T

HE OFFICE OF EDUCATION, according to its organic law of 1867, has the responsibility to collect and provide educational information and otherwise promote the cause of education. The operation of schools is a State responsibility which is largely delegated to the local communities. To me, this means that the Office shall provide leadership, without coercion, in any good cause related to education. Education means more than mere schooling, although it is the school's responsibility in education that is the major focus of the activities of the Office of Education.

We are interested in delinquency because it is an important problem in education. The existence of delinquency proves that education in its broad sense has not been fully successful, that the combination of home, school, church, and other factors of environment have been unable to prevent the child from doing things which make us consider him a delinquent.

Schools want to detect potential juvenile delinquents. They try to discover the influences which are causing delinquency. They seek to prevent and cure delinquency.

In this brief discussion, I wish to outline the main problem of delinquency first. Secondly, I want to show the relation of schools to delinquency. Finally, I wish to propose four recommendations.

As this committee knows, the problem of delinquency is grave.

It is estimated that "legally delinquent" children (i. e., those who have broken the laws and have been referred to the juvenile courts) amounted to 385,000 in 1952. This is approximately 2 percent of the 18,676,000 children in the 10 to 17 age group. The actual number of children who have broken the law but whose cases may have been disposed of without court action probably approaches 1 million. This overall figure is between 5 and 6 percent of the 10 to 17 age group. However, we should interpret

these figures with caution. Dr. Fritz Redl, discussing this problem recently, warned against an easy classification of many children as delinquents. He pointed out that children often break the law under some sudden stimulus or in special circumstances. They do not repeat as lawbreakers. The comparison between adults on the loose at a convention and these youths is appropriate.

To summarize, the total number of juvenile delinquents hovers somewhere between the 385,000 legally entangled (many of whom, however, probably bear this stigma unnecessarily) and the larger number of 1 million some authorities suggest. Expressed in percentages, 95 to 98 percent of our children are normally law abiding. Nevertheless, we are striving to make these percentages still higher.

Let's look more closely at schools and delinquency. The home, the church, the neighborhood, and the school each influences children. The school, by law, has children under its control from about age 5 or 6 to 14 to 16-roughly 51⁄2 hours a day for 8 or 9 months a year, minus the short vacations, or less than one-fifth of the waking hours of a child during a 10- or 12-year period. The home and neighborhood control his activities entirely during the formative preschool age and more than four-fifths of the time during his school years. Schools, therefore, have definite limitations as well as challenges in considering what they can do to strengthen good family and neighborhood influences and to offset poor ones.

Exhibit A shows that, using 1952 tables

This statement was made by Dr. Brownell before the Senate Subcommittee on the Study of Juvenile Delinquency in the United States on January 16, 1954.

of delinquency, approximately 95 percent of delinquent 17-year-olds are out of school; 85 percent of delinquent 16-yearolds are out of school and 50 percent of delinquent 15-year-olds are out of school. Furthermore, 31,990 delinquents 14 years of age or younger are not enrolled in school. Thus 61 percent of the group of delinquents 8 to 17 years old in 1952 were not enrolled in school as against 39 percent who were. The question is: Were these youngsters out of school because the school failed to keep them interested or were they out of school because they were delinquent?

The relationship between the schools and delinquency has been pointed out by an eminent group of scholars.1 In 1948 these decided that "The school is related to juvenile delinquency in three ways: It may produce delinquency; it may help to prevent delinquency; it may deal with delinquent behavior that is encountered within its walls."

The most startling of these three statements is that the school may produce delinquency. Studies show that a bad home or a bad neighborhood produces delinquency more often than a poor school and for dif ferent reasons, but a poor school must share the blame.

If you ask how schools contribute to delinquency, I would say that some school conditions frustrate some pupils or set up situations causing delinquency; others fail to supply an interest, a release of tension, or a sense of security or satisfaction children need. These failures may result in delinquency as surely as failure to supply reading opportunities results in many chil dren being unable to read.

Some of the factors which make schools ineffective in handling children are these: Some teachers are not properly prepared

1 Forty-seventh Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education entitled "Juvenile Delinquency and the Schools."

to detect the needs of pupils who should have special attention or to meet these needs.

