Imágenes de páginas

Senator ELLENDER. What is that due to, Senator Ball?

Is it that the communities vie with each other, are jealous of each other?

Senator Ball. Due to the fact that the school board members are politicians and they look to their own little districts. If they can be subsidized by the State and the Federal Government, that is 0. K., they will not change it.

Senator ELLENDER. We have that same situation in our own State, in quite a few parishes. Some of the people soon saw the light, however, for instance, in my home parish, Terrebonne, which, by the way, is the largest parish in the State, there was a movement on to build 11 or 12 high schools in as many school districts. Some of us stepped into the picture and prevented that, and today we have but one high school, but it is a good one. We caused all of the other school districts to provide within their own respective district, a school where the pupils are taught to the seventh or eighth grade, after which the children are provided bus transportation to the

high school. It strikes me it is only a question of educating some of your own people out there to the point where they can see that by having a good high school to serve a given community that their children will be better educated.

Senator BALL. They have been trying to do it for about 10 years. It is pretty tough.

Mr. STUDEBAKER. There is nothing in this measure that would prohibit a State from using the Federal grant in such a way as to secure the results you seek.

Now maybe you have in mind that to hasten that result there should be provided in this measure a greater opportunity for the Federal Government to see to it that the result takes place.

Now it is at that point that you come to this question of how much Federal control you want to assent to. It does seem to me that if the State of Minnesota gets a grant of money out of this appropriation it can utilize and distribute the money within the districts of the State of Minnesota in such a way as to effect a more modern school administration.

Senator ELLENDER. I would like to ask a few questions with respect to your report, Dr. Studebaker, but before I do I would like to ask now with respect to this four-hundred-and-odd dollars estimate that you made per pupil for the buildings and tuition during the year. How does that part of the amount for running the school, operating the school, compare to the national average?

Mr. Alves. I cannot answer your question in terms of a national average, because we did not work that way. Each local school system determined, in terms of the anticipated number of additional families, first, the number of additional children of school age. That is the first step in this process. After it determined the number of

. additional children of school age that it expected, it subtracted from that number the number that it could take care of with existing facilities. Then, in terms of current practice, it determined the number of additional teachers, and the estimates for teachers' salaries in terms of local practice, not in terms of a national average. We have not converted it to that, and our instructions were that they should do this in terms of current practice.

Senator ELLENDER. Doctor, have you a copy of the study that was made on defense needs?


Senator ELLENDER. Would you mind submitting it to the stenographer for the record?

Mr. STUDEBAKER. I would be very glad to do so.
(The study referred to is as follows:)


Washington, D. C., January 21, 1941.


The findings of the study of school needs in defense areas, as set forth in the attached report, show:

That there is an imperative need in many localities for additional school facilities to accommodate children of personnel connected with projects essential to the national-defense program;

That school-plant facilities should be programmed and built at the time that family housing facilities are programmed and built;

That most local school administrative units at or near these defense areas cannot possibly during the current school year, and probably not during the next school year, provide the required school facilities; and

That the Federal Government, as the responsible agency for the sudden removal of these children into communities, few of which can provide adequate school facilities for them, should, without delay, authorize the use of funds to assist States in providing for the following needs:

1. Capital outlay: (a) School sites and school buildings and equipment; (b) transportation equipment required for transporting pupils to and from existing public schools not within walking distance (as defined by State law).

2. Current expense: (a) Cost of operation and maintenance of school plants and of transportation; and (b) salaries of teachers and other costs of instruction.

The urgency of these needs, in my opinion, justifies immediate legislation, which should include:

A. An appropriation of $115,000,000 to be used, or as much thereof as is necessary, to assist States and outlying parts of the United States in providing for the school needs enumerated above, with the provision that $80,000,000 be made available immediately to assist States in establishing school plant facilities in those defense areas in which family housing units are now under construction and in some instances ready for occupancy, and in providing for the remainder of the current school year teachers' salaries and other instructional costs required to meet the increased pupil load.

