Page images


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.

orkyear: 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?

[ocr errors]

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

Senator CAIN. Gas tax and all the rest.

Mr. TURNER. On a residence basis; we were against the gas tax and excise taxes, but we believe that income-producing property, if you cannot get enough property from—enough taxes from the other sources, and that is the last resort should be the source of income, the additional source

Senator Cain. Mr. Turner, we have appreciated your testimony very much.

You have no official connection with the school system of Washington, have you?

Mr. TURNER. None whatsoever.

Senator Cain. You have a tremendous interest in what goes on in the schools as a result of your educational work within the American Federation of Labor,

Mr. TURNER. That is right. The statement was drawn up with the assistance of the

Senator Cain. I raised the question because you have made certain comments which have not been supported or encouraged by any of the witnesses from the school system itself. You and I will both agree that is interesting.

You used the word “persecution” once or twice. You used the phrase "bad morale." Mr. Bates and I, and our colleagues, are endeavoring to understand this problem comprehensively. I believe you are the first one who has raised the question seriously concerning morale.

We do not want to belabor the point, but I think it perfectly fair to call that to your attention, for you have not been in attendance at all the hearings, and I wanted Mr. Bates and myself to be conscious of that fact, you see.

Mr. TURNER. That is fine. This statement has been drawn up in consultation with people representing the American Federation of Labor teachers' union here in the city.

Senator Cain. Well, one reason Mr. Bates and I have leaned over backward in permitting a democratic process here has been in high hopes that because of a hearing of this character not having been held for a decade in the past—and it may not be held again before 10 yearswe wanted to be as certain as we could that people would say exactly what they thought.

Mr. TURNER. Well, in regard to the people in the attendance department and in the child labor enforcement section, we believe it is persecution that they should be given conditions of employment the way it is different from most people.

Senator Cain. We have a lady who is coming right after you apparently from that section.

Mr. BATES. Mr. Turner, you oppose the gas tax and you oppose the sales tax in your testimony.

Senator Cain. Is that so, Mr. Turner?
Mr. TURNER. That is correct, sir.

Mr. Bates. What we are trying to do is to find enough money to pay these bills that everybody is recommending. I am sorry the Board of Trade is not here this morning because I did expect to examine the witnesses.

There are a great many suggestions being made as to the support of these various bills increasing the cost of the government of the city,

but very, very few suggestions other than a more liberal Federal contribution. I would like to get down to the bottom of that question to find out just where the people stand. Somebody has got to pay these bills, and in your opposition to the gas tax and also the sales tax, that leaves us primarily with the two other major sources—three other major sources, real estate, income and Federal contribution

Senator Cain. May I interrupt you there, sir. If I am not very much mistaken, this witness in his previous testimony was solidly in opposition to raising the real-estate base. Mr. TURNER. No. Senator Cain. No? Mr. TURNER. We did not pass on that at all.

Mr. BATEs. I am coming to that point; he made a contribution in that respect. I want to just inquire as to just what he means by it.

Now, apparently, we are facing a deficiency here of approximately 15 to 16 million dollars in the 1948 budget. That is precisely correct, is it not?

Mr. TURNER. Yes.

Mr. BATEs. In order to make up that deficiency we have got to find money, and that includes, of course, the $1,600,000,000 that is not in the present estimates, and the additional expenses brought about by the approval of this bill, if this bill is approved; so, we are $16,000,000 short. Now, the District representatives have recommended the income-tax bill; that embraces all people living within the District, and so on, and will yield about $4,000,000. That is precisely correct, is it not, maybe five?

Mr. WEST. Our estimate was $3,000,000, but I think that was probably a little low.

Mr. Bates. Well, probably $4,000,000. So, that is $4,000,000. I think this deficiency will reach closer to 16 than 15, so that brings it down to $12,000,000.

Well then, according to your testimony, you believe that we ought to find that money some other way, and your suggestion is primarily a Federal contribution. Well, if you increase the Federal contribution by twice the amount it now is, which would be $8,000,000, in excess of what it is, that is double, that would still leave us $4,000,000 short of our requirements of what we are told are our requirements of the deficiency in 1948, not to say anything about 1949, 1950, and so forth.

Now, your suggestion is that we ought to apply, perhaps, a tax to property that is now income-producing. Do you mean commercial properties alone or do you mean residential properties also that have roomers and boarders, and so forth; where would you draw the line!

Mr. TURNER. I say my suggestion—that is we have not discussed the exact drawing of a line-but I should think it would be a clear line of demarcation between commercial property of the type and the residential field that deal with large numbers of people. I do not think that it would be very practicable to apply to people taking in roomers or having maybe one light housekeeping room or something of that sort.

Mr. Bates. Have you made an examination—I presume you have of the residents of the District of Columbia, the outrageous prices that are charged for one room for people who are trying to get a place to live here in the District ?

Mr. TURNER. Yes, I am aware of it.

Mr. BATEs. And perhaps two or three small room apartments that may be part of the tenement, have you examined into that to decide and find out what the story is?

Mr. TURNER. I know that the rents are very high.
Mr. BATEs. Do you include those in your testimony?

Mr. TURNER. We have not taken a stand, that is, the Central Labor Union, as to just where the line of demarcation ought to be drawn. We assume that that particular problem is a problem more for the Congress.

Mr. BATEs. Well, it is a very difficult one, as you know, to separate real property into classes for the purpose of assessment values, excepting under what we might call the real cash value of the property itself, and the Board of Assessors are in fact, and they have already revalued the District, and put a substantial assessment, we are told, on commercial property; a 20 percent flat assessment increase on residential property. I believe that is the principal base. But in that sense, I understand that the assessment on commercial property has been more heavy that the 20 percent on residential properties.

Mr. TURNER. I would say this, sir: That in regard to the sales tax, as compared to even a tax that might have to include residents, that if we may go by past national A. F. of L. policy, the A. F. of L. would prefer a property tax any time over a sales tax.

Mr. BATES. Well, if we increase the tax valuations in the District to about $1,600,000,000 next year—that is approximately correct, is it not, Mr. Fowler!

Mr. FOWLER. I think that is about right.

Mr. BATES. If tlie tax rate is raised from $1.75 to $2 on the increased total valuations that would yield approximately $4,000,000 more;

is that correct? So that if you add that to the doubling of the Federal contribution, and the $4,000,000 increase from the income tax, that is 8 and 4, which are 12, and 4 more from the 25-cent increase in the tax rate, you are just balancing off your deficiencies.

Mr. TURNER. That is correct.
Mr. FOWLER. That is right.
Mr. Bates. Where are we going to go from there?

They say figures do not lie, but I would like to see if my analysis lies anywhere.

Mr. TURNER. There is also the fact that on incomes, that is, on the amount of money that is estimated by the Budget Officer that might accrue from the income tax, I do not think they took into consideration, naturally, the recommendations that we have made a steeper graduation in the higher brackets, which we think is a reasonable source of income, since the States on either side have higher rates than we have.

Mr. BATES. This income-tax bill, as I understand it, Mr. Walker, applies to the same rates that presently exist.

Mr. WALKER. That is right.
Mr. Bates. Thank you.
Mr. TURNER. Thank you very much.

Senator CAIN. I wonder if Mrs. Alice C. Sheldon, Director of the Department of School Attendance and Work Permits, is with us.

[ocr errors]
« PreviousContinue »