port, Iowa. Data on expenditures during the school year 1942-43 were gathered for 19,000 students enrolled in 134 high schools located in 29 States ranging from Minnesota in the North to Mississippi in the South and from California in the West to Massachusetts in the East.

Mr. Jacobson's study shows that average expenditures for essential items such as clothing, lunches, transportation, and school supplies for youth attending high school-expenses which are necessary if youth are to maintain their self-respect and to participate in school life-amounted to approximately $90 per year for all grades combined. Younger students spent less than older ones, the range being from an average of $74 for those in grade 9 to almost $120 for those in grade 12. Of the average expenditure of $90 for all high-school youth combined, $41 went for clothing, $16 for lunches, almost $8 for school activities, and a similar amount for transportation. All other items, including school supplies, uniforms, equipment, and miscellaneous items, cost about $17. The expenditure for clothing, $41, although it constitutes nearly one-half of the total, certainly does not seem extravagant. In fact, no item seems extravagant when it is remembered that the expenditures are for an entire school year.

After presenting his findings, Mr. Jacobson draws a number of important conclusions. An extract from his report reads as follows:

It is a basic assumption of this article that every boy or girl who wishes to attend high school should have an opportunity to do so. It is fundamental to democracy that every able person should have an opportunity to advance to the highest place on the education ladder to which his ability will admit him, irrespective of the kind of job or the amount of income that his father has. Yet more than a fourth of the boys and girls of 14 to 17 years of age were not in school in 1940. Not all these were able scholars. Many of them, however, were able but could not afford to attend school. The cost to individual students in 1942-43, nearly $90, indicates why some of them were not enrolled.

There are two ways of equalizing educational opportunity: (1) Providing Federal assistance to make the existing schools, particularly those in communities which cannot support adequate schools, better than they are now; (2) providing Federal assistance to enable boys and girls to attend the secondary schools available to them, irrespective of how good the existing schools are. Both types of aid to equalize educational opportunity are necessary and both should be sought.

The need for aid to students in school or college is related directly to family income. I have before me a table which shows the relationship between the income of families in 1939 and the number of children in such families. This table is based on data from the sixteenth census of the United States, and includes families, almost 14 million in number, with married male head and wife present and with no income other than wages. The data are presented by number of children under 18 years of age and by family wage. With the permission of the committee, I should like to insert this table in the record.

Senator DONNELL. Very well.

1 A report of this study was published in the Bulletin of the National Association of Secondary School Principals for January 1944, and a summary of the report was published in the June 1944 issue of The School Review.

2 Sixteenth Census of the United States, 1940, Population, vol. II: Characteristics of the Population, pt. 1, p. 11. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1943.

(The table referred to is as follows:)

Families with married male head and wife present and with no income other than wages, by number of children under 18 years old by family wage, United States, 1939

Dr. REEVES. An analysis of this table shows that more than 10 percent of the families with no children or with only one child received annual incomes of $3,000 or higher, whereas less than 5 percent of the families with three or more than three children received incomes as high as $3,000. Only one-third of the families with one child or no children under 18 had annual incomes of less than $1,000, whereas almost one-half (48.5 percent) of the families with three or more children had incomes below $1,000.

One may well raise a question as to how families with annual incomes under $1,000, and with three or more children under 18 years of age, can send those children to school, particularly those children in the 14 to 18-year-age group. But the situation is even worse than is indicated by the figures that I have presented. More than onefourth (25.6 percent) of the families with three or more children under 18 years of age received annual incomes of less than $500. Even though high schools should be universally available, it would scarcely be possible for families with income below $500 to provide school supplies, clothing, and funds for other necessary expenditures so that the children of high-school age in those families could attend high school.

Senator MORSE. Is this the Maryland study?

Dr. REEVES. NO; this is not. This is a study that was sent to me by the Children's Bureau.

Senator MORSE. Do you happen to know what their definition of income is?

Dr. REEVES. No income other than wages. That is, this is a family with married male head and with wife present and with no income other than wages.

Senator MORSE. So that the farm laborer who may be living on the tenant farm and gets his house and garden; that is not in there? Dr. REEVES. That is not in there. No.

I have another table before me which shows the school attendance by age of young persons from 14 to 21 years old, inclusive. The figures in this second table are also based on data from the 1940 census. With the permission of the committee, I should like to insert this table into the record.

Senator DONNELL. Very well.

(The table referred to is as follows:)

School attendance of persons from 14 to 21 years of age, inclusive, by years of age, United States, 1940

Source: 16th census of the United States: 1940. Population, vol. IV, pt. 1: United States Summary. Washington: 1943, p. 39, table 14.

Dr. REEVES. This table shows that not quite one-half (49.6 percent) of the children and youth in this age group were in school in 1940. Within this group 7.5 percent of the 14-year-olds, more than 12 percent of the 15-year-olds, more than 23 percent of the 16-year-olds, and more than 39 percent of the 17-year-olds were not in school. Some of these children were not in school because there were no schools for them to attend. In many rural areas in America there are no high schools, and in some rural areas there are no elementary schools within reach of the children's homes. Other children in this group were not in school because the schools available were so poor that they offered little of interest or value to the children. The most important single reason why these youth from 14 to 17 years of age were not in school, however, was not because there were no schools to attend, nor was it because the schools were not good schools, but it was because the incomes of their families were so low that they could not afford to buy the clothes and shoes and lunches and sometimes the books and school supplies that these young persons needed in order to attend school.

