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.

An Empty Win: How the UFT's Holiday 'Victory' Fails NYC Teachers and Families

In response to the press release by NYC Mayor Eric Adams regarding the new December 23 holiday for NYC public schools, it’s hard not to question the judgment — and perhaps even the priorities — of the United Federation of Teachers (UFT) leadership. The announcement, which touts an "extra day with family," seems like an appealing gesture on the surface, but when examined more closely, it reveals an unsettling level of superficial negotiation by the union. The real problem lies in how this decision exposes both the union’s inability to secure meaningful concessions and a willingness to bolster the image of an embattled mayor rather than hold firm on issues that impact teachers daily.

One key concern is what, if anything, had to be traded to secure this day. In negotiations, unions seldom receive benefits without conceding something in return — especially when they lack leverage. The UFT has chosen not to address what was given up in this case, likely because they prefer not to draw attention to the fact that substantial trade-offs may have occurred behind closed doors. Without any transparency from the union on these details, it’s fair to question whether the union leadership’s priorities are misplaced. Did the union give up valuable bargaining power or specific provisions from ongoing negotiations to secure a token gesture that benefits the mayor’s image far more than it does UFT members?

Furthermore, one could argue that this decision plays directly into the political theater Mayor Adams is staging. As he faces legal issues and criticism on multiple fronts, this holiday adjustment provides him with a convenient way to curry public favor without addressing any underlying issues within the NYC school system. By standing beside him, UFT President Michael Mulgrew is inadvertently lending credibility to Adams at a time when union leaders should be holding the administration accountable for its actions. This does nothing for the long-term gains for teachers or students; it only serves to make a compromised mayor appear proactive and responsive.

While an additional day off sounds like a win for both teachers and students, it’s a hollow one. This minor adjustment fails to address the core issues teachers continue to face, from class sizes and support staff shortages to classroom resources and pay equity. The UFT could have used this opportunity to demand tangible improvements for its members — changes that would make a lasting impact on the day-to-day lives of educators and students alike. Instead, the focus on "family time" appears to be little more than a smokescreen for a weak negotiation strategy.

Ultimately, this decision may come back to haunt the union in the long run. Teachers and union members rely on strong, assertive leadership to secure real benefits and protections. When union leadership fails to negotiate from a position of strength and instead collaborates on photo-ops, it sends a message of weakness. If the union cannot stand firm now, what faith should members have that it will stand strong in future battles? This "extra day off" has revealed just how much is missing from the UFT’s priorities — and just how little it has fought for what truly matters to its members.

Silenced Voices and Broken Trust: How the UFT's Leadership Fails Its Own Members

For many educators in New York City, the United Federation of Teachers (UFT) is supposed to be a trusted advocate, representing their interests in a system that often feels adversarial. However, frustration and disillusionment among rank-and-file members have grown significantly in recent years, fueled by what many view as the union’s increasing detachment from the issues its members face daily.

Rather than providing transparent, responsive support, the UFT’s current leadership seems more focused on maintaining its power and allegiance to the Department of Education (DOE) than on protecting teachers, guidance counselors, and school staff.

Here’s a look at how the union's handling of members’ complaints, questions, and essential advocacy has deteriorated, often with serious consequences for New York City educators.

One of the most basic ways members should be able to seek assistance is through the union’s helpline. However, teachers and other school staff members report that their calls are often met with robotic menus that seem designed to frustrate rather than to help. Michelle, a third-grade teacher at an elementary school in Harlem, recounts her recent experience: “I called the UFT for guidance on dealing with a principal who was routinely scheduling mandatory meetings during our prep periods, which I knew was against our contract. After navigating a maze of options and waiting on hold, I was finally routed to an automated message that ended up hanging up on me. When I finally reached someone on a second attempt, they told me to ‘speak to my district rep’ without any clear guidance on how to do that.”

This impersonal and ineffective phone system only serves to deepen frustration and anxiety among members who are already overwhelmed by their daily responsibilities.

Ideally, district representatives would be chosen based on their effectiveness, knowledge, and advocacy skills. But in reality, district reps are selected more for their loyalty to the UFT administration than for their ability to support members. Daniel, a science teacher from a middle school in the Bronx, shared how his district rep, though personable, seemed unprepared and uninterested in addressing his school’s concerns. “We’ve had issues with overcrowding and lack of resources for years, but our rep never seems to bring these issues up with union leadership. When I asked him directly, he just shrugged and said, ‘These things take time.’ It feels like he’s more interested in keeping his position than actually advocating for us.”

