Double Trauma: Lockdown Drills and Our Union's Silent Treatment

Lock-down drills have become a standard practice in public schools across the United States, including New York City, as a response to the increasing concern over school shootings. While the intention behind these drills is to prepare students and staff for potential emergencies, their effectiveness and impact on psychological well-being have been subjects of debate. What are the effectiveness of lock-down drills, their psychological impact, and the legislative efforts to address these concerns? It is clear that these drills are a political response to a relatively rare problem that could be better addressed through enhanced mental health services and our Union, unfortunately as usual, offers no help in resolving this issue.

Lock-down drills are designed to prepare students and staff for emergencies by simulating scenarios where they must secure themselves in classrooms and remain silent. Studies have shown that these drills can improve response times and build "muscle memory" for emergency situations[1]. For instance, a study by the Regional Gun Violence Research Consortium found that schools conducting regular lock-down drills experienced 59% fewer casualties during actual incidents[2]. This suggests that drills can be effective in reducing harm during emergencies. However, this study was severely flawed in that it failed to define what constitutes a "real-world mass shooting" in their dataset, no information is provided about the total number of incidents analyzed, no explanation of how they controlled for other variables like building security, response times, or school location and the authors are part of the same consortium publishing the "School Lockdown Drill Dashboard" which suggests potential bias toward finding positive effects of lockdown drills.

The effectiveness of these drills is not universally accepted. Critics argue that the drills often fail to account for the chaotic nature of real-life emergencies and may not significantly improve outcomes[3]. Moreover, the lack of federal guidelines means that the quality and execution of these drills can vary widely between schools[1].

Despite the widespread implementation of lock-down drills, the actual percentage of schools that experience incidents where these drills are beneficial is relatively low. According to the Rockefeller Institute of Government, approximately 98% of public K-12 schools conducted lock-down drills during the 2019-2020 school year[4]. However, the number of schools that have faced actual active shooter situations remains a small fraction of this total. This discrepancy raises questions about the necessity and proportionality of such widespread drill practices.

The psychological impact of lock-down drills on students and staff is a significant concern. Research indicates that these drills can cause anxiety, stress, and trauma, particularly when conducted without proper sensitivity[5]. The National Association of School Psychologists notes that while lock-downs can save lives, they can also produce anxiety and traumatic symptoms in some students and staff[5]. A study by Everytown for Gun Safety found that aggressive lock-down drills contributed to a 42% increase in anxiety and a 39% increase in depression among students[6].

Personal accounts, such as those shared by students and educators, highlight the distress caused by these drills. For example, a student named Isabelle described feeling terrified and isolated during a drill, despite following all protocols[7]. Such experiences underscore the potential for drills to cause more harm than good, particularly when not conducted in a trauma-informed manner.

In response to these concerns, there have been legislative efforts to reform lock-down drill practices. The proposed legislation in New York aims to reduce the number of mandatory drills and ensure they are conducted in a trauma-informed, age-appropriate manner[8]. This includes providing advance notice to parents and staff, avoiding the use of props or simulations, and accommodating students with special needs[8]. Similar legislative efforts have been seen in other states, such as California and Washington, which have introduced bills to regulate the conduct of active shooter drills[9][10].

Lock-down drills in public schools, particularly in New York City, represent a political response to the threat of school shootings. While they can improve preparedness, their effectiveness is limited, and they often cause significant psychological harm. Given the rarity of school shootings relative to the widespread implementation of these drills, a more balanced approach would involve enhancing mental health services in schools and communities. This would address the root causes of violence and provide better support for students' overall well-being, reducing the need for potentially traumatic drills.

By focusing on mental health and creating a supportive school environment, we can better protect our students and staff without subjecting them to the stress and trauma associated with frequent lock-down drills.

Our Union has been notably silent on the issue of lock-down drills. This lack of concern is another example of their failure to address critical issues affecting teacher working conditions and school safety. Despite the growing evidence of the psychological harm caused by these drills, the UFT has not taken a strong stance or advocated for significant changes to protect teachers and students. This inaction reflects a broader pattern of inadequate leadership and a lack of responsiveness to the needs and concerns of educators.

References

[1] A Guide to Effective Lockdown Drills for K-12 Schools

[2] The School Lockdown Drill Dashboard: A New Resource from the Regional ...

[3] School shooting lockdown drills: Are they effective? - CNN

[4] School Lockdown Drill Dashboard - Rockefeller Institute of Government

[5] Mitigating Psychological Effects of Lockdowns - National Association of ...

[6] Sen. Gounardes Joins Parents, Advocates and Experts to Rally for More ...

[7] In the Eye of the Storm: The Trauma of Lockdown Drills

[8] Sen. Gounardes: New Lockdown Drill Regulations are an Important Step ...

[9] Active-Shooter-Drill Bill in California Would Require Advance Notice ...

[10] New law targets active shooter lockdown drills in Washington schools

A Union Without a Backbone: How the UFT Fails Special Education Students and Educators

The latest press release from our leadership on the catastrophic state of special education in New York City lays bare the profound weakness of our Union’s leadership. We’re told, once again, what we already know: thousands of students are being denied their legally mandated services due to unprecedented staffing shortages. The Department of Education’s reliance on private contractors is wasting millions, while paraprofessionals, special education teachers, and other essential professionals are undervalued and overburdened. And yet, what does the leadership propose? Half-measures and hollow reforms that will accomplish next to nothing.