Many teachers are not given time to know pupils as individuals. Many teachers are not given special assistance to deal with problems which they recognize but do not know how to treat. They feel as I did as a young principal during a mumps epidemic. I could agree with pupils whose glands were swelling that they had the mumps. But the only thing I knew to do was to get them away from the other pupils. I had neither the knowledge nor the facilities to nurse and help the sick. We need careful research studies to help. determine what school conditions contribute most to building or reducing the tensions, security, interests, and satisfactions which frequently cause or avoid delinquency. I hope to see the Office of Education participate in such basic research studies.

Although some school conditions may help to produce delinquency, it is also true that schools may prevent it. The prevention of delinquency will come from schools which try to educate all children by teaching each child on the basis of setting tasks and recognizing progress according to his own abilities. Such schools find out what kind of person each pupil is and use the information about each child so that all who deal with him may act on it. They main

tain close contacts with homes and neighborhoods. They try to make up for lacks, and supply resources otherwise absent. When children are clearly victims of their own or of family personality difficulties, these schools use appropriate family, church, psychological, medical, and social services. In short, they strive to keep children in school, and to keep them successfully in school. This all takes time, staff, and money. Above all, it takes a desire to see that every child is treated as an important human being, not just as an additional number in the school enrollment.

Besides having a challenge to prevent delinquency, schools also have to deal with it. To treat children before and, if necessary, after legal action, calls for cooperation of the home, the school, and the various services described above, working with the courts, with probation officers, and with institutions where the delinquent may have been committed.

Having in mind these relationships between the schools and delinquency, we can see the difficulties and challenges facing American teachers.

The job of the schools must be chiefly prevention and prevention carried out as part of the present staggering load of the schools.

The measures I recommend are four in number. Their object is to give school people a chance to deal with children ast

individuals, for children or adults who have some feeling of success and happiness don't need to exhibit bizarre behavior nor do they need to gain temporary attention by defying the adult world by delinquent behavior. Statistics show that successful children in school provide by far the smallest proportion of delinquents. Children who have dropped out or who are badly retarded provide far more than their share of delinquents. I can't say that these statistics represent cause and effect, but we feel that if children can be kept in schools which foster their success and adjustment, one of the springs supplying the stream of delinquency will tend to dry up.

The first measure I propose to curb delinquency is to give each teacher a group of students small enough so that she can know and teach them as individuals. Today nearly 70 percent of our classes number more than 30 students per class. About 30 percent of the classes have more than 35 pupils per class. With such numbers, teachers cannot give real individual attention to students.

The second measure is to provide adequately prepared teachers-persons who

understand how to work with children and youth, who are interested in working with and helping them, and who have demonstrated their ability to work constructively with children. With half of the Nation's teachers receiving less than $3,400, the incentive is not great for teachers to secure this adequate preparation.

A third measure is to provide some specialized staff to help teachers with the special problems involved in learning, recording, and interpreting the characteristics of each pupil, and his home and neighborhood. Psychological, medical, and social services to deal clinically or otherwise with youngsters needing care beyond that which the teacher and principal can provide are also needed.

My fourth proposal is that parents and school leaders unite in support of school programs and procedures which seek to solve the problems of delinquency at their roots. They are in a strategic position to help the public understand the importance of school programs which make adaptations for differences in needs between fast and slow learners; between the shy and the aggressive; and so on. Communities may unwittingly continue schools which breed (Continued on page 64)

A

MONG THE MANY current public

school problems those confronting districts located near large Federal installations are particularly difficult to solve. In prosecuting its domestic programs for the general welfare, the Federal Government does many things. It acquires large areas of land for development and preservation of forest resources; it builds dams for reclamation of arid lands, control of floods, and development of electric power. It maintains bird and other game sanctuaries for preservation of wildlife; builds, owns, and operates veterans hospitals; operates a border patrol; and conducts experiments in agriculture, atomic energy, and public health problems, to mention only a few. These domestic activities are small in comparison to the number, size, and scope of Federal activities in time of war or threat of war.

During World War II approximately 16,000,000 men and women were in the armed services. The United States built and operated army posts, airfields, and naval bases to train this personnel to fight a global war. It built and operated plants and factories to manufacture the material needed to fight this all-out war, and constructed ships and planes to transport these materials and men to all parts of the world. In centers of military training and defense production, it built, operated, and still owns hundreds of thousands of housing units for military personnel, warworkers, and their families. The Korean conflict and the Nation's commitments elsewhere have necessitated a continued high level of military strength since the end of World War II.

