S. 174 William Sidney Mount (based on 25 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 83% (down 4%)

Teacher Influence: 55% (up 5%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 68% (down 19%)

Comments: Teacher-principal trust increased is well below city average.

28Q175 - P.S. 175 The Lynn Gross Discovery School (based on 48 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 93% (down 4%)

Teacher Influence: 63% (down 6%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 86% (down 2%)

28Q182 - P.S. 182 Samantha Smith (based on 39 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 92% (up 7%)

Teacher Influence: 62% (up 5%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 92% (up 12%)

28Q190 - J.H.S. 190 Russell Sage (based on 60 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 92% (same)

Teacher Influence: 67% (down 10%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 88% (down 5%)

28Q196 - P.S. 196 Grand Central Parkway (based on 48 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 96% (down 2%)

Teacher Influence: 66% (down 1%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 94% (down 1%)

Comments: Instructional leadership and teacher-principal trust are above city average.

28Q206 - P.S. 206 The Horace Harding School (based on 47 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 97% (same)

Teacher Influence: 70% (up 11%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 96% (down 1%)

Comments: Instructional leadership and teacher-principal trust are way above city average.

28Q217 - J.H.S. 217 Robert A. Van Wyck (based on 73 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 90% (up 1%)

Teacher Influence: 70% (up 5%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 92% (down 1%)

28Q220 - P.S. 220 Edward Mandel (based on 20 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 95% (up 10%)

Teacher Influence: 67% (up 12%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 95% (up 13%)

Comments: Instructional leadership and teacher-principal trust are above city average.

28Q284 - York Early College Academy (based on 33 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 97% (down 3%)

Teacher Influence: 81% (down 2%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 95% (down 4%)

Comments: All results are way above city average.

28Q287 - The Emerson School (based on 25 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 69% (down 9%)

Teacher Influence: 42% (down 23%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 48% (down 28%)

Comments: All results are well below city average.

28Q303 - The Academy for Excellence Through the Arts (based on 36 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 100% (up 4%)

Teacher Influence: 87% (up 11%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 100% (up 2%)

Comments: All results are way above city average.

28Q310 - Queens Collegiate: A College Board School (based on 40 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 77% (down 3%)

Teacher Influence: 57% (down 8%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 71% (down 4%)

28Q312 - Jamaica Children’s School (based on 28 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 100% (up 6%)

Teacher Influence: 94% (up 15%)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 100% (up 11%)

Comments: All results are above city average.

28Q325 - Hillside Arts & Letters Academy (based on 30 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 95% (down 2%)

Teacher Influence: 85% (same)

Teacher-Principal Trust: 95% (down 1%)

Comments: All results are way above city average.

28Q328 - High School for Community Leadership (based on 32 responses)

Instructional Leadership: 100% (n/a)

Teacher Influence: 93% (n/a)