This practice has created a network of district reps who are loyal to union administration but often out of touch with the real issues teachers are facing, leaving schools and staff to fend for themselves.

When members approve a contract, they expect the union to uphold it. But for many teachers, contract violations by principals and DOE officials are rarely, if ever, challenged by the UFT. Maria, a bilingual guidance counselor at an elementary school in Brooklyn, described how her principal regularly asked her to work through her designated lunch periods, a direct violation of her contract. “I filed a complaint with the union, hoping they would step in, but I never heard back. A few months later, I learned that the union had apparently discussed my complaint with the principal—behind closed doors, and without my involvement.”

Maria’s experience is unfortunately common. Many teachers feel that the union’s leadership is more interested in appeasing principals and DOE officials than in upholding the rights of their own members.

Perhaps the most significant betrayal of trust is the way the UFT has negotiated away essential health and welfare benefits without members’ consent. In the last MLC negotiation (the body the UFT heads to negotiate health and welfare benefits), the union accepted a deal that increased out-of-pocket costs for many members and reduced certain healthcare benefits, including mental health services that have become crucial as the demands on teachers grow. Tom, a math teacher previously at Washington Irving High School, feels particularly disappointed: “We’re already stretched thin financially, and then they go ahead and make it harder for us to access healthcare. It feels like they sold us out to save a few bucks.” This lack of protection for health benefits, particularly at a time when they are so necessary, has left many members questioning the union’s commitment to their welfare.

Union leadership insists that delegate assemblies offer a platform for open discussion and democratic decision-making. However, many delegates report that these meetings are heavily scripted, with little opportunity for genuine questioning or debate. Joanne, a delegate from a school in Queens, described her frustration: “Whenever I try to ask a real question about our contract negotiations or the lack of support for our Chapter Leaders, I’m either ignored or given a canned response. It’s clear they don’t want dissent; they want agreement.” The lack of transparency and open discussion has created a stifling atmosphere, where dissent is quietly suppressed rather than openly addressed.

The union’s failure to maintain an organized structure within schools is another serious concern. Many schools are left without Chapter Leaders, making it difficult for staff to communicate effectively with the union or to advocate for necessary changes. Schools without Chapter Leaders often struggle with critical issues like unsafe working conditions, overcrowded classrooms, and a lack of resources. Sarah, a cluster teacher at an elementary school in Brooklyn, has been working at her school for three years without a Chapter Leader. “Without someone to represent us directly, it’s like we’re invisible to the union,” she explains. “Whenever I try to reach out for help, they tell me to go through my Chapter Leader—which I don’t even have!”

When it comes to negotiations with city officials, the UFT’s ineffectiveness has become glaringly apparent. Despite Mayor Eric Adams’ administration facing various corruption scandals and a revolving door of DOE leadership, the union has made little progress in advocating for its members. The lack of stability in the DOE should theoretically be a bargaining chip, but the UFT has failed to use it to its advantage. Instead, teachers feel the union is more likely to make compromises than to stand firm on important issues.

John, a special education teacher in Staten Island, put it this way: “It feels like our union is more interested in making nice with the Mayor’s Office than actually securing us a fair contract. Adams is indicted, his DOE leadership changes constantly, and yet the UFT is content with settling for weak compromises that don’t actually protect us.” This lack of strong bargaining only weakens the union’s influence and leaves educators feeling abandoned in the face of systemic issues.

The union’s behavior has left many teachers feeling as though they no longer have a voice within their own organization. As the UFT continues to ignore contract violations, script delegate assemblies, and sell out vital health benefits, members are increasingly left with one pressing question: who is the union truly working for?

If the UFT is to regain the trust of its members, it must start with accountability, transparency, and a renewed commitment to advocate for the welfare of educators. Without real change, the union risks not only the erosion of its influence but also the alienation of the very people it is supposed to represent. As long as the UFT’s leadership prioritizes loyalty, secrecy, and compromise over its members' needs, teachers and school staff will continue to be left without the support they deserve.

Crossroads for Change: Why the UFT Election is as Pivotal as a U.S. Presidential Race

by Rebel Teacher

The United Federation of Teachers (UFT) presidential election this spring represents a crucial turning point. Much like a national election, this decision is a referendum on leadership, direction, and values, one that will shape the future of New York City’s educators, schools, and students. For decades, the Unity Caucus has held near-total control over the UFT’s leadership, dictating its policies, priorities, and strategies. Yet, under Unity’s rule, many members feel the union has grown increasingly insular, self-interested, and unresponsive to the needs of everyday educators. If this leadership is reelected, the UFT risks further disconnecting from its own members, leaving the very educators it claims to represent feeling unheard, unsupported, and disenfranchised.

