Page images
PDF
EPUB

The bill, to which I refer, was presented to you by the Superintendent, Dr. Hobart M. Corning, and the Board of Education of the District of Columbia Public Schools, and comprises the recommendations set forth by the Superintendent in his report to the House and Senate District Committees, as was authorized to be so done on or before February 1, 1947, by action of the Seventy-ninth Congress, so as to adjust certain inequities in the Teachers' Salary Act of 1945, as amended.

This measure, now under your consideration, is a composite product of a large majority of the recommendations drawn up by the various teacher and officer groups within the whole school system.

These recommendations were submitted to, consolidated by, and approved by the Joint Legislative Council which is a representative body of teacher and administrative organizations.

I would like to say here, that there were about three recommendations which were made by this organization which were not incorporated in the Superintendent's report and that has been brought out before. One was the fact that we had asked for $2,600 minimum, rather than a $2,500 minimum.

One was that we had asked for the third column additional recognition for supermaximum group teachers for the whole system, although it was advocated originally by the high-school teachers, primarily, all other groups acquiesced in that recommendation and the third one which was not incorporated was the one which we had asked for primarily for a $200 increment rather than a $100 increment. Because of the fact it took so long to achieve the rating, we were almost ready to die of old age before we could get it.

In this manner each group within the system voiced its opinion and thus the provisions for the present proposals were arrived at under a democratic procedure.

The Teachers' Advisory Council, of which I am president and for whom I speak, has a membership of 85, representing a complete cross section of the whole system by divisions and buildings. This representation is not by organizations but per capita, that is, for example, 1 representative for every 50 teachers or major portion thereof in any one building, and 1 representative for each administrative division in the system, and it takes in divisions 1 to 9.

This is primarily a teachers organization, although the administrators are represented on it, and the librarians.

Mr. BATES. It is a school system?
Mrs. GOSLING. Yes.

It was originally established in an advisory capacity, for the Superintendent's benefit and for the administrators, and that was the original purpose of it.

The Advisory Council is a member of the Joint Legislative Council and therefore submitted its proposals for salary revision to that organization.

The representatives on the Legislative Council participated in all deliberations of that body and approved the composite recommendations sent to the superintendent.

In the Joint Legislative Council, which I am sure will be brought out by the president of that organization, every organization which is a member of the Joint Legislative Council is allowed a representa

tion on the basis of the president and Legislative Council of each of the organizations plus one representative for every hundred in membership of those organizations or major portion thereof.

As such, we, the Advisory Council, had three representatives on that council, who participated actively in this program.

Later these recommendations were approved by the full membership of the Advisory Council, and at a special meeting the council by a large majority approved the consolidated recommendations, which the superintendent had presented to the school personnel on January 21, 1947, and which comprise the content of the bill on salary revision now under your consideration.

I would like to interpolate a little here. The Advisory Council originally for a certain group of recommendations which were sent to the Joint Legislative Council, and those recommendations included not only the ones that are listed in this bill but those three I mentioned a few minutes ago.

Then when the whole of the recommendations that were drawn up by the Legislative Council which incorporated also those three, the Advisory Council approved them, and then when they were certain, of course, to the administrators, they worked out the bill and felt that those three had to be dropped because of financial reasons and other reasons, whatever they may have been, that was their prerogative to work out that program, then the Advisory Council received the full recommendations from Dr. Corning and approved their recommendations by a considerable majority vote, so that as an organization, we approve heartily this bill as is.

Therefore, the Advisory Council approved this set of recommendations which comprises this bill, after this particular fashion for these reasons.

It raises the entering minimum salary from $1,900 to $2,500, which though less than the civil service P-1 rate, is compensated somewhat by 12 annual increments of $100, rather than 6 of $200 under the old bill, each offering an incentive for able teachers to enter and remain in the primary field.

This incentive is further enhanced by the fact that the single salary scale is applied through the system, so that those with equal qualifications shall receive the same salary benefits.

Thus the maximum salary is advanced 27 percent over the 1945 act, with A. B. degree teachers reaching $3,700 and A. M. degree teachers $4,200 for class A groups, and for class B1, C1, B2, C2, and D1, D2, B3 salary maximums of $4,200 and $4,700, respectively.

That is all in those charts with the exception that the high-school teachers did not get their extra two classifications for which they had asked.

The librarians have been placed on the same status with regular teachers, so that with equal qualifications they enjoy the same salary range.

