CHAPTER I. FINDINGS, CONSIDERATIONS, AND

ALTERNATIVES

CONTENTS

A. Findings from this study.

B. Elements of the issue.

C. Alternative courses of action.

The purpose of this chapter is (a) to provide the reader a summary preview of the findings from this study; (b) to set forth, in question and answer form, the principal elements of the issue; and (c) to point out alternative courses of action.

A. FINDINGS FROM THIS STUDY

It is impossible adequately to summarize in a few pages all the detailed material in this report. The other chapters contain much additional information which might be helpful in the consideration of existing legislative proposals, in the formulation of new ones, and in the ultimate legislative decision. A résumé of the principal findings follows.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND; PRECEDENTS FOR AID

When our Nation was young, Federal land and monetary grants for the support of eduction in States formed from the public domain gave impetus to the construction of schoolhouses. Throughout its history the Federal Government has provided school facilities on certain lands reserved for its own use. In recent decades Congress has appropriated large sums for Federal aid to school construction in periods of defense emergency and economic depression.

During the depression of the 1930's Federal aid to improvement, enlargement and construction of schools was provided through several Federal agencies. Such Federal aid amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars was distributed fairly generally throughout the United States. During the World War II period, however, such aid was limited to localities having swollen populations due to war activities.

From July 1946 until September 1950 no Federal aid was provided for the construction of local public schools. Public Law 815, 81st Congress, established a new program of aid to school construction in federally affected localities.

During the period from 1948 to 1954, inclusive, numerous bills proposing various forms of Federal aid to school construction were introduced. Some of the bills called for general Federal participation in financing the construction of schools.

LEGISLATION IN EFFECT AND PENDING PROPOSALS

The only program of Federal aid to school construction now in operation is that provided for certain federally affected school districts

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN LIBRARIES

under Public Law 815, 81st Congress, as amended by Public Laws 246 and 731, 83d Congress.

Other forms of Federal aid to elementary and secondary education now in effect include (1) aid to the support of vocational education under the well-known Smith-Hughes and George-Barden Acts and (2) aid for the operation of schools in certain federally affected school districts. Whether the national school-lunch program should be regarded as Federal aid to education is questionable. So are the arrangements under which some of the States receive part of the income derived from certain federally owned lands within their borders. There is no program of Federal aid to elementary and secondary education in general.

From the beginning of the first session of the 84th Congress to January 24, 1955, a total of 22 bills proposing some form of Federal aid for school construction were introduced. Two bills were introduced proposing Federal aid to elementary and secondary education in general.

NEED FOR SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION

The 81st Congress appropriated $3 million to remain until expended to aid the States in carrying out a nationwide inventory of existing school facilities and survey of the need for additional facilities. In December 1953 the United States Office of Education published its report on the status phase of the survey. The report contains exten sive data on the conditions of school housing and the need for additional facilities in the 43 States (including Territories and possessions defined as States) which participated in the inventory.

Projection of the findings from the survey concerning needs in the 43 States on the basis of relative enrollments led to the conclusion that in 1952 there was a nationwide need for 312,000 instruction rooms to house 8,881,360 pupils at a cost of about $10.6 billion.

Generally the report presented an impressive picture of grave need for improvement of existing facilities and construction of new school housing throughout the Nation. Over half of the buildings in the composite picture had only 1 room each; nearly half of all the buildings were approaching the final stages of their usability at an age of over 30 years; a third of all the buildings had been rated "unsatisfactory" by State and local educational agencies in 1952.

Little specific information concerning the need in States not par ticipating in the survey is available from published sources.

In November 1954 the research division of the National Education Association reported that the shortages in buildings and qualified teachers continue to deprive at least 700,000 pupils of full-time schooling. Within the last several years the Council of State Governments and the Architectural Forum have made estimates of need for new school facilities ranging from 440,000 to 770,000 classrooms by about 1960. The estimates of expenditures needed for new school facilities to about 1960 have ranged from $11 billion to $34 billion.

POPULATION AND SCHOOL ENROLLMENT TRENDS

Population increases in the United States since 1940 affecting the need for school facilities have far exceeded earlier predictions. Between 1940 and 1950 the increase was over 19 million persons. At

resent rate of growth the population will have grown to about million by 1960 and 221 million by 1975. Authoritative studies led to predictions of great changes in the age composition of the ation which will increase the need for school construction. tions in population growth within the different States and ns are expected to affect their relative needs for school facilities. e increase of enrollments in elementary and secondary schools. n the last several years has been phenomenal. The United s Office of Education has predicted a public school enrollment ase of over a million each year for the next 4 years. Census au projections have forecast a total elementary-secondary enent about one-third greater in 1959 than it was in 1952. Projecof enrollment by grades indicate that the needs in future years hool facilities to accommodate different levels of school populaprobably will be considerably different from what they are now.

