Page images
PDF
EPUB

sufficient only to adjust to the changing value of the dollar and have left no provision for adequate adjustment of teachers' salaries and for extensions and expansions of the educational program in accordance with the needs of children and the needs of our community and Nation today.

The Board of Education and the Superintendent of Schools will be very glad to supply any additional information which the committees or any members thereof may desire.

Senator Cain. Thank you, sir.

Let me ask just a general American question: It is probably true if

you had almost an unlimited number of dollars, you would still be faced with the very difficult problem of securing qualified teacher personnel to accommodate your needs?

Mr. CORNING. We would now, sir, and we shall be in that position for the next several years, by reason of the fact that teacher training institutions in the country are so low in enrollment.

In other words, it will take four more years, at least, if we can encourage a great many young people to go into teacher training.

Senator Cain. That is going to be a terrific task?
Mr. CORNING. It is, indeed.

Senator Cain. To get them to go back on the basis of science as opposed to materialism? Mr. CORNING. Rather. Senator Cain. Mr. Bates has a number of questions. Mr. BATEs. Dr. Corning, I believe we can all say we are all tre. mendously interested in this problem. It is not new to me. I recall 25 years ago, as the chairman of the commission in the State of Massachusetts, I had before me the over-all study of the Boston school teacher problems. Mr. CORNING. Yes, sir.

Mr. BATES. And the school problems of that city and all other cities, so I am sort of going back to the subject after a long period of time, along with my own close study a good many years ago as chairman of the school board, so I am not unfamiliar with your problems.

Mr. CORNING. I am sure you are not. Mr. Bates. In fact, I think your predecessor was one of the chief witnesses we had in the hearings in Boston in 1922 when we had the same problems of the postwar period that we are now having here in Washington and all over the country.

I wish, however, at the outset, Mr. Chairman, that instead of having these statistics on an appropriation basis, which, in my opinion, while not meaningless, are almost meaningless from the standpoint of our study, I wish you would put them on an expenditure basis, will you, please, Dr. Corning, so that we will know what you spend each year. I have the information here. Mr. CORNING. I would be happy to do so. Mr. BATES. I want you to correlate it.

Mr. CORNING. I would be glad to. Are you referring to this table now, sir?

Mr. Bates. This one here. I want to know, wherever appropriations exist, what your expenditures are.

Mr. CORNING. We will supplement this report with that information

Mr. BATES. That is all right:
(The information is as follows:)

Public schools of the District of Columbia-Appropriations compared with net

cash expenditures during the fiscal years 1937 through 1946

[blocks in formation]

1 For comparative purposes, all funds appropriated or expended for the community center department and for playgrounds and recreation centers have been excluded from this statement because beginning in 1943, all such funds hate been appropriated under the recreation department instead of the public schools. This statement does not include any Federal grants or expenditures made from Federal grants.

NOTE.-Expenditures reported in this statement represent all net cash expenditures made during each fiscal year shown, but the amounts shown as expenditures for any given fiscal year do not necessarily represent all expenditures which have been made from the appropriations approved by Congress for the corresponding fiscal year. In other words, encumbrances made against appropriations for any given fiscal year are not accounted for in the cash expenditures of that year unless the payment therefor was made before June 30 of the fiscal year concerned. Moreover, appropriations approved for capital, outlay are for the most part, continuing appropriations; i. e., "available until expended," but the actual cash expenditures may not be made until the projects are started or have been completed. This factor accounts for the major portion of the unexpended appropriations.

Mar. 31, 1947.

Mr. Bates. I note that in the 10-year period you mentioned a 40percent increase, and the budget of 1948 indicates a 54 percent increase in the operational cost of the school system in the District of Columbia. I also have here from the Bureau of Census a number of reports bearing on the expenditures in the District compared with other communities in the country. And in one of these reports particularly, and that is in regard to the amount of money spent per pupil, you are exceeded by 3 other cities out of a group of 14.

The annual expenditures per pupil in 1944 for the District of Columbia were $139 and the average for the other 14 cities was $122.

Boston is the highest of the fourteen with $147 per capita expenditures school population.

Buffalo was second with $139, you are $139 in Washington, and San Francisco is $139, so, from the standpoint of expenditures per pupil, you rank very high in the District of Columbia.

I do not know upon what basis these figures are computed by the Bureau of Census, but they are supposed to be on a solid foundation and show a true comparison.

