When Good Intentions Stall: Why the UFT Needs a Smarter Plan for Paraprofessional Pay
Good intentions don’t pay the rent or improve conditions. It’s time for a comprehensive, robust collective bargaining action plan and member-led ACTIONS.
In recent years, the United Federation of Teachers (UFT) has backed several well-meaning city legislative efforts to improve conditions for its members—from class size caps to financial bonuses for paraprofessionals (paras). Yet these proposals, including the now-stalled bill to provide a non-pensionable, non-guaranteed $10,000 pay boost to paras, often follow the same pattern: loud announcements, media soundbites, and union press releases—but little follow-through, and ultimately, no direct results.
It’s time to ask: Is this strategy working? And what’s the alternative?
Two Bills, Same Fate?
Let’s look at the facts.
In 2021, the City Council introduced legislation (Intro 2374-2021) to cap classroom capacity by increasing the minimum space per student—an indirect way to force smaller class sizes. The bill had overwhelming support on paper, with 41 co-sponsors, and lots of fanfare on our union social media, but it never came to a vote. Why? Because the city’s Department of Education and city budget analysts raised red flags about feasibility, cost, and legal authority.
Despite the then Education Chair of City Council, Mark Treyger, and City Council Speaker, Cory Johnson, supporting this bill at its inception, Johnson chose to not bring the class size legislation to the floor and it withered on the vine in December of 2021.
Fortunately, despite earlier calls for the UFT to also join lobbying efforts to simultaneously support state legislation to limit class size, in late June of 2022, the UFT finally latched on to the state legislation by state legislators, John Liu and Robert Jackson. This state legislation did pass and now is the mandate.
Fast-forward to 2024-25, and we see a déjà vu of sorts: the UFT backs city legislation (Intro 1260-2025) calling for a $10,000 salary increase for paraprofessionals, some of the most underpaid school employees in New York City. The bill was publicly announced and earned supportive headlines, but like the attempt to get citywide class size cap passed through the health code before it, it quietly died in committee.
No vote. Limited follow-up, no multi-pronged approach and sporadic organizing. No signs of an initial plan B, either.
Both efforts were ambitious, well intentioned, public-facing, but still feel —ultimately—symbolic.
Another similarity is that these two pieces of city legislation in 2022 and 2025 were announced in the midst of UFT general elections. This opened up questions and criticisms that UFT leadership was pandering to members for votes. Moreover, the current state class size legislation was pursued and passed after the May 2022 election.
These two examples share three fatal flaws:
No coordinated budget strategy to fund the initiatives.
No real coalition-building with parent groups, students, or community allies to generate broad pressure.
No pressure campaign tied to contract negotiations or collective action readiness to leverage real power by union members.
A Pattern of Performance, Not Power
These legislative stunts create the illusion of progress without delivering immediate tangible wins. They help the union leadership claim advocacy without risking confrontation. But for paras struggling to afford rent or buy groceries, symbolic victories don’t pay the bills.
The problem isn’t the goal. It’s the playbook.
Paras deserve more—much more. They’re educators, not sidekicks. They assist with instruction, manage classroom behavior, support students with disabilities, and often act as translators and social workers. Many are women of color working multiple jobs. A $10,000 pay increase isn’t a luxury—it’s overdue justice. But it’s undoubtedly not enough by itself.
That disconnect was laid bare at a recent UFT Delegate Assembly, where union leadership actively voted down a resolution calling for a comprehensive collective bargaining action plan—a step that could have finally laid the groundwork for a serious, union-wide campaign to win real raises and address a list of para concerns and needs. As reported in The Wire, the resolution was crafted with the needs of paraprofessionals in mind. It proposed that all of our union to coalesce to develop a clear, member-driven roadmap of escalating actions to build power, organize members, and apply pressure on both the city and the Department of Education.
But instead of embracing a strategy rooted in solidarity and organizing, UFT’s dominant Unity Caucus shut it down, offering no alternative plan at the time—and now, only rhetoric about city legislative “wins” that have never materialized. In 2023, they argued that our paras have it better than other paras in other states, that a recently published handbook for paras was a sign of progress and respect and that paras should develop their own plan, first.
Lest we forget, paras were never consulted in the decision-making process for this current plan to achieve pay increases through citywide legislation.
The message to paras is loud and clear: leadership is more interested in press conferences with predominantly paid staffers than in preparing for a collective fight with all members and stakeholders.
What Can Be Done Instead? A Real, Comprehensive Plan for Paraprofessional Pay
Here are three alternative paths to achieving fairer compensation for paras—ones that go beyond photo ops and press releases:
Push for State Legislation With Funding Attached
Rather than relying solely on the City Council, the UFT should be lobbying Albany to pass a state-funded minimum salary floor for paras across New York State. This could be modeled after how the state recently supported class size legislation. If Albany can enforce standards for class size, it can do the same for living wages for paraprofessionals.
We see such a push statewide in Washington state. (See Washington State Bill 2380)
Tie Paraprofessional Pay Raises to the Next UFT Contract
Instead of separating paras into a legislative silo, they should be central to UFT’s collective bargaining demands in the next contract campaign. This requires organizing paras to lead, mobilizing rank-and-file members, and being prepared to withhold labor if necessary. A well-organized contract fight could win real raises where bills have failed.
We also need a clear set of demands for the next contract fight, sooner than later, and a local Bill of Rights for our paraprofessionals.
Coordinate With Other Labor Unions and Parent Advocacy Groups
Paras don’t just need support from teachers—they need solidarity across unions, including DC37, and alliances with parents and student activists. Many parents understand that low-paid paras result in high turnover, classroom disruption, and a less supportive learning environment. The UFT should build coalitions that make paras’ pay an issue of community concern—not just union grievance.
Conclusion: Paras Deserve More Than PR
The failure of both the first class size cap bill and the $10K para raise isn’t just about politics—it’s about power. Until the UFT changes its strategy from legislative lobbying to organizing and escalation, paras will continue to be thanked and underpaid in the same breath.
Symbolic bills are no substitute for a real, comprehensive collective bargaining action campaign. Paras deserve better—and so does the movement to make our schools just, equitable, and worth fighting for.
It’s time to discuss a broader, member-led plan, Mr. Mulgrew. Transparently and in good faith.
Sit down with us all and let’s hear all the ideas of the rank and file. Admittedly, sword rattling and tokenizing by caucuses with competing claims about having done more for paras is not helpful either considering the plight of our hardworking, but woefully underpaid paras.
Let’s roll up our sleeves together as A UNION. All for one and one for all.
Nothing less than A LIVING WAGE FOR PARAS!