Oregon lawmakers, educators push to make class size and caseloads mandatory bargaining topics

Representative Leslie Munoz, sponsor of House Bill 3652, told the House Education Committee on March 5 that the bill would make class size and caseload limits a mandatory subject of collective bargaining in all public schools in Oregon. "This bill does not cost any money," Munoz said, adding that the proposal "gives educators the right to discuss this issue with their district and to advocate for class size and caseload."

The bill would expand a 2021 change (Senate Bill 580) that made class size and caseload mandatory subjects of bargaining only in Title I schools. Munoz and several educators and board members said that allowing bargaining conversations statewide would let districts and unions discuss how to manage workload and student supports within local budgets. "We cannot keep asking educators for feedback and discount their expertise when they share it," Munoz said.

Why it matters: supporters framed HB 3652 as a procedural change that requires discussion rather than mandating specific class-size limits or new spending. Lisa Bridal, a state representative and former classroom teacher, said the bill is about process: "This bill would simply ensure that conversations about class size and caseload will happen." Several educators testified they saw tangible benefits when bargaining produced local solutions — for example, Woodburn, a Title I district, negotiated class-size and caseload provisions and supports that have remained in place since implementation.

Supporters described classroom impacts and workforce effects. Kathy Cuffton, a bilingual reading specialist who bargained in Woodburn, said negotiated options included adding a full-time instructional assistant when kindergarten classes exceeded limits and using a teacher-generated formula to distribute speech-language caseloads. She said teacher attrition in her district fell from about 24% to 9.3% after those changes. Max Nazarian, a fifth-grade teacher and union vice president in Greater Albany, described a recent 22-day strike and said his bargaining team had been blocked from discussing class size in non-Title I schools under current rules. "No one should be put in that situation," he said of large, unsafe classrooms.

Administrators and district associations opposed the bill or urged caution. Morgan Nalin of the Coalition of Oregon School Administrators and Stacy Michaelson of the Oregon School Boards Association said many districts lack funding, space and flexibility to implement across-the-board class-size caps and warned that making the topic mandatory could increase the risk of strikes because it would become a negotiable subject that parties could lawfully strike over. Morgan Nalin added that in practice the 2021 law covering Title I schools has resulted in relatively few bargaining demands: "The vast majority of respondents reported that they have never been asked" to bargain under that law, the testimony said.

Local examples and tradeoffs were frequent in testimony. Amber Cooper of the Oregon Education Association described Greater Albany’s approach: the union negotiated a $500,000 class-size fund, a teacher–administrator committee to prioritize funds by need, and avoided overage-pay stipends in favor of structural solutions. In contrast, Coalition and school board witnesses pointed to multi-million-dollar overage payments in some districts and cautioned that mandatory bargaining without additional state funding could force districts to reallocate scarce resources, potentially reducing programs or school days.

The committee heard multiple accounts from classroom teachers and school board members about the learning effects of large classes, particularly for students with disabilities, emerging bilingual learners and young children in kindergarten. Venus Reeve, a special education teacher in Springfield, said some students lost the ability to attend general-education classes because teachers could not provide required supports in oversized rooms. "Had the teachers been able to bargain class size as part of their contract, they could have worked with administration to find other solutions to the budget constraints that would have kept all students' needs in mind," Reeve testified.

Where it stands: HB 3652 received extensive public testimony March 5 but the committee did not take a final vote during the session recorded in the transcript. Supporters asked members to advance the bill so that bargaining rooms statewide must at least discuss class-size and caseload issues; opponents urged that the Legislature address school funding and facility capacity before expanding mandatory bargaining topics.

The hearing included a mix of legislative sponsors, classroom teachers, union leaders, school board members and district association representatives who offered concrete examples and cited prior negotiations and local contract language as evidence for differing approaches and outcomes. The committee deferred further work-session action for future scheduling.