I do not want the thought to get out, unless you can dispute it, that compared with other cities of like size, some smaller and some larger, in this 14-city group, that the Congress has been niggardly with the District of Columbia schools.

Mr. CORNING. I would not use that term, sir.

Mr. BATES. I have heard it many times, when we find teachers going out on strike, and there must have been quite serious reasons, and it probably is because there has been a niggardly approach.

Mr. CORNING. May I supplement the information ?

Mr. BATES. I find in Buffalo where they recently had a strike, the expenditures in that city were exactly on the level of the District of Columbia, $139 per pupil.

There are so many factors that you and I know enter into the question of cost, the mushrooming of the school system, the spreading out of the school system, and all in those various communities. Mr. CORNING. That is right.

Mr. Bates. If we can have a more closely knit organization in this highly compact area, the school system, perhaps, on a per capita basis, would not cost so much. Where schools are spread out into many districts, the over-all per pupil cost would naturally increase.

Mr. CORNING. Yes, sir.
Mr. BATEs. Now, then, there are additions to these.
Mr. CORNING. May I comment on that before you leave that point ?
Mr. Bates. Yes; I would be glad to have you do so.

Mr. CORNING. I am not questioning the figures you have at all, but they are not accurate, as to the cost of Washington. Indeed, they are higher than you name them.

Mr. BATES. The Bureau of Census, I presume, takes these reports from the official documents of the community.

Mr. CORNING. Yes; but it depends a little bit on whether they include the capital outlay or not, and in the figures there, I believe, they have not included the capital outlay.

Mr. Bates. It speaks for itself there. Mr. CORNING. At any rate, I have here a certified statement from the school systems of i5 cities in the Nation, all of them 100,000 or over, and, as I say, there are 45 cities in that list, and for the same year there were 10 cities in the list that had higher expenditures per pupil for operating cost than Washington did, and those 10 cities are Los Angeles; Chicago; New York; Sacramento; San Francisco; Hartford, Conn.; Elizabeth, N. J.; Paterson, N. J.; Rochester, N. Y.; and Cincinnati, Ohio.

Mr. Bates. What year was that?
Mr. CORNING. That was 1944; I think that was the year you re-

Mr. BATEs. Now, there is only one city in that group, Los Angeles, that is in the group of 14 cities, and your comments are with regard to 45 cities?

Mr. CORNING. Yes, sir.

Mr. BATES. And there are 10 cities with higher operating costs per pupil than Washington ?

Mr. CORNING. We rank eleventh.
Mr. BATEs. Some of those cities are much smaller than Washington ?
Mr. CORNING. These are all cities 100,000 or greater.
Mr. BATEs. Many smaller cities than Washington?

ferred to.

Mr. CORNING. That is right.
Mr. BATES. You dispute those figures?

Mr. CORNING. Well, I would like to give it some study. I think there is a perfectly good explanation.

Mr. Bates. I would be glad to have a copy of that submitted.

I would like to have your reaction to it. I do not say that in criticism, Mr. Corning. What I am trying to get at is the basis of fact.

Mr. CORNING. As you know, on any statistical approach, even things as measurable as school costs, the method of compilation must be identical in order to reconcile them. I presume there is an explanation for it.

Mr. Bates. I presume the Bureau of the Census understands that, too.

Mr. Corning. I am not questioning the Bureau of the Census, but there will be some explanation for the discrepancy.

Of course, the very listing of the cities would, in part, explain that, because their listing is more limited than the one I am referring to. (The information above referred to is as follows:) PUBLIC SCHOOLS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,

OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT,

Washington, D. C., March 28, 1947. Hon. GEORGE J. BATES, United States House of Representatives,

Washington, D.C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN BATES: In response to your request, a comparison of per pupil costs as shown in table 16, published by the Bureau of the Census, with the per pupil costs as shown by table 1 in the report entitled “Expenditures per Pupil in City Schools," published by the Office of Education, has been made.

I am enclosing a table showing the annual current expenditure per pupil based upon the average daily attendance, and the annual expenditure per pupil based upon the enrollments reported. The 45 schools listed in the Office of Education Statistical Circular SRS-12, 2–026, for 1943–44, have been listed.