LOCAL AND STATE FINANCING OF SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION

cal financing of school construction by bond issues paid off from ion on real property is traditional in the United States. Howin many localities the problems of financing school facilities by neans have been aggravated by rapid increases in school populaand in cost of construction, transfer of wealth from "tangible" tangible" values, and other factors.

e conclusion from a study carried out several years ago by the cil of State Governments was that "even when school districts roperly organized there is no direct relationship between the nt needed to construct school buildings and the ability to finance st of construction out of local resources."

es.

most States the problem of financing school construction by issues is markedly affected by constitutional or statutory limitadesigned to prevent school districts from incurring excessive edness. Extending the local tax base to levies on incomes et for local financing of construction has proved practicable only ulletin published by the United States Office of Education in ave extensive information on the existing programs of State nce for school construction. The study showed that provisions incing and administering the State programs vary widely. creation in some States of school building authorities is a recent ment. It remains to be seen as to whether such authorities ute the final answer to the question of how State assistance be given to localities for school construction. It is clear that e not the answer for districts having assets too low to enable lease buildings constructed by the authorities.

VARIATIONS IN STATE ABILITY AND EFFORT

able data show there are great differences in State ability and support elementary and secondary education in general. In come payments per capita of total population ranged from the "poorest" State to $2,304 in the "richest" State. In Come payments per child of school age (5 to 17 years) varied 008 in the State having the least ability to $11,294 in the State

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN TIRRARIE

having the gre and secondary

As measured income-produc educational loa

In 1951-52 schools from S 1.70 percent t total income pa Similar comp to meet capita capital outlay for capital outl the people for per pupil in significant.

ADMINISTRATIV

T

Several differ tion formulas h With respect have been of t former would e by educational government. made directly Finance Agenc In regard to five types. pupil; (2) a Fe to 60 percent according to th to each State 33% percent to tion program; construction ac principle of aid of the funds su the other half collected in eac

Most of the school construc the richest Sta granting aid of providing form About the best payments per o arbitrarily ass payments abov automatically e the basis of nee

If it is desired to introduce additional limitations which will further trict the granting of aid, and thus reduce the cost to the Federal vernment, actual grants may be conditioned not only on the fact need but also on whether or not a particular State is exerting at st an average tax effort on its own behalf, and is making at least rage school expenditures in relation to its per capita income. plying these last 2 restrictions, 10 of the so-called needy States are ow average in either tax effort or school expenditures in relation to ome, or both, and are thus disqualified. This would reduce the nber of States entitled to aid from 30 to 20. Various systems of ghting for the various factors can be devised which will change the ilt. Under one outlined in the text, 2 additional States would be ed to raise the total to 22.

ARGUMENTS PRO AND CON

rguments over the issue of Federal aid to school construction frently have involved the broader question of Federal aid to eleitary and secondary education in general. Following are some of arguments in brief.

roponents of Federal aid to school construction have contended

(1) The provision of educational facilities is in part a Federal responsibility, because the very preservation of our form of government and the promotion of the national welfare depend upon the adequate education of the whole Nation.

(2) The Federal Government is the only agency able to bring about nationwide provision of the necessary educational facilities. (3) The principle of Federal action and appropriations for the support of education is thoroughly and firmly established.

(4) A program of Federal aid to school construction would help reduce the great differences in educational opportunity existing among and within the States.

(5) It is unfair and disastrous to leave to the States and communities the entire responsibility for providing educational facilities, as is shown by several (stated) facts.

(6) There is a great need for a general program of Federal aid to school construction.

(7) Partial discharge of the Federal responsibility in education through Federal aid to school construction would be feasible and effective.

(8) Establishment of a general program of Federal aid to school construction would lessen the possibility of Federal control of education in the United States as is shown by several (stated) acts.

ponents of Federal aid to school construction have contended

(1) According to the Federal Constitution and traditions in he United States, provision for educational facilities is a local, State, and private concern.

(2) In any program of Federal aid to school construction, indesirable Federal control would be inevitable.

(3) There is not sufficient need for Federal aid to school contruction.

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN TIRRARIES