City Schools Need Smaller Class Sizes, Too

Governor Hochul is stalling on signing a bill that would lower class size but upset NYC Mayor Adams

A bill that caps class size across the state is currently languishing in Albany. The need for it is higher than ever, as COVID continues to threaten public health, disrupt education, and amplify inequity. Lower class sizes—always a feature of schools that serve the rich—improve learning in several ways. They allow teachers to provide more support by dividing their time between fewer students. They also help retain teachers, and lower attrition rates lead to higher academic outcomes. In terms of safety, lower class sizes reduce crowding and thus allow for social distancing. Lastly, class size is an equity issue: 98% of other (whiter) school districts in New York State have class sizes lower than NYC. Black and brown kids—and their teachers—deserve small class sizes, too.

The bill, A10498/S09460, is far from perfect. Years of activism produced its best parts: class size would be capped to 20 students through the third grade, 23 from fourth to eight grade, and 25 in high school. There is however a 5-year phase-in, and possibilities for exemptions when issues arise from space, over-enrollment, students license area shortages, or “severe economic distress.” These delays and loopholes are an injustice. Albany had passed a (weaker) class size bill in response to a lawsuit back in 2007. The majority of NYC schools have enough space and money to cap class size at most schools now. Still, the bill has much-deserved support. It passed overwhelmingly in the state Senate and Assembly, and thousands have petitioned Governor Hochul to sign it.

Yet NYC Mayor Adams, and likely the Governor, oppose it. Hochul has avoided signing it likely because she’s calculated that, as governor, she needs Adams’ political backing. Hence she answered Adams’ plea to sign the bill extending mayoral control, despite the Mayor proving unable to make school governance decisions that are timely, or fully fund schools.

Adams justifies his opposition to the class size bill on grounds that it’s an unfunded mandate (it’s not). His Chancellor David Banks—painting the issue as a zero-sum game—has gone so far as to threaten (further) cuts to school workers, nurses, and critical programs if it’s passed. But the reason that’s closer to the truth is the one the New York Post editoral board gave:

That, too, would benefit the United Federation of Teachers, which stands to gain members when the city has to hire more teachers. Fortunately, that move failed, but watch for it to rise again in the next year or two, hitting the schools budget hard.

Class size is a priority for Adams insofar as it threatens his power. There’s no other way to reduce class size but to hire more labor. In NYC, this would mean more union members who through their enhanced power could mount a bigger challenge to the neoliberal efforts of a Mayor who’s addicted to absolute control over the school system.

Class size has unfortuantely failed to be a priority for the United Federation of Teachers (UFT), whose oversized bureaucracy is unaffected less by school working conditions than the salaries that produce its sustenance through dues. The last time class size caps were lowered in the contract was over 50 years ago. In 2010, the UFT did little to resist the city when it started ignoring an unofficial clas size cap of 28 in grades one through three. The union failed to hold the city accountable in its violation of the 2007 law to reduce class size. In 2019, the union negotiated an “expedited” process to resolve grievances over class size that was still drawn out and lacked enforceable directives. It’s become increasingly clear over the years that the union leadership’s outdated strategy of lobbying indifferent politicians is a failure. Its endorsement of Eric Adams was predictably misplaced, as well as last year’s advocacy in City Hall.

The UFT’s commitment to class size reductions must exceed Adams’ adamant opposition to it. This can be done through codifying class size in the contract. The UFT is set to bargain over class size in the upcoming contract negotiations, after its Delegate Assembly voted in the Fall that it work to amend caps (over the wishes of President Mulgrew’s Unity caucus who wished to pursue lobbying). Unfortunately these negotiations are closed, so the membership will find it hard to hold our union leaders accountable. Still, we can mobilize our co-workers to put pressure on a reluctant group of officers to bargain over class size caps. It’s the most likely way to finally win—and maintain—reduced class size.