Princess Moss directs NEA to drop partisan ties amid federal education cuts

Princess Moss, who recently assumed the presidency of the National Education Association, is instructing the nation’s largest teacher union to sever its formal political alliances. The NEA represents three million teachers and public workers across all states. Moss intends to replace the organization’s traditional party alignment with an independent strategy focused on professional autonomy and community organizing.

The union faces a compressed fiscal and regulatory environment. Inflation continues to strain school budgets while a new federal education tax credit, effective in January, directs tax dollars to private institutions. Simultaneously, the current administration is dismantling the Department of Education. Moss describes this convergence of pressures as a direct attack on the foundation of American democracy.

Moss grew up in Spotsylvania County, Virginia, the daughter of two school bus drivers. Her career began as an elementary school music teacher in a neighboring county, a role she held for more than 20 years. She later led the Virginia Education Association from 2004 to 2008. During that tenure, she navigated a state government with a Democratic governor and a Republican-controlled general assembly. That experience informs her current push for cross-partisan coalitions.

The NEA’s historical political stance has been consistently left-leaning. The organization recommended Joe Biden in 2020 and issued a formal endorsement for Vice President Kamala Harris in 2024. Moss acknowledges this history but argues that the union must now operate as its own political authority. She cites her work in Virginia, where she built support for public education by focusing on student outcomes rather than party ideology.

Michael Petrilli, president of the Fordham Institute, views the shift as a major departure from the union’s long-standing identity. Petrilli has previously criticized teachers unions for maintaining rigid salary rules that complicate recruitment and for blocking structural changes in teaching. He notes that the union has been a stalwart supporter of the Democratic Party. With midterms approaching, Petrilli observes that many state-level races favor Democrats, placing the union in a strong position to influence education policy.

Moss argues that the union’s expertise should determine its role in policy discussions. She wants members to sit at decision-making tables by demonstrating their value through specific needs rather than partisan loyalty. The strategy involves telling members to articulate what their students require. This approach aims to isolate education policy from the broader political cycle.

The union’s new direction arrives as Democrats hold advantages in key state races. Petrilli questions how the NEA will wield its influence in these contests. He suggests the union will likely push Democratic governors to enact specific education reforms. Moss counters that her coalition will include any group prioritizing public schools, regardless of political inclination.

Moss’s three-year term begins against a backdrop of federal disinvestment and rising costs. The NEA will test its new independence in the coming months. The organization must translate its rhetoric of neutrality into concrete policy positions. Its success will depend on its ability to maintain member engagement while avoiding the pitfalls of past partisan entanglements.