A total of 2,000,000 youth in the 14-to-17-year age group were not in school in 1940. Certainly, as many as one-half of these youth would have been in school if good schools had been available and if financial aid had been provided so that they could have attended.

The situation becomes even more difficult for youth beyond the age of 17 years in low-income families. The percent not in school was more than 63 for those 18-years-old. Of the 19-year-olds, only 1 out of 5 attended school.

The figures that I have just presented relate to both farm and nonfarm families. A somewhat similar study of almost 15,000,000 nonfarm families, mostly wage earners and white-collar workers, was made by Thomas J. Woofter, Jr., and published in the Social Security Bulletin, volume VIII, No. 1, January 1945. Dr. Woofter found that nearly half of the children in these families are in families which have three or more children. He found also that the income of families without children is more than twice that of families with three or more children.

Dr. Woofter calculated what he terms "family unit income." In this calculation he assumed that it costs the same to support two children under the age of 18 as to support one adult. He defines a family unit as either one adult or two children under 18. On this basis, the median income per family unit in 1939 was $592 for families with no children, but only $281 for families with three or more children.

Thus, the family unit income was more than twice as high for families with no children as for families with three or more children. More than 5,000,000 children were in the families with total cash income below $1,000, whereas fewer than 3,000,000 children were in the families with total cash incomes of more than $2,000. In terms of family unit incomes, 28 percent of the families had family unit incomes of less than $300, but these same families had 48 percent of all the children.

Some figures on school attendance more recent than those already cited were presented by Miss Katharine Lenroot, Chief of the Children's Bureau, in an address delivered on October 4, 1944, before the White House Conference on Rural Education. Miss Lenroot's figures relate to school attendance of children 14 through 17 years of age, during April 1944, and include 2,150,000 children living on farms and 7,000,000 children living elsewhere.

Of the children living on farms, 18 percent of those 14 and 15 years of age and 47 percent of those 16 and 17 years of age were not attending school. Of the children not living on farms, 4 percent of those 14 and 15 years of age, and 28 percent of those 16 and 17 years of age were not in school. When these age groups are combined, 32 percent of the farm children 14 through 17 years of age and 16 percent of the nonfarm children 14 through 17 years of age were not in school. When the farm and nonfarm groups are combined, almost 2,000,000 of the 9,150,000 children from 14 through 17 years of age were not in school. The figures that I have presented provide some indication of the load that the schools will be called upon to carry after the war if they are to provide additional education for those youth who dropped out of school to go to work during the war. If schools are to help make up the educational deficiencies that have resulted in part from the war, they must provide education for such youth.

Studies of reasons why youth' drop out of school have indicated that one-half or more leave school for financial reasons. This fact makes clear the need for aid to students. Most States cannot provide such aid. Therefore, it becomes important that the Federal Government provide it, in order that educational facilities may be available to all children and youth.

I have seen estimates that there will need to be jobs for at least 55,000,000 people after the war. Other estimates of the number of jobs needed range as high as 60,000,000. The difference between these estimates is actually less than it appears, because the 60,000,000 estimate, I believe, includes jobs for persons in the armed forces, whereas the 55,000,000 estimate does not. But whether the number of jobs that will be needed should turn out to be 55,000,000 or some figure larger than that, the fact remains that this Nation, in its entire history prior to the development of the defense program in 1940, with the exception of a brief period in 1928 and 1929, never provided jobs for more than 45,000,000 workers, a number 10,000,000 short of the minimum estimate of 55,000,000 jobs needed in the postwar period.

I have seen no plans that lead me to believe that this Nation will find it easy to provide 55,000,000 jobs during the postwar period. Yet one of the best means of reducing the number of unemployed on the labor market would be to provide small grants-in-aid to make school attendance possible for youth between the ages of 14 and 20, inclusive, who cannot attend school without such assistance. In 1940 almost 3,000,000 youth of high-school age did not attend school and another 3,000,000 youth of junior college age-that is, youth 18 and 19 years old-did not attend school. If it were made possible through small grants-in-aid for 3,000,000 of these 6,000,000 youth to attend school, the result would be an important reduction in the number of workers on the labor market and, if we should enter into a period of unemployment, a reduction in the number of unemployed.

Senator SMITH. You suggested a figure between $90 and $125. If we took 6,000,000 youth and you said just taking care of approximately 3,000,000 of those, that would mean roughly $300,000,000 which might do the trick. The bill appropriates $150,000,000, so you take care of about half of what you estimate the need will be.

Dr. REEVES. With the $150,000,000.

Senator SMITH. But you suggested 6,000,000 youths might be in need.

Dr. REEVES. I am suggesting that possibly half of them would come back to school if aid were provided.

Senator SMITH. $100, that would be $300,000,000.

Dr. REEVES. That is right.

Senator SMITH. As against the $150,000,000 in title IV.

Dr. REEVES. At the average in that report of Mr. Jacobson's of $90, yes.

As I stated earlier, the Commission on Educational Reconstruction of the American Federation of Teachers is suggesting a few minor changes in this bill, primarily to clarify its meaning. I should like to receive permission to extend my remarks to include the minor changes in the record. I should like to file with the committee for