65 will remain near the 1959 level. The exact changes will depend on the birthrate between now and 1960. The sharpest recent increase in enrollment in any one grade took ace at the start of the current school year (1953-54). The first ade enrolled about a quarter of a million more children than for e previous year, reflecting the increase in births between 1946 d 1947. As these first-graders progress through the school system, ere will be sharp increases in enrollment at the higher levels. It expected that in 1960 the eighth-grade enrollment will be 43 perit higher than at present. By 1964 there will probably be 65 perit more pupils in the fourth year of high school than at present. The following table gives projections of elementary school enIments, by grades, October 1, 1955, 1960, and 1965. The difent series projections for 1960 and 1965 correspond to notations population reports of the Bureau of the Census and indicate high, dium, and low estimates: 1 of each year ES A AND B ERIES C ERIES D Total Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 25, 699,000 4,807, 000 3,852, 000 3, 632, 000 3,047, 000 2, 767,000 2, 741, 000 2, 521,000 2,332, 000 30, 548, 000 5, 148, 000 4, 144, 0004, 060, 000 3, 830, 000 3, 554, 000 3, 502, 000 3, 260, 0003, 050, 000 30, 489, 000 5, 093, 000 4, 140, 0004, 060, 000 3, 830, 000 3, 554, 000 3, 502, 000 3, 260, 0003, 050, 000 30, 379, 000 4, 997, 000 4, 127, 000 4,059, 000 3, 830, 000 3, 554, 000 3, 502, 000 3, 260, 000 3,050,000 he following table gives projections of high-school enrollments, by es, October 1, 1955, 1960, and 1965: llowing are projections of the total enrollment in elementary and schools for October 1, 1955, 1960, and 1965.25 (An explanation of significance of the different series projections has been given 2.) PTER VI-LOCAL AND STATE FINANCING OF SCHOOL LIDHANILO CONTENTS A. Local finance tradition and problems: 3. Bonding limitations. 4. Extending the tax base. B. State support for capital outlay: 1. Evolution of State aid for school construction. 2. Current programs of State aid. 3. School building authorities. he study of local and State financing of school construction seems sary to an intelligent consideration of proposals for Federal aid is purpose. al financing of school construction is traditional in the United . Within relatively recent years, however, over half of the State ments have developed programs providing some State financial local school districts for the provision of school facilities. It is rpose of this chapter to consider local and State activities and nships in this field. A. LOCAL FINANCE TRADITION AND PROBLEMS n the colonial period well into the 19th century, what was then 1. UTILIZATION OF GENERAL PROPERTY TAX When the United States was a predominantly agricultural countr with its wealth concentrated in land, local taxation for schools a other purposes naturally was placed upon real property. However ! the continued utilization of this form of taxation as the princip source of revenue for school purposes has led to serious problems While the wealth of the Nation has changed from tangible to itangible values-from "real" property to "paper" property such stocks, bonds, and salary checks-the numbers of children provided school facilities and the costs of furnishing these facilities have multiplied manifold. It is difficult for localities to tap ther intangible wealth as a source of revenue to finance school construction. 2. VARIATIONS IN LOCAL FISCAL ABILITY Factors such as the location of railroads, oil wells, giant office buicings, slums, and wastelands cause variations of several hundred one in the ability of school districts to construct buildings from taxes on real property. Yet in most localities nearly all funds for schoo construction come from general property taxes. Many studies have drawn attention to the great variations in loca ability to finance education in general. Because of the widespread lack of considerable amounts of State aid for construction, these var ations are even more significant with respect to the provision of school facilities than they are with respect to financing the operation of schools. One of the conclusions drawn from a study of the systems of educa tion in the various States, carried out several years ago by the Counc of State Governments, was that: "Even when school districts ar properly organized there is no direct relationship between the amoun: needed to construct school buildings and the ability to finance the cost of construction out of local resources. The least wealthy communities are always handicapped to a greater or lesser extent in their efforts to provide satisfactory school-plant facilities unless substantial funds are provided from State sources, and they may be hopelessly handicapped when bonding and taxing limits are low." 2 3. BONDING LIMITATIONS In most States the problem of financing school construction is markedly affected by constitutional or statutory limitations on the issuance of bonds. The restrictions apply to the amount of bonded debt which a school district may impose upon itself, or to the tar rate which it may levy for bond interest and retirement, or to the approval of construction proposals by the electors of the district. The primary purpose of such limitations has been to prevent from incurring excessive indebtedness. districts Within the last several years several States have changed their laws to permit partial financing of school construction on a pay-asyou-go basis. 1 Lee, Gordon C., An Introduction to Education in Modern America. New York, Henry Holt & Co. 1953, pp. 214-216. 2 The 48 State School Systems. The Council of State Governments, Chicago, Ill., 1949, p. 92. he 4. EXTENDING THE TAX BASE few States local boards of education have received legislative ization to levy other local taxes in addition to the general ty taxes for school support. Such additional authorizations cluded per capita taxes and levies on sales, incomes, admissions, her business transactions. However, most such taxes have practicable only in large cities. In rural areas they have not sufficient revenue to meet the needs of school finance. Wher sed, the proceeds generally have been applied to operating es rather than construction of the schools. calities where such taxes are practicable they might be applied repayment of bonds and thus help toward school-building ction under constitutional or statutory bonding limitations. er, this would draw from funds available to meet operating It appears that more substatial sources of funds are needed tates to ease the need for school housing. Many States have d the tax base by providing additional funds from State › sources. ganization of school districts may result in broadening the e by reducing the number of school districts unable to finance construction; however such reorganization may leave many ties.3 B. STATE SUPPORT FOR CAPITAL OUTLAY programs of financial support for school construction have ed slowly in the United States. This undoubtedly has been ely to the fact that school construction has been and is still egarded as mainly a matter of local concern. Following is account of the development of State support for capital out-ent programs of State aid to localities for school construction, ted considerations. EVOLUTION OF STATE AID FOR SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION * 4 ghout the 19th century, State aid to local communities lly for school housing was practically nonexistent. However, te funds which were made available to school districts for educational purposes may have been used in part for capital r State concern for the provision of school facilities began turn of the century. In 1901 Alabama began providing hool construction in rural areas. In 1903 Delaware started d from State funds for the construction of schools in Negro State loans for school buildings were initiated by North in 1903 and by Virginia in 1906. By 1910 at least 13 State nts of education were exercising some control over school ion.5 26. e of Education, Report of the Status Phase of the School Facilities Survey, November 1953 ource: U. S. Office of Education, State Provisions for Financing Public School Capital OutBull. 1951, No. 6. old J. Development of State Responsibility for School and College Buildings, The American iversity, 1946, p. 44. -55- -5 |