were comparatively few among the graduates and even rarer among the dropouts. It should be recalled that these findings refer to the first job held by these boys; other data, of course, reveal that significant differences in occupational status between high school graduate and dropouts do develop as time goes on. Many counselors, however, can attest the relative importance assigned to the facts of immediate experience as against long-run considerations among young persons in the guidance process. Generally speaking, however, the graduate did much better in terms of earnings than did the dropout. Among the boys, we found that the proportion earning less than $40 a week was 16 percent among the dropouts, 4 percent among the graduates. Thus, four times as many dropouts as graduates were found to be at the lower end of the wage scale. On the other hand, the proportion earning $80 a week or more was 20 percent among the dropouts, 31 percent among the graduates-about one and one-half times as great among the latter than the former at the upper end of the wage scale. As is usually the case, earnings were generally lower among the girls than the boys, but the graduate-dropout differential was still as strong. Thus, 21 percent of the girl dropouts were making less than $30 a week-three and one half times the proportion (6 percent) earning this amount among the graduates. On the other hand, about twice as many girl graduates than dropouts (19 percent versus 9 percent) were earning $60 a week or more. 7. Finally, perhaps the sharpest difference of all among graduates and dropouts was found in the matter of unemployment. We found the following rates of unemployment among the school leavers in the various areas at the time of our interviews: Percent unemployed at time of interview In some of the areas we were able to probe more deeply into the unemployment experience of these boys and girls and found, for example, that the boy dropouts were averaging triple the amount of unemployment since leaving school than the boy graduates. While the boy graduates averaged from about 5 to 8 percent of the time since leavinb school as unemployed workers, the corresponding proportions ranged from 13 to 20 percent among the dropouts. Thus, in terms of rates of unemployment, spells of unemployment, and total time since leaving school spent as an unemployed worker, the dropouts had a much worse record than the graduates. III With this as factual background, we turn now to a brief discussion of some of the implications of our findings: 1. First, it is clear-as we already indicated-that dropouts do not form a neat homogeneous group of girls and boys with their own unique set of problems. Dropouts, like other school leavers, school leavers like school stayers, are apparently characterized by innumerable individual differences: Some do have low IQ's; but others are well up on the IQ scale. Some do have severe family and personal problems; others do not. Some make very poor adjustments in the world of work; others do very well indeed in the American labor market. While we may generalize concerning their behavior and their characteristics, just like we do for any other population group, the chances are that we can make much better progress in dealing with the forces generated by early exits from a formal educational setting if we approach these boys and girls the same way we try to deal with all the rest: each as an individual with his or her own interests, talents, aptitudes, etc. 2. This leads us to our second point-of considerable relevance to the guidance and counseling function itself. It is traditional in this country to count the dropout as a charge against the high school for the young person usually leaves the school system from the secondary school. Yet, our experience with these boys and girls points to this: That the problems which finally result in a dropout begin-and are quite overt-away back in the elementary grades. In fact, it is quite early in grade school that many of the potential dropouts begin to fall behind in their scholastic achievements and results in the retardation we discussed above. These results suggest that perhaps some of our occupational education and guidance might begin much sooner than it does now. We teach a young person to read and spell in the elementary grades before we present him with "The Lady of the Lake" as an assignment in high school. We teach the young person to add, subtract, and the rest of the arithmetical operations in elementary school before we present him with a high school problem in algebra. Perhaps we should also develop attitudes and information orienting the young person to such environmental forces as the world of work in the grades before presenting him with formal guidance programs at the high school level. These thoughts suggest that the guidance function itself-as indeed it already is in many school systems— might become more and more a developmental process beginning down in the grades instead of a discreet one which commences at some arbitrary chronological age or school year. Dr. Conant's very first recommendation in his recent report' calling for the development of guidance and counseling at the pre-secondary-school level is, of course, very much in accord with this hypothesis. The practical consideration, as shown by our findings, that a significant part of the school population (and one which apparently may need it most and commented on the fact they indeed missed it) does not even reach the point where a counseling service is now provided is also a factor to be reckoned with. There are other implications for guidance that the reader may find suggested by some of the survey findings. In working with individual boys and girls in terms of "staying in school," some of the data showing the marked differences in labor market adjustment between the graduate and dropout may be relevant. Some of these differences, however, work out and become evident only in the long run. This suggests the great importance of emphasizing what may be the more difficult-to-get-across longer range aspects of career guidance, if the young person is to get some meaningful perspective on the relationship between education and employment. 3. As we have already indicated, most of the dropouts expressed some dissatisfaction with the school programs available to them. These expressions of dissatisfaction may be at least in part-rationalizations of young people because of their very action in leaving school. But these responses were prevalent and consistent enough to warrant the suggestion that it may be worth while to take a hard look at the curriculums available for persons such as these. Is it possible to design courses of instruction which can hold the interest and be of substantive value to at least some of the young people who do not make headway within existing practice? Is it possible to offer an even broader choice of educational avenues down which this kind of high school student can move with dignity? The fact that many dropouts do return after several years' absence and from the vantage point of hard out-of-school experience, in search of specific courses which they consider of particular value in advancing them in their career development, points to the possible rewards we might reap from such a course of action. In our own surveys about 1 in 20 dropouts took or had plans for taking more training. Interestingly enough, these boys and girls tended to select those courses which might eventually lead to a high school diploma. One other observation can be made here which may be relevant to the point we are discussing. This relates to the consideration of getting some training through work while going to school. We found in our surveys-as is, of course, true nationally, that substantial proportions of the students worked while 3 "The American High School Today," James B. Conant, New York, McGraw-Hill, 1959. 