SCHOOL BUILDING PROGAM Mr. FRASER. On your building program, buildings are actually constructed and designed and so on by the municipal corporation, that is, by the city government, is that right? Dr. SCOTT. General Services Administration. Mr. FRASER. For the District? Dr. SCOTT. Yes, for the District. Mr. FRASER. I have asked this question before and I don't remember the answer. Do you have a long term building program? Do you have five and ten year projections on building needs? Mr. CORNICK. I can answer that. We have six year projections. We have a six-year building program. Dr. SCOTT. Perhaps Mr. Woodson can answer that. Mr. WOODSON. Mr. Fraser, we do have and prepare each year a program for six years in advance. We also have a long range program that we have consulted with the planning commissioner on but this is a 1985 plan to be precise. I would just like to say that that plan cannot be an exact plan because there are too many factors which will change between now and 1985 but the annual restructuring of the six year plan does keep us in contact with actual conditions. In other words, our projections of pupil population for the next six years would probably be at least I would say 95 percent accurate. Now, in addition to building for numbers of pupils, we also have the problem of the condition of the school plant. That is another variable. Some of the buildings are quite old. We are using Stevens School which is 100 years old. It is in a neighborhood where we don't have overcrowded conditions but on the other hand we have buildings built as recently as 1960 which do not have in them all of the facitilies which a modern school should have. I might add to that that the administration and the school board is making a strong effort to individualize instruction and for this reason we have changed the design of the school plans so that we are able to provide this. Now, we are going to have to find someway to individualize schools which were built in 1960. This may mean some modernization. So that when we talk about our building program, we are talking about a number of factors that go into it. Mr. FRASER. Do you work for the school system or for the city? Mr. WOODSON. I work for the school system. Mr. FRASER. And you are sort of the point of connection between the city and the school system? Mr. WOODSON. I would say that is a fair assessment of my position. Mr. FRASER. There was, as I am sure you remember in the corporation hearing, some comment about whether in fact there was sufficient progress or planning in school buildings so as to justify appropriations. Mr. WOODSON. I think that that question deals with how fast architects work and how fast sites can be procured and both of these are factors in this. For example, we might expect to ask for a certain amount of construction money, let's say in fiscal year 1972, but because of the problems of acquiring the site and relocating people, we would find that we could not actually start the construction in fiscal year 1972. So these funds could be dropped for this kind of reason. and this has happened. Mr. FRASER. Now, who controls the design elements in the schools? Mr. WOODSON. Well, I think that on an overall basis the school system. I think that we control it. Mr. FRASER. So that the city Mr. WOODSON. In other words, what I am saying is that when it comes to the space arrangement and the kinds of spaces that we ask for, the kinds of classrooms, and the design of the classrooms, the school system does control it. We set general standards and general guidelines for this. The buildings are designed by private architects, working for the Department of General Services and, of course, all school buildings are not alike precisely but they do conform to our guidelines. We have a staff that reviews these designs at various stages to make sure that from an educational and functional standpoint we get the kinds that we want. Mr. FRASER. What is the progress on the replacement of the very old buildings? That is, the District has been engaged in a building program of recent years Mr. WOODSON. We are making some progress. We have replaced quite a few schools. On the other hand, we have some more to go. And they are probably of two kinds. We have three schools in the area mmediately west of the White House which are old schools with very old populations. We might teach music in an empty room—a room, rather, that is not being used for say a fourth grade and because of this, the priority or urge or the necessity to replace those buildings is not as great as it is in some other places where we don't have old buildings. We have a condition in Georgetown of three very old buildings but with very old populations and they have some space to move around in. But on the other hand, in the Shaw Urban Renewal Area, we are behind in that area. And because of the Urban Renewal process, we have not been able to find sites. We would like to say we are making progress. We believe that we will get two such sites this year. Mr. FRASER. What about the replacement for the Shaw School? Mr. WOODSON. For the Shaw Junior High School? Mr. FRASER. Yes. Mr. WOODSON. The plans for that are about 50 percent complete. The construction funding is in the fiscal year '72 request and we hope to start work between now and next June. Mr. FRASER. And you have the site? Mr. WOODSON. The site, yes. We have the site on which to build the school. Mr. FRASER. And the title? Mr. WOODSON. This piece is already in the ownership of the District. It is a playground and we will, I guess, attempt to keep you fully informed. This project was planned so that it could be done in phases. The school itself will occupy a city square at 9th and 10th and Rhode Island Avenue and "R" Streets. Now, there are residences along Rhode Island Avenue on the 900 block and on "R" Street and 9th, the southwest corner of that inter section which will have to be acquired and built in order that the complete plant can be built. We are going to build classrooms in all parts of that building. The assembly hall will be built on what is now ground in government ownership. The second phase, it will have to be built on ground which is yet to be acquired by the Urban Renewal Office. These people will be relocated and in the new housing project across the street. And then there is the third phase, the federal education. phase, and land will also have to be purchased and the people removed. Now, the Urban Renewal Administration, that is, the Redevelopment Land Agency, is in the process of acquiring these sites and relocating the people. So, that it is going to take a little longer and be slightly more complicated than the normal school project. Mr. FRASER. Mr. Chairman, I have some more questions and I was going to ask him about the Summer School Program and the fact that it was not being run, but Mr. Fauntroy Mr. CABELL. If Mr. Fauntroy will yield to me for just one question. Mr. FAUNTROY. Yes. COMMUNITY FACILITIES IN SCHOOLS Mr. CABELL. Mr. Woodson, is it not true that your reference to buildings that have been built since 1960 lacking facilities or lacking modern facilities, doesn't that refer primarily to the community facilities as you call