We felt that was a very excellent measure.

The increase salary for officers is 612 percent to 13 percent over that of the 1945 act. This to a certain extent adjusts one of the inequities claimed under the 1945 law, in that the 1945 act gave too great an increase in pay to the administrators rather than to the low-paid teaching staff where it was so sorely needed.

That was brought out in the hearings in 1945 and 1946 also. Thus the present bill under consideration offers the teachers a 27 percent increase in their maximum against 612 percent to 13 percent increase for the officers. The lower percent increase goes to the higher-paid officers and on the basis of their salary under the 1945 act.

This bill incorporates within its provisions the present $450 flat increase over the 1945 scale, temporarily paid the teachers for the present fiscal year, which benefit dies on June 30, 1947.

In case this amount should fail to be continued, the teacher's pay for the entering group would revert to a figure below that offered to untrained manual labor, and for those who have reached their maximum it would offer a rather hopeless outlook as an income ceiling in the present economic era.

In view of the present world crisis in which democracy is on trial against certain foreign and destructive ideologies, it seems obligatory that those most vital agencies and agents of democracy-her school systems and her teachers—must be supported to the extent that sufficiently attractive salaries will attract the most capable minds and retain within the system the most highly trained and equipped personnel.

The continued existence of our democracy rests on this contingency. It is a dangerous situation we face when we note that more than 350,000 teachers have left our American public schools since 1939, and that such replacements as are being made are from inadequately trained personnel, who are not educationally equipped to meet the teaching qualifications for permanent placement in our school systems.

Therefore, on behalf of the Teachers' Advisory Council of the District of Columbia Public Schools, I approve the Superintendent's bill recommending salary revision, and beg your favorable consideration of this measure.

Mr. BATEs. Thank you very much, Mrs. Gosling. Mr. Superintendent, apropos to what Mrs. Gosling said as to the growth of these foreign and destructive ideologies, you read in this morning's paper a statement apparently made or quoted as having been made by a member of the United States Senate about teaching of foreign ideologies in the schools of Washington.

At this time, would you care to make a comment in respect to that?

Dr. CORNING. I did not see the article, sir, but I will make the comment that there are no foreign ideologies advocated in the schools of Washington, D.C. Of this, I am certain.

Mrs. Gosling. I think it is a very timely issue.

Mr. Bates. I think it is a very important statement made by a very important member of the Senate. I was rather amazed at the statement he made, whether there is any justification for it or not.

Dr. CORNING. We are very certain of our ground on that, Mr. Congressman, and may I say for your information in that connection that within the past month the Daughters of the American Revolution in district congress assembled passed a resolution highly praising the . schools of Washington for their teaching of history and American government. That commendation, coming from an organization that guards all our American traditions as jealously as does the Daughters of the American Revolution, is very significant.

· Mr. Bates. I thought this might be a proper moment. We are discussing school matters in the Congress of the United States, through one of its appointed committees, and in the presence of so many of the teaching staff, your views, representing as you do the school system in the District.

Mrs. Gosling. Mr. Chairman, I happen to be a history teacher in the high schools, and of course a member of all the history organizations. I think I can speak without any qualifications whatsoever in endorsing Mr. Corning's statement to that effect.

There is absolutely no question of that in our history department. Mr. BATEs. You read about it in today's newspaper, did you?

Mrs. Gosling. It is very necessary. I think we should support our schools to the extent that we must pay for qualified teachers to uphold our democratic principles.

Mr. Bates. Thank you, Mrs. Gosling.

The next will be Miss Myrtle E. Moore, member of the Junior High School Teachers Association.

STATEMENT OF MISS MYRTLE E. MOORE, PRESIDENT, JUNIOR HIGH

SCHOOL TEACHERS ASSOCIATION, DIVISIONS 1 TO 9

Miss MOORE. First, as the president of the Junior High School Teachers Association, Divisions 1 to 9, I shall read my statement.

The Junior High School Teachers Association wishes to express its endorsement of the proposed teachers' salary legislation embodied in S. 1088. We feel that the improvements recommended are most desirable.

The single salary scale, paying all teachers on the basis of qualifications and experience, is an equitable way of assigning teachers salaries. It is our strong conviction that the increase of $700 on the minimum over the 1945 provisions is a forward step in raising teachers' salaries to a true professional level.

