BACKGROUNDER - No. 3872 - Education Policy Reforms Are Key Strategies for Increasing the Married Birth Rate

Oct 15, 2026

BACKGROUNDER No. 3872 analyzes why Americans are having fewer children and argues that the decline is driven primarily by values, priorities, and government policy. It contends that higher-education subsidies and credentialism incentives encourage people to delay or forego marriage and family formation, contributing to fertility rates falling to historic lows. The paper recommends ending higher-education subsidies and expanding education choices, including religious schooling, as key pro-fertility strategies, and highlights religiosity as a stabilizing factor for fertility among weekly attendees.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages13

Reading Time33 min

AccessFree to download

Key Takeaways

Drivers of Declining Fertility

Education Subsidies and Credentialism

Religion and Fertility Rates

BACKGROUNDER No. 3872 | November 15, 2024 CeNTer For eDUCATIoN PoLICY Education Policy Reforms Are Key Strategies for Increasing the Married Birth Rate Jay P. Greene, PhD, and Lindsey M. Burke, PhD KEY TAKEAWAYS The decline in the number of children that Americans are having is driven primarily by values, priorities, and government policies. Government subsidies for higher education and credentialism are exacerbating the decline by providing incentives to delay or forego family formation. ending higher education subsidies and offering school choices that include religious education should be viewed as key pro-fertility policies. The fertility rate in the United States has dropped to 1 .6,1 an all-time low and far below the 2.1 replacement rate required to maintain steady population.2 Fertility rates are dropping worldwide and are proving resistant to a variety of policy efforts to reverse the trend. While no silver bullet can increase the married birth rate, developing pro-family policies is essential if Americans want to maintain their political and cultural traditions, avoid economic decline, and strengthen national defense. While most pro-fertility policies focus directly on addressing the costs associated with children by providing financial incentives and subsidized services, those measures have shown limited success. The decline in the number of children is driven primarily by values and priorities. Having and raising children can be expensive, but that has always been true. People had many more babies when standards of This paper, in its entirety, can be found at [https://report.heritage.org/bg3872](https://report.heritage.org/bg3872) The Heritage Foundation | 214 massachusetts Avenue, Ne | Washington, DC 20002 | (202) [546-4400 | heritage.org](546-4400 | heritage.org)[ ](546-4400 | heritage.org)Nothing written here is to be construed as necessarily reflecting the views of The Heritage Foundation or as an attempt to aid or hinder the passage of any bill before Congress. living were much lower than today. In 1970, a decade after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the birth control pill and long after children were needed to work on farms, the fertility rate in the U.S. was 2.5 eventhough per capita gross domestic product was almost one-third what it is today.3 Now that society has become richer, people have greater financial resources to cover the costs of having children, but they have a decreased inclination to use their resources in that way. Although the general standard of living and overall societal wealth is greater than it was a century ago, that maybe a double-edged sword when it comes to fertility as wealthier countries tend to delay marriage and family formation and have lower overall fertility. The average age of marriage in America in 1960 was 22.8 for men and 20.3 for women. It is now 30.5 and 28.6, respectively. Much of this trend can be explained by the subsidy-induced explosion in the amount of time people spend in higher education, where married students are far from the norm and young student parents are practically non-existent on American campuses. Put plainly, massive and unnecessary education subsidies are artificially steering people into delaying or even foregoing marriage and children. For both men and women, the uptick in college enrollment is not necessarily a function of increasing skills and education required in the job market. For example, 33 percent of secretaries hold a bachelor’s degree today, compared to just 9 percent in 1990.4 Increased college enrollment has come in the wake of ever-increasing federal subsidies and excess credentialing requirements. Spending more years in higher education often means delaying many traditional markers of adulthood, such as getting a job, getting married, and, ultimately, having children. Postponing having children until later in life also tends to mean having fewer children. Finally, to reverse the tide

FAQs

What does the paper identify as the primary drivers of declining fertility in the United States?

It attributes the decline mainly to values, priorities, and government policies rather than to child-rearing costs alone.

How does the paper argue higher-education subsidies affect marriage and having children?

It claims subsidies and credentialing requirements increase time spent in higher education, steering people toward delaying marriage and reducing the likelihood of having children.

What role does religiosity play according to the paper?

The paper reports that among people who attend religious services weekly, fertility rates do not show a long-term decline, and it argues research links religious practice to higher fertility via altered cost-benefit perceptions.

Oct 15, 2026

Uploaded by Maya Linwood