Educators of NYC

How Respect Became Temporary: The UFT Respect Check Rewrite Last year, paraprofessionals were told the RESPECT Check would be built around a permanent Para Pay Index—a separate annual payment designed to begin closing the pay gap created by decades of pattern bargaining. Today? That promise has changed. 📌 The Para Pay Index is gone. 📌 The permanent recurring concept is gone. 📌 The latest amended bill is limited to the 2026–27 school year, with four installment payments and no automatic mechanism for continuing beyond that school year. Does that mean paraprofessionals shouldn’t support the bill? Absolutely not. Every paraprofessional deserves every dollar they can get in this current affordability crisis. But members also deserve honesty about how the proposal evolved—from what was originally presented to what is now before the City Council. This isn’t about opposing the bill. It’s about asking a simple question: When did a permanent solution become a temporary patch? What’s the more permanent solution? And how can it include all paras in its creation — not more top down decision-making? We compared the original UFT FAQs, every version of the legislation, and the latest amended bill. The timeline tells a story every paraprofessional should see before the Council votes. 👇 Read, judge the facts for yourself, and share. thewire.educators.nyc/p/the-newly-re… #RespectCheck #Paraprofessionals #UFT #NYCSchools #UnionDemocracy #FairPay #PatternBargaining #ALivingWage

@mathnerd9130 @SusanBEdelman @DOEChancellor The policy is inconsistent, incoherent and nonsensical

The Adobe rollout changes the context of the Chancellor's email. Principals were told to pause software purchases while AI guidance was being developed, but days later NYCPS rolled out an AI-enabled platform with generative AI features active. That makes it clear the policy isn't "AI is the problem." The real policy appears to be that AI is acceptable when it's centrally approved by NYCPS. If that's the case, the DOE should say so plainly instead of leaving principals to guess.

Last week, @doechancellor told NYC principals to "pause" the purchase of ed-tech software pending further guidance on the use of AI. Today, DOE HQ invited staff and students to use generative AI-enabled Adobe software to "create anything" such as images and videos.

On #TalkoutofSchool we discussed @nycmayor education record 6 months in w/@michaelelsonroo including class size, SHSAT, gifted program, curriculum, contracts, privacy, AI & more; take a listen! talk-out-of-school.simplecast.com/episodes/mayor…

And yet @NYCSchools keeps refusing to respond to @SpeakerMenin's request for copies of consultant contracts. Just think about how what can be done for our city's students with the consulting $ identified as waste.

The DOE's transparency problem keeps getting worse. I discuss the latest reporting from @SusanBEdelman, why I support @JulieMenin's push for answers, and why New Yorkers deserve accountability.

@NYDailyNews @DC37nyc @UFT More here on the battle waging between @UFT Mulgrew and @DC37nyc Garrido thewire.educators.nyc/p/a-war-inside…

Perhaps you can also speak to leadership of @DC37nyc who has many titles that are as underpaid as paraprofessionals. Lunch workers, early childhood, school aides. EMT seeking parity with FDNY. Were they lobbying FOR or AGAINST @UFT’s Intro 692-A as indicated in the NYC lobby search? The “repeal thereof”? Is the newly amended bill just the work of city lawyers or pushback by other unions who may feel slighted that collective bargaining is being pushed aside for just one group only? Rather than use their collective power in the MLC to push for action on ensuring a pathway for our city’s lowest paid workers in collective bargaining… are we watching internal in-fighting among the city’s largest unions? Why not speak to the rank and file?

Mayor Mamdani casts doubt on NYC Council plan to bolster pay of school paraprofessionals nydailynews.com/2026/07/13/may…

@cayla_bam and @NYDailyNews. Why are you perpetuating @UFT leadership’s talking points and misinformation about this bill? 1. There is zero internal mechanism in this bill that allows City Council or the mayor to reauthorize payments beyond August 2027, after it expires. 2. Section 5 of Intro-692-A says the bill is REPEALED if either the last of the payment is made or if a better deal is made in collective bargaining IN 2027. It reads: This local law takes effect immediately and expires… And is DEEMED REPEALED upon the payment of a workforce stabilization payment to all eligible school paraprofessionals, or upon the execution of a collective bargaining agreement or collective bargaining agreements that provide for an increase in the total annual compensation for all eligible school paraprofessionals equal to or greater than the amount of the workforce stabilization payments required pursuant to section two of this local law, whichever occurs first. Please report this accurately and not parrot the selective talking points of union leadership. Learn more here: thewire.educators.nyc/p/the-newly-re…

