Among the good news to emerge from the Oregon Legislature this week is the death of House Bill 4113, a high priority for Oregon’s biggest teachers’ union that would have made class size a mandatory subject of collective bargaining. The Oregon Education Association has promised to renew the push in 2019, pointing to the bill’s earlier passage in the House “with a strong bipartisan vote.”

Before addressing that supposedly strong bipartisanship, it’s worth considering the consequences of doing what the OEA proposes. Few would argue that large classes are, generally speaking, better than small classes. But shrinking classes even a little would be a hugely expensive undertaking with little guarantee that students would learn more, the Oregon School Boards Association argued in opposition to the bill. The OSBA represents school boards across the state.

In the Bend-La Pine district, for instance, reducing average classroom size by even one student during the 2019-21 biennium would require 28 new teachers and cost about $5.7 million in additional salary, the OSBA estimates. Shrinking classes by three students would require 85 new teachers and cost $17.6 million.

Nothing prohibits school districts from seeking to shrink classes, and many try to do just that. But they must allocate a limited amount of funding, most from the state, in the most efficient way they can. Where would they find the extra money to pay for smaller classes if HB 4113 were to pass? Would the OEA urge its members to work for less?

But then, the bill might be less about shrinking classes, the OSBA argues, than “requiring school districts to put into contracts expensive penalty clauses for class sizes that are beyond their control.” You know, more money for the OEA’s members, on whose behalf — and not on children’s behalf — the OEA advocates.

However convincing you find the OSBA’s arguments against HB 4113, elevating the contractual status of class size is clearly a complicated and expensive proposition. Trying to ram such a thing through a short legislative session is highly irresponsible.

Perhaps that’s why there was strong bipartisan opposition to the bill in the House. Yes, three Republicans did join most Democrats in voting for the bill. But a larger number of Democrats — four —joined most Republicans in voting against it. And let’s not forget that it failed to get a vote in the Senate, which, like the House, is controlled by Democrats. Now that’s bipartisanship.