During my tenure as a Probate and Family Court Judge, I was occasionally asked to speak to various organizations. Delinquency, abuse, and neglect are all topics of perpetual interest in any caring community.

In preparation for these appearances, I would update a chart I had previously prepared tracking the incidence of delinquency in Alpena County. I was elected to the judgeship in 1983, a position I held for 24 years. My presentations spanned a period from the mid-1980s to the mid-2000s

In the 1960-61 school year, Alpena Public Schools had a student population of 3,233. Ten years later, in 1970-71, that population had grown by 162% to 8,475–an increase of over 5,000 students.

This school-age population surge consisted of two primary components: first, the last of the baby boomers born between 1946 and 1964; and second, children of early baby boomers. The closure of Catholic Central High School in 1971 added numbers to this trend.

As previously noted, the school population in the 1970-71 academic year was 8,014, and this population remained high; in 1980-81, there were 7,000 students. Compare those numbers with the student population during the 2023-24 academic year of 3570

As this cohort of young people transitioned through their school years, the number of delinquency cases rose, but then slowly declined as that population matured and moved on. My chart showed a decline–the part that was occurring during my tenure.

It was a chart that made me look good.

However, at the end of my presentations, I would always explain that, although many fine people worked diligently and achieved substantial success in addressing our community’s delinquency, a diminishing youth population was contributing to that decline.

These high-population years weren’t just demanding for the court; they were especially challenging for our school system.

New classrooms had to be built, new teachers hired, support staff added, and additional administrators were needed to run the expanded operation.

New report card forms, chalk, chalkboard erasers, and Bunsen burners had to be acquired.

But more importantly, the physical and sexual diversities and other uniquenesses inherent in this rainbow of preadolescent and adolescent personalities had to be recognized, for their refutation would constitute a denial of the opportunity for some students to benefit from being different.

There were also pragmatic concerns: ensuring the availability of sufficient toilets.

Fortunately, guidelines exist to address this need.

The Michigan Administrative Code, Rule 408.30758, contains a schedule of bathroom requirements. For every 45 girls, there must be one toilet. For every 90 boys, there must be one toilet, plus one urinal for every 50.

Assuming the 5,000 student increase was equally divided between boys and girls, here’s what would be required, bathroom-wise.

Toilets for girls: 2500 girls/45 = 56 toilets

Toilets for boys: 2500 boys/90 = 28 toilets

Urinals for boys: 2500 boys/50 =50 urinals

134 new toilets and urinals!

Fixtures that required maintenance.

One survey estimated that in 120 residential units, there could be 24 to 32 clogs per month. Using the higher residential clog incident rate of 32, 134 fixtures would experience between 27 and 36 clogs per month.

Some months, I suspect, could see clog numbers into the 40s.

Quite a load.

Formulating estimates for the number of clogs in school settings is challenging, but indications suggest they can be substantial–and more problematic.

Which brings me to this. During my experience as a Family Court Judge, I had the good fortune of working with a Board of Education and a school administration that was, essentially, clog-free.