While we knew, in a general way, that the increased birth rate during and since the war would materially increase the need for schools, till now there has been no accurate forecast as to the size of the demand for school enrollments by grades during the coming years. The United States Census Bureau's forecast of population has been given in 5-year age groups; i. e., under 5, 5 to 9, 10 to 14, and so forth; and neither the Census Bureau nor the United States Office of Education nor the National Education Association had these figures translated into future school enrollments, year by year and grade by grade. The United States Census Bureau had no regular funds available to do this job, in spite of its importance. And so, the American Parents Committee paid the Census Bureau to prepare such a table which is reproduced herewith. It should be studied with great care by school superintendents, school board members, as well as by parents who are concerned about the education of their children and of the Nation's children. Note how the enrollments in the various grades increase as the "war babies" grow up. If you will study the percentages of change since 1947, in the lower third of the table, you will note, for example, that in 1951, only 3 years hence, the school enrollments will be up over 1947, 20 percent in the first grade, 27 percent in the second grade, 28 percent in the third grade, 18 percent in the fourth grade, and so on. Fifth grade enrollments in 1951 will not be affected by war births to any degree. In individual communities, future school enrollments may be higher or lower than the national average, primarily because of family migration. Consider carefully what effect the probable increases in enrollment will have on your community's schools. Do you have enough elementary schools to house this vastly increased number of children who will flood the elementary schools in the next few years? In 3 years (1951) it is estimated that total school enrollments will be approximately 2,400,000 more than they are this year. Eight years hence (1956) it is estimated that there will be approximately 8,000,000 more children seeking enrollment in the schools than this year. On the basis of reports to the National Education Association from 64 school systems in areas over 30,000 in population (Educational Research Service Circular No. 3, 1948), it would appear that present-day school building costs are running around $800 or $900 per pupil for elementary and secondary schools. Assuming an average cost of school construction of $850 per pupil, and applying this figure to the increases in school enrollment given above, this indicates that within 3 years (1951) $2,040,000,000 will be needed for new school construction and that within 8 years (1956), $6,800,000,000 will be needed, not counting the normal needs for the repair and maintenance of existing school buildings. And these additional schools will mean further increases in costs for teachers' salaries and for other school maintenance expenses. Certainly most local communities haven't the funds to finance the new school construction they will need. And very few of the States have enough taxable wealth to provide the needed money for their local communities. The Southern States, which have about one-third of the Nation's children and yet only oneeighth of the Nation's wealth, will be utterly unable to build the schools needed in their States. Even if your community is wealthy enough to build the schools that are needed and even if your community is in a State wealthy enough to vote State aid to its local communities, you must remember that there are thousands of other communities which are not financially able and which cannot obtain State aid for this purpose. For these communities, the only solution is a national program of school construction. The Federal Government has, for years, made grants to the States to build roads and has recently passed legislation appropriating hundreds of millions to construct local hospitals and institutions for the mentally ill. Why shouldn't Congress appropriate money for the construction of schools? Without an educated citizenry no country can prosper. Yet, unless much more money is appropriated for education by the Federal Government, as well as by State and local governments, millions of children in this country will have no chance to receive even a minimum of education, and illiteracy will increase shockingly. For the past 25 years, efforts have been made, largely under the leadership of the National Education Association, to persuade Congress to pass a bill providing for Federal grants to the States for elementary and high-school education. During the past session of Congress, a bipartisan Federal aid for education bill passed the Senate, but in the House of Representatives it never got out of committee and so could not be voted upon. This bill would have provided $300,000,000 for current operating expenses. It provided, however, that no money could be used for school construction. The main argument for Federal aid for education is the need to equalize educational opportunities throughout the United States. The least wealthy States of our Nation have proportionally the most children to be educated. In some States there are 50 percent more children per 1,000 population than in other States. If some States spent all their tax revenues for education alone, they could not support their schools as well as the average school of the Nation