Unity Caucus’s domination of the UFT has fostered a culture that prioritizes the maintenance of power over advocacy for change. Over time, this insularity has led to a fundamental shift in priorities, with Unity leaders focusing on consolidating their own positions rather than addressing the needs of rank-and-file members. Many educators believe Unity stopped truly caring about their struggles long ago, instead choosing to direct its energy toward securing its own influence within the union. As a result, the union’s leadership has grown increasingly detached from the challenges and frustrations experienced daily by teachers, counselors, and support staff in New York City’s schools.

If the current Unity-led leadership is reelected, members fear that the union’s lack of transparency and accountability will only deepen. Unity’s approach to communication has often been perceived as superficial, with meetings and announcements feeling more like public relations exercises than genuine efforts to address pressing issues. This pattern is unlikely to change with Unity at the helm. Instead, educators are concerned that Unity will continue to employ the same top-down methods that have stifled member input and prevented open, democratic engagement within the union. Without meaningful change in leadership, the UFT is likely to remain resistant to the kinds of structural reforms—such as transparent decision-making and member inclusion—that would empower rank-and-file voices and strengthen the union from within.

Unity Caucus’s self-serving approach has also fostered an atmosphere in which innovative ideas are either discouraged or ignored entirely. Union members who call for reform, suggest new strategies, or advocate for inclusivity often find their contributions unwelcome or dismissed. The centralized nature of Unity’s control over elections, committee appointments, and key decisions leaves little room for new voices to emerge, contributing to a stagnation that many members view as detrimental to the union’s long-term health. With Unity in power, this stagnation is unlikely to abate. Instead, the union’s leadership will likely continue down the same path, recycling outdated approaches and ignoring the demands of educators who want a stronger, more adaptive union.

Unity’s internal divisions have only exacerbated this sense of disarray. Reports of infighting within the caucus have emerged, revealing a leadership that is not only disconnected from its members but also divided within itself. These conflicts prevent Unity from presenting a strong, unified front, weakening the UFT’s ability to effectively negotiate on behalf of educators. With Unity reelected, this division is expected to persist, further diminishing the union’s bargaining position with city and state officials. As public education faces an array of external threats—from privatization and charter school expansion to standardized testing mandates and budget cuts—the UFT needs a leadership capable of unity, clarity, and vision. Instead, Unity’s internal discord compromises the union’s influence, leaving it ill-prepared to stand up for educators and students alike.

The Unity Caucus’s self-preserving behavior has also translated into an alarming detachment from the challenges that educators face on the ground. New York City teachers and school staff are navigating a range of unprecedented issues, including increasing class sizes, funding shortages, administrative burdens, and critical concerns about safety and working conditions. Yet, under Unity’s leadership, many educators feel that these realities are overlooked or dismissed. Rather than engaging directly with these issues, Unity has focused on preserving its control, leaving rank-and-file members feeling abandoned by a union that should be their strongest advocate. If Unity remains in power, it’s likely that these challenges will continue to be met with superficial responses, rather than the proactive and robust advocacy educators need.

In addition to lacking responsiveness to member needs, Unity has consistently failed to outline a clear, forward-thinking vision for the UFT. As the landscape of public education changes, the union must adapt to protect both educators and students. Yet, under Unity, the UFT has largely adopted a reactive stance, only addressing problems once they reach crisis levels instead of anticipating issues and preparing effective strategies in advance. Without a shift in leadership, this reactive approach is likely to persist, leaving educators without the proactive support they need in the face of mounting pressures. The absence of a cohesive vision undermines the union’s ability to inspire confidence and creates a sense of disarray, as members feel their leadership lacks both foresight and preparedness.

Ultimately, if Unity Caucus retains control of the UFT, the union risks becoming even more disconnected from its core mission: advocating for the welfare of educators and the quality of public education. Many educators are demanding a leadership that values transparency, inclusivity, and accountability, and that is genuinely committed to representing the interests of rank-and-file members. The UFT presidential election this spring provides a rare opportunity for members to make a choice—a choice to either continue down a path of stagnation, disunity, and self-interest, or to pursue a future in which the union serves as a strong, unified, and responsive advocate for its members.