Thus, for almost 12 years Uncle Sam has been a landlord, an industrialist, and a businessman on a very large scale in a substantial number of communities in the Nation, but has not paid taxes as private business does, because property under Federal ownership and control is not subject to

State or local taxes. Often these large Federal projects are located in rural areas where there is room for expansion, but where community financial resources are limited.

The burden of a greatly increased school enrollment coupled with loss of tax base is too great for most of the communities adjacent to these Federal projects to meet with their limited resources. Frequent changes in level of employment of many Federal activities, sometimes marked by very large and sudden increases or decreases, have aggravated the problem.

During World War II, Federal assistance for construction and operation of community facilities, including schools, was provided under the Lanham Act. The primary purpose of this program was to aid in prosecution of the war effort; consequently, after the cessation of hostilities it was discontinued or greatly curtailed. Congress continued, on a temporary yearto-year basis, a small program of assistance for maintenance and operation of schools in certain areas where the need was greatest. However, as the cost of this temporary program began to increase, the House Committee on Education and Labor made a detailed investigation of the problems in these areas. As a result of these investigations Congress passed two bills in September 1950; one provided assistance for construction of school facilities (Public Law 815) and the other (Public Law 874) provided assistance in the maintenance and operation of schools in Federal impact

areas.

The policy of the Federal Government in enacting this legislation is stated in one of the acts as follows:

"In recognition, of the responsibility of the United States for the impact which certain Federal activities have on the local educational agencies in the areas in which such activities are carried on, the Congress

hereby declares it to be the policy of the United States to provide financial assistance (as set forth in the following sections of this act) for those local educational agencies upon which the United States has placed financial burdens by reason of the fact that

"1. The revenues available to such agencies from local sources have been reduced as the result of the acquisition of real property by the United States; or 2. Such agencies provide education for children residing on Federal property; or 3. Such agencies provide education for children whose parents are employed on Federal property; or 4. There has been a sudden and substantial increase in school attendance as the result of Federal activities."

The acts related Federal payments to the portion of the cost of education provided from local revenue sources in terms of the loss of tax base by or the increased costs to local school agencies by reason of Federal activities. They did not provide for payments to States for State aid paid on account of these Federal impacts because it was felt that a State could impose certain taxes on the residents of Federal property which could not be imposed by local communities. They further were based on the assumption that generally throughout the Nation about half of the local tax income to finance construction and current operating expenses of schools comes from taxes on places where people live, and the other half from taxes on places where people work. Specific formulas were developed for determining when a school district was eligible for assistance and how much it was entitled to receive. A district was determined to be eligible when it was shown that the Federal impact constituted a distinct financial burden, and the amount of assistance equaled as nearly as possible the financial burden. this impact created. All assistance was channeled through the Office of Education,

and any interference or control of any aspect of the local educational program by any Federal agency was prohibited.

The school construction program had an effective period of 2 years. It was intended that the current expenses program be permanent, but an expiration date of June 30, 1954, was set in order to allow a review of the act by Congress so that desirable changes might be made.

The Construction Program

During the life of the construction program a total of $341,500,000 was appropriated to meet requirements amounting to over $440,000,000, leaving about $99,000,000 in entitlements unpaid. As of October 15, 1953, $293,844,373 has been allotted to 750 local educational agencies for 1,221 construction projects, and $44,316,388 has been allotted to construct 20 temporary schools and 96 schools on Federal property.

Of these 1,337 projects, over 600 are essentially completed and in use, and the remainder are under construction. They will provide approximately 14,500 classrooms and auxiliary facilities and will house approximately 440,000 children. Allotments were restricted to amounts sufficient to house only the "unhoused" children in minimum school facilities. Practically all funds appropriated under this act have been allotted to projects.

The Current Operating Expenses
Program

Appropriations are made each year under Public Law 874 to pay the amounts eligible school districts are entitled to receive for current operating expenses. In 1951, 1,287 districts were eligible for assistance in the amount of $29,908,293, of which sum only 96 percent was paid because appropriations were not sufficient to meet the full costs. In 1952, 1,746 school districts were eligible for approximately $48,000,000 and were paid 100 percent. In 1953, 2,200 districts were eligible for approximately $55,000,000, and funds were available to pay the full entitlement. These districts had about 4,450,000 children in average daily attendance of whom about 825,000, or 18 percent, were there as a result of Federal activities. Federal payments constituted on the average about 6 percent of the total current operating expenses of the eligible districts. It is estimated that 2,600 districts will be eligible

in 1954 with total entitlements substantially exceeding the $66,500,000 available.