This response isn’t just inadequate—it’s insulting. A survey showing more than 2,200 vacancies, 1,558 of which are for paraprofessionals, doesn’t need more analysis; it demands urgent action. Yet instead of mobilizing members to force the DOE’s hand, UFT leadership proposes vague, non-binding "recommendations." Reform hiring systems? Use negotiated time for therapy sessions? Adjust funding formulas? These are bureaucratic fixes for a crisis that demands bold, militant leadership.

The negligence doesn’t stop here. This isn’t a new problem; it’s part of a long and shameful history. For years, our union has abandoned paraprofessionals, special education teachers, school psychologists, and counselors to fend for themselves in an increasingly hostile and unsupportive system. They stood by while critical positions like education evaluators were eliminated, leaving special education students without the assessments they need to access services. They turned a blind eye to overcrowded special education classrooms and co-teaching settings, even when these blatantly violated legal mandates. Grievances weren’t filed, fights weren’t waged, and our most vulnerable students were left behind.

This lack of advocacy for paraprofessionals is particularly egregious. These workers form the backbone of special education and District 75 schools, yet they remain some of the most underpaid and undervalued members of our union. Instead of demanding fair pay, career pathways, and respect, the leadership offers meaningless promises about “reforming hiring practices.” Meanwhile, the psychologists and counselors who serve these students face unsustainable caseloads, with no real push from the union to hire more staff or reduce their burden.

The problem extends to the DOE’s reliance on private contractors, which drains resources without solving the crisis. Nearly $900 million was spent on these contractors last year, yet thousands of students still go without their mandated services. Our leadership calls this out in their press release, but where is the plan to stop it? Where is the campaign to force emergency hiring and ensure proper staffing ratios? Where is the fight to hold the DOE accountable?

This isn’t just about mismanagement; it’s about a failure of imagination and resolve. A truly militant and creative union would be organizing citywide actions to draw attention to this injustice. It would be working with parents, advocacy groups, and elected officials to demand a complete overhaul of the DOE’s special education system. It would refuse to accept overcrowded classrooms, unserved students, and overburdened staff as inevitable.

Instead, we are left with this: a leadership that issues press releases instead of taking action, that offers recommendations instead of demands, and that perpetually reacts to crises instead of preventing them. This isn’t leadership—it’s surrender.

The time has come to say enough. Enough to the empty rhetoric and lack of action. Enough to the neglect of paraprofessionals, special education teachers, and related service providers. Enough to the complacency that leaves our most vulnerable students without the care and support they deserve.

This crisis is bigger than one press release. It’s about the future of our union and whether we are willing to fight for what’s right. If our leadership won’t rise to this challenge, then it’s up to us to demand the change we need. Together, we can build a union that values boldness over bureaucracy, action over words, and justice over appeasement. Let’s not settle for anything less.

Reclaiming Our Union: A Call for Democracy, Equity, and Grassroots Power in Our Union

In her recent American Educator article "The Road Ahead: Fighting for Progress, Freedom, and Democracy,"  Randi Weingarten reflects a vision for the American Federation of Teachers rooted in optimism and determination to confront significant challenges facing public education. However, as members of the opposition caucus within the UFT, we must critique not only the rhetoric but also the substance of the current leadership's policies and practices. Our union's strength lies in its democratic principles, collective power, and commitment to transparency. Unfortunately, the current trajectory under Weingarten's leadership appears to compromise these values in several ways.

Firstly, while the article celebrates union growth, it glosses over the undemocratic tactics often employed within local chapters, particularly in our local union. The dominance of the UFT within the AFT has systematically marginalized smaller locals, leaving their unique concerns unaddressed. This centralization of power stifles the voices of rank-and-file members from diverse regions, reducing their ability to influence union policy effectively. The result is a top-down unionism that prioritizes the agenda of leadership over the democratic input of its membership.

Our Union’s relationship with charter schools further exemplifies this disconnect. By collaborating with charter organizations, the leadership undermines the public school system it claims to defend. This approach contributes to the chronic underfunding of public schools, exacerbating inequities and diverting resources away from the students and communities most in need. The article's failure to confront these contradictions speaks volumes about leadership’s priorities.

Equally concerning is the treatment of opposition voices within the union. The systematic attempt to marginalize rank-and-file members who question, or challenge leadership policies erodes trust and undermines the spirit of solidarity. Leadership positions within the union are frequently awarded based on loyalty rather than merit or democratic approval. This practice entrenches a culture of patronage and discourages the emergence of fresh ideas and perspectives that could invigorate the union's mission.

The article also highlights a glaring failure to organize effectively at the school level. While Weingarten emphasizes high-level initiatives, the union's strength lies in grassroots organizing—empowering teachers, paraprofessionals, and staff at individual schools to take collective action. The absence of a robust school-level organizing strategy weakens the union's capacity to address issues such as staffing shortages, class sizes, and professional development comprehensively.

Weingarten’s emphasis on advocacy at the national level, while important, has come at the expense of meaningful engagement with local concerns. The push for national campaigns and legislation must be balanced with a commitment to addressing the day-to-day realities of educators and support staff in their schools and communities.

As members of the opposition caucus, we call on our colleagues across the country to demand a shift in leadership. We need a union that listens to all its members, values grassroots organizing, and remains unwavering in its defense of public education. The time has come to reestablish a culture of democratic engagement and transparency within our Union. By doing so, we can build a union that truly represents and empowers its members and recommits to the fight for a just and equitable public education system.

Let us work together to bring about this change. A more democratic, transparent, and member-driven Union is not only possible but necessary for the challenges ahead.

