of the Congress would give a full day to our little affairs. I was filled with admiration at that. Senator CAIN. You have not found anything little about them, Mr. Hall, and neither have we. Mr. HALL. Compared with the great national and international problems. Senator CAIN. If they were small we would spend less time with them; but they are pretty whopping. Mr. HALL. I am looking at it from the standpoint of deciding national and international problems. Senator CAIN. That is right. Mr. HALL. We do favor, as I say, the full increase. We believe in pay for professional training and professional performance. Senator CAIN. Mr. Hall, what thought do you have, as one who represents your federation, about the moneys required to improve essential services of the schools? As a Mr. HALL. We have given considerable thought to that. matter of fact, I was a member of the tax study committee of Corporation Counsel West that recommended certain forms of taxes, such as an increase in the liquor tax and utility bills, and the seats in the theaters. Senator CAIN. Let me stop you there for 1 minute. You were a member of his advisory council? Mr. HALL. They have gotten democratic in the District, and whenever they have any important matter they call us in. Senator CAIN. Ñamely, all the legislative proposals for raising revenue that came to us. Mr. HALL. We studied them thoroughly. Senator CAIN. And they had your stamp of approval. Mr. HALL. Yes; and with, I should say, justification. Personally, I have been amazed that the Congress has not been more generous to the District of Columbia. The war impact has been upon us. We have had much of our land taken from taxation-almost half of it— and General-President-Ulysses S. Grant established a 50-50 plan, and it backed down to 60-40, and then there was a man who came down and took it away from us. I do not know how he did it; he ran everything; he had all the choice appointments, but all of a sudden he savagely cut out our ratio. We are getting a very small percentage compared, I believe, with the service rendered. I think you have gone into that very thoroughly. Now, the sales tax-we had to be practical about that. We were to study taxation, so, in spite of the fact that all of us felt that the Congress would relieve us by a more generous contribution, we also felt in that connection that there-if there would not be an increase, we should have made some provision for income; and so, among those other taxes, we voted a sales tax, as you have heard from everybody else, as a last resort. Senator CAIN. It is obvious that you understand that to get what we want in this age we must likewise be willing to meet those obligations. Mr. HALL. I think so, but I think the Government would- Mr. HALL. But the Government, I think, would err on the side of liberality in the Nation's Capital and consider the relationships here. Senator CAIN. It is too early yet to tell, as you well know, what the Federal Government could be prevailed upon to recognize as their proper-I do not like to use the word "gift"-their proper share. Mr. HALL. Yes. Senator CAIN. Of the over-all community, Federal city obligation. Mr. Hall, thank you very much. Mr. HALL. Thank you, sir. Senator CAIN. We should like very much to hear from any representative of the Board of Trade. We do not have a particular name outlined. (There was no response.) Dr. CORNING. Senator, the Board of Trade representative has been here through Wednesday and Saturday. The educational committee of the Board of Trade unanimously endorsed this program, and I think they were here to testify to that. I presume they have been unable to appear this morning. Senator CAIN. Well, it is the testimony we are most interested in rather than the endorsement. We rather hope they have studied this problem thoroughly on their side so that we will have some inter locking views. Dr. CORNING. Yes, sir. Senator CAIN. Mr. J. C. Turner, Central Labor Union, American Federation of Labor. Mr. Turner, you are getting to be a friend of long standing. We have seen you before. STATEMENT OF J. C. TURNER, REPRESENTING THE WASHINGTON CENTRAL LABOR UNION, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR, WASHINGTON, D. C. Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, my name is J. C. Turner. The Washington Central Labor Union is very happy to come before this joint committee to express its deep appreciation for the support Congress has given us in our fight for the single salary schedule and for better pay for teachers. As all who were in Washington 2 years ago know, our American Federation of Labor teachers' unions, backed by the Washington Central Labor Union and the American Federation of Labor itself, led the fight for a single salary schedule in our Washington schools. We asked for the same pay for all who have the same professional qualifications, regardless of where they may be working in the school system. In 1945, we were attacked for trying to improve that very bad bill of 1945 which the teachers joint legislative committee sponsored. We did save the tenure for the teachers then; we did get them a small raise over the objections of those who were pushing the bill to give big raises only to those on top. Then in 1946 labor again fought for the single salary scheduleyes; fought and thanks to our good friend Senator McCarran, a clause was written into the 1946 bill requiring the school authorities to make a study of the inequities in the present school law, and to bring in a report thereon. The bill now before the Congress does approach two of the gravest inequities imposed on our teachers. It does raise the salaries of teachers, and it does give the single-salary schedule for most teachers. True, it does not raise salaries enough. It is hard to see how the Congress of the United States can say, "We shall pay a minimum salary of $2,600 to all professional workers except teachers, even though these teachers are the only group of professional workers who are required to have a college degree." Gentlemen, we do not think the schedule proposed in this bill is high enough, and we are here to inform you that just as soon as the tax question has been settled, that we are coming back to ask for the $2,600 minimum for teachers that the Federal Government now grants to all other professional workers. But we must face the fact again that Congress mandated the school officials to bring in a report on how to wipe out inequities here in our schools. Salaries, of course, are of basic importance; and you have then granted the single-salary schedule to most of the teachers. This is a great victory for Washington teachers, and we are very proud that the teachers unions and the Washington Central Labor Union and the American Federation of Labor have carried this fight against terrific opposition, even abuse, until others dared to pick up and fight with us instead of against us. But this proposed bill carries a grave injustice in that it expressly denies the benefits of the single-salary schedule to one group of teachers, a very important group, the attendance officers and childlabor inspectors. For some reason our school officials have decided to persecute these employees. I am a member of the executive board of the Council of Social Agencies. We are actively interested in the problems of juvenile delinquency. This group, therefore, is interested in raising standards in our schools. But it realizes, realistically, that the teacher who must deal especially with the potential delinquent has the hardest job of all; that teacher is the attendance officer. This bill provides that all teachers except those who treat with the potential delinquent-that is, the staff of the attendance departmentshould be paid on a single-salary schedule. We here plead that the personal animosity of certain officials toward certain other persons-for that is the real reason for this discrimination-should not continue to deprive the employees of the attendance department of their just and proper rights. Why are these people denied their leave the law gives them 10 days a year-so that those who do not like them say "That means 2 days a month." The same officials who got special legislation to deny these fine workers the leave rights given to teachers, or the leave rights given to every other Government worker, now are asking for a special law to deny these women the salary that is offered to every other group in the system. On that score, let us stop this sort of petty persecution. In the first place, why should Washington treat its attendance officers worse than any other big city does? We have helped these women make a survey of what is the actual status of attendance and enforcement workers in 26 large cities. Here are the results. Status of staff enforcing attendance laws in 26 large cities: Eighteen cities have minimum requirements of A. B. degrees; four cities at present are raising standards; three of the four are making no new appointments to unqualified section of staff; four cities do not require bachelor of arts degrees. Pardon, have you heard these statistics in previous testimony? Senator CAIN. Not I. Mr. TURNER. City A, Boston, all teacher benefits, including 5-hour day, plus car allowance and higher salary than elementary teachers; city B, Chicago, all teacher benefits, salary comparison not known; city C, Newark, on State civil service: city D. Wilmington, truant officers with low pay and long year; 19 cities give salary credit for M. A. degree. Two, workyear: 19 cities have same workyear as teachers; 7 cities work longer, 1 to 4 weeks longer; 3 who work longer are paid more than elementary teachers. Three, workday: 13 cities have the same length day as teachers; 13 cities work a 7- to 8-hour day. Four, holidays: 22 have all teacher holidays; 2 work; 2 who work longer have higher pay