With this increase teachers' salaries will more nearly approach those of other professional workers, such as those in Government service, scientific personnel, and lawyers.

The proposed increase is in keeping with the recommendations of the National Education Association and the National Congress of Parents and Teachers.

Now, Mr. Chairman, as chairman of the joint legislative council, which you have heard quite a bit about, naturally I would not make recommendations; I merely wish to give you a history of what we have done, if that meets with your approval.

At the first meeting of the joint legislative council in October of 1946, Dr. Corning sent the following communication (reading]:

Much interest has been expressed in the study to be made of our present salary legislation, a report on which is to be submitted to Congress by February 1, 1917. Such a study had been agreed upon by the Board of Education at the time the hearings on the subject before the Board were held.

In order that all teachers may have an opportunity to have their views presented on this subject, the Superintendent has asked the joint legislative council to conduct the study for the educational employees of the school system and report to him by November 29, 1946.

Inasmuch as the joint legislative council is a representative body of educational organizations on every school level and from both divisions of the school system it seems appropriate for this organization to undertake this project.

[ocr errors]

Since it is very important that this study be all-inclusive and that as a result of the study we present a united front in our presentations to the Commissioners and to Congress, it is desirable that all organizations of educational employees not now affiliated apply for membership in the joint legislative council and participate in this city-wide study.

The Superintendent desires to direct the attention of the joint legislative council to what, in his judgment, is the specific job that Congress has directed the Board of Education to perform, and with respect to which the Superintendent desires advice from the joint legislative council.

The job to be performed by the Board of Education is described in section 3 of Public Law 568, Seventy-ninth Congress, approved July 31, 1946, which reads:

"The Board of Education is hereby directed to make a study of the pay scales and classifications of the employees of the said Board whose salaries are fixed and determined by the District of Columbia Teachers' Salary Act of 1945, as amended, for the purpose of determining what salary and classification adjustments, if any, may be necessary or desirable, and to make a report, including its findings and recommendations, to the respective chairmen of the Senate and House District Committees not later than February 1, 1947."

As the Superintendent sees it, the Board of Education has been directed to limit its study to the pay scales and classifications of the Salary Act of 1945, and to report its findings and recommendations thereon.

Under the terms of the order of Congress the Board of Education does not contemplate submitting a new Teachers' Salary Act. The Board will concern itself with a study and report upon adjustments in the pay scales and classifications of the Teachers' Salary Act of 1945, which the Board considers necessary or desirable.

As a point of departure in its work, the Superintendent suggests that the joint legislative council study very carefully:

1. Section 3 of Public Law 568, Seventy-ninth Congress, in which the Board of Education is directed to make the study.

2. Issues which were before the Board of Education which were not settled at the time of the hearings on the salary bill before the Board of Education.

3. All other issues which are claimed to be inequities by various groups and organizations at this time.

4. Present or proposed salary schedules for all educational employees in other cities comparable in size to Washington, D. C.

Distinction should be made between those issues which very properly should be submitted to Congress, those issues which are purely administrative, and those issues which are within the authority of the Board of Education to solve.

The Superintendent presents herewith seven principles which in his opinion should guide us in our deliberations :

1. It is impossible to develop a perfect salary schedule to which all affected persons and groups will agree.

2. It is the purpose of the present study to determine what salary and classification adjustments, if any, may be necessary or desirable in order to make the present schedules as perfect as possible.

3. It is not conceivable that the desires and needs of all individuals and groups can be completely met.

4. A satisfactory outcome involves a process of careful objective evaluation of each proposal, and to a degree a merging of interests into a formula most acceptable to all.

5. Since costs cannot be ignored, careful consideration should be given to the money involved in recent gains: annual cost of $450 salary increase, $1,600,000; annual increase in cost of the new retirement features, $1,100,000; and a projecting of the costs involved in each new proposal.

6. Any proposal finally adopted should make permanent those gains already accomplished and no proposal should be made which will tend to jeopardize the present situation.

7. Interrelationships and salary levels should be recommended only after careful comparison of salaries and trends for all classifications in cities of comparable size.

Specifically, then, the Superintendent desires advice and recommendations from the joint legislative council on the adjustments in the Teachers' Salary Act of 1945 which the joint legislative council considers necessary and desirable, and would be happy if the joint legislative council would submit for the consideration of the Superintendent and the Board of Education specific amend

« PreviousContinue »