Building a More Inclusive Future: The Vital Role of DEI in Education and Government Policy

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion initiatives are not just policies—they are a testament to the nation’s commitment to fairness, opportunity, and justice. In the realm of K-12 education, DEI fosters inclusive environments where students of all backgrounds can thrive, preparing them to participate fully in a diverse and interconnected democracy. However, the incoming presidential administration, led by Donald Trump, has signaled an alarming shift away from these principles. By actively opposing DEI and targeting government officials, including military and civil servants, who support its goals, this administration threatens to undermine fundamental democratic values while perpetuating bigotry and misogyny in the public sphere.

The Trump administration’s planned opposition to DEI is deeply troubling, particularly because it extends beyond policy to a systematic effort to root out individuals who endorse inclusivity. Reports indicate that the administration aims to identify and penalize government officials who have publicly or privately expressed support for DEI goals. This targeting of supporters within government agencies, including the Department of Defense, signals an authoritarian impulse to silence dissent and punish those who advocate for equity and inclusion. Such actions not only endanger individuals’ careers but also set a dangerous precedent for the politicization of public service.

DEI initiatives are essential in K-12 education and beyond because they address systemic inequities and foster environments where all individuals feel valued. Schools that embrace DEI principles prepare students to succeed in diverse workplaces and communities, equipping them with the skills and mindsets needed for collaboration and innovation. By teaching students the value of diversity, schools help dismantle harmful stereotypes, reduce prejudice, and promote empathy. In the workplace, research shows that diverse teams are more innovative and effective, while inclusive environments enhance employee engagement and retention. These benefits extend to society at large, strengthening community relationships and addressing historical injustices.

The Trump administration’s opposition to DEI undermines these benefits. By vilifying inclusivity, the administration not only perpetuates bigotry and misogyny but also denies the positive societal and economic outcomes that result from diverse and equitable environments. This stance ignores the overwhelming evidence that DEI initiatives contribute to stronger institutions and communities. Moreover, the administration’s efforts to penalize DEI supporters represent a direct attack on democratic principles, including freedom of speech and the right to advocate for equity.

Critics of DEI often raise concerns about implementation, resource allocation, and potential conflicts with merit-based practices. While these concerns merit thoughtful discussion, they do not justify outright opposition to DEI. Instead, they underscore the need for evidence-based approaches that balance diverse perspectives and ensure accountability. Targeting individuals who support DEI goals does nothing to address these concerns; it merely stifles dialogue and promotes fear. Such actions erode trust within government agencies and undermine their ability to serve the public effectively.

The targeting of DEI advocates within the military and civil service is particularly alarming. The military has long recognized the importance of diversity in building cohesive and effective teams. Efforts to undermine these values risk weakening national security by fostering division and distrust. Similarly, within civil service, diversity and inclusivity are crucial for developing policies that reflect the needs of a diverse populace. Punishing individuals for their support of DEI goals undermines the very institutions that uphold democracy and serve the public good.

The administration’s stance on DEI is not only misguided but also deeply damaging to the nation’s democratic fabric. By opposing initiatives that promote equity and inclusion, the administration sends a message that bigotry and exclusion are acceptable. By targeting government officials who advocate for these principles, it creates a culture of fear that stifles innovation and progress. These actions are antithetical to the ideals of equality, justice, and opportunity that define American democracy.

In rejecting DEI, the Trump administration threatens to reverse decades of progress in addressing systemic inequities and fostering inclusive environments. This opposition disregards the overwhelming evidence that DEI initiatives strengthen institutions, drive innovation, and promote societal well-being. It also endangers the individuals who have dedicated their careers to advancing these goals, undermining their contributions to public service and national security.

The path forward requires renewed commitment to DEI at all levels of society. Educators, policymakers, and community leaders must continue to advocate for inclusive practices that reflect the nation’s democratic values. It is equally important to resist efforts to vilify and punish those who support equity and inclusion. Protecting the integrity of public service and preserving the principles of democracy demand that we stand firmly against the administration’s dangerous opposition to DEI. By defending these initiatives, we affirm the belief that diversity, equity, and inclusion are not threats but essential foundations for a stronger, fairer, and more united society.

The Long Overdue Farewell to New York's Regents Exams

New York State’s decision to eliminate the Regents examination requirement for high school graduation represents a transformative moment in its educational policy. For decades, these exams symbolized academic achievement and rigor, but their underlying assumptions and consequences have been increasingly called into question. This shift away from standardized testing marks a recognition of the complexities of learning and a commitment to fostering a more equitable, meaningful, and modern education system.

The Regents exams were long regarded as a benchmark of educational competency, with proponents arguing that they provided a uniform measure of student achievement. However, this perspective failed to account for the limitations of standardized testing as an accurate reflection of a student’s understanding, creativity, and ability to apply knowledge in practical contexts. The exams often prioritized rote memorization and performance under pressure, undermining the broader purpose of education: to cultivate critical thinking, problem-solving, and communication skills.

The adoption of a new "portrait of a graduate" framework by New York State shifts the focus to a more comprehensive understanding of student success. By emphasizing attributes such as innovative thinking, effective communication, and adaptability, this framework acknowledges that true educational achievement cannot be captured by a standardized test alone. Instead, it recognizes that competency must encompass a diverse range of skills essential for success in the modern world.

The high stakes associated with Regents exams contributed to a culture of academic dishonesty and distorted priorities within schools. When teacher evaluations became tied to student performance on these exams, educators found themselves in a precarious position. Their professional success, and sometimes their job security, became dependent on metrics that often did not reflect the realities of their classrooms.