schedule; one is State civil service; one is Washington. Five, sick leave: 18 have same as teachers; 6 have more than teachers; 2 did not report. Six, salary: 13, same salary as elementary teachers; 8, more than elementary teachers; 5. less than elementary teachers. Seven, single-salary schedule, which gives attendance officers the same benefits on a basis of qualifications as is given to its teachers: 13 cities, including Birmingham; Cincinnati; Cleveland; Detroit; Kansas City; Lincoln, Nebr.; Milwaukee; Minneapolis; New Orleans; Pittsburgh; San Francisco; Seattle; St. Louis. The cities in this survey made in 1947 include Baltimore, Baton Rouge, Birmingham, Boston, Chicago, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Des Moines, Detroit, Hartford, Kansas City, Lincoln, Los Angeles, Louisville, Milwaukee, Minneapolis, Newark, New York, New Orleans, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, St. Louis, San Francisco, Seattle, Wilmington, Washington, 26 cities in all. Furthermore, in this proposed bill you would grant the single salary schedule to such auxiliary teaching groups as librarians, counselors, research workers, everybody, except to the teacher with the tough job of adjusting the maladjusted child to his school work. We do earnestly beg of you to do this. Next, injustices: Why should higher-salaried officers reach their maximums by larger annual increments than do the smaller officials and the teachers? We submit that all should go up by $200 annual increments. No classification in the Federal service requires a worker to wait 12 years before he reaches the maximum of a given class. We ask that this inequity be wiped out. This bill provides for a group B for every class. This is to afford so-called superior teachers a chance to get more. The idea is fine, but who will pick the superior teacher? By a rating system? Before you enact this bill, I beg of you to invite Dr. John Studebaker, the United States Commissioner of Education, to tell you what he thinks of teacher rating. He told the American Federation of Labor committee on education that there never has been a just or effective rating system. Ask any teacher in this room what he or she thinks of ratings. Do rating systems improve teaching or do they destroy morale? Why not do what all but three cities in the United States do? Make promotion to the maximum in any group or class automatic for all who must meet the objectively stated requirements of that group. This is what civil service does; this is what practically all city school systems do. Gentlemen, morale-breaking practices like the present group B in our schools does more to destroy teacher morale than do even our low salaries. The last inequity to which we would refer is that which pays a principal of a school having 1,500 pupils the same salary that is paid a principal of a school having less than 500 pupils. We ask that in the elementary schools that all the term "16 rooms," for determining salaries of principals, be clarified to state, "16 classrooms having each an enrollment of not less than 25." Then pay less to those who have lesser responsibilities. Gentlemen, this provision would also wipe out the present practice of overloading schools in some districts of the city and cutting down on loads in other places. In the vocational junior and senior high schools, a fair basis would be to provide a schedule of the minimum salary for schools having 500 or less, and to graduate the scale upward, giving more to principals in the larger schools. So, too, it is not fair to have the same number of assistant principals in schools having an enrollment of less than 1,000 as they have in schools having an enrollment of 1,500 or 2,000. To sum up, we express our thanks to you gentlemen for making it possible to have this fine approach. We endorse the bill in general, but ask that the following changes be made: 1. Grant professional employees in the attendance department exactly the same privileges that you propose to grant the librarians, research workers, and counselors. 2. Grant uniform annual increments of $200 to all professional employees. 3. Require that the Board of Education promulgate and publish objective standards for promotion into group B or D, the so-called superior group; which standards, when met, shall automatically qualify a person for the higher salary. 4. Recognize by a graduated salary scale the vast difference in the responsibilities of principals in large and in small schools. I also want to volunteer, in answer to a frequent question from the committee, that so far as the A. F. of L. and the city are concerned. in regard to meeting the expenses of the city, I wish to again point out that we said in our original statement then on the tax problem that if other sources were found inadequate, such as increased Federal contribution, increased income tax, more careful and thorough collection of income tax |