Smaller Class Sizes for Students and Educators Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Sen. Merkley, Jeff [D-OR]
- Committees
- Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Sep 28, 2026
Bottom line
The bill authorizes $2 billion in federal grants for the first year to help high-poverty schools reduce early elementary class sizes to 18 students or fewer, aiming to improve student outcomes and support educators.
What it actually does
This bill establishes a competitive grant program administered by the Secretary of Education to help local educational agencies (LEAs) reduce class sizes in kindergarten through third grade (early elementary grades) in their highest-poverty public schools. Grantees must develop evidence-based plans to achieve a class size of not more than 18 students per class in targeted schools, recruit and retain qualified teachers, provide professional development, and ensure adequate preparation time for educators. Funds can be used for hiring teachers, obtaining or renovating classroom space, and professional development.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that smaller class sizes, particularly in early elementary grades, lead to significant improvements in student academic achievement, especially for students from disadvantaged backgrounds. They contend that this bill would enhance the learning environment, allow teachers to provide more individualized attention, and improve teacher job satisfaction and retention by reducing workload and stress. Supporters also emphasize the equity focus, directing resources to schools serving the highest percentages of students from low-income families.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that while class size reduction can be beneficial, it is a very expensive intervention, and the funds could be more effectively used for other evidence-based reforms such as targeted tutoring, curriculum improvements, or teacher quality initiatives. Concerns may also be raised about the administrative burden on LEAs, the feasibility of recruiting a sufficient number of qualified teachers to meet the 18-student cap, and the availability of adequate physical classroom space, particularly in urban or growing districts. Some may also express concerns about federal mandates on local education policy.
The bill is concise and clearly written, making it accessible for a reader to understand its core provisions within a short timeframe.
Section 3(a)
Establishment of Grant Program
This provision authorizes the Secretary of Education to award competitive, 5-year grants to local educational agencies (LEAs). The purpose of these grants is to enable LEAs to reduce class sizes specifically in kindergarten through third grade (early elementary grades) within their public schools. This creates a new federal funding stream dedicated to this specific educational intervention.
Supporters argue
Proponents argue that establishing a dedicated federal grant program is crucial to incentivize and support LEAs in implementing class size reduction, which is often a costly but impactful reform. They contend that a competitive structure ensures funds are directed to LEAs with the most robust plans.
Critics contend
Opponents might argue that a federal grant program could lead to an overemphasis on one specific reform at the expense of other potentially more cost-effective or locally prioritized interventions. Some may also express concerns about the administrative overhead associated with competitive grant applications.
Tradeoffs
The tension lies between providing targeted federal support for a proven educational strategy and allowing local flexibility in addressing diverse educational needs with potentially different interventions.
Section 3(b)
Application Requirements and Class Size Target
LEAs applying for grants must submit an evidence-based plan detailing how they will reduce class sizes in early elementary grades in 'targeted schools' to not more than 18 students per class. The plan must also describe how the LEA will recruit, hire, prepare, and retain educators, including underrepresented populations, provide professional development, and ensure sufficient teacher preparation time. Applicants must also report current and goal class sizes.
Section 3(c)
Grant Award Prioritization
When awarding grants, the Secretary of Education is directed to give priority to local educational agencies that serve the greatest number or percentage of students from families with incomes at or below the poverty line. This ensures that the program's resources are directed towards areas with the highest demonstrated need.
Section 3(d)
Use of Grant Funds and Prioritization
LEAs must use at least 97% of grant funds to reduce class sizes in targeted schools. This includes recruiting and hiring fully certified teachers (general and special education), obtaining or renovating classroom space (capped at 15% of funds), providing professional development (capped at 15%), and developing feedback mechanisms for school working conditions. LEAs must prioritize targeted schools with the highest percentage of low-income students, followed by those with the highest average class sizes.
Section 3(e)
Reporting and Evaluation Requirements
LEAs receiving grants must submit annual reports to their State on their progress in reducing class sizes. States then forward these reports to the Secretary of Education. The Secretary, through the Institute of Education Sciences, is mandated to conduct an evaluation of the grant activities, assessing progress in class size reduction, student academic achievement, school climate (for teachers, students, and parents), teacher qualifications, professional development, collaboration time, teacher retention, and student discipline/absenteeism rates. The Secretary must then report annually to Congress.
Defines 'targeted school' as a public elementary school in the highest quartile of all public elementary schools served by the local educational agency based on the number of students eligible for free or reduced price lunch.
Section 2(4)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to define terms upfront, but its specific criteria for targeting funds are highly consequential.
Case for: Proponents argue this definition ensures funds are precisely directed to schools with the highest concentration of low-income students, maximizing the equity impact of the program where benefits of class size reduction are often most pronounced.
Case against: Critics might argue that relying solely on free or reduced-price lunch eligibility as the targeting mechanism might overlook other indicators of need or schools with significant, but slightly lower, poverty rates that could also greatly benefit from the program.
Estimated impact: This definition dictates which specific schools within an LEA are eligible for the program, effectively concentrating resources on the most economically disadvantaged student populations.
Requires local educational agencies to use grant funds for 'developing feedback mechanisms to improve school working conditions, including through periodically and publicly reporting results of educator support and working conditions feedback.'
Section 3(d)(2)(A)(iv)
Why it matters:It's a detailed operational requirement within a list of allowable uses, which is common. However, it represents a significant programmatic element beyond just class size reduction.
Case for: Proponents argue that improving school working conditions and gathering educator feedback are crucial for teacher retention and overall school effectiveness, which are essential for the long-term success of class size reduction efforts. Public reporting increases transparency and accountability.
Case against: Opponents might argue that this requirement adds an administrative layer that could divert resources or focus from the primary goal of reducing class sizes. Some might also question the utility or methodology of such feedback mechanisms.
Estimated impact: This provision aims to foster a more supportive and transparent school environment, potentially improving teacher morale and retention, which is critical for sustaining smaller class sizes.