Just as the U.S. presidential election impacts the nation’s future, the UFT election will determine whether New York City’s educators have a union that stands firmly by their side or one that prioritizes internal power struggles and self-preservation. The stakes are high, and the consequences of this decision will reverberate across New York City’s schools and communities. Members have a choice this spring: to either reelect Unity and endorse a continuation of the status quo or to embrace change and elect leaders who will commit to transparency, genuine advocacy, and a clear vision for the future of public education. The future of the UFT—and by extension, the future of New York City’s educators and students—hangs in the balance.

Survey Request - Please Complete

Hi Everybody, hoping your 2024-2025 school year is off to a good start! We're asking all UFT members, both in-service and retirees, to please complete the survey below.

The UFT General Election (where we vote for UFT President, UFT Secretary, UFT Vice Presidents, etc.) is coming up in May 2025. For the last few months, a group of educators and UFT members across the city have been meeting and working to plan for this election. We’re concerned about what is happening to our profession and our Union. 

If you are interested in  protecting your healthcare and pension, as well as your pay, benefits and working conditions, then please complete the survey below. 

After completing the survey, please send the survey link to at least three other UFT members that you know. Better yet, re-post the survey link on your social media account(s) and/or email the survey link to all your UFT friends and colleagues. We want ALL UFT members to be involved. 

The survey will take about 5 minutes to complete. All personal information you provide will be kept confidential. Let's work together to create a more responsive, more democratic, and stronger UFT. Thank you!

In solidarity,

Chad Hamilton
Special Education Teacher
P231K UFT Chapter Leader
District 75

http://survey.uftmembers.org

ICE Calls For a Unified Effort to Replace Unity Caucus and Bring our Union into the Modern Age

The Independent Community of Educators (ICE), a key advocacy group within the United Federation of Teachers (UFT) since 2003, calls on all UFT members, regardless of political affiliation or caucus connection, to join in a mission to replace Michael Mulgrew and his Unity Caucus and install a broad based leadership that genuinely fights for its members, broadens decision making in the UFT through democratic reforms, and gets tangible results in alignment with the priorities of its members. This effort may require the caucuses to at times restrain themselves from competing with each other to achieve this common goal. Let's build a united front where individuals within the UFT, no matter caucus or not, join in a common effort and aim at restoring a key tenet of unionism—being member drive .

As we witness the growing discontent among our ranks and the erosion our ability to meet the needs of our students and patients, it is clear that the current leadership has failed to meet the needs and expectations of UFT members or protect the people we serve. Our members deserve leaders who are not only committed to advocating for their rights but also capable of delivering meaningful and positive changes for the community as a whole.

In the wake of the historic victories in the Retiree and Paraprofessional chapters, we urge all members to come together and support this movement to bring about the leadership change that our union and our city desperately needs. We need leaders who will prioritize the well-being of educators, support staff, and retirees, and who will stand up to external pressures without resorting to intimidation or bullying tactics. In addition to a leadership that understands what unionism truly stands for and contributes to the elevation of all the people in the city whom we work with and serve.

ICE-UFT envisions a future where UFT leadership is transparent, democratic, and responsive to the concerns of its members. A leadership that fights for its members, instead of focusing on alliances with politicians and administrators that actively work against us. Our voices are being silenced by management and by our union which directly affects us and what we can provide to those who rely on our expertise. 

Our goals include:

Fighting for Members: Ensuring that all negotiations and decisions are made with the input of all members in the best interests of educators, nurses, support staff, and retirees in mind.

Ending Bullying by DOE and UFT Staff: Creating a respectful and supportive environment within our schools and union where every member feels valued and heard.

Achieving Results: Delivering on promises and implementing effective strategies to improve working conditions, compensation, and benefits for all members by activating our membership so they are empowered to advocate for the the conditions and systems that work for all. 

We believe that with new leadership, we can restore trust in the UFT and build a stronger, more unified organization that truly represents and advocates for its members and the people they serve.

We invite all UFT members to join us in this crucial effort. Together, we can bring about the changes necessary to ensure our union remains a powerful and effective advocate for educators, nurses and support staff  who contribute to and serve New York City and its citizens. 

A Victory for Our Voices, A Fight for Our Future: Healthcare on Our Terms

We did it! Michael Mulgrew's reversal on forced Medicare Advantage Plans is a monumental win for UFT retirees. This victory wasn't handed to us – it's the result of tireless grassroots pressure and unwavering resolve.