This system led to widespread "teaching to the test," where instruction was narrowly tailored to exam content at the expense of comprehensive, in-depth education. Teachers faced immense pressure to ensure their students achieved specific scores, which sometimes resulted in incidents of score manipulation and other testing irregularities. The relentless focus on test preparation diverted attention from fostering critical thinking and deep learning, further undermining the integrity and purpose of education.

The Regents exams created an environment where school administrators could evaluate teachers using a single, often unrepresentative metric: test scores. This approach ignored the myriad factors that influence educational outcomes, including students’ socioeconomic backgrounds, available resources, and individual learning challenges. It also failed to account for classroom dynamics, such as class size and the diversity of students’ needs.

By relying on test results as a primary measure of teacher performance, the system allowed for evaluations that were arbitrary and disconnected from the nuanced realities of teaching. This not only demoralized educators but also further entrenched inequalities in the education system.

Perhaps the most troubling consequence of the Regents exams was their role in perpetuating educational inequities. Students from marginalized communities—such as those from low-income households, English language learners, and students with disabilities—often faced significant barriers to success on these exams. Limited access to resources such as test preparation programs and tutoring disproportionately disadvantaged these groups, creating artificial obstacles to graduation and further entrenching systemic inequalities.

The exams also failed to account for the diverse ways in which students learn and demonstrate knowledge. This one-size-fits-all approach marginalized students whose strengths and abilities did not align with traditional testing formats, leaving many feeling excluded and undervalued within the education system.

The Regents exams fostered a superficial sense of accomplishment, one rooted in short-term retention and test-specific performance rather than genuine understanding. Students were often incentivized to memorize information solely for the sake of passing exams, with little emphasis on applying that knowledge in meaningful ways. This dynamic led to a narrowing of the curriculum, with non-tested subjects and skills frequently sidelined in favor of exam preparation.

In this environment, critical thinking, creativity, and interdisciplinary learning were deprioritized, leaving students ill-equipped to navigate the complexities of the modern world. The system ultimately conflated test scores with learning, perpetuating the illusion that success on a standardized exam equated to a well-rounded education.

The upcoming changes to New York’s graduation requirements, set to take effect in the 2027-28 academic year, represent a profound departure from this outdated model. By replacing standardized tests with more holistic assessment methods, the state is embracing a vision of education that values depth, creativity, and real-world application. New pathways for demonstrating achievement—such as capstone projects, internships, and portfolio-based assessments—offer students opportunities to showcase their skills and knowledge in authentic and meaningful ways.

These alternative assessments prioritize long-term learning and practical experience, enabling students to engage more deeply with their education. By emphasizing project-based and experiential learning, the new system seeks to prepare students not only for academic success but also for active participation in a dynamic, interconnected world.

The elimination of the Regents exams opens the door to a reimagined educational landscape in New York State. Freed from the constraints of standardized testing, teachers can adopt more innovative and student-centered approaches to instruction. Curricula can expand to include a broader range of subjects, skills, and perspectives, fostering a richer and more diverse educational experience.

Importantly, the shift also holds the potential to address longstanding inequities in the education system. By offering multiple pathways to graduation, the new model recognizes and values the diverse strengths and needs of students, creating a more inclusive framework for measuring achievement.

New York State’s decision to phase out the Regents exams marks a pivotal step toward a more equitable, meaningful, and effective education system. While the transition may pose challenges, the potential benefits far outweigh any temporary difficulties. By prioritizing holistic assessment and skill development, the state is aligning its educational practices with the demands of the 21st century, ensuring that all students are better prepared for the complexities and opportunities that lie ahead.

This shift underscores a critical truth: education is not merely about test-taking but about empowering students to think critically, act ethically, and contribute meaningfully to society. In embracing this vision, New York State is setting a powerful example for the rest of the nation.

Power and Loyalty: Parallels Between UFT Leadership and the Incoming Presidential Administration

The intersection of leadership practices and loyalty demands within unions and political organizations raises profound questions about democratic engagement and representation. By examining the United Federation of Teachers and the Trump administration, we uncover patterns that illuminate broader implications for governance, advocacy, and institutional integrity.

The UFT, a historically significant advocate for educators’ rights, faces increasing challenges from policies aimed at weakening union influence. This trend aligns with broader anti-union efforts, exemplified by Wisconsin’s 2011 legislation that severely restricted public sector collective bargaining. Such moves threaten educators' job protections and benefits, undermining the broader advocacy role of unions in shaping educational reform and policy.

At the same time, the UFT's internal dynamics have demonstrated a willingness to become more authoritarian and alienated from the rank and file. The union's one-party leadership structure, which has persisted for five decades, centralizes decision-making and suppresses internal dissent. This rigidity has stifled diverse perspectives, mirroring patterns observed in political leadership, such as the loyalty-driven appointments in the Trump administration.

A striking parallel emerges in the prioritization of loyalty over expertise. The UFT's leadership style creates an echo chamber, limiting members' opportunities to influence policies at local levels. Similarly, the Trump administration’s preference for loyalty led to the appointment of cabinet members and advisors based more on allegiance than qualifications, often sidelining seasoned professionals.

While the scale differs—union decisions primarily impact education policy, whereas presidential appointments shape national governance—both scenarios highlight the risks of suppressing dissent and fostering homogeneity in decision-making.

Weakening union power carries significant consequences. Research indicates that students in states with strong collective bargaining laws for teachers enjoy better long-term economic outcomes. A diminished UFT risks not only educators’ working conditions but also student success.

