Page images
PDF
EPUB

Mr. MURRAY. They are Catherine G. Hurley and Josephine H. Ross, president and vice president of the teachers union.

Mr. BATES. Are you a teacher, Mr. Murray?

Mr. MURRAY. I am legislative representative for the international union and these people are officers of the local union here in the district of Columbia and are teachers themselves, and that is why I was anxious to have them here.

Mr. BATES. Are you a citizen of the District, Mr. Murray?

Mr. MURRAY. I am a citizen of the District and a home owner here and a parent with children in school.

Mr. BATES. How long have you lived here?
Mr. MURRAY. About 6 years.
Mr. BATEs. You are a resident here!

Mr. MURRAY. Yes. I am interested in it as a parent, as well as legislative representative for the Public Workers, CIO.

I want to try not to repeat any information that has been supplied to the committee. As I have been listening, it has occurred to me that there is really only one basis upon which we can decide what is an adequate bill to pass.

As I see it, there is only one sound basis, and that is not in comparison with the cost of living, nor perhaps a comparison with the salary schedules which are now in effect in other cities through the country; because as we all know, cities all over the country are facing the same problem we are facing here today, and I could go through with you, as I have brought the material, negotiations that our union is conducting with cities and States on this same problem, representing the teachers there.

I think the only sound basis, then, is what is required to make a teacher's job at least as attractive and perhaps a little more attractive than the other opportunities for employment which a teacher has, and with which we must compete in order to secure good people for our school system.

I think we all recognize that this current national recognition of the problems of teachers comes late, and comes at a time when most authorities agree that we face an emergency, and sometimes we have to wait for an emergency to really get down to business and do something.

I want to state further that the teachers have a feeling of appreciation and confidence in the School Superintendent; that through our dealings with him we know he is interested in the welfare of the District school system; and as a parent I am glad to hear him fighting in behalf of a better school system for the District.

The recommendations and things I want to talk about which we regard as shortcomings in this bill simply reflect a different kind of balancing of the factors, perhaps in relation to the three subjects I want to talk about, than the Superintendent has taken.

I think there is room for that sort of difference in balancing the factors which are involved.

I do not know, of course, the factors the Superintendent used in making his decisions, but it has already been mentioned that there were three recommendations from the legislative council which were not included in this bill.

attracting any more young people and especially young men to our ranks.

All over the country there is a growing realization of the seriousness of the teacher shortage. State legislatures and school boards are taking steps to remedy the situation. My own State of Indiana has just passed a salary bili, setting a minimum of $2,400 for a B. A. degree.

Virginia has taken steps to raise salaries. So has Maryland. The movement is growing; the District should not be a follower. We should set an example for all the States with our salary bill.

We are told by educators, lecturers, writers, statesmen—including Mr. Truman—that the fate of the Nation, and of the world, is in the hands of our schools. Let's give those schools adequately trained personnel, adequately paid.

On behalf of the Teachers Union, Local 8 of the AFL, I urge the passage of bill S. 1088.

Mr. BATES. As is?

Mrs. VESTAL. We would like a few little things added if possible, but we take it as is because we feel most of our recommendations have been met.

Mr. Bates. I noticed you made some qualifying statements there.

Mrs. VESTAL. We really would have liked to have $200 increments, six of them but that is probably not going to happen.

Mr. BATES. Have you been reading our minds?

Mrs. VESTAL. I am afraid I have. You see, I have kind of grown up with the legislative mind.

Mr. BATEs. The State of Indiana recently passed a minimum $2,400 bill. What do you mean by that? That they are establishing in the State of Indiana, say, a salary schedule for teachers, all schools, or are they proposing, say a basis !

Mrs. VESTAL. That is a basis.

Mr. BATEs. They say they will provide reimbursement to a city or town through taxes ?

Mrs. VESTAL. I understand that is what they will do, so no teacher will be paid less than $2,400.

Now in the large cities and some of the wealthier communities, they of course have a much higher salary than that; but that will be the minimum, and I think that is pretty good for a State which maybe is not quite as wealthy as some of the Eastern States.

Mr. BATES. I think a little discussion could take place on that in some of our Eastern States.

Thank you very much, Mrs. Vestal.

The next witness will be Mr. Donald Murray of the UPWA. STATEMENTS OF DONALD MURRAY, LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTA

TIVE, UPWA, CIO; CATHERINE G. HURLEY, PRESIDENT, TEACHERS UNION, UPWA, CIO; AND JOSEPHINE H. ROSS, VICE PRESI. DENT, TEACHERS UNION, UPWA, CIO

Mr. MURRAY. There are a couple of teachers with me, that I would like to have at my elbow here.

Mr. BATES. Yes.

[ocr errors]

Mr. MURRAY, They are Catherine G. Hurley and Josephine H. Ross, president and vice president of the teachers union,

Mr. BATES. Are you a teacher, Mr. Murray? Mr. MURRAY. I am legislative representative for the international union and these people are officers of the local union here in the district of Columbia and are teachers themselves, and that is why I was anxious to have them here.

Mr. Bates. Are you a citizen of the District, Mr. Murray?

Mr. MURRAY. I am a citizen of the District and a home owner here and a parent with children in school.

Mr. BATEs. How long have you lived here?
Mr. MURRAY. About 6 years.
Mr. BATES. You are a resident here?

Mr. MURRAY. Yes. I am interested in it as a parent, as well as legislative representative for the Public Workers, CIO.

I want to try not to repeat any information that has been supplied to the committee. As I have been listening, it has occurred to me that there is really only one basis upon which we can decide what is an adequate bill to pass.

As I see it, there is only one sound basis, and that is not in com: parison with the cost of living, nor perhaps a comparison with the salary schedules which are now in effect in other cities through the country; because as we all know, cities all over the country are facing the same problem we are facing here today, and I could go through with you, as I have brought the material, negotiations that our union is conducting with cities and States on this same problem, representing the teachers there.