Each year approximately $2,900,000 in Federal funds have been used to provide an educational program for about 11,000 children living on 30 to 36 Federal installations where no local educational agencies were able to provide the educational program. In these cases the Commissioner of Education has made arrangements for the free public education of the children involved. The increase in the size of this program each year it has been in operation corresponds roughly to the increase in expenditures made by the Federal Government for defense and security in the same period.

Federally Owned Property

Information on the value and extent of federally owned or controlled property was obtained in the administration of these programs. In school districts eligible for assistance during 1953, there was a total of 2,034 different Federal properties which contained an estimated 62.2 million acres

and had an estimated tax value based on local assessment rates of $19.7 billion. Of all entitlements computed for Public Law 815 approximately 81.5 percent were on account of pupils who either live on, or live with a parent employed on, nontaxable Federal property. For maintenance and operation it was about 90 percent.

Total entitlements under Public Law 874 for 1953 were just under $59,000,000. An average tax of only 3.0 mills on the esti mated valuation of the federally owned property would provide this amount. The typical school district receiving this assistance levied a tax of 15.6 mills for current operating expenses. Thus, the average local taxpayer is contributing about 5 times as much on his privately owned property through local taxation as the Federal Government is contributing through Public Law 874. If a tax were levied on the federally owned property at the same average rate as was levied on private property, the yield would be over $300,000,000 a year. (Continued on page 61)

T IS a great pleasure to join with you in the dedication of Rich Township High School here in Park Forest.

Almost every day that has passed since I became the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare has brought to my desk some problem of education. Many of these have involved the overcrowding of our classrooms or the shortage of teachers.

This school and the thrilling story of its building testify to our belief as a people that, when citizens are concerned about their schools, they will secure better schools for their children.

You were fortunate to have Superintendent Baber, and the other men and women serving on your citizen committees, with the knowledge and the ability-and above all, the vision-to guide you in solving your problems.

Working with your leaders were you citizens of Park Forest.

Some of you worked on the planning committees. Some of you tabulated the questionnaires that showed what kind of school your community wanted. Some of you visited other community schools, talked with students, teachers, and educational consultants.

That is what I call real community interest. And that is why today you have this modern school plant-this educational, civic, and cultural center.

You have combined the initiative and interest of early America with the knowledge and experience of modern America, to build a school that will serve the future of your children's America.

Your efforts are in the American pioneer tradition. The men and women who settled in the West were used to taking care of themselves. What they needed as a community, they built as a community. And often the schoolhouse was the first public building erected.

The neighbors pitched in, and a log schoolhouse was put up, with one door, an oilpaper window, and split-log benches along the walls.

To this meager schoolhouse came the children of the pioneers. The summit of their education was usually a knowledge of the elementary rules of reading, writing, and cyphering. Terms were short, schoolbooks were scarce, and the teacher's pay was small.

But poor as most of those schools were, many a faithful teacher succeeded in inspiring his pupils with a thirst for knowl

An address delivered at Rich Township High School, Park Forest, Ill., December 6, 1953.

homes as he "boarded around," he exercised an influence far beyond the schoolroom.

It may well be that we have lost some of

the sense of personal responsibility for the schools that was so obviously felt by the pioneers. Many Americans have perhaps taken their schools for granted. Certainly, we have allowed the teacher shortage to grow, the educational wage scale to lag, and many of our school buildings to become obsolete.

A few days ago, I received a letter from a dismayed parent in a large American city. This is what she said:

"Can't you do something about young parents concerning themselves about voting and such.

"Last Saturday we held an election to decide whether to increase our city taxes from $1 to $1.10 in badly needed support of the schools. Every newspaper in the city had urged the public to vote for this increase. I worked at the polls all day ... the younger people who have the children to be educated did not turn out.

"There were 72 votes cast in our boxin contrast to the several thousand votes cast during the last presidential election. And ours is a neighborhood of young marrieds."

In that election, she went on to tell me, the increased school taxes were passed, but by a slim margin. Only 4 of the 7 new school-board members had really endorsed the tax raise, the 3-man minority had frankly said they preferred cutting down