is supported. The people in the wealthiest State have five times as much taxable income per child as the people of the poorest State. Some communities spend 60 times as much on education per child as others do. It is all wrong to deprive children of a decent education just because they happen to be born in one of the poorer States, in which there is not sufficient wealth which can be taxed to maintain decent schools. In order more nearly to equalize the educational facilities throughout the United States, the Federal Government must exercise its power to tax wealth where it is and to assist the poorer States to provide education for the children where they live. The Federal aid for education bill, if and when it is enacted, will appropriate funds to the States to help them support their local elementary schools and high schools and will apportion the funds accordingly to the number of children, with the needier States receiving the largest amounts. The bill provides a minimum of support ($5 per child per year) for education in each State. Helpful as the passage of this bill would be, it would not solve the problem of where the money is to come from to build the new schools which are needed. The American Parents Committee therefore proposes that in the next session of Congress an effort be made to pass two school bills rather than one. Certainly the effort to get Federal grants to the States to assist in the current maintenance of elementary and secondary schools should be continued. But also there should be introduced a companion bill, to be known as the school construction bill, which would be similar to the Hospital Construction Act (the Hill-Burton Act) which was passed by the Seventy-ninth Congress. This school construction bill will provide that all funds appropriated by it would be used for new school construction and modernization. The funds would be distributed among the States by the United States Office of Education. Such a bill is now being drafted by the American Parents Committee and the committee will seek to have it introduced on a bipartisan basis in the Eighty-first Congress, which will convene in January 1949. It will provide for an appropriation of $200,000,000 for the first year, $250,000,000 for the second year, $300,000,000 for the third year, and thereafter as much as the Congress shall decide is needed. The money is to be divided among the States and Territories in proportion to the number of their children and taking into consideration other factors such as their taxable wealth. Those States and Territories with proportionally the greatest number of children and the least wealth would receive relatively more of the total amount appropriated. The educational agency of each State will distribute the Federal grants as it sees fit, in its sole discretion, to the communities within the State, but the local communities and the States must guarantee to provide the teachers and the maintenance for these new schools. One of the main reasons that the Federal aid for education bill (which would aid States to maintain and operate schools) has not been enacted is because of the argument that Federal support will lead to Federal control of education, which in turn will lead to abuses. We do not agree with this argument because the Federal aid for education bill specifically prohibits Federal control. Moreover, for years the Federal Government has made grants to universities and colleges and for home economics and vocational education. We have yet to hear of any complaints that the Federal Government attempts to control education in these fields. However, the Federal-control-of-education argument cannot be used successfully against the proposed school construction bill, inasmuch as it would assist only school construction and not the maintenance and operation of schools. Until January 1949 most members of Congress will be back in their home districts. That will be an excellent opportunity for school officials, officers of parentteacher associations and individual parents to see them, or write them, to impress them with the need for both Federal aid for the maintenance of elementary and high schools, and for the construction of much-needed new school buildings to house the vastly increased number of children born during and since the recent war. While every effort should be made to get Congress to pass both these school bills, no stone should be left unturned to get adequate funds for school maintenance and new school construction appropriated by local communities and by each of the States and Territories. Without question the major financial support for school maintenance and new school construction should come from local and State sources. Any Federal aid that may be obtained is merely supplementary assistance to meet emergency and special conditions. And so school officials, parent-teacher associations, civic and labor organizations and individual parents should energetically attempt to persuade their local and State legislators to appropriate sufficient money to maintain their schools adequately and to build the new schools that will be needed when the extra "war babies" grow up and go to school. Our current generation of children will be cheated if we do not provide adequate schools for them. Our industry will suffer because, as the United States Chamber of Commerce recently pointed out, the economic status of our people is directly related to their educational status. Our democracy will be