I think the only sound basis, then, is what is required to make a teacher's job at least as attractive and perhaps a little more attractive than the other opportunities for employment which a teacher has, and with which we must compete in order to secure good people for our school system.

I think we all recognize that this current national recognition of the problems of teachers comes late, and comes at a time when most authorities agree that we face an emergency, and sometimes we have to wait for an emergency to really get down to business and do something

I want to state further that the teachers have a feeling of appreciation and confidence in the School Superintendent; that through our dealings with him we know he is interested in the welfare of the District school system; and as a parent I am glad to hear him fighting in behalf of a better school system for the District.

The recommendations and things I want to talk about which we regard as shortcomings in this bill simply reflect a different kind of balancing of the factors, perhaps in relation to the three subjects I want to talk about, than the Superintendent has taken.

I think there is room for that sort of difference in balancing the factors which are involved.

I do not know, of course, the factors the Superintendent used in making his decisions, but it has already been mentioned that there were three recommendations from the legislative council which were not included in this bill.

I would like to go over and talk about those a little bit because I think they may bring out whatever other aspects are interested in that you might want to ask questions about, Mr. Bates.

The first item that we feel is not quite adequately covered—and we feel quite strongly about it-is the lack of minimum salary which meets the standard which I mentioned a while ago—the method of providing at least as good salary for teaching school as you provide for other groups of trained people.

Here in the District of Columbia the comparison is much easier, probably, than in many cities, and it is just unavoidable. The comparison must be with professional salaries in the Federal Government.

The Superintendent and the chairman of the Board of Education have indicated that that is the standard that they have used, basically and primarily, in setting the minimum professional salary for teachers.

However, I think now, if we are getting a bill that is going to last us, a bill that is going to correct the things we have had in the past, we should go the whole way.

Why stop $100 short of providing that equity? We would be perfectly willing to see the salary of $2,600 instead of the $2 500-odd which is the Federal P-1 salary, which is in the interest of bookkeeping, and which is much easier on the people who have to make up the pay rolls; but the fact is that anyone employed by the Federal Government in a position which requires a college degree is paid $2,000 to begin with.

If we are going to establish equity here and get these things in line, we think this bill ought to include that thing of the beginning salary, too.

Now the second thing, or the second amendment, we are interested in and critical of is the omission of the legislative council's recommendaticn for a salary schedule C and D in class 3, and the addition of a comparable schedule for the other classes; in other words, a schedule providing additional salary for a master's degree plus 30 hours of academic work. That has been discussed here before today.

Certainly, it seems to me that we want our high-school teachers to continue to teach high school, instead of to find some other avenue rather than teaching high schcol for advancement.

It is the same principle that applies to elementary teachers: The importance of keeping them in within the elementary system, because it is important to have the best possible teachers with young children whose whole adjustment to life is being formed in those early years.

It seems to me equally important that we keep high-school teachers who are to go ahead and improve themselves in the system.

Yet, I do not see how we can expect to do that unless we provide a comparable promotional opportunity within the high-school schedule.

Therefore, we are proposing that a class group C and D added to class 3, which would provide a salary of $3,500 to $1,700 per annum, and a class F which would be a promotional group of $1,800 to $5,200 per annum.

Now those schedules C and D in interest to the single salary schedule undoubtedly should also be added as group E and F to other classes, the class 2, 4, and 5–because if we are going to have a single salary schedule, we ought to have one.

The likelihood that teachers in the elementary and junior highschool groups will find it possible to avail themselves of that opportunity-I was going to say that the likelihood was small, but it probably is not small but still there will be a small number of teachers who will find it possible to avail themselves of that much additional training which is virtually equal to a doctor while they are pursuing their work in teaching elementary school.

However, it should be open to them. The greatest importance of it is providing a promotional grade for the high-school teachers, in our opinion.

The third thing that has been mentioned here and the need for it has been indicated, though not too specifically, by several other experts—we believe that the other increments of $100 per year are inadequate. They are not very comparable with the opportunities for advancement in, for instance, industry, and they are not as high as the within-grade increments in government, which are not so high, as

matter of fact—which fall between $100 and $200, for instance, in these salary_classifications.

It seems to us if these increments were made $200 each and there were half as many of them, so a teacher could advance at a rate of perhaps $4 more a week after each year, that it would provide a much better incentive and would improve the morale of the system; it would keep teachers that the $100 increments would not keep.

That means quite a bit. In the long run, when we reach the over-all cost of the bill, it would not cost any more. I think it would be good administrative procedure and would be very good for the teachers.

Those are the three main changes that we feel ought to be made to make this bill meet the standard that I set out ahead of time; to equalize the kind of opportunities we offer teachers with the opportunities that we offer people in the other branches of the Federal Government and in private industry.

I would like to mention one category. You see, in a union like ours, where we include teachers in all levels and in all divisions, I have to cover ground at least briefly that the presidents of the associations have covered.

Incidentally, we work very cooperatively with them, and many of our 800 members of their professional associations you have heard here

We would like to support the recommendation that was just made by the president of their association, Mrs. Ward; that the amount she suggested to you be adopted. The operations of that clause in the 1945 law has just not been satisfactory to the officers themselves since their tasks are well-defined—and there are plenty of them-in enforcing the school attendance laws and doing a lot of other work in the process.

We think they ought to be treated as the oilier professionals who are nonteaching employees, as far as leave arrangements, substitute arrangements, and vacations are concerned.

I would like to point out in the case of attendance officers that though they are scheduled for 8 hours a day, 5 days in the week, they must contact the parents of children who do not come to school, and their field work is almost entirely that of working with the children them

before you.

« PreviousContinue »