amount is a difference not merely in degree but in kind. There has been a radical change in our whole conception of the scale of our national defense, and of its relation to whatever else the Nation does. We have gone through a smaller but a simpler change of attitude toward the public highways, having been compelled by the automobile to raise our effort to a scale of expenditures undreamed of in the horse and buggy days. "We have come into a time when we shall have to make a comparable change in our thinking about what we need to spend on education, what we believe we can afford to spend on education. At a very conservative estimate in the next 10 years we shall have to double the amount spent each year on the public schools. We shall have to go up from the $10 billion spent now to around $20 billion. "That is, as compared with the national defense, a modest amount of money. But it is still a large sum, and almost certainly it is too large if it has to be borne wholly or in the main by the States and localities. As we go into the matter closely there will be little doubt at the end of the argument that we have no choice as to how to finance the educational deficit. We shall have to turn to the Federal Government. For it alone has the capacity to raise the necessary revenues. "It goes without saying that we shall not solve our educational problems merely by spending more money. We shall not make the schools adequate only by putting up new buildings. We shall not solve the problem of the shortage of teachers only by offering more pay; we shall have also to give to the teaching profession the attractiveness and the dignity which in the American tradition it is supposed to have. "Though we cannot solve all the problems with more money, that is no excuse for failing to meet the gross, material, obvious deficiencies which can be cured and have to be cured with money. We shall never have the chance to solve the other and higher problems of our schools if we allow them to become more and more overcrowded, if we allow the teachers to become more and more overworked, if we allow the educational community to become more and more overwhelmed and discouraged. "The material and quantitative problems will have to be brought under control if we are to face lucidly and calmly and productively the problems of purpose and the problems of quality in the education of children for the modern age." It would seem highly undesirable to encourage States and local communities to borrow unduly for the purposes of school construction. Of all the fields where future development should not be mortgaged to the payments of debts incurred during the past, the field of education stands in the forefront. As Walter Lippmann said in the above article: "We shall never have the chance to solve the other and higher problems of our schools if we allow them to become more and more overcrowded, if we allow the teachers to become more and more overworked, if we allow the educational community to become more and more overwhelmed and discouraged." The future of our children is too important to the basic fiber of America to permit continuation of the present lag in providing adequate school facilities. We must not hamstring the potentialities of the future. That is why no approach should occupy our first attention but the grant-in-aid approach of Federal assistance. States and school districts have already made tremendous efforts to meet their school needs, and the figures presented herein graphically indicate that those efforts will continue. In applying Federal aid for school construction on a necessarily larger basis, it may be appropriate to consider an additional and supplemental form of aid by providing a program of Federal loans to assist States and local communities in building schools. But this latter approach clearly does not help to meet the urgent school capital outlay requirements in the manner provided by Federal grants-in-aid. There is no reason to believe that Federal contributions to State and local systems have been contrary to the public interest. Nobody can deny that adequate education for all who are educable, in this world of increasing complexity, is a crying need. That any substantial increases in Federal aid to education should continue to take the form of additional funds for construction, operation, and maintenance of public schools, payments in lieu of taxes, and for more and better science and technology should go without saying. Perhaps the greatest weakness in the overall American public-school system is the insufficient salaries paid to teachers in every category. Being confronted with the overwhelming problem of school construction, States and local communities have slighted teachers' salaries. Indeed, to lessen the State and local burdens with respect to school construction, operation, and maintenance would be to leave State and local school authorities with more funds for salary payments. To emphasize the tremendous problem faced by State and local school systems in providing and maintaining adequate school housing for the rapidly growing school population, I would ilke to refer to page 138 of the Report of the Statue Phase of the School Facilities Survey, published in December 1953 by the United States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Covering the public elementary and secondary school facilties in 39 States, existing facilities were examined. Dollar need for new construction and rehabilitation were calculated. From the dollar-need totals in the various States were subtracted the amounts available in those States for new construction and rehabilitation of public-school buildings. It was possible to present a rough comparison of the need in any State with the needs of the others by reducing to percentages the amounts lacked in the various States. Thus it was shown that 1 State lacked less than 10 percent of needed funds for capital outlay, 13 lacked more than 50 percent, and 6 more than 75 percent. For Michigan the figures pointed out that 23.26 percent of the funds for needed capital outlay were absent. Minnesota lacked 27.83; Ohio lacked 20.50 percent; Illinois lacked 44.96 percent; Pennsylvania lacked 54.07 percent; California lacked 29.77 percent; Iowa, 38.62 percent; and Wisconsin, 40.41 percent. Thus, a strikingly high percentage of the so-called wealthy States are short of the necessary funds for school capital-outlay requirements. And these figures only begin to tell the story. Six States lack more than seventy-five percent of such funds needed; thirteen States lack more than fifty percent. Add these difficulties to the increased birthrate and one can visualize the overwhelming impact that the problem of school construction, operation, and maintenance presents. Approximately 4 million new babies were added to the population during 1954. And all of this does not take into consideration population shifts. In 1952 it was estimated that a shortage of 312,000 classrooms existed in the Nation. The term "shortage" includes both obsolescence and overcrowding. Obsolescent school buildings include those that are substandard. It is calculated that 2 percent of currently satisfactory classrooms become obsolescent each year. In 1952 there were 967,000 classrooms in the Nation. About 174,000 of