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.