Matthew Chingos and Ariella Meltzer of the Urban Institute published an essay predicting that New York City’s class-size reduction plan is likely to benefit white and Asian students most, thus adding to the inequities in the school system.
Leonie Haimson, executive director of Class Size Matters, has been fighting for class size reduction for years. She responds here to the Chingos paper.
Haimson writes:
Comments on paper by Matthew Chingos and Ariella Meltzer, “New Class Size Mandate May Reduce Education Equity in New York City”
The primary claim made in this paper is that lowering class size would inequitably benefit white and Asian students rather than Black and Hispanic students, who tend to have lower class sizes already in NYC public schools.
However, several points appear to undermine that claim:
- As much research shows, Black and Hispanic students as well as students in poverty tend to gain twice the benefits in terms of increased learning and non-cognitive skills from smaller classes compared to their peers. Thus class size reduction is one of only a very few reforms that have been proven through rigorous research to narrow the achievement/opportunity gap and represents a key driver of education equity;
- Only 8% of high-poverty NYC schools already comply with the class size caps in the law, according to the Independent Budget Office;
- The estimates in this paper in Table A2 project that Black students would see their class sizes reduced on average to 16.7 students per class, the smallest class size of any group, with Hispanic, low-income, and students with disabilities second at 17.3, a highly equitable outcome. English language learners would come next at 17.4. In short, all high-needs groups would receive smaller classes than non-low income students ( t 17.6), White students (at 17.7) or Asian students (at 18 students per class).
- Finally, the paper’s findings also show that English language learners students at the elementary school level are more likely than non-ELLs to have large classes even now, and thus would likely gain substantial benefits from class size reduction as well.
There will be challenges for sure, to ensure that lowering class size doesn’t drain more experienced teachers from the neediest schools, but this could be avoided by targeting high-poverty schools first for class size reduction, as the law requires.
In addition, there are several studies that suggest that class size reduction may lower teacher attrition, especially at the highest-poverty schools, so that in the long run, the effort may lead to a more effective, stable, and experienced teaching force over time.
Our questions are these:
- Why cite the IBO cost estimates of 17,700 additional teachers needed, of $1.6 to $1.9 billion annually while relegating DOE’s far lower estimates of 9,000 new teachers at $1.3B to a footnote? Did the authors decide one estimate was more authoritative than the other, and if so why?
- The authors also cite an early School Construction Authority estimate of $30B-$35B for capital expenses, yet the SCA has admitted that this was “a back of the envelope” estimate and now has been omitted from the DOE’s July version of their draft class size plan, as compared to the earlier version submitted in May.
1. https://classsizematters.org/research-and-links/#opportunity
3. See https://3zn338.a2cdn1.secureserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/FAQ-7-myths-6.5.22-update.pdf and https://3zn338.a2cdn1.secureserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Summary-of-Class-Size-Reduction-Research-NY-updated.pdf
4. May version posted here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gv9DZ6aENexWyzozVWV0SwhnlXLVVJ2a/view July version here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_BOYliiFZ5U7Q3q8gN6JRRIHgIf9j_Vp/view
Diane Ravitch's blog 
I haven’t followed this closely, but I have no idea how the city is going to afford this without cutting a lot of other stuff from schools.
LikeLike
Tax the rich! There’s an abundance of them in New York City.
LikeLike
What other stuff is more important than having well paid professionals teaching small classes? Class size must be a top priority, right up there with healthy food, clean water, and no exposed asbestos. What the city cannot afford is the executive salary of a charter organization with high attrition that drains resources from public schools in order to abuse its students with “no excuses” discipline and spends $13 million a year on marketing and hundreds of millions of dollars on expensive real estate.
LikeLike
amen
LikeLike
I don’t think the city can afford any of this. The budget gaps are going to be huge two or three years out when federal funding dries up. Education spending is already almost 40% of the city budget–around $38 billion a year, which is around $40,000 per student. With the budgetary realities, and a big shortage of qualified teachers, my expectation is that the city and individual schools will use every exemption they can to get around this mandate.
LikeLike
Well said. Politicians always find the money for what they want & use excuses like this fake equity argument by charter advocates.
I find it disgusting that Matthew Chingos and Ariella Meltzer of the Urban Institute would use class size disparities to drive a wedge between white, Asian & black students.
LikeLike
As a retired ESL teacher, I can confirm that smaller classes benefit ELLs. I was fortunate enough to work in a suburban NYC school district, and my classes were generally no higher than 18, except for my first year when I taught high school. The AP had mistakenly scheduled two classes in one small room, and I had over thirty students crammed into a tiny room for at least three months until the problem was resolved.
SIFE (students with interrupted education) ELLs from poor countries have many needs and require lots of attention. Smaller classes save time on transitions, waste less time on disruptive students, and allow the teacher to give the students immediate feedback. They also allow the teacher to more easily to create a responsive learning environment that gives these vulnerable students the attention they need to do their best. I have been an ESL teacher in K-12, and all ELLs at every grade level do better in smaller classes.
LikeLike
Data is (sometimes) important, but in many situations, like education, you really need to hear from those who are on the ground. Hi.👋 I’m on the ground. An ESL teacher who serves a full class of kindergarten ELLs (and other grade levels). Even if smaller class size would serve white and Asian kids – the shift would tremendously benefit students in schools like the elementary school where I teach in Newark New Jersey. The lead teacher in my class and I dream of a day when we will not have 27 or 28 students to teach so that we can increase our effectiveness. So that we can have more time for a more personal relationships with our students. More time for small group teaching. More time for accomplishing all of the goals that we (and the school and the district) have for our kids who have so much promise, but less opportunities and fewer open doors than many. I taught General Ed kindergarten for many years, and it’s the same situation. Once we got above 20, the dynamic changes dramatically. And the learning decreases.