According to a letter from Mr. Emery M. Foster, Head of Reports and Analysis Section, Research and Statistical Service of the United States Office of Education, the per pupil expenditure figured upon the basis of the average daily attendance gives a more comparable cost than the use of enrollment figures. A letter is being enclosed with this report to you.

It is interesting to note that upon the basis of average daily attendance, 10 of the 45 schools listed report higher expenditures than Washington, D. C.

The total expenditure per pupil enrolled, including interest payments from current funds and capital outlay for plants and equipment, is $141 for Washington, D. C. Twelve of the 45 schools listed spend more per pupil on this basis than Washington, D. C.

The expenditure per pupil enrolled, on the basis of current expense only, is computed at $139 for Washington, D. C. Of the 45 schools listed, 6 report higher expenditures per pupil enrolled.

I believe that the table attached brings about a reconciliation between the table published for you by the Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, and that published by the United States Office of Education in its statistical circular for 1943–44, a copy of which is also attached. Respectfully yours,

HOBART M. CORNING, Superintendent of Schools.

Public schools of the District of Columbia-Comparison of per pupil costs by

average daily attendance and by enrollment for 45 cities with populations of 100,000 or more, 1943-44

[blocks in formation]

Los Angeles, Calif.
Chicago, m..
Detroit, Mich
New York
Philadelphia, Pa.
Birmingham, Ala.
Sacramento, Calif.
San Francisco, Calif.
Denver, Colo
Hartford, Conn.
Wilmington, Del
Washington, D. C.
Atlanta, Ga..
Gary, Ind.
Kansas City, Kans
New Orleans, La..
Baltimore, Md
Flint, Mich.
Minneapolis, Minn.
Kansas City, Mo.
St. Louis, Mo.
Omaha, Nebr.
Elizabeth, NJ
Paterson, N.J.
Rochester, N. Y
Charlotte, NC
Akron, Ohio
Cincinnati, Ohio
Cleveland, Ohio
Dayton, Ohio
Toledo, Ohio
Youngstown, Ohio.
Oklahoma City, Okla.
Tulsa, Okla
Portland, Oreg
Erie, Pa.
Pittsburgh, Pa
Reading, Pa.
Scranton. Pa
Nashville, Tenn.
Dlhis, Tex
Fort Worth, Tex
San Antonio, Tex
Salt Lake City, U'tah.
Seattle, Wash

$161. 61

166. 16 149. 29 198. 14 144. 37

66.89 182, 04 186. 26 126. 92 201. 65 140. 89 161.37

92. 56 117.50

87. 90 124. 25 119. 26 104. 68 139. 49 122. 89 129. 05 102. 50 192. 22 172. 58 200. 24

78. 10 117.38 161. 40 157. 30 131. 49 138. 70 144. 32

87. 11 107.83 135. 08 145. 89 155. 15 141. 46 150. 40 76. 11 95.74 96. 21 85.35 102. 22 147.96

$136
151
139
179
124

63
179
158
108
195
121
141

81 110 81 99 93 95 130 117 107

95 180 153 187

73 117 148 137 133 134 134 74 93 107 138 147 144 154 66 83 91 77 93 120

$119 139 125 161 114

54 163 139

99 183 119 139

75 101 77 93 86 89 117 108 105

83 164 141 169

69 111 138 134 127 121 130 70 86 102 128 136 127 137 62 76 82 69 87 113

From table 1, Expenditures per Pupil in City Schools, 1943-44, Statistical Circular SRS-12, 2–026, for 1943-44, published February 1946 hy the Office of Education.

? Computed from data provided in table 3, pp. 14-19, Biennial Survey of Education, 1942–44, chapter 3, "Statistics of School Systems, 1943-44.'

NOTE,-Enrolled pupils include all those in attendance ! day or more. The number enrolled always is substantially higher then numher in average daily attendance and is therefore not in common usage in statistical computations.

Source: Office of the Statistician, Mar. 28, 1947.

Mr. BATEs. Now, let us take the salary increases you mention up to and including 1946, which is on one of the schedules here.

Mr. CORNING. Yes, sir.

Mr. Bates. That shows an increase of just about 50 percent, considering the $450 additional compensation increase over 1937 in the first classification.

Mr. CORNING. Yes, sir.

Mr. Bates. I presume that probably if it were checked it would be somewhere around that. Now, Mr. Corning, under the new proposed

« PreviousContinue »