Similarly, loyalty-driven governance, as seen in the Trump administration, poses broader threats to democratic institutions. By prioritizing personal loyalty, the administration undermined checks and balances, marginalized dissenting voices, and destabilized trust in government operations. Proposals such as Schedule F, which would ease the firing of federal employees based on loyalty, exemplify these risks, threatening to erode the civil service's independence.

Both the UFT and the Trump administration underscore the critical importance of fostering transparency and accountability in leadership. Calls for reform within the UFT—such as adopting a multi-party system or creating avenues for open debate—could empower members and enhance representation. Likewise, addressing the Trump administration’s legacy of opacity and loyalty demands requires systemic safeguards to protect democratic norms and institutional integrity.

In the UFT, the concentration of power may limit opportunities for members to influence policy at the local level. In the Trump administration, the consequences of perceived disloyalty were often more severe, with officials losing their jobs if Trump felt they weren't doing his bidding or if they contradicted him in public.

Both scenarios raise concerns about the suppression of dissenting voices and the creation of echo chambers. However, the scale and potential impact differ significantly:

• In the UFT, the effects are primarily limited to the union's internal operations and its influence on education policy.
• In the Trump administration, the loyalty demands had broader implications for government functioning and national policy, potentially undermining democratic norms and the system of checks and balances.

The concentration of power, whether in unions or government, limits democratic engagement and suppresses diverse viewpoints. For the UFT, this means risking its effectiveness in representing teachers’ interests and adapting to the evolving needs of education. For the Trump administration, loyalty-based practices posed far-reaching consequences, potentially compromising national governance and public trust in democracy.

While the UFT and the Trump administration operate on different scales, their loyalty-driven dynamics reveal shared challenges in balancing effective leadership with inclusive representation. Both cases underscore the necessity of transparent, inclusive processes that empower stakeholders and uphold democratic principles. Whether in unions or political leadership, fostering debate, embracing diverse perspectives, and maintaining robust systems of accountability are essential to ensuring fair and effective governance.

Out of Touch and Out of Time: Why Mulgrew’s Fight Against Congestion Pricing Fails Teachers and the Working Class

In a recent New York Post article, United Federation of Teachers President Mike Mulgrew blasted New York’s congestion pricing plan, calling it a betrayal of the working class by Governor Kathy Hochul and state Democrats. Mulgrew’s criticisms, however, are riddled with inconsistencies and a troubling misalignment with the interests of the very people he claims to represent. His stance against congestion pricing not only misrepresents the working class but also undermines a policy designed to benefit all New Yorkers by improving transit infrastructure and reducing emissions.

Mulgrew positions himself as a defender of working-class New Yorkers, but his opposition to congestion pricing aligns more closely with suburban and Staten Island politicians who prioritize car commuters over public transit users. According to the Post, Mulgrew justified his position by claiming to protect “scores” of teachers who drive into Manhattan, but this argument falls apart under scrutiny.

The reality is that most New York City teachers—and working-class New Yorkers in general—rely on public transportation, not personal vehicles, to commute to midtown and downtown Manhattan. Rather than protecting the majority of his membership, Mulgrew’s legal battle against congestion pricing appears to serve the interests of a privileged few who drive. Moreover, it’s unclear whether the UFT rank-and-file membership even supports this lawsuit, raising concerns about whether Mulgrew is acting without their authorization.

One of Mulgrew’s key arguments, reported in the Post, is that congestion pricing will shift traffic and pollution to the outer boroughs, particularly affecting areas like the Bronx. He even mocked Governor Hochul’s announcement of a new asthma center in the Bronx, suggesting that residents would need it as a result of congestion pricing. However, environmental studies and real-world data from cities like London and Stockholm contradict this claim.

Congestion pricing is proven to reduce emissions overall by discouraging car travel and increasing public transit use. Revenues from the program are intended to fund critical upgrades to the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, such as cleaner buses and expanded subway service, which would directly benefit outer-borough residents. Mulgrew’s suggestion that the policy will exacerbate pollution in these areas not only lacks evidence but actively ignores the benefits of increased investment in public transit infrastructure.

This episode highlights a broader issue with UFT leadership: a disconnect from the progressive and equitable values many educators hold. Teachers often champion sustainability and social justice, making it baffling that Mulgrew would use union resources to oppose a policy that aligns with these principles. The Post noted Mulgrew’s criticism of Democrats as “tone deaf,” but his own stance—clinging to car-centric commuting habits—is equally out of touch with the needs of teachers, students, and working-class families.

As UFT elections approach this spring, members should consider whether Mulgrew’s leadership truly reflects their priorities. Supporting policies like congestion pricing, which aim to create a cleaner, more equitable city, is far more consistent with the goals of public education and the well-being of students and families.

Congestion pricing is a forward-thinking policy that addresses multiple crises: traffic congestion, climate change, and underfunded public transit. By opposing it, Mulgrew risks sidelining the UFT from broader efforts to make New York City a healthier, more sustainable place to live. Rather than fighting congestion pricing, UFT leadership should focus on advocating for affordable transit fares, improved service for outer-borough commuters, and environmental policies that benefit the majority of its members.

The Post described Mulgrew as furious with Democrats for pushing a policy he sees as harmful to the working class. But in reality, his stance does more to harm the working class by ignoring the long-term benefits of congestion pricing. It’s time for UFT leadership to align with policies that prioritize the needs of their members and the future of the city rather than clinging to outdated, regressive positions.

