Why any DOE pause in reducing class size at this point would be inequitable and unwise

A pdf version of this memo is also posted here.

December 1, 2025

On November 13, 2025, three prominent advocacy groups, Ed Trust- New York, Educators for Excellence, and Robin Hood, each funded by Wall Street and wealthy foundations aligned with the corporate reform agenda, held a press conference, urging New York City to halt to all further efforts to lower class size. [1]

They based their argument on an analysis of the City’s FY26 class size reduction allocations, which they said showed that schools with the most Black and Hispanic students had received $200 less per student this year to lower class size than schools serving the fewest Black and Hispanic students, and that schools serving the most low-income students received $150 less per student than those serving the fewest.[2]

But this argument provides no reason for the city to stop efforts to lower class size and thereby deny equitable opportunities to those these students who need them the most, depriving them of the conditions they need for a better chance to learn.

Instead, it would seem to argue for the process to continue into next year and beyond, though more carefully targeted, to ensure that all schools, especially those with the highest number of disadvantaged students, are provided with both the resources and the necessary space to lower class size.  In other words, the DOE should move away from the current, voluntary application process, which has unreliable and uncertain results and allows only schools that already have the space at their current enrollment to request these funds.

After their initial attempt to call a halt to further reductions in class size failed,  Ed Trust issued another press release, with an altogether different and contrary claim: that since the highest need students already have small enough classes, any future funding for smaller classes would likely go to schools with fewer high need students and thus be inequitable. [3]

They failed to provide any of their own evidence for this claim but instead quoted the analysis in the DOE latest class size report that “Schools with the highest proportion of students facing economic need continue to have a higher percentage of classes at or below the class size caps. 78% of classes in schools in the highest quartile of economic need are at or below the class size caps, compared to 52% of classes in schools in the lowest quartile of economic need percentage of classes at or below the class size caps. “[4]

Yet this conclusion is based upon the misleading way in which DOE organizes quartiles  of school economic need, as we pointed out previously in testimony to the Council last February, and in the critique we sent to the DOE and the state last July.[5]  Because DOE insists on dividing schools into quartiles  according to their percentage of high need students, regardless of how many students they actually enroll, they bias the results.[6]

If schools are divided into quartiles according to their weighted need, meaning both their percentage and number of at-risk students, an entirely different picture emerges.  The State Education Department posts a list each year that ranks schools according to their weighted need, while requiring that districts allocate their portion of Foundation Aid called Contracts for Excellence accordingly, to ensure that this funding is equitably directed to students and schools. [7]

As shown in the chart above [click on it to enlarge], if NYC schools are divided into quartiles according to their weighted need, the results reveal that twice as many Black students, five times the number of Hispanic students, and more than five times the number of students in poverty attend NYC schools in the highest weighted need quartile than those in the lowest weighted need quartile.[8]

Yet fewer than half of the classes in the highest weighted need quartile met the smaller class size caps this fall, compared to 73.6% of the classes in the lowest weighted need quartile. In fact the higher the weighted need, the lower percentage of classes met the cap  in every quartile.[9]

This same trend can be seen in other high-need categories as well, including multi-racial students, students with disabilities, and English Language Learners – all of whom are enrolled in higher numbers in the highest need quartile, and yet their schools are the least likely to meet the class size caps, as seen in the chart above.

As the research clearly shows that disadvantaged students receive twice the benefit from smaller classes compared to the average student, this means that NYC must continue investing in class-size reduction efforts to ensure that these students receive the class sizes they need and deserve.

In order to accomplish this critical goal, DOE must work harder and smarter to provide the necessary space as well as funding for the 500 or so overcrowded schools that enroll nearly half of all students and yet do not have the room to achieve smaller classes at their current enrollment.[10] 

Last year, these schools enrolled at least 260,253 students in poverty, 64,761 students with disabilities and 58,895 English Language Learners.

Sufficient space can only be achieved by means of an accelerated and expanded school construction plan and by aligning the DOE’s enrollment policies with the class size goals in the law.

We are hopeful that the Mamdani administration will follow through and deliver on the promise of the class size law, by implementing a plan that reaches more students and lowers class size in a more equitable and efficient manner.

---

Endnotes

[1] https://www.nydailynews.com/2025/11/13/advocates-urge-nyc-schools-request-pause-class-size-caps-before-mamdani-takes-office/

[2] https://newyork.edtrust.org/new-york-citys-1-billion-crisis-education-leaders-urge-pause-on-class-size-mandate/

[3] https://newyork.edtrust.org/edtrust-new-york-nycps-decision-on-class-size-law-risks-equity-fiscal-stability-and-student-opportunity/

[4] https://infohub.nyced.org/docs/default-source/default-document-library/summary-report-11-15-25-final.pdf

[5] https://classsizematters.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/CSM-testimony-on-class-size-2.29.24.pdf  and https://classsizematters.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/CSM-letter-to-Commissioner-plus-comments-on-DOE-submitted-class-size-plan-7.28.25.pdf

[6] See figure 8 on p. 10 of https://infohub.nyced.org/docs/default-source/default-document-library/summary-report-11-15-25-final.pdf

[7] https://www.p12.nysed.gov/mgtserv/C4E/25-26-c4e/nyc-25-26-needs-weights-c4e.xlsx

[8] The chart reports a minimum of high-poverty students since the Demographic Snapshot only lists schools with 95% of students in poverty or more, and not the actual number.  We also used the latest data for this breakdown from the 2024-2025 school year. https://infohub.nyced.org/docs/default-source/default-document-library/demographic-snapshot-2020-21-to-2024-25-public.xlsx

[9] Class size compliance figures are from Table C of the FY 26 DOE report at https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1dmTCm3nf07Gede2drkzqOLkY6tC8TsuI/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=107290874378526852755&rtpof=true&sd=true

[10] https://infohub.nyced.org/docs/default-source/default-document-library/2024-2025-class-size-space-analysis-publish.pdf