4 See, for example, "Employment of Students and Other Young Persons: 1957," Current Population Reports, Labor Force Series P-50, No. 83. Washington, U.S. Bureau of Census, April 1958. still in high school. There was no distinction in the types of jobs held while still in school between those who eventually graduated and those who dropped out before graduating. Boys generally worked at common labor jobs, as sales clerks, and at filling stations-and in one of the areas, in agriculture. Sales clerk and waitress jobs were most commonly held by the girls while still in school, irrespective of whether they became graduates or dropouts. These were jobs which students obtained on their own and were not part of any school sponsored work programs where the job selections might have been made in a manner possibly more appropriate to the individual's needs and prognosis for the future. We found the students rather negative about the value of their work experience while in school. A majority of both girls and boys, of both graduates and dropouts said that their work experience while in school did not help them in getting jobs later on. Incidentally, a majority also said that their earnings were not a factor in helping them stay in school. It should be emphasized that these are the opinions expressed by the boys and girls themselves. 4. Finally, some of our findings are relevant to the manpower position of the United States. As we have already indicated, it is doubtful whether the dropouts and perhaps even many of the high school graduates-represented a strategic loss of potentially college trained personnel. This is not true, however, in relation to our manpower needs for trained skilled workers. The evidence from these surveys, at least, warrants the suggestion that a good share of the dropouts, for example, might have made the grade as skilled, highly trained blue collar workers-if they had stayed in high school until graduation and had thus become eligible for training programs in these fields. Skilled labor, becoming increasingly complex as it is, is more and more requiring minimum levels of educational attainment. For instance, the Department of Labor currently lists 60 skills which are in short supply, and each of them requires at least a high school education. Here then, is another area where the guidance and counseling function in education may be able to stimulate, motivate, and inform-in relation to the critical importance of the development of a productive skill, in relation to the long-range needs in the skilled manpower sector of the American economy. Senator GRUENING. Mr. Louis Levine, Assistant Director of the Bureau of Employment Security, the U.S. Department of Labor. Mr. Levine, we are sorry to have kept you waiting so long. STATEMENT OF LOUIS LEVINE, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF THE BUREAU OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY, THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Mr. LEVINE. It is quite all right, Senator. Senator, I wish to state that because I was notified only yesterday afternoon that I would appear before this committee I do not have a prepared statement. I was informed that I was to present some of the factual bases relating to population, labor force, and unemployment, labor market conditions as they relate to youth. Senator GRUENING. Would you prefer to appear at a later hearing? There will be further hearings. If you feel you can be better prepared at a subsequent hearing, I am sure it would be entirely agreeable to the subcommittee to postpone your testimony to that time. Mr. LEVINE. Senator, although I do not have a prepared statement I have organized my facts in such a way that I believe I can present them adequately for your needs. Senator GRUENING. Go right ahead. Mr. LEVINE. I should like to start out, Senator, by pointing out with a current population of 176,279,000 we have just under 25 million in the age category 14 to 24-under 25 years of age. And of that group, just slightly over 11 million, or 45 percent, are in the labor force. Of this group, about 61⁄2 million are males under 25 years. These boys and young men, of age and in the labor force, form the principal group that we are talking about. I should like to point out that with the experience that we have had, particularly since World War II in population growth, characterized by high birth rates, family formation of younger ages, and so on, future growth in the labor force in these young age categories is expected to be very sharp. This is quite in contrast to what we have had as our experience in the last 15 years. As a matter of fact, in the last 15 years we had a decline in the number of workers under 25 years of age. This was largely a result of the prewar and depression years of low birth rates. It is also partly the result of longer school attendance and attendance on the part of a larger part of our population. But in 1961, we will have a million more youngsters reaching 14 years of age then in 1960. By 1965, we will have an increase over 1964 of youngsters 18 years of age amounting to 800,000 in just that 1 year. In the total population, there will be some 3.8 million 18 years of age. In other words, by 1965 we are likely to have in our labor force 40 percent more workers under 20 years of age than we currently have. When I use the term "labor force" this does not mean that these people are necessarily employed. It means that these are people who are either at jobs or seeking employment. (See graph on p. 244.) I think it is rather important to note the distinction between labor force and employment and unemployment. I should also point out that for the youth under 18, work is secondary to getting an education and this I think must be borne in mind constantly. This is particularly true when you talk of the 14- to 15-year age category, and youth of these ages are almost entirely in school by reason of the school attendance laws. At 16 and 17, education is still an important factor, but increasingly work, or the seeking of work, comes into the picture. In October 1958, about four-fifths of the 16- and 17-year-olds were enrolled in school and therefore not really ready for full-time jobs. And 7 out of 10 of these 16- and 17-year-olds that were in the labor force were also students so you have a combination of attending school and also seeking employment, particularly during the summer months and vacation periods, but also even during the period of school attend ance. Nearly half the youth under 18 have a job sometime during the year, mostly during the summer vacations. And during the peak month, July, this rises to a point where you have even as many as 4 million such youngsters in the labor market. Some 700,000 out-of-school youth under 18 who were either working or seeking work were, except for a few high-school graduates, dropouts who face tough competition for the better jobs. Now, when you get to the 18- and 19-year age categories, large numbers of youth are no longer enrolled in school. About one and a half million boys in this age category were not in school in October 1958. |