The American School Board Journal1 (October 1958) referred to "a great deal of misinformation, miscalculations, and wrong assumptions furnished the American people by such agencies as the U.S. Office of Education and the National Education Association and others repeating a common line." The journal later again mentioned "*** the amazing amount of misinformation, guesses, wrong assumptions, noncomparable statistics, and loose statements that have been furnished by highly respected educational authorities, and the way propaganda slogans and assumptions are taken up by these same authorities. The kind of information the citizens generally and the ordinary members of the profession receive it, unfortunately, not always reliable." The case for Federal aid to schools is commonly based on the assertion that the schools are understaffed, underhoused, and underfinanced and that States and local governments are unable to provide the funds needed to meet the deficiencies. Certain shortcomings do exist in a number of States and communities, but their extent and magnitude have been exaggerated out of proportion. Great progress is being made in meeting the needs, and the States and communities are capable of continuing to do so. Crowded classrooms and inadequate school buildings can be noticed and evaluated far more clearly at the local and State level than in Washington. All the income and wealth that can be taxed by the Federal Government are located in the States and are subject to their taxing powers. The only major resource of the Federal Government which is not available to the States is the printing press-the power to incur unlimited deficits and to inflate the money supply. To be sure, the Federal Government can help in many ways to improve the capacities of State and local government to meet their requirements. Our present tax system is wasteful and inhibiting to economic growth. The Federal rate structure blocks tax avenues and preempts tax sources which would otherwise be open to State and local governments. Many Federal grants-in-aid for a host of social and welfare activities, in some instances, tend to divert State and local funds from educational to, perhaps, less important public purposes. A heavy burden is imposed in some areas by the tax exemption of more than $200 billion of Federal property holdings. Adequate payments in lieu of taxes for at least a part of these properties would be of some assistance. The Federal Government, acting through its Office of Education, could render invaluable help to States and communities by providing advice and leadership to boards of education which are trying to make fuller and more effective use of the available manpower and facilities. Great and largely unexplored potentials exist for making the educational process more efficient. Better utilization of qualified teachers, employment of technological tools, and methods of more economical school construction could help many communities copes with their school problems. The influence of the Office of Education could and should be exerted toward higher educational standards and a wiser use of resources. Here is a concise picture in four sections of the facts that bear on the problem of school support: 1. Investment in education 2. Teacher shortage 3. Classroom shortage 4. State and local fiscal capacity. 1. INVESTMENT IN EDUCATION The financial support of education in the United States has shown a rapid and consistent growth which is nothing short of phenomenal. Education is by far the largest item of governmental expenditure, next to national defense, and ranks among the country's biggest industries in terms of manpower, tangible investment, and income. The American people can be truly proud of this record-by comparison-with educational support in other countries and with the resources allocated to other sectors of our economy. The picture often presented, of neglected schools amidst an economy of plenty, and of foreign schools, including Russian, being more amply supported than ours, is worse than slanted. It is purely fictional. 1 Published by Bruce Publishing Co., Milwaukee, Wis., expresses the views and comments on the problems facing local and State school boards and their State and national associations. A few facts and figures may serve to substantiate these points: Expenditures for public education (including higher) have risen from $147 million, or 1.1 percent of gross national product,3 in 1890 to $16.5 billion* or 3.7 percent of GNP and 4.6 percent of national income in 1957-58. During that period, enrollment multiplied less than three times, prices slightly more than three times. These two factors (without any other consideration) would have called for a tenfold expansion of educational outlays. But educational expenditures multiplied more than 100 times. The cost per student in constant dollars multiplied better than 10 times. This enabled the schools to broaden their offerings, to lift themselves to higher levels and serve the greater variety of demands made by an increasingly complex society. The Nation now allocates to education more than three times as large a share of its product or income as it did in 1890. This amazing record was established while the international situation forced the country to boost its national security outlays from less than 1 percent of GNP to 13 percent of GNP. It is interesting to note that the increase in public educational enrollment roughly paralleled the growth rate of the total population of the United States-177 percent. Enrollment in nonpublic educational institutions rose 271 percent over the same period. Expenditures for all education (public and private) in 1957-57 exceeded $20 billion, the equivalent of 4.6 percent of GNP and of 5.6 percent of national income. Comparisons with other countries are difficult and seldom accurate because of differing statistical concepts and times of availability of comparable data. UNESCO published data for 1953 which seem to indicate that other countries allocate a smaller percent of their national income to public education." E.G., Great Britain 2.96 percent; France 2.25 percent; Canada 2.55 (1951); Germany 3.50 percent (1952). The statement has been made that the Soviet Union devotes a larger percent of its GNP to education than the United States. The U.S. Commissioner of Education has mentioned a figure of 10 percent, an Assistant Commissioner of Education even 13 percent. Statistical comparisons with the Soviet Union are difficult and not always reliable. The Soviet Government's English language magazine, USSR (October 1958), reported that education receives 13 percent of the national budget (not of the national product). It listed expenditures for education at 78.9 billion rubles, including the Government-operated radio and TV systems, theaters, libraries, as well as political education. Converted at the ruble's reported purchasing power of 10 cents, Rusian expenditures for education may be stated at $7.9 billion. The Russian GNP has been estimated at 40 percent of the American GNP or about $176 billion. On this basis, Russia devotes 4.5 percent of its GNP to education-slightly less than the United States. On the other hand, there should be no doubt about the high commitment (at least for the moment) of Russian leaders to the full exploitation of Russian youth through state-planned educational processes. Educational expansion in the United States-1929-58 Many of the economic yardsticks and indices in the United States are available as far back as 1929. Therefore, comparisons will be shown starting with 1929 (school year 1929-30) and the year 1957 or 1958 (whichever is the most recent year for which the particular information is available) and the school years 1957-58 or 1958-59 respectively. 