ÿ�ճԹ�

In an attempt to stop school closures across New York City, teacher unions took their case to the courtroom, highlighting a dispute that continues to shape school restructuring policies today. At the time, union members called the closure of 24 schools a “sham,” arguing it was used by city leadership to sidestep contractual protections for teachers. City officials maintained that the closures were necessary to raise academic performance, a rationale that continues to influence school turnaround strategies in New York City today.

The Plan to Close Schools

The school closure plan was initiated when the Panel for Educational Policy voted to close 24 underperforming schools, part of a broader reform effort that has since evolved into more targeted intervention models. According to reporting from NY1, new schools were slated to open in the same buildings that academic year, operating under new names and leadership. Teachers and principals working in those schools were required to reapply for positions, a controversial practice that has since been modified in later New York City Department of Education staffing policies. City officials estimated that only about half of the existing staff would be rehired, with the remainder replaced by new applicants.

Because the buildings would technically house new schools, officials argued that existing contractual obligations would not apply, a legal interpretation that has been challenged in subsequent policy debates. This allows the city to move forward with plans to get rid of ineffective teachers, replacing them with stronger applicants. The union has no intention of allowing this plan to go through unhindered, stating that the process is unfair to the teachers who are already in the city school system.

This archival video shows some of the speeches given by Panel for Education Policy members.

Heading to Court

According to , the United Federation of Teachers and the Council of School Supervisors and Administrators filed court papers with the New York Supreme Court to halt the closures. The ultimate goal of the decision is to force the city into arbitration on the closure issue and give the unions a say in the process. As reported by , unions argued the plan did not constitute true closures and therefore should not void existing contractual agreements.

“This is no secret to anyone in this city that what the mayor and chancellor are proposing to close these schools is a sham,” Ernest Logan, president of the principals’ union, told NY1. “These are sham closings, these are not closings. This was an attempt to go around collective bargaining. The chancellor is attempting to move out educators without going through the process.”

Michael Mulgrew, the president of the United Federation of Teachers, agrees with Logan. Mulgrew told NY1, “He has now crossed a line. It’s all about politics; it is no longer about education, the schools, the students.”

According to the New York Times, the unions sought a temporary restraining order to pause implementation of the closures. This would allow time for the arbitration process to begin. The unions have filed grievances with the Panel for Education Policy after the decision was made, and now they want their concerns to be heard before the proposal becomes a reality. Arbitration could have postponed the process by several months, which would put pressure on city officials who wanted to get the new schools open in time for the upcoming academic cycle. In addition, if the arbitrator rules in favor of the unions, the entire plan by the mayor and city officials to overhaul city schools would end up in a nearly permanent holding pattern.

This archival video offers another take on comments from members of the Panel for Education Policy.

The City Fires Back

New York City leadership at the time, including Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Chancellor Dennis Walcott, publicly criticized the lawsuit, reflecting an ongoing national debate over school closures and accountability that continues in 2026. In an emailed statement reported at the New York Times, Chancellor Walcott wrote:

"The U.F.T. and C.S.A. have shown that they would rather leave our students’ futures to the courts than do the difficult work of turning around failing schools and giving students the education they deserve. We had already begun preparations to open these 24 new schools the following academic year, training their leadership teams and holding productive meetings with the U.F.T. to begin the process of staffing the new schools. Sadly, today’s lawsuit could have damaging consequences for that process, jeopardizing the creation of exciting new schools with new programs, teachers, and leadership structures."

The city’s Department of Education stated it could dismiss teachers at closing schools and rehire selectively, a practice that has since been refined through updated labor agreements and policy reforms. The department adds that it is not obligated under any contractual obligations under Article 18D of its contract with the teachers’ union. However, the union said that the question of what constitutes a “new” school is the reason they are taking their complaint to court.

“These are not real closures,” Adam Ross, a lawyer for the U.F.T., told NBC New York. “The only thing that they’re changing in these schools is the identification number. It’s the same students in the same buildings, doing the same things that they would do otherwise.”

This archival video reports on another meeting of the Panel for Education Policy.

City officials disagreed, with arguing that union opposition prioritized job protections over student outcomes, a tension that remains central to school reform discussions today.

“Suing to stop closing schools which are leaving our children without a future says that your agenda is not to help children, it is some other agenda,” Bloomberg was reported saying at NBC New York.