If you look at that, subtract 76 from that total elementary level, we re-deployed these teachers, because we felt it would be better to raise the class size by one or two and add an additional service to the local school unit. That was our problem, whether or not one or two would make the significant difference, if you eliminate the fact we are losing some good teachers in this. But by adding some teachers, some of these teachers, we would b edeploying additional reading specialists.

The decision there was to go with supportive help in the physical plant itself and increase the class. We would have to increase the class size somewhat.

(Subsequently, the following additional information was submitted for the record:)

STATEMENT ON REDUCTION OF TEACHER POSITIONS1

1. The reduction of 404 teacher positions includes all vacancies attributed to normal attrition.

2. Selection of the positions will be according to the following criteria: a. Normal attrition through retirements, resignations, etc.

b. Temporary teachers who had less than 10 years service in D. C. Public Schools as of July 1, 1966.

c. Probationary-provisional (PUC) teachers beginning with those most recently granted such status.

d. Temporary teachers who had ten (10) or more years of service in the D. C. Public Schools on July 1, 1966.

e. Probationary Standard teachers beginning with those most recently granted such status.

f. Permanent teachers beginning with those having least seniority.

3. Teachers' Union will be involved in establishing criteria to be followed in the reduction of teachers. Board established priorities in budget.

4. Pupil teacher ratio will be increased from 1:25 to 1:27 or 1:28.

URBAN TEACHER CORPS

Mr. FAUNTROY. Another area of apparently grave concern among citizens is the loss of the Urban Teacher trainees. I take it that was a decision that you felt obliged to make, given the limitations of the budget as submitted, or the original hold-the-line budget?

Dr. SCOTT. Two things predicated that decision. One, we knew we were going to face problems with additional funds. Secondly, we were putting in somewhere about half a million dollars in the Urban Teacher Corps situation. The history of the Urban Teacher Corps came about when there was a great need for more teachers in the inner city area. Our recruitment needs are low. The supply far exceeds the demand for employment now. So therefore it did not seem good business practice or sound educational practice, for that matter, to subsidize a half a million dollars into a program geared when the program was established, when there was a great shortage of teachers for the inner city. The program has a lot of merit. There are weaknesses in terms of people across the nation, people who made commitments violated those commitments and didn't join the school system.

Mr. FAUNTROY. What about those who have made the commitment, spent one year and expect now to be employed to carry out their commitment? Does