2 R. A. Musgrave and J. M. Culbertson, "The Growth of Public Expenditures in the United States, 1890-1948," "National Tax Journal," June 1953. 3 Department of HEW, "Social Security Bulletin," October 1957, p. 6. The Bureau of the Census showed educational expenditures in 1956-57 at $15.5 billion ("Summary of Governmental Finances in 1957"); the increase from 1956-57 to 1957-58 probably exceeded $1 billion. 5 UNESCO, "Financing of Education," 1955, pp. 283-284. Statement by Allen W. Dulles, Director of CIA, the New York Times, Apr. 29, 1958. It has been asserted that, attracted by higher earnings, trained manpower has been increasingly streaming into private industry—rather than entering the teaching profession. The record shows no such trend: 1 Employment in private industries, in public education. From Department of Commerce, Survey of Current Business. During that period, the population of the United States grew faster than enrollment in public education: 1 Population of the United States. From Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1958. Enrollment in public education, expenditures of the public schools in 1929-30. From National Education Association, Status and Trends, October 1958. We see then that employment in public education increased almost three times as fast as employment in private industry, and that the overall pupil-staff ratio in public education declined from 1:23 to 1: 14 during those 28 years. Additional statistics which follow show that between 1929 and 1958 (and, where 1958 data are not yet available, 1957) the public schools did better than private industry and personal consumption. 1 Private product, personal consumption, expenditures, civilian employment. From Economic Report of the President, 1959. 2 Enrollment in public education, expenditures of the public schools in 1929-30. From National Education Association, Status and Trends, October 1958. 3 Expenditures for public schools in 1958-59. From National Education Association, Estimates of School Statistics, 1958-59. IN TERMS OF MANPOWER 1 Private product, personal consumption, expenditures, civilian employment. From Economic Report of the President, 1959. Enrollment in public education, expenditures of the public schools in 1929-30. From National Education Association, Status and Trends, October 1958. 3 Expenditures for public schools in 1958-59. From National Education Association, Estimates of School Statistics, 1958-59. 1 Earnings of all wage and salary workers; teacher's salary, calendar year 1929. From National Education Association, Economic Status of Teachers, 1958-59. Teacher's salary, calendar year 1958. Computed by same methods as above (33 of school year 1957-58, 1⁄2 of school year 1958-59). From National Education Association, Estimate of School Statistics, 1958-59. IN TERMS OF CONSTRUCTION 1 Construction statistics. From Department of Commerce, Construction Review, Statistical Supplement, and February 1959. Simultaneously, enrollment grew proportionately less than the population of the United States. This does not mean that the funds were wasted. The schools have expanded their services and, in many respects, improved them. We want to state clearly and unequivocally that no conclusion is suggested or implied that too much money was or is being spent on the schools. Quite the contrary. We believe that even greater investments in education are called for in the years ahead, and that they will, if wisely applied, yield high returns to the American people. But the facts demonstrate that the schools are not, as has been charged, being discriminated against in the allocation of the Nation's There are, however, indications that even more funds would have been made available to the schools if the overall taxload for defense and other purposes had not risen so sharply. There are also some illustrations of States or communities which have refrained from greater effort because they felt that "free" money from Washington might soon be available. Further Federal financing, we are convinced, will invite further relaxation of effort by many States and communities. resources. Our tendency to increase funds for education more sharply than for other purposes can be gleaned from the testimony which Dr. Walter W. Heller, chairman, department of economics, University of Minnesota, presented to the General Education Subcommittee of the House Committee on Education and Labor and the Subcommittee on Education of the Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare in February 1959. Dr. Heller showed that between 1948 and 1957, GNP increased from $316.6 to $440.3 billion and public education expenditures from $7 to $15 billion (all figures in 1957 dollars). This equals an increase of 39 percent in GNP and of 114.3 percent for public education. Dr. Heller also showed an increase in GNP per capita of 19.1 percent. The simultaneous rise in educational expenditures per student (in 1957 dollars) was 59.2 percent. The fact is, as shown in the statistics of the National Education Association, that State and local expenditures for the public schools have increased an average of about $1 billion every year and enrollment increased an average of about 1 million pupils per year since 1950. School operating costs per pupil have approximately doubled (in constant dollars) every 20 years. 1 1959: National Education Association, Estimates of School Statistics, 1958-59. When considering future school requirements, it should be kept in mind that annual enrollment increases will soon start to decline. In recent years the number of pupils has risen an average of 1.3 million annually. By the second half of the 1960's the annual increase will average only 550,000. Thus the pressure of ever-growing numbers will not be as great. Whether per pupil costs will continue to increase at the rate at which they have been growing will depend upon the effectiveness with which teachers and facilities are used (and how much inflation we have in the general price level and in construction costs). 2. TEACHER SHORTAGE The statement was made in testimony before this committee, in February 1959, that 29 percent of our elementary teachers do not have a college degree. Some other pertinent information was not mentioned which appeared in a pamphlet, simultaneously published by the National Education Association, entitled "Fifty Milestones in the Professional Standards Movement." The pamphlet shows: 1 In 1937, only 5 States required 4 years of post-high-school training. The list could be continued, but the facts already cited disclose a rate of progress which is nothing short of phenomenal. The percentage of nondegree teachers in the public schools has been rapidly declining. Some, of course, remain who have been teaching for many years. Most of these probably have shown themselves to be good and effective teachers, despite the lack of a degree. No purpose would be served in dismissing them. Many have tenure. Few of the newly hired teachers lack a degree. An Office of Education study, "The Beginning Teacher, 1956-57," reveals that 86 percent of the beginning teachers had a college degree; further, that 88 percent of those with a substandard teaching certificate reported preparing for a standard certificate. |