Ageism Is Anti-Union: Why Aqeel Williams’s Mocking of UFT Retiree Delegates Should Alarm Us All

In his recent blog post in Education Notes, Norm Scott highlighted a troubling incident involving Aqeel Williams, the UFT District 9 Unity Caucus Representative, who reportedly mocked retiree delegates with ageist memes in a group chat during a Delegate Assembly (DA). This incident might seem trivial at first, but it points to a larger issue within the United Federation of Teachers (UFT): an increasingly hostile stance toward retirees, a group who have given decades to this union and to New York City students. Ageism has no place in our union—or in any union for that matter. This incident serves as yet another indication of how disconnected UFT leadership has become from the rank and file.

Ageism isn’t just offensive; it’s fundamentally anti-union. Unions are built on solidarity and the understanding that every member, regardless of age or experience, brings invaluable contributions to the table. By mocking retirees, Williams undermines the very foundation of unionism: respect and unity among members. The retirees in question are not only dues-paying members but also educators who have dedicated years to our schools, our students, and the fight for fairer treatment and better conditions for all of us. For these members to be dismissed as “feeble” or ridiculed because of their age is not only unprofessional but a betrayal of the union values that should bind us together.

Williams is also a member of the UFT Election Committee, a position that requires impartiality, professionalism, and respect for all members. How can retirees—who make up a significant portion of UFT membership—have confidence in his role if he’s demonstrated such a dismissive attitude toward them? This is a matter of integrity and accountability, and UFT leadership’s silence on this incident only heightens the sense of division within our union.

This isn’t the first time Unity Caucus has failed to stand up for the rank and file. For years, we’ve seen a widening disconnect between UFT leadership and the everyday educators who work tirelessly in classrooms and beyond. Retirees, who have the benefit of experience and historical perspective, have increasingly become vocal advocates at DAs. They are some of our most engaged members, using their knowledge and time to ensure that the union remains accountable to the membership. But rather than welcoming these contributions, leadership seems almost fearful, as if these retirees threaten their hold on power.

Retirees have become essential voices in the UFT’s internal democracy, speaking truth to power and calling for reforms that reflect the needs of active and retired educators alike. Mocking them with ageist memes is an attempt to belittle and silence their contributions. Leadership’s failure to address this behavior reflects a troubling lack of solidarity with the very members they claim to represent.

This incident with Aqeel Williams highlights why the UFT urgently needs new leadership. The current leadership’s refusal to condemn these ageist actions sends a message that their priorities lie not with the values of mutual respect, professionalism, and solidarity but with maintaining power at any cost. The lack of action signals to members that leadership either condones or is indifferent to this divisive behavior—neither of which are acceptable.

The fact that Williams was “on the clock” and being paid with union dues while engaging in this behavior further emphasizes the issue. UFT members pay dues to support representatives who advocate for us, not to mock or disrespect fellow union members. With contract negotiations on the horizon and critical fights ahead, we need leadership that represents the professionalism, strength, and unity of the entire union, not just a select few.

Unions are only as strong as their unity, and that unity is jeopardized when segments of our membership—such as retirees—are treated with contempt. It’s time to push for a UFT that recognizes the value and wisdom of all its members, young and old, active and retired. Mockery and division weaken our ability to stand together, especially as we prepare for challenging negotiations and the continuing fight for public education. We need leaders who will uplift all members, who understand the stakes of our work, and who respect the rights and contributions of every educator who has fought and continues to fight for the next generation.

A call for new leadership isn’t just a reaction to one incident—it’s a call for a fundamental shift in how we respect and value each other within our union. Ageism has no place in the UFT, and our future depends on making sure that every member, regardless of age, is respected, supported, and represented. It’s time for leadership that embodies the values that define us as a union.

What the Trump Administration and Republican Congress Could Mean for NYC Schools: A Progressive Perspective

With a new presidential administration and a Republican-controlled Congress, teachers, parents, and students in New York City face a moment of profound uncertainty. Changes are expected that may shake the foundation of public education as we know it. As an opposition caucus within the United Federation of Teachers, it’s crucial that we prepare for potential impacts that could redefine classrooms across our city.

One of the newly elected administration's early proposals involves dismantling the federal Department of Education, an unprecedented move that would disrupt federal oversight, funding, and support. For our schools, this could mean the loss of critical Title I funds that provide resources to high-poverty schools, support for after-school programs, and funding for schools with high populations of underserved students. Without federal support, the burden to cover these programs could fall on already strained city budgets, forcing schools to choose between essential services.

New York City has long been a sanctuary city, and its schools serve tens of thousands of undocumented students. Under new federal policies, the protection of these students could be jeopardized. An administration that prioritizes immigration enforcement could encourage actions that make schools less safe for undocumented families, including potential data sharing with immigration authorities. We must be vigilant and vocal in defending our students’ rights to learn in a safe, supportive environment, regardless of their immigration status.

The Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights has been pivotal in enforcing anti-discrimination policies in schools. With a reduced or dissolved Office for Civil Rights, civil rights enforcement in NYC schools could suffer, impacting students of color, LGBTQIA+ students, and students with disabilities who rely on these protections for equitable education. Progressives must advocate for strong local protections and push NYC’s Department of Education to uphold and enforce civil rights standards independently.

Federal mandates, like those from the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), ensure that NYC’s special education students receive appropriate accommodations and support. Without federal funding and oversight, NYC schools could face challenges in meeting these needs, leading to inadequate support for students who rely on individualized services. We will need to push for commitments to special education funding and protect these students’ rights.

Federal funding also sustains vital programs, like the free and reduced-price breakfast and lunch programs on which thousands of NYC students depend. Cuts or eliminations of these programs could lead to higher food insecurity among low-income students, directly impacting their ability to learn and thrive. We should work with city officials to ensure that alternative funding is available to maintain these essential programs and advocate at every level for solutions that prioritize children’s welfare.