B. Plan for paying the cost of needs, as follows:

(1) For children residing on public property the Federal Government should bear the cost of required capital outlay and current expense except that when such property is liquidated, a pro rata part of the cost should be assumed by the local school administrative unit or units involved.

(2) For children residing on private property not subject to immediate taxation the Federal Government should lend to the local school administrative unit the required funds for capital outlay and current expense that cannot be derived locally until the property in question appears on the tax rolls, except that during the non-tax-producing period the Federal Government should pay, in lieu of taxes, its pro rata part of the current expenses.

C. Specifications for the administration of the program are as follows:

(1) Submission to the United States Office of Education by the chief State school officer of (a) an approved application for funds accompanied by certified statement of need based on evidence submitted by local school administrative units, and (b) a plan for the control and operation of school facilities to be provided by the requested funds.

(2) Cooperation of the United States Office of Education with the Department of War, the Department of the Navy, and the Division of Defense Housing Coordination in determining the permanency of required school housing.

(3) Approval by the United States Office of Education of the State plan and of need certified by the chief State school officer.

(4) Payment of funds by the Treasurer of the United States upon certification to the Secretary of the Treasury by the United States Commissioner of Education, to the respective State officials legally designated to handle public funds with the provision that such funds be administered for the approved purposes by the legally authorized agents of the State.


The problem

Senate Resolution 324 dated October 9, 1940, called upon the Secretary of the Navy and the Secretary of War “to make a full and complete study and investigation of all school facilities at or near naval yards, Army and naval reservations, and bases at which housing programs for defense workers are being carried out or are contemplated.”

Specifically, three questions were asked relative to these areas, namely: 1. Whether such housing programs will necessitate additional school facilities;

2. Whether the communities adjacent to or near such yards, reservations, and bases are financially able to provide such additional facilities if needed;

3. Whether the Federal Government should provide such additional facilities irrespective of the financial ability of the community.

Following requests from the Secretary of the Navy and the Secretary of War for the United States Office of Education to make the study called for by the Senate Resolution 324, plans for the study were formulated with the assistance of interested Federal agencies and State departments of education. The study as planned and carried out, however, includes all local areas affected by activities of the defense program-not only those "at which housing programs for defense workers are being carried out or are contemplated." Procedure

On November 28, 1940, the Office of Education sent to State superintendents and commissioners of education a form and instructions for collecting information for evaluating the adequacy of existing school facilities and for preparing estimates of school facilities needed to accommodate children of school age of personnel connected with projects essential to the defense program. Representatives of the chief State school officers cooperated with local school authorities in obtaining the information.

In brief, the inquiry form should give the following information.

1. The number of additional pupils that could be accommodated (as of December 1, 1940) by existing school facilities.

2. The number of additional families and of children of school age estimated in terms of available information on proposed housing units.

3. The number of additional teachers required.
4. Needed school plant facilities for increased school population.

5. Estimated amounts of funds needed for scool plant facilities (including school sites); for operation and maintenance of these facilities; for transportation facilities (including equipment and cost of operation and maintenance) and for salaries of teachers required.

Reports from State departments of education setting forth by areas (by schools and by local school administrative units) estimates, as of December 1, 1940, of needed school facilities are on file in the Office of Education. A number of area maps showing locations of existing school buildings and of proposed new buildings and additions are also on file. Tabulations were based on these reports to show estimated increases in school population and estimated amounts of funds required for needed school facilities to accommodate this additional pupil load. Findings of the Study

1. Will housing programs necessitate additional school facilities?

Reports to the Office of Education point out that, with few exceptions housing programs for defense workers necessitate additional school facilities. In most local areas affected to an appreciable extent by defense activities, the need for housing (family dwelling) units has been recognized. The influx of personnel connected with (and to be connected with) these activities is, according to the estimates submitted, generally expected to bring into these areas more children of school age than can be accommodated by /existing school facilities. The exceptions noted are that severla of the large city school systems can accommodate in existing school buildings additional pupils expected.

