Page images
PDF
EPUB

Studies have shown that the future needs for facilities to accommodate the various grade levels of school population will be considerably different from what they are now.

Local financing of school construction by bond issues paid off from taxation on real property is traditional in the United States. However, in many localities financing of adequate construction by this means has become difficult or impossible because of the rapid increases in school population and in building costs, the transfer of wealth from "tangible" to "intangible" property, and other factors. Over a period of many years taxes on real property have yielded a frequently decreasing percentage of total revenue collections. Extension of the local tax base to incomes, and the like, for local financing of school construction has not proved generally practicable.

Over half of the States provide financial aid to local school districts for capital outlay. Increase of such aid might involve a reduction in State aid for the maintenance and operation of schools.

The creation in some States of school building authorities is a recent development. It remains to be seen as to whether such authorities constitute the final answer as to how State assistance should be given to localities for school construction. It is clear that they are not the answer for districts having assets too low to enable them to lease buildings constructed by the authorities.

Available data show great differences among the States in ability and effort to support public schools. In some of the States the per capita income and the income payments per child of school age are comparatively low. In some of these same States the ratio of school-age children to the adult, income-producing population is relatively high. The States which have low per capita or per pupil income and have large educational loads are sometimes referred to as "needy" States.

In 1952 income payments per child of school age (5 to 17 years) varied from $3,008 in the State having the least ability to $11,294 in the State having the greatest ability to finance all provisions for elementary and secondary education according to this measure. As indicated by the percentage of total income payments expended for schools from State and local sources, some States were making over twice the "effort" of others to provide adequate elementary and secondary education.

Arguments over the issue of Federal aid to school construction sometimes have involved the broader question of Federal aid to elementary and secondary education in general.

Among arguments advanced in favor of Federal aid to school construction are: (1) The provision of educational facilities is in part a Federal responsibility, because the preservation of our form of government and the promotion of the national welfare depend upon the adequate education of the whole Nation. (2) The principle of Federal appropriations for the support of education is firmly established. (3) There is a great need for a general program of Federal aid to school construction. (4) Traditional methods of financing school construction have become inadequate. (5) Partial discharge of the Federal responsibility in education through aid to school construction would be feasible, effective, and devoid of Federal influence over educational policies and programs.

Some opponents of Federal aid to school construction claim that: (1) Traditionally and according to the Constitution, provision for educational facilities is a local, State, and private concern. (2) Undesirable Federal control would develop in any such program. (3) There is not sufficient need for Federal aid to school construction. (4) Such Federal assistance would tend to perpetuate laws that hamper efficiency in State and local administration. (5) Our system of taxation could be revised to provide necessary funds from State and local sources.

Several kinds of formulas for distribution of Federal funds have been proposed in school-construction bills introduced within the last several years.

The flat-grant-per-pupil formula would provide for the allotment of Federal funds solely on the basis of school-age population. Under the 40-to-60 equalization formula the Federal funds would be apportioned to the States in direct proportion to their school-age populations and in inverse ratio to their per capita income payments. The Federal allotments would range from 40 percent of the total cost of construction in the State with the highest per capita income to 60 percent in the State with the lowest per capita income. The basic idea of the 33% to 66% equalization formula is similar to that of the 40-to-60 equalization formula. Under this plan the "poorest" State (of lowest per capita income) would receive a Federal allotment of double the amount the "richest" State (of highest per capita income) would receive per child.

Under the population-taxation formula, which has appeared in a few bills, half of the appropriated Federal funds would be distributed on the basis of population and half on the basis of certain specified Federal taxes collected in each State.

The formula proposed in the Emergency School Construction Act of 1954 (S. 2601, 83d Cong.), which was favorably reported in the Senate, would operate as follows, according to the committee report on the bill:

One-half of the appropriation would be apportioned among the States on the basis of the product of each State's school-age population and the square of its Federal percentage (based on relative per capita income, with a minimum of 33% percent for the State with the highest per capita income and a maximum of 75 percent for the State with the lowest and with other States ranging in between depending on their relative per capita incomes). This is the formula used in the Hill-Burton hospital survey and construction provisions (title VI) of the Public Health Service Act, although school-age population (the total population between 5 and 17, both inclusive) was substituted in the bill for the total population which is used in the Hill-Burton formula. The other one-half would be apportioned on the same basis but without squaring the Federal percentage. There would be a maximum of 5 percent of the appropriation on the amount any of the 48 States could receive as an allotment and a maximum of 2 percent thereof on the amount any of the Territories or possessions could receive as an allotment. A $100,000 minimum on any State's allotment would also be provided.

