The Push to Pause Class Size Didn’t Come Out of Nowhere — It is the Latest Move in a Long Anti-Union Playbook

The organizations urging a "pause" seek to preserve a status quo where private interests influence public policy, unions are weakened, and public schools rely on corporate-funded intermediaries.

New York’s class-size law is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to give the children of New York City the attention and instruction they deserve, but it is facing yet another manufactured crisis. The latest call to “pause” implementation comes wrapped in seemingly “reasonable” language: equity, feasibility, resource allocation, fiscal responsibility.

However, behind this “reasonable” façade is a group of organizations with long records of supporting policies that have attempted to weaken public schools and the unions that anchor them. These organizations are “pushing to pause” class size legislation just as students, their families, and educators are poised to experience the benefits of the class size legislation we worked so hard to achieve.

The truth of the matter is that their “push to pause” would force thousands of students who live in poverty to accept larger class sizes for years, and maybe forever. You don’t see these groups calling for larger class sizes in affluent suburbs. That is not a coincidence.

The groups leading this push, the Robin Hood Foundation, EdTrust–NY, and Educators for Excellence (E4E), pose as neutral guardians of educational justice, but are far from it. As education historian Diane Ravitch has long warned, these organizations function as billionaire-funded policy mouthpieces, advancing donor-driven agendas that consistently erode public education while presenting themselves as advocates for “equity” and “reform.”

The Players Behind the Curtain

Robin Hood Foundation, led by Richard Buery, promotes itself as a leading anti-poverty organization. Yet its support base is dominated by hedge-fund and corporate philanthropy. Its donors have spent years bankrolling initiatives that divert resources from neighborhood public schools to advance market-driven experiments designed to pad their pockets.

EdTrust–NY, backed by major foundations including Gates, Bloomberg, Bezos, Hewlett, Walton, and others, has positioned itself as an equity watchdog. A close look at its recommended solutions shines a light on the real priorities of its funders: technocratic interventions, privatization-friendly metrics, and policies that dilute the voice of educators in the name of “accountability.”

And then there is Educators for Excellence (E4E), headed by Evan Stone. E4E was built on the very funding streams that have fueled efforts to reduce teacher autonomy, expand charter footprints, and replace professional judgment with data dashboards. Gates Foundation dollars, Joyce Foundation grants, and historic support from the Walton Family Foundation make the organization’s priorities clear.

If anyone still harbors illusions about E4E’s intentions, they need only look at one of its biggest champions, its former board member, Dan Weisberg. For newer members, Weisberg was not just another policymaker. He was one of Mayor Bloomberg’s and Chancellor Joel Klein’s most reliable operatives in their long-running campaign against public education and organized labor. Weisberg built a career on undermining educators, and he was one of the loudest opponents of class-size legislation when the UFT fought to get it through the City Council. His record speaks for itself, and none of it speaks for teachers.

Although these organizations disguise themselves as grassroots groups, they are actually carefully curated instruments of a well-financed reform machine that routinely positions itself against public school educators while claiming to speak for them.

This Is Not About Students, It’s About Control

When these organizations urge a “pause,” they are not expressing concern for children. They are working to maintain a status quo in which private actors shape public policy, unions are weakened, and public schools remain dependent on corporate-funded intermediaries.

This is not a new pattern. It is the continuation of a decades-long project to assert influence over public education through philanthropic leverage and policy branding.

The Complication Inside Our Own House

What complicates this moment is not only the influence of outside groups, but the way their talking points occasionally find unexpected echoes closer to home. Internal caucuses, including ABC, have at times engaged with or amplified organizations whose broader aims sit uncomfortably far from the interests of public school educators and unions in general.

This is not to suggest that ABC is necessarily in direct alignment with the groups now calling for a pause on class size. But it is worth noting how easily external agendas can slip into our own conversations when internal politics become heated. What begins as a tactical gesture, a shared critique, or a momentary convenience can, over time, lend legitimacy to actors who have historically worked against the UFT and the values our members depend on.

This is not about motives, but rather it is about recognizing the subtle ways outside influence can seep in when internal factions look outward for leverage. And in those gray spaces, we must be cautious about who ultimately benefits.

The Organization That Stands for Public Education Is UNITY Caucus

At moments like this, clarity matters. There is one force in New York City that has consistently defended public schools, fought for smaller class sizes, secured stronger contracts, and protected the professional dignity of educators:

UNITY Caucus

UNITY Caucus has long stood firm against efforts to privatize our schools.
UNITY has resisted billionaire-funded initiatives that reduce educator influence and expand market-based reforms.
UNITY has strengthened the union, not fractured it.
UNITY has negotiated real improvements in teaching and learning conditions, not hypothetical ones in white papers funded by corporate donors.

At a time when outside groups are working harder than ever to divide, distract, and dilute the power of public school educators, UNITY’s role is not just organizational, it is essential.

The Stakes Could Not Be Clearer

New York City cannot afford another generation of educational policy shaped by private interests masquerading as reformers. Nor can the UFT afford to let internal political maneuvering open the door to actors who have never stood with educators, students, or communities.

The question before us is straightforward:
Do we stand with the well-financed networks that have tried to dismantle public education, or with the educators and leaders who have defended it for decades?

For anyone who believes in the future of our schools, the answer is UNITY.