Table A.-Summaries of estimates of additional families and children of school age

[blocks in formation]

1 Taken from special tabulation by Office of Education, 2 Derived from special tabulation.

Owing to the fact that definite information regarding housing programs for defense workers was not available for all areas involved, State and local educational officials found it difficult to prepare estimates for these areas. The large number of local school administrative units involved in areas with concentrations of population made it impossible in some instances for these State officials to submit complete returns in the short time available. Furthermore, the number of housing (family dwelling) units has been increased materially in a number of areas since November 28, 1940. Housing projects have been programmed since then in additional areas.

Estimated school needs for children residing on Federal reservations (children living in public housing units) were projected by States and localities in terms of 47,182 families (representing an equal number of public housing units).

TABLE B.-Summaries of estimated amount of funds needed for children

[blocks in formation]

As the program for defense housing facilities approximates 85,000 housing (family dwelling) units, the estimated amounts of funds needed for children residing on Federal reservations, will be approximately double the estimated needs projected in terms of 47,182 families. (See column 2, table B.) The estimated costs per child of school age for providing the needs listed in column 1 of table C, are shown in column 2 of this table. The estimated needs for the 120,700 children of the 85,000 families, derived in terms of costs per child of school age set forth in column 2 of table C, approximate $46,000,000. (See column 3, table C.) When this amount is added to the estimated needs for children not residing on Federal reservations, the total estimated need for school facilities needed in defense areas (as projected in terms of reports on file in this office) approximates $100,000,000. This does not include estimates from Alaska, the Philippine Islands, the Hawaiian Islands, and from local areas in States whose reports were received too late to be included in these tabulations. (See footnote 4, table C.)

TABLE C.-Estimated capital outlay and current expense needs projected in terms of

cost per child of school age

[blocks in formation]

1 Projected on basis of 1.42 children of school age per family for 85,000 housing (family dwelling) units. 2 The number of children to be transported is estimated at 26,484. 3 The number of children to be transported is 35,582.

When needs reported subsequently to completed tabulations are included the total will approximate $115,000,000.

2. Are communities adjacent to or near naval yards, Army and naval reservations and bases financially able to provide additional school facilities as needed?

Local school administrative units in the defense areas are faced with the problem of providing school building facilities and teachers for a larger number of additional children of school age without the authority to obtain through regular channels additional funds for these needs. Some of these units find themselves with a decrease in assessed valuations of property.

(a) Capital outlay.-Information reflecting financial ability of local school administrative units in these areas indicate that in the main these units, because of existing legal limitations on bonded indebtedness for school purposes, cannot provide funds for capital outlay purposes. It is common practice to derive funds for capital outlay through the issuance of bonds by local school administrative units. These units must conform to limitations regarding maximum bonded indebtedness that may be incurred for school purposes and to the maximum local tax of property that may be levied for interest on and redemption of such bonded debt.

(6) Current expenses.—Individual area reports show that in most cases local school administrative units involved find it impossible to obtain additional funds for current expenses.

These local school units generally must conform to legal limitations regarding the local tax rate that may be levied for current expenses for public schools. Obviously a reduction in the property subject to taxation within a local school unit reduces the income of that unit. This results when property is acquired by the Federal Government. Furthermore, local school administrative units must conform to stipulated budgetary procedures. These procedures prevent local units from increasing their respective budgets after a date fixed by law. In some instances public school authorities have no recourse in the matter of obtaining increased local funds because the additional children live on property of the Federal Government or of a private industrial concern not a part of but adjoining the local school administrative unit involved.

3. Should the Federal Government provide such additional facilities irrespective of the financial ability of the community?

There is urgent need for a definite Federal Government policy which includes:

(a) Authorization for the use of Federal funds for providing additional school plant facilities (including school sites) and required transportation equipment.


« AnteriorContinuar »