The Federal funds could be used to pay only 40 percent of the cost of constructing any project or, if smaller, $500 per child to be accommodated in the project. The remaining 60 (or larger) percent of the cost of each project must be derived from State or local sources.

Modifications of the principle of the Hill-Burton Act (which provides Federal aid for the construction of hospitals) constitute the formula provisions of some pending school-construction bills, including S. 5 (introduced by Senator Lister Hill and 29 other Senators) and S. 686 (introduced by Senator John L. McClellan and 23 other Senators).

There are various alternatives of congressional action concerning the issue of Federal aid to school construction. It is apparent that the Congress might enact no legislation or it might choose an alternative to school-construction assistance from several other kinds of legislation providing Federal aid to elementary and secondary education. The other forms of assistance might be (1) aid for the payment of teacher's salaries, (2) aid for teacher training, (3) aid for the operation of schools, or (4) general financial aid without stipulation as to

purpose.

Possible choices among different forms of legislation providing aid to school construction would include the following:

(1) Allotments from Federal sources of revenue might be made to all the States, or the Federal aid might be limited to needy States or localities, or to localities especially federally affected.

(2) The Federal allotments might be made either to States or to local school districts. There seems to be a preponderance of advantages to be gained from allotment to the States. One of these is that the Federal Government can evaluate State potential ability on the basis of income. It would be difficult, if not impossible for the Federal Government to evaluate comparative needs and abilities of school districts in different States under different legal limitations.

(3) Provision might be made for the administration of the program at the Federal level through either the Office of Education or some other Federal agency. Administration by the Office of Education would have the advantage of utilization of that agency's long experience and established channels in administering other programs involving Federal, State, and local relationships in education.

59922-55-4

CHAPTER III. PUBLIC LIBRARY SERVICES IN RURAL AREAS

A. NATURE OF THE QUESTION

Within the last decade the question of Federal promotion of public library services in rural areas has been repeatedly introduced in Congress. Although the current proposal differs in detail from the original bill, the basic idea is the same.

As expressed in 25 bills introduced in the 84th Congress during January 1955, the proposal is that the Federal Government promote the extension of public library services in rural areas which are without such services or which have inadequate services of this kind.

It has been estimated that about 27 million citizens of the United States do not have access to a local public library. The principal aim of the pending bills is to promote provision of adequate public library services for these people. For this and related purposes the bills would authorize a Federal appropriation of $7,500,000 a year over a period of 5 years.

According to statements made by proponents of this legislation, the question is not one of Federal assumption of the responsibility for public library services heretofore exercised by the States and localities. The aim is to stimulate, through Federal grants-in-aid, both State and local interest and support in a vigorous library extension program. The expectation is that a small expenditure by the Federal Government, only for a limited period, will provide the necessary incentive to encourage areas without library services to acquire them.

1

Under the proposed program each State would receive an allotment of $40,000, plus additional funds according to the percentage relationship which the rural population of that State bears to the rural population of the United States. By thus taking into account the rural population of the State, the distribution formula recognizes the extent of the need for public library services in rural areas of the State.

To be eligible to receive the Federal allotment the State would be required to expend for the same purpose "that percentage which bears the same ratio to 50 percent as the per capita income of such State bears to the per capita income of the United States." Thus the formula takes into account the relative wealth of the States. However, the Federal share in no case could be more than 66 percent or less than 33 percent.2

To receive Federal funds the authorized State agency for public. library services must submit to the United States Commissioner of Education a State plan for the further extension of such services. The plan must provide for administration of the extended services by the authorized State library agency.

The plans may vary among the States, each plan being drawn to secure maximum benefit from the use of the funds within the State.

1 Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico would each receive $40,000; the Virgin Islands would receive $10,000. The Federal share for Hawaii would be 50 percent, and for Alaska, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands 66 percent.

« PreviousContinue »