them were obsolescent; and about 138,000 additional classrooms were needed because of overcrowding. Thus there was a critical need of 312,000 classrooms altogether. A continuing obsolescence of 2 percent of the classrooms means that between 16,000 and 20,000 are needed annually in the course of normal replacement. The needed 312,000 classrooms to house 8,881,360 pupils as of 1952 would cost $10.6 billion. See Report of the Status Phase of the School Facilities Survey, December 1953, page 114, which shows a backlog of need as of 1952 of $10.6 billion, that of this amount, $5.9 billion could have been provided from applicable resources, leaving a deficit of $4.7 billion for all States. There are no data on the question relative to what districts have to pay higher interest because their bonding capacity is limited or if bonds have been voted up nearly to bonding limits. This question is not fully applicable except in States having no or only high bond limits. In attempting to present a fair picture of the difficulties that arise in meeting the classroom shortage, it should be pointed out that State reports show total debt but do not show bonded debt by school districts. Hence they do not give information on the number of districts that have exhausted all of their bonding capacity. One of the reasons the State totals do not reveal this picture is that local bonds are usually voted on local assessed valuations and surplus capacity in one district is not transferable to another district. S. M. Brownell, Commissioner of Education, United States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, stated in a release of August 29, 1954, that "Although our communities are building more schools than ever before in any single period of our Nation's history, the rate of construction will have to be nearly tripled if we are to keep pace with the number of children to be educated." Today there is an estimated shortage of 350,000 classrooms. To accommodate the growing numbers of children, to erase the estimated current shortage of 350,000 classrooms, and to take care of continued obsolescence, more than 600,000 public elementary and secondary school classrooms and related facilities will be needed during the next 5 years. It is estimated that 50,000 classrooms were built in 1952–53; 55,000 in 1953-54; and 60,000 in 1954–55. These figures truly dramatize the dangerously increasing backlog facing the Nation. Considerably more than 100,000 classrooms will have to be built each year to overcome the present crisis. It is not easy to cite an average cost of a classroom. In a publication of September 20, 1954, of the United States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Education, School Housing Section, titled “Data on School Building Unit Costs and the Consumption of Critical Materials in the Public Elementary and Secondary School Buildings Erected During the Controlled Materials Program, 1951-52," the authors, N. E. Viles and Ray L. Hamon, show costs that average about $33,000 per classroom on a contract basis. If construction supervision, sites, and equipment, and so forth, are added, these costs probably would have averaged around $36,000 or $37,000 at that time. The cost covers classrooms and related facilities. Future costs are unpredictable. Although data are not available to show the costs by regions of classrooms during the past 20 years, the following figures are indexes on building construction costs by the years mentioned. These are on the basis of one nationally known index. These indexes are rounded and are based on the 1913 base, that is, 1913 equals 100. The following table vividly illustrates the increase of expenditures for school capital outlay: Expenditures for capital outlay and interest by public elementary and secondary school systems, biennially, 1931-32 to 1951-52 1836, 454, 528. 42 was paid to school districts for school construction pursuant to title II, Public Law 815 during fiscal year 1952. This may apply, however, to expenditures made by the school districts in several fiscal years. Source: Statistics of State School Systems, Biennial Surveys of Education in the United States. Compare the last figure given for 1952, $1,477,332,000, with the 1952 need of $10.6 billion, and we see that there is only about one-tenth of the necessary expenditure for classrooms. Today the figure of needed expenditure is probably closer to $15 billion. The following table illustrates that the aggregate current expenditures from State and local sources for public elementary and secondary schools have been tripled during the past 20 years: Non-Federal current expenditure for public elementary and secondary schools: United States, and Michigan The following table indicates the overall expenditures for public elementary and secondary education. The existing expenditures are far short of the need. Expenditures for public elementary and secondary education for 1951–52 (actual) and 1954-55 (estimated) Current expenditures (including summer, adult, and evening schools)... $5, 752, 594, 000 Total.. 1,477, 332, 000 7,344, 236, 000 1 Tentative estimate, made in July 1954. This estimate should be regarded as minimal. 1954-55 (estimated) $7,070, 000, 000 11, 800, 000, 000 170, 000, 000 9,040, 000, 000 NOTE. The figures in this table include expenditures from all sources (local, State, and Federal). The figures for current expenditures include expenditures for summer, evening, and adult schools, as well as regular day schools. Data for 1951-52 are taken from the forthcoming ch. II of the Biennial Survey of Education; the figures for 1954-55 represent estimates by the U. S. Office of Education. The next table offers a projected figure relating to the aggregate non-Federal expenditure of State governments and school districts: Estimated non-Federal current expenditure for public elementary and secondary day schools for continental United States, 1951-52 to 1959–60 1 Percent of pupils enrolled attending daily equal 87.6 in 1951-52; assumed the same for subsequent years. * 1951-52: It should be observed that the estimated non-Federal current expenditure for 1951-52-$5,452,932,000-is not equal to the actual such expenditure for that year; namely, $6,195,018,000. By far the largest segment of State payments to local governments is for support of public schools. About 50 percent of all State intergovernmental expenditure in 1952 was for education, the amounts so provided being in excess of $2.5 billion. The term "State intergovernmental expenditure" is synonymous to the term "State payments to local governments." By definition, State intergovernmental expenditure involves the actual payment of money to local governments. It thus excludes State transactions or activities which benefit localities without involving flow of funds to local governments. In the publication, State Payments to Local Governments in 1952, State and Local Government Special Studies, No. 55, dated 1954, much valuable data was compiled by the Bureau of the Census, United States Department of Commerce. The following table, showing the percentage of distribution of intergovernmental expenditure by function, is taken from that publication, page 73. Observe that around 50 percent of all intergovernmental expenditure goes for the purpose of education. |