For too long, the narrative has been: the Union leadership makes decisions, we accept them. But this win flips the script. It proves that our voices have power. It's a reminder that we, the members, are the Union.

This victory exposes a crucial truth: the current leadership structure leaves retirees particularly vulnerable. The secret Medicare Advantage agreement is a glaring example. We need a fundamental shift to ensure our healthcare needs are truly represented.

Here's how we turn this win into lasting change:

Dissolve the Municipal Labor Committee (MLC). Their negotiations ran counter to our interests and shrouded in secrecy. We deserve better.

Demand real negotiations for health and welfare benefits. Every decision impacting our healthcare must involve our input and approval.

Eliminate conflicts of interest. Union-run benefit bureaucracies can prioritize their own agendas over ours. We need independent representation.

Separate retiree and active member healthcare negotiations. This removes conflicts and allows each group's needs to be addressed fairly.

Transparency, transparency, transparency! No more backroom deals. Every negotiation needs to be open and accessible to the membership.

The fight isn't over. We can't trust the current leadership to represent our best interests if they operate in the shadows. Let's harness the power of this victory, demand a transparent, member-driven approach to healthcare, and secure the benefits we deserve.

Together, we can build a stronger UFT that truly fights for ALL its members.

Press Release: ICE-UFT Demands Transparent and Efficient Ballot Count and Reporting Results by the American Arbitration Association (AAA)

New York, NY – The Independent Community of Educators within the United Federation of Teachers (ICE-UFT) is demanding that the American Arbitration Association (AAA) implement a transparent, efficient, and equitable ballot counting process for the upcoming UFT elections, including those for the UFT Retiree Chapter, Paraprofessional Chapter, and all other contested elections. ICE-UFT insists that all members, regardless of caucus affiliation, must be treated equally and provided with equal access to observe and participate in the ballot count and access to all data generated during the entire election process.

(See Education Notes for more background: Can AAA Competence, Management and Reporting Process be Trusted in UFT Elections?)

 

This demand follows numerous issues observed in previous elections, including inefficiency and delays on the part of AAA, frequent machine jams, and extremely limited observation opportunities for members. Additionally, concerns have been raised about private communications between the UFT officers, all members of Unity Caucus, to which others were not privy, and AAA, as well as delays in announcing results. During past UFT election counts, requests for school-by-school data were denied, with AAA stating that only UFT officials had access to those reports.

 

“Transparency and fairness are non-negotiable in our union elections,” said Norm Scott, spokesperson for ICE-UFT. “We demand that AAA conduct the ballot count in a manner that is open, efficient, and equitable, ensuring that representatives from all caucuses have the same opportunities to participate and monitor the process. Any deviation from this standard undermines the integrity of our elections and the trust of our members.”

 

ICE-UFT’s demands include:

 

1. Equal Access for All Caucuses: Representatives from all caucuses must have identical opportunities to monitor the ballot count and raise any concerns in real-time.

2. Transparency in Procedures: AAA must communicate and adhere to clear, consistent procedures throughout the counting process to ensure transparency.

3. Efficient and Accurate Counting: The counting process must be carried out with utmost efficiency and accuracy to reflect the true will of the UFT membership.

4. Access to All District and School Data: Full access must be provided to all district and school data related to the elections to ensure complete transparency.

5. Access to ballot process during the voting period: Regular reports on numbers of ballots received, a report on number of ballots that were returned due to wrong address, number of ballots returned past deadline of reception, modification of the 8AM due time in final date of return to account for late mail delivery.

6. Prompt reporting to all caucus election committee reps on day of the count instead of being told to wait for the official AAA report.

 

ICE-UFT emphasizes the critical importance of these measures in the ballot counts for the UFT Retiree Chapter, Paraprofessional Chapter, and all other contested elections.

 

“These problems have cast doubt on the integrity of the election process,” continued Norm Scott. “We cannot allow these issues to persist and compromise the democratic principles our union stands for.”

 

ICE-UFT’s call to action comes amid increasing concerns about potential discrepancies and biases in the ballot counting process. By demanding these measures, ICE-UFT aims to uphold.

 

This press release is intended for immediate distribution.

 

For more information or to arrange an interview with Norm Scott, please contact him at (917) 992-3734 or via email at normsco@gmail.com

 

**About ICE-UFT** 

The Independent Community of Educators within the United Federation of Teachers (ICE-UFT) is dedicated to advocating for the rights and interests of educators and supporting democratic practices within the union. ICE-UFT works tirelessly to promote transparency, fairness, and inclusivity in all union activities.