Protections for LGBTQIA+ students could be at risk under an administration that may not prioritize their rights. Federal guidance has previously protected transgender students’ rights to use bathrooms and locker rooms that match their gender identity. The rollback of these protections could create hostile school environments. Educators, allies, and families must stand together to affirm LGBTQIA+ students’ rights and ensure NYC schools remain inclusive.

This new administration has shown support for increasing religious expression in public schools, potentially blurring lines between church and state. NYC, with its richly diverse student population, benefits from secular education policies that respect all religions equally. We must continue to uphold the separation of church and state in our schools and maintain an inclusive, secular educational environment for students of all backgrounds.

A push for school choice, charter schools, and voucher systems could lead to reduced funding for public schools, funneling resources toward private and charter schools. For NYC’s public schools, which serve the vast majority of students, this redirection of funds could mean larger class sizes, fewer resources, and less support for teachers. As public education advocates, we should actively oppose policies that weaken public schools, and instead, call for investments that strengthen them.

The administration’s potential embrace of “right-to-work” laws could undermine teachers’ union rights, weaken collective bargaining, and erode job protections. This shift could reduce teachers’ ability to advocate for their students and classrooms without fear of retribution. It’s critical that we, as UFT members, work together to protect our union’s strength, support each other, and continue to advocate for conditions that allow teachers to provide the best possible education.

Federal support for science and climate education may decrease, particularly given the administration’s stance on climate change. As NYC educators, we must commit to teaching our students science grounded in evidence and fact. This includes continuing to educate about environmental issues and climate change, preparing students to address these pressing challenges in the future.

The potential changes ahead could profoundly affect NYC’s educational landscape. It’s imperative that we, as progressive educators, remain informed, organized, and active in protecting our students’ rights and access to quality education. Here are a few actions we can take together:

• Build Coalitions: Partner with other education advocates, civil rights organizations, and community groups to amplify our voices.
• Advocate Locally: Push for policies within NYC’s Department of Education and city government that protect students, maintain equitable funding, and uphold inclusive values.
• Engage Families and Communities: Inform and empower families about their rights and the potential impacts of federal changes on their children’s education.
• Stay Active in the Union: Participate in UFT meetings and initiatives, ensuring that our voices are heard and that we’re prepared to respond to policy changes.

The future is uncertain, but by standing together, we can continue to uphold the values of equity, justice, and inclusion in our schools and fight for a public education system that serves all students.

Out of Touch and Out of Time: Why the UFT’s War on Congestion Pricing Fails NYC Teachers and Students

In a misguided and poorly executed attempt to stall New York City's Congestion Pricing plan, the United Federation of Teachers (UFT) and its president, Michael Mulgrew, have not only acted against the interests of their members but have also launched a frivolous federal lawsuit, ignored the democratic voice of the union, and undermined critical environmental and public health goals. Congestion Pricing is essential for a healthier, more sustainable New York City, and by opposing it, the UFT has aligned itself with reactionary voices that put political expedience over public welfare.

The federal lawsuit filed by the UFT was dismissed almost immediately, illustrating its lack of legal merit and foresight. Mulgrew’s unilateral decision to start this lawsuit without consulting the broader membership is emblematic of an increasingly undemocratic approach to leadership within the UFT. Members deserve transparency and representation, especially in decisions that implicate public policy and use union resources. This legal misadventure was not just a waste of union dues; it was a direct affront to the values of collective decision-making.

Governor Kathy Hochul’s delay in implementing Congestion Pricing—backed by Mulgrew and the UFT—appears to be a concession to appease conservative suburban voters. This political move has come at a staggering cost to the city. Every day that Congestion Pricing is delayed means further deterioration of our public transit system, additional air pollution, and increased vehicular congestion. Our students, teachers, and communities are paying the price with their health, as higher traffic levels exacerbate air pollution, impacting lung health and making the city less livable for all New Yorkers.

Congestion Pricing, if implemented, would provide funding for the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA), which is in desperate need of revenue for repairs, upgrades, and expansions. A stronger public transit system benefits everyone, including teachers who rely on reliable transportation to get to their schools, parents who rely on safe and dependable routes to work, and students who deserve a healthier environment.

The UFT’s opposition to Congestion Pricing is ostensibly based on the notion that some teachers need to drive into the Central Business District (CBD) to get to work. However, the reality is that only a small fraction of teachers actually rely on personal vehicles to commute into the CBD. Teachers who live in boroughs outside of Manhattan already know that parking outside of the CBD and completing their commute by subway or bus is a viable and affordable option. Not only would this reduce their transportation costs, but it would also align with the city’s broader environmental goals.

Mulgrew’s actions reveal a profound disconnect between UFT leadership and its rank-and-file members. Many educators support environmentally responsible policies and understand that a well-funded public transit system directly impacts their students’ quality of life. By spending union resources to fight against Congestion Pricing, Mulgrew has signaled that he prioritizes narrow interests over the union’s commitment to sustainability and public health.

Moreover, Congestion Pricing has widespread public support and has been recognized as an essential measure to alleviate traffic and pollution in New York City. Teachers, who live in neighborhoods directly impacted by vehicle emissions, should be champions for policies that improve air quality and promote sustainable transportation solutions. Mulgrew’s opposition to this essential policy runs contrary to the very ideals of social and environmental justice that the UFT should be advancing.

