The CoVid plague will certainly change our way of life, in many cases for the good. “The American Rescue Plan” foreshadows some changes that deserve to be institutionalized beyond the influence of the bill itself.

• Tax breaks for households with children from ages 6-17 ( $3,000 per child ) and under age 6 ($3600 er child)
• Financial assistance for Affordable  Care Act premiums and Medicaid supplements for the poorest.
• Earned Income Tax Credit for people without children
• Support for schools to decrease class sizes for social distancing and install ventilation systems

Republicans would gag at the suggestion that any of this financial support would endure beyond the next twelve months, the lifespan for some of the changes, but we would be obstinate learners if we did not notice the benefits of these and other lessons forced upon us by CoVid-19.

Potentially the best unintended consequence of the “American Rescue Plan” would be the institution of smaller classes forced by social distancing. Not that students should indefinitely remain beyond the six-foot periphery in the safe zone, but they would remain grouped in 15-20 students per classroom.

There is research to show the value of smaller class size, such as those collected studies by Stanford researcher Larry Cuban [https://smallschoolscoalition.org/important-research-on-optimal-class-size/ research on group size] and earlier studies by U of Tennessee researcher Helen Pate Bain for K-3 classes [https://www.studyinternational.com/news/school-classes-size-matter/], but class size studies are often contradictory.

[ For any wonky enough to read critiques of class size research, Cuban argues that classroom size studies typically compare classes with numbers between 20 and 30, and those are not the critical sizes that show effects.]

Classroom size studies often depend on standardized tests to prove effectiveness, and such tests are not designed to measure qualitative advantages of smaller classes. Having taught secondary English classes varying in size from eight to thirty-eight over twenty years, I have observed that every reduction of five students in class size reduces the tension and frustration from the lack of individual attention, the number of unmotivated students, and discipline problems, by noticeable degrees. These consequences are not measured by standardized tests, but it is intuitive that a lower student to teacher ratio in classes is better for both students and teachers.

Were it not for the cost, this public school reform would have been implemented long ago. Instead, many parents press their legislators for vouchers for public school students to attend private schools. Private schools offer a number of advantages, but the most critical is average class size. Among sectarian schools the average class size varies exactly from 16-20 students per class [https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/sass/tables/sass0708_2009324_t2a_08.asp].  In the more exclusive private schools the average class size would be smaller still.

So we know that class size will determine the quality of education, but we cannot afford it. Some public schools would have to double the size of their faculty to achieve the average classroom size of 15. They might have to build new schools or add on to old ones.  They might be expected to improve the school counsellor-to-student ratio as well. So the price tag is high.

Now comes the “American Rescue Plan” approved by three-quarters of the public [https://billmoyers.com/story/the-public-loves-the-american-rescue-plan/] with funds that address a crisis, but also recognizes enduring needs for the middle class, especially those who cannot afford private education.  What we may learn in the next year is that education works a lot better socially distanced, or actually with smaller classroom size. Students who have fallen behind or been traumatized by the isolation enforced by CoVid will find classrooms with fifteen students far more hospitable spaces. Teachers will find they can address individual students’ needs with more timeliness and with more patience than they could in the thirty- or forty-student mob. We will wish it could always be thus.

That’s when parents and school leadership should rise up and say “Why not?” Why not make all classrooms contain 13-17 students with an absolute cap of 20?  Why not expand school services and rehab buildings in every district, especially in high-poverty neighborhoods? Why not turn teaching into a growth profession, where conditions are attracting serious young professionals-in-training who were formerly intimidated by the overcrowded classrooms they thought they would face? If we can fund the enormous needs of infra-structure, why can’t we pay for the education of our children?

One source could be the controversial funding for state and local governments under the current CoVid legislation. If some states are finding it difficult to spend that money, there is an obvious target for it: hiring teachers and building schools.  It will be difficult to find a state or city that can not employ this funding in the growth industry of public schooling.  Schooling a growth industry? What  a concept!

Some have already begun to reflect on the usefulness of a year in quarantine in our homes, without reflecting at the scale of social improvement. We could experience actual school reform in the era following the CovId epidemic, if we implement the consequences of social distancing in our schools. We need just a year to see what’s possible and then ten years to prove that smaller class sizes will improve public schooling forever.