It doesn’t take data to understand that the bigger the class size, the less effectiveness in the teaching and learning. Think about it this way: you are trying to teach students a simple math concept, like subtraction (which turns out is not so simple for kindergartners, because we are forcing concepts too early instead of waiting until the appropriate time when learning will come so very naturally, and will be a joy for students. Heavens no!) Would it be easier to teach subtraction to a group of four or a group of eight 6-year olds? It’s a simple as that. It’s almost insulting to think someone is positing this, that “decreasing class-size will benefit white and Asian students” without taking into consideration the giant benefit for ALL students. Whatever it takes guys!
Data schmada. Talk to us teachers! We are happy to weigh in.
LikeLike
Smaller classes increase efficiency by allowing both teachers to spend more time teaching and giving students greater freedom to learn. We both know that these students have no time to waste.
LikeLike
Class size reduction is beneficial for ALL students and teachers. Period. End of story.
Chingos & Meltzer are making a political argument based on cherry picked data to exploit a decades long reverse discrimination complaint by the GOP & right wing operatives. Ever since 1964 (gee what happened in 1964?????) the right has whined that affirmative action for blacks discriminates against whites in college admissions & employment considerations.
Using class size reductions as having reverse discrimination effects on whites & Asians is a new twist on that specious claim. Again, class size reduction benefits all students, from all segments of society, and with a broad range of abilities. Shame on the Urban League for allowing their name to be associates with this divisive propaganda.
LikeLike
Data is (sometimes) important, but in many situations, like education, you really need to hear from those who are on the ground. Hi.👋 I’m on the ground. An ESL teacher who serves a full class of kindergarten ELLs (and other grade levels). Even if smaller class size would serve white and Asian kids – the shift would tremendously benefit students in schools like the elementary school where I teach in Newark New Jersey. The lead teacher in my class and I dream of a day when we will not have 27 or 28 students to teach so that we can increase our effectiveness. So that we can have more time for a more personal relationships with our students. More time for small group teaching. More time for accomplishing all of the goals that we (and the school and the district) have for our kids who have so much promise, but less opportunities and fewer open doors than many. I taught General Ed kindergarten for many years, and it’s the same situation. Once we got above 20, the dynamic changes dramatically. And the learning decreases.
It doesn’t take data to understand that the bigger the class size, the less effectiveness in the teaching and learning. Think about it this way: you are trying to teach students a simple math concept, like subtraction (which turns out is not so simple for kindergartners, because we are forcing concepts too early instead of waiting until the appropriate time when learning will come so very naturally, and will be a joy for students. Heavens no!) Would it be easier to teach subtraction to a group of four or a group of eight 6-year olds? It’s a simple as that. It’s almost insulting to think someone is positing this, that “decreasing class-size will benefit white and Asian students” without taking into consideration the giant benefit for ALL students. Whatever it takes guys!
Data schmada. Talk to us teachers! We are happy to weigh in.
LikeLike
Reports show that administration numbers have increased 876 percent vs 7.9 percent for teachers, so it sounds like we need to cut the fat, which would allow the hiring of more teachers with better pay.
LikeLike
Let the teachers run everything in the schools except a) legal compliance and b) facilities.
LikeLike
The Urban Institute paper is a bunch of twisted gobbledegook. Leonie made imperative points refuting the muddled data, the dubious details. The overarching idea that a public school system must embrace, though, is that there can never be anything inequitable or undesirable whatsoever about unbreakable class size caps. When everyone has equal class sizes, it is the very definition of equality. That’s just basic math, folks. Equal equals equal. Everyone benefits. No one loses.
LikeLike
Previous work by Chingos shows his background is in writing non-peer reviewed white papers for privatization special interest groups & think tanks. He worked at CAP in 2011 & published stuff that takes Bill Gates arguments about class size (e.g., class size has little impact on improved learning outcomes) & makes it palatable for Democrats & progressive audience, who tend to prefer wonky data based information. Recall that Arne Duncan was Sec Of Ed in 2011. Do we need to explain the implications of that? I think not. https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-false-promise-of-class-size-reduction/
Chingos has also done presentations for The Pioneer Institute – a right/far right think tank that promotes charters & vouchers. Best yet, his work was highlighted by none other than The Federalist Society.
Bottom line- don’t take Chingo’s arguments or suggested education policy recommendations at face value. It’s lipstick on a pig.
LikeLike
One of the big obstacles to New York State passing foundation funding and finally acceding to the terms of the Campaign for Fiscal Equity was the resistance of “liberal” suburban school districts to seeing money flow to disadvantaged schools. The last “liberal” governor, Andrew Cuomo, was particularly resistant to this and thank goodness Governor Hochul finally went along with this, much to her credit. In any case Leonie has been making this point for years that small class sizes are a game changer as they are. I kind of wish we could have a more “progressive” left instead of a liberal one but as a public school parent and a member of a CEC I appreciate all that she has done, and yes, shame on the establishment Urban Institute here.
LikeLike
Only systemic interconnect interventions will mediate the effects of inequity on student learning. However, class size reduction is among the most essential components, benefiting all students. Class size reduction enables teachers the time to notice and address daily evidence of advances and gaps in student learning. Crucially, it enables students to be known and valued.
LikeLike
We were willing to spend billions, converted to trillions in today’s dollars, to develop a Marshall Plan that led to the political and economic stabilization of post war Europe to our benefit. Why are we unwilling to do the same thing for our citizenry through massive investment in schools that would lead to more stable and less dependent communities. Of course smaller class sizes, more teachers, and wrap around services would be more expensive.
What we are seeing now is that less investment in education and public services leads to a less connected and profoundly vulnerable society. We get what we pay for.
LikeLike