It’s time for the UFT to realign its leadership with the values and priorities of its members. New York City’s educators should be among the strongest advocates for a city that values clean air, sustainable transportation, and equitable public services. If the UFT leadership is out of step with these principles, it’s time for a serious conversation about the future direction of the union. Teachers deserve better than to see their union dues wasted on lawsuits that prioritize political posturing over real, positive change.

As union members, as teachers, and as New Yorkers, we should demand that Michael Mulgrew and the UFT leadership listen to the voices of their rank-and-file members, reconsider their opposition to Congestion Pricing, and join the fight for a greener, more sustainable New York City. The health of our students, the strength of our public transit, and the integrity of our union depend on it.

Lessons from the Boeing Strike: Why Opposition Groups Are the Key to Revitalizing Teacher Unions

The recent Boeing strike didn’t just make headlines for its powerful stand on wages and working conditions—it offered a model for how rank-and-file workers can take control, making union action more effective, democratic, and responsive to members. In contrast, public sector unions, especially teacher unions, have often struggled with stagnant leadership that, while well-meaning, may be slow to respond to evolving challenges. For teachers, opposition groups within unions—dedicated factions that actively push for more aggressive action and accountability from leadership—are increasingly essential. If teachers want unions that truly serve their needs, it’s time to strengthen these internal movements and take inspiration from Boeing’s rank-and-file approach.

The Boeing strike succeeded largely because of the power wielded by Boeing’s rank-and-file members, who pressed for more aggressive bargaining and refused to settle for weak compromises. The strike was ultimately driven by the workers themselves, not by distant union executives. This rank-and-file-driven power forced Boeing’s hand and made their demands impossible to ignore.

In the teaching profession, similar rank-and-file power often comes from opposition groups within unions. These groups push back against complacency, demanding real progress on issues like wages, classroom conditions, and respect for educators. By empowering these opposition factions, teachers can ensure that union leadership doesn’t become overly bureaucratic or lose touch with the realities teachers face daily. Without this internal push, teacher unions risk stagnating, stuck in cycles of weak contracts and timid negotiations that serve neither educators nor their students.

One of the reasons Boeing workers found success was because they refused to settle for less, even when it meant extending their strike and facing considerable financial pressure. For teachers, weak union contracts often result from leadership that may be hesitant to disrupt the status quo, opting for safer, more palatable agreements rather than fighting for meaningful change. Opposition groups within teacher unions play a critical role here by demanding accountability from leadership and insisting that members deserve better than incremental gains.

Opposition factions have already demonstrated their impact in recent years. In cities like Chicago and Los Angeles, grassroots-led movements within teacher unions challenged complacent leadership and mobilized members for stronger action. These factions pushed for contracts that addressed classroom conditions, school funding, and community support—issues that are often sidelined in favor of quicker, “safer” negotiations. The power of these groups shows that real change comes not from the top but from a strong, organized base that holds leaders accountable.

A key factor in the Boeing strike was the workers’ resistance to Boeing’s corporate power and influence over politics. This challenge to corporate control is equally relevant for teachers, who face well-funded lobbying efforts by privatization advocates, charter school networks, and those aiming to erode public education.

Opposition groups in teacher unions bring a fresh approach to this fight, often pushing leadership to adopt more aggressive stances against privatization and anti-union political agendas. They’re essential for countering the “reform” movements that aim to weaken unions and strip teachers of their rights. By standing firm against these influences, opposition factions can ensure that unions don’t become mere bureaucratic bodies but remain vibrant, fighting forces that prioritize public education over private profit.

One of the strategies that helped Boeing workers succeed was their ability to frame their demands as part of a broader struggle for dignity and corporate accountability—gaining public support in the process. Teachers’ opposition groups within unions have similarly worked to align their demands with the needs of their communities, framing issues like class sizes, school funding, and teacher pay as crucial to student success. This connection builds alliances with parents, students, and community organizations, creating a coalition that’s harder for school boards and politicians to ignore.

Where traditional union leadership may be cautious in pushing for community involvement, opposition groups have been the ones to lead the charge, highlighting the importance of classroom conditions and adequate funding. These groups understand that the struggles of teachers are tied to the quality of public education overall, making them more willing to engage in bold action and coalition-building that includes the communities they serve.

In the Boeing strike, the strength of the rank and file ensured that union leadership stayed in line with the members’ demands. Within teacher unions, opposition groups serve this role, holding leadership accountable and pushing back against any signs of compromise or stagnation. Without these internal movements, union leaders can become insulated from the day-to-day challenges facing teachers, prioritizing safe but weak agreements over the bold demands that members need.

Opposition groups are the mechanism through which teachers’ voices are amplified, and they make it clear that union leadership works for them, not the other way around. By challenging leadership to be more responsive and transparent, opposition groups ensure that union priorities align with the needs of teachers, not with preserving bureaucratic stability.

The Boeing strike demonstrated what’s possible when workers take control of their unions and demand real change. For teachers and public sector workers, the power of internal opposition groups offers a similar path forward. These groups are not divisive; rather, they are essential for fostering vibrant, responsive unions that can fight effectively for the rights of their members and the quality of public education.

Without the pressure from opposition groups, teacher unions risk becoming slow-moving organizations that settle for “good enough” contracts and shy away from hard battles. But with strong internal movements that challenge leadership, teacher unions can become true engines of change. In an era when labor rights and public education are increasingly under attack, building this kind of internal strength isn’t just beneficial—it’s necessary. As Boeing’s workers have shown, only a unified, empowered rank and file can win the gains that truly matter. For teachers, the message is clear: real change begins from within.