them which are essentially things like the little city hall and really are not items relevant to the school building itself? Isn't it true that these designs, that these concepts including these so-called community facilities, are actually about double in space and double in cost of what would be required of a true school or academic structure? Mr. WOODSON. No, sir, Mr. Chairman, I think I can say no on all accounts. Let me say this, that a school built in 1960 was designed for community use. For many years we worked with the Recreation Department to use that portion of the buildings and they have been designed in such a fashion that they are readily accessible without being connected directly to the classrooms at all. Now, since 1960, from a curriculum standpoint, we added certain things. I might say that music has been one of them. In one elementary school we have been able to add a music education staff and they had no place to work so there is presently an elementary school which must use a small gymnasium for classes. But the schools are now being designed in a fasion which will let the community use these spaces after 3:00 or 3:30 in the afternoon. It is in that sense that we have many schools which from an educational standpoint are inadequate. I might say this too, that up until recent years, the last three years, we have made very little advancement in the prekindergarden program. And I think that everyone would agree that our kids in these cities don't get the same kind of start that people in the suburbs and people in the better financial brackets are able to give their kids. So that a prekindergarden program in a central city is an extremely important phase of the educational program and we are now building these facilities but we have very few of them at this time. Mr. CABELL. I will not pursue that further. Mr. Fauntroy, you will have until the next bell rings and then we will assure you the first spot on the next hearing and we won't put you quite so far down the line. Mr. FAUNTROY. Thank you so much Mr. Cabell. Dr. Scott, I just want to first of all congratulate you for having the courage to take what Mr. Ballou said is perhaps one of the most difficult assignments as school superintendent in the country. I want to commend you for your ten month tenure and for your presentation here today because I think you have made very clear the unique nature of our school system in the District of Columbia and you have parricularly demonstrated for us admirably and adequately the fact that we are not putting into our special services needs the kinds of resources that the children of these schools require. And I was particularly impressed with your analysis of the fact that we do not have available to us the kinds of resources that states make available to cities in addition to the kinds of resources that the federal government makes available to those same cities. We have to include many items in our budget that do not appear in the budget of other schools systems and I am particularly thankful to you for the clear, concise manner in which you have outlined and defined the need to at least documenting our problems among the educable retarded on the one hand and secondly, you have demonstrated the inadequacy of what is proposed here to deal with the problems of those educable retarded. SCHOOL POPULATION I just have three questions that I would like you to address. The first has to do with the school population which has come up several times today and I wonder what your assessement of the reason for the drop in school population given what you have already said to us in terms of the quality of education you are able to provide children in the schools and given the dropout rate which is attributable to the failure to deliver services for the educable retarded and those with special services needs. Dr. SCOTT. Well, Congressman Fauntroy, I thank you. In terms of the projections and why the rate is reduced in terms of the number of students, there doesn't appear to be an overwhelming decrease of the District school population. I have sort of consistently maintained a posture that the schools really are the lifeline of this District for those who live here and sometimes it is a very difficult thing to sell that concept because we all talk about the value of education and yet there is this I guess you call it the stigma associated with the large urban school systems. The District is not unique in this. I don't know what the percentage of the population is of people who come here for the first time because of employment with the Federal government. As the Washington Post indicated, this is perhaps the one city in America with the most educated population. Twenty-five percent of the population, of the parents of these children, have graduated from college. But we find that the school system isn't evidently able to project the image that makes some of these families want to live here though it is close to employment. Because of this families, Black as well as White, are sort of retreating from the public schools of the District and I sort of facetiously state that there appears to be a condition here that everyone is waiting for the next GS raise(The following tabulation was filed for the record:) NON-EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES IN CERTAIN PUBLIC SCHOOLS Morgan Elementary School Multi-Service Center Public Health Clinic Community Arts and Crafts Community/Recreation Gymnasium Indoor Swimming Pool Shaw Junior High School Police/Community Relations Community Roving Leader Community Meeting Room Eighth and Yuma Employment Service Indoor Swimming Pool Community/Recreation Gymnasium Wrestling Room Teen Center with Snack Bar Community Industrial Arts Community Home Economics Laboratory Adult Classroom 53rd and Benning (Payne Cemetery Site) Public Health Clinic Multi-Service Center Day Care Space (small) Mr. CABELL. I am sorry but we will have to break this one off. I would like to announce this session of the hearings will return at ten o'clock on Friday. We will have Federal City College which has already been scheduled. Mr. Townsend, last week Mr. Abernethy asked for a list of those District employees who resided outside of the District, do you know if that has been prepared? Mr. TOWNSEND. No, I don't but I can check. Mr. CABELL. I will appreciate it. So with that announcement this session will resume Friday, June 18th, at ten o'clock. (Subsequently, the following statement in response to inquiries of the Committee was received for the record:) STATEMENT ON SCHOOLS' ABILITY TO GET JOB CLASSIFICATION ACTIONS1 1. TEACHERS SALARY SCHEDULE Prior to the D. C. Reorganization Plan 3 of 1967, the Board of Education and the Board of Commissioners shared classification responsibility and final authority was vested with the Board of Commissioners. Both Boards delegated their responsibility and/or authority to their respective Personnel Officers. This provided for effective and efficient administration and expeditious action and decisions by harmonious working relations between the skilled specialists staffs 1 Source: D.C. Public Schools. Division of Budget and Executive Management, July 1971. |