The Flaws in New York’s Class Size Law
By Stephen Stowe, Community Education Council (CEC) District 20
(From author: The opinions and views expressed herein are my own and do not reflect the views and opinions of my employer)
I am a public school parent, serve on the CEC for District 20 (Brooklyn), and work in finance. Over the past few months I’ve spent a lot of my free time analyzing New York State’s Class Size Law and have identified the four biggest problems with the law:
Where the Class Size Law Falls Short
1) It is based entirely on only one academic study
The Tennessee STAR study shows statistically significant benefits to small class size. Specifically, the study shows positive effects if you reduce classes to about 15 kids and focus on grades K-3. STAR also noted gains for minority students and for those with weaker socio-economic backgrounds.
But the New York law inappropriately extends the results of the STAR study by applying class size caps to every grade, every school and to every cohort of students. Furthermore, the law calls for class sizes of 20-25 students whereas the STAR study determined positive impact at 15 students. There has not been significant additional research conducted on the benefits of class size at middle and high school. And class sizes of 20-25 are far less impactful than class sizes around 15. Furthermore, despite the fawning treatment accorded this one single study, numerous attempts to validate it since that time have fallen short.
2) It will exclude kids from some of the most popular schools and programs
I live in a high-performing district. Most of our classes and buildings are already at maximum capacity. The law will force our schools to limit enrollment, sending families to another school in another zone. If a parent was given a choice – stay in your zoned school with a 5 minute walk and a class size of 30, or travel over a mile to a new school with a class size of 23, I believe most would choose to stay at their local school.
Furthermore, many popular specialized programs (such as Gifted & Talented and bilingual education) will be forced to shrink the number of seats they can offer. If faced with the following choice – send your student to a G&T or bilingual education class of 30 or to a general education class of 23 - I believe most parents would choose the specialized program with a larger class size.
3) The benefits will be disproportionately felt by those who need it least
The law is unequitable. As New York City Public Schools data shows, 40% of the classes over the mandated caps are in the wealthiest quartile. Conversely, only 11% of the classes which exceed the caps are in the bottom quartile. If implemented, the law is going to increase spending per student in the wealthiest areas of our school system and reduce spending per student in the poorest areas. The same holds true for academic proficiency – most of the overcrowded classes are in highly performing schools.
4) It is very expensive.
Finally, the law is an unfunded mandate. And an expensive one. Do not believe State Senator John Liu and others who argue that the funding is provided through increased State Foundation Aid. It is not. All of that money has already been committed. It is currently funding teachers, materials and operating costs for this school year. The Class Size Law implementation has yet to begin. Any new spending will have to be cut from the school budget or raised in new taxes. The Independent Budget Office (IBO) estimates $1.6 – 1.9 billion annually in expenses, primarily for hiring new teachers.
I constructed an analysis forecasting costs and got an even higher total of $2.6 billion in new expenses by 2028. This will push the City’s projected budget deficits above levels seen during the Great Recession of 2008-09. Besides these operating costs, the law will require between $17 – 22 billion in school construction, over half of the City’s borrowing capacity. Notably, I did not include any additional costs for migrant services. In conclusion, it’s a really bad time to be burdening the City with massive new long-term obligations.
What Can Be Done?
We need to rethink the law.
There are many education interventions besides class size which show positive effects. Class size can be part of the menu. But there are numerous studies which acknowledge that class size reduction is one of the most expensive educational interventions (here and here). And our school system is a very diverse system and does not require a one-size-fits-all approach.
In the case of the class size law, the politics won the day. I was surprised to see the law approved by a margin of 59-4 in the State Senate and 147-2 in the Assembly. Many legislators whom I admire and respect voted for the law. I don’t fault them. These things often gain political momentum and legislators are extremely busy. Our political process is flexible. We can study, learn, adjust and amend.
There have been many months of consideration of the costs and benefits of the law. Candidly, I don’t believe we need such a law on the books in any form and would encourage our legislators to repeal it entirely. But if the law is to be amended, target it to classes and schools with higher academic need. Justify the costs by considering the expected learning benefit against the cost per student. And then consider alternative interventions using the same method. Otherwise, we will end up with yet another overbearing expensive mandate adding significant cost to our daily lives while providing uneven and inequitable benefits.