Bills to reduce class sizes have been a regular feature in the Oregon Legislature for at least 15 years. Everyone agrees Oregon wants smaller classes if we can achieve them.
Session after session, class size bills have nearly all been shot down, though, because the math is simple: Smaller class sizes = more teachers X additional money.
Without more money, the equation doesn’t balance.
House Bill 3652, which had a hearing Wednesday, March 5, would make class size and caseload mandatory parts of collective bargaining in all schools. It ignores the realities that have created challenging class sizes and caseloads in many schools.
If Oregon wants smaller classes and caseloads, schools must hire more educators. Simple math. Schools already spend about 85% of their budget on staff, and they have no way to increase their budgets beyond what is allotted by the Legislature. The only way a district can increase its staff numbers without additional money is by subtracting somewhere else.
“No one wants class sizes to be any larger than they need to be,” said my OSBA colleague Stacy Michaelson in testimony before the House Education Committee. “For school districts, when we’re bargaining, there is a limited pot of money,”
Not only does hiring teachers cost money, but classrooms cost money too. Many of our schools don’t have the space to add an additional classroom or the budget or bonding capacity to expand their facilities.
“No modest adjustment in the budget is going to account for the need for more classrooms,” Michaelson said. “That leads into a whole different conversation about the lack of funding for facilities in our state.”
Research shows that lowering class size is one of the least cost efficient ways to boost academic progress. Class size, though, deeply affects teachers’ workday. Too many students makes it difficult for teachers to maintain the learning environment and engage with individual learners’ needs.
Under the Public Employee Collective Bargaining Act, enacted in 1973, class sizes can be part of educators’ contract negotiations if both sides want to make it part of the agreement. In 2021, Senate Bill 580 A made class size and caseload mandatory collective bargaining subjects in Title I schools, which are schools with a high proportion of students from low-income families.
Proponents of the bill argue that making it mandatory in all schools is simply to ensure that a “conversation” takes place.
Making class size a mandatory bargaining issue raises the stakes well above a conversation. “Mandatory” means a union could demand to negotiate over class size and strike if the school district doesn’t agree to hard caps on student numbers.
“What this really amounts to is bargaining over workload,” Michaelson said. “And that’s an entirely reasonable conversation for the bargaining table, but to characterize these discussions as necessarily being about class size ignores the limitations the districts face.”
For smaller districts with only a few classrooms per grade level, their class sizes are based on enrollment. They can’t realistically change them. For larger districts, class sizes are often determined by need. Some subjects and some student bodies require lower class sizes and more teacher attention than others.
Mandatory bargaining over class size allows unions to force concessions on other issues, often revolving around extra pay for teachers with classes over a set cap. Negotiations will become more contentious, always with the threat of a strike hanging over everyone’s head.
“The end result of these bargained conversations in many places will not actually be smaller class sizes,” Michaelson told legislators.
According to OSBA testimony in 2021, Portland Public Schools included class sizes in its collective bargaining agreement, paying teachers more if their class sizes exceeded a set cap. Analysis of PPS spending showed that most of the additional payments went to teachers working in the district’s most affluent schools.
If we want all students to succeed, school districts need the flexibility to be able to direct resources where they are most needed.
Michaelson was joined in testifying against the bill by Morgan Allen of the Coalition of Oregon School Administrators.
“We do not have the funding system in place, or in many school districts the learning space, to reduce class sizes or add additional classrooms,” he told the House Education Committee. “Our members are concerned that the bill takes the focus off what school districts and educators should be most concerned about, which is ensuring that every student has the tools and resources to succeed.”
Teachers and other classroom professionals make a compelling argument that class sizes matter to their quality of work.
We agree. We would like to see the Legislature appropriately fund every school so they can make decisions to create optimal class sizes for all their students.
Making it a mandatory bargaining issue, though, will just force schools to redirect resources in ways that won’t always be best for all students. And class sizes on average won’t get any smaller.
– Adrienne Anderson
OSBA Government Relations Counsel