threatened because good government depends upon an educated citizenry. CENSUS BUREAU'S FORECAST OF FUTURE SCHOOL ENROLLMENT BY GRADES YEAR 1 Elementary School Grades Total 6 7 8 School High School Grades Total High GRAND 4 School TOTAL 24,546,000 2 PERCENT CHANGE SINCE PRECEDING YEAR 26,549,000 2,337,000 2,093,000 1,674,000 1,451,000 7,555,000 34,104,000 Individual figures are rounded to nearest thousands. Percentage not shown when less than 0.05. UNITED STATES CENSUS BUREAU'S EXPLANATION OF THE ABOVE FORECASTS (By J. C. Capt, Director, U. S. Bureau of the Census) The forecast of school enrollment in the coming years is based on the estimated population of the United States for July 1, 1947. Inasmuch as this base population was estimated by adding current estimates of natural increase and net foreign migration to the population enumerated on April 1, 1940, it is not subject to any considerable revision. The number of survivors of the base population on July 1 of each year, 1948 to 1960, was computed by applying to the base population survival factors representing the proportion of the population at a given age expected to be alive 1 year later. Thus, the population under 24 years of age on July 1, 1947, was reduced by such survival factors to forecast the population 1 to 24 years old on July 1, 1948. The population 1 to 23 years old on the latter date was reduced similarly to obtain forecasts of the population 2 to 24 years old on July 1, 1949. This process was repeated until the forecasts for each year, 1948 to 1960, had been computed. The survival factors used were consistent with the assumptions of medium mortality employed in the preparation of the forecasts in our reports, Forecasts of the Population of the United States: 1945-75 (copies of which can be obtained from the U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C.). A detailed description of the medium mortality assumptions and a discussion of the considerations that support them is presented on pages 10 to 16 of that report. Since the forecasts include the survivors of persons born between July 1, 1947, and July 1, 1960, it was necessary to forecast the number of births for each fiscal year (July through June) of this period. The very high birth rates for the past few years have exceeded even the high fertility assumptions used in the printed report just referred to. We have, therefore, so projected the trend of annual births as to link by a smooth curve the actual number of births for the year ending June 30, 1947, with the original forecast of births based on the medium fertility assumptions for the year ending June 30, 1955. In effect, then, the new projections of fertility imply a higher level of fertility in the next few years than did the original medium rates but a more rapid decline up to 1955, after which the original rates and the revised rates agree. A detailed description of trends in fertility, including the medium fertility assumptions referred to above, is presented on pages 16 to 34 of the report. It has been assumed in preparing the population forecasts that net immigration of children and youths would be negligible for the period with which we are concerned. If there should be a substantial net immigration between 1947 and 1960, the forecasts now given you would be too low, not only by virtue of the immigrants themselves, but also by the addition to the population of their offspring. We feel that it is unlikely that net immigration will be very large, but it is difficult to make an accurate prediction of the amount. The forecasts of enrollment by grade were computed in three steps. First, the proportion of children at each age attending school was projected on the basis of past trends. All of the projections represent increases in the enrollment rate. The projected enrollment rate for each year of age was then multiplied by the forecast number of children of the same age. The sum of these results represents our forecast of the total number enrolled regardless of age or grade. Finally, the distribution by grade of the total forecast enrollment was computed partly on the basis of the forecasts of population by age, which were used to estimate the size of each entering class between 1947 and 1960, and partly on the basis of recently published statistics of the United States Office of Education showing the proportion of an entering class reaching each successive grade. Since our basic enrollment figures were for April, we have made all the enrollment projections also refer to April of the given year. There are, of course, seasonal changes in the enrollment by grade; and the figures for April are ordinarily somewhat lower than those for either the preceding or the following October, particularly in the younger ages. It should be emphasized that the figures we are giving you are rough estimates that should be used to forecast only the broad general trends. The projections assume that past trends will continue in an orderly fashion. Another war, for instance, would have a serious effect upon the trends. The estimates by age are more reliable than those by grade since they are influenced by fewer factors. The age estimates involving children born after 1947, however, are obviously weaker than those for older children. In applying the estimated percentage change in any area smaller than the United States as a whole, one should bear in mind that the future number of children can be affected positively or negatively by internal migration. |