@cayla_bam and @NYDailyNews. Why are you perpetuating @UFT leadership’s talking points and misinformation about this bill? 1. There is zero internal mechanism in this bill that allows City Council or the mayor to reauthorize payments beyond August 2027, after it expires. 2. Section 5 of Intro-692-A says the bill is REPEALED if either the last of the payment is made or if a better deal is made in collective bargaining IN 2027. It reads: This local law takes effect immediately and expires… And is DEEMED REPEALED upon the payment of a workforce stabilization payment to all eligible school paraprofessionals, or upon the execution of a collective bargaining agreement or collective bargaining agreements that provide for an increase in the total annual compensation for all eligible school paraprofessionals equal to or greater than the amount of the workforce stabilization payments required pursuant to section two of this local law, whichever occurs first. Please report this accurately and not parrot the selective talking points of union leadership. More here: thewire.educators.nyc/p/the-newly-re…

Join us tonight @wbai at 7 PM EST when I'll interview @michaelelsonroo on the K12 education record of @nycmayor @zorhanKmamdani 6 months in. Share your views by calling during the show at 212-209-2877.

The paraprofessional RESPECT check legislation has officially landed on City Council members’ desks and is set for a full vote on July 16. Councilmembers recently announced these updates to our proposed bill: If passed, the RESPECT checks would: - Come in four installments of $2,500 starting in 2027. - Be issued Jan. 1, Mar. 1, June 1, and Aug. 1. - Be secured in 2027 and the City Council would be allowed to reauthorize them if needed. We’ve come a long way. Our goal has always been bigger than these payments. With contract negotiations coming up in 2027, this helps guarantee money for paras BEFORE a new contract is finalized while we fight to permanently raise para salaries at the bargaining table.

@clauirizarry @SusanBEdelman @C_Sommerfeldt @CityLimitsNews @TheChiefLeader @WorkBitesNews @petersterne @JulieMenin @CnDelarosa @EricDinowitzNYC @EricDinowitz @MichaelElsenRoo @Chalkbeat @Gothamist @THECITYNY @cayla_bam @katie_honan @madinatoure @NYCMayor @FDNYchic @nypost

How Respect Became Temporary: The UFT Respect Check Rewrite Last year, paraprofessionals were told the RESPECT Check would be built around a permanent Para Pay Index—a separate annual payment designed to begin closing the pay gap created by decades of pattern bargaining. Today? That promise has changed. 📌 The Para Pay Index is gone. 📌 The permanent recurring concept is gone. 📌 The latest amended bill is limited to the 2026–27 school year, with four installment payments and no automatic mechanism for continuing beyond that school year. Does that mean paraprofessionals shouldn’t support the bill? Absolutely not. Every paraprofessional deserves every dollar they can get in this current affordability crisis. But members also deserve honesty about how the proposal evolved—from what was originally presented to what is now before the City Council. This isn’t about opposing the bill. It’s about asking a simple question: When did a permanent solution become a temporary patch? What’s the more permanent solution? And how can it include all paras in its creation — not more top down decision-making? We compared the original UFT FAQs, every version of the legislation, and the latest amended bill. The timeline tells a story every paraprofessional should see before the Council votes. 👇 Read, judge the facts for yourself, and share. thewire.educators.nyc/p/the-newly-re… #RespectCheck #Paraprofessionals #UFT #NYCSchools #UnionDemocracy #FairPay #PatternBargaining #ALivingWage

@UFT @clauirizarry @SusanBEdelman @C_Sommerfeldt @CityLimitsNews @TheChiefLeader @WorkBitesNews @petersterne @JulieMenin @CnDelarosa @EricDinowitzNYC @EricDinowitz @MichaelElsenRoo @Chalkbeat @Gothamist @THECITYNY @cayla_bam @katie_honan @madinatoure @NYCMayor @FDNYchic @nypost

How Respect Became Temporary: The UFT Respect Check Rewrite Last year, paraprofessionals were told the RESPECT Check would be built around a permanent Para Pay Index—a separate annual payment designed to begin closing the pay gap created by decades of pattern bargaining. Today? That promise has changed. 📌 The Para Pay Index is gone. 📌 The permanent recurring concept is gone. 📌 The latest amended bill is limited to the 2026–27 school year, with four installment payments and no automatic mechanism for continuing beyond that school year. Does that mean paraprofessionals shouldn’t support the bill? Absolutely not. Every paraprofessional deserves every dollar they can get in this current affordability crisis. But members also deserve honesty about how the proposal evolved—from what was originally presented to what is now before the City Council. This isn’t about opposing the bill. It’s about asking a simple question: When did a permanent solution become a temporary patch? What’s the more permanent solution? And how can it include all paras in its creation — not more top down decision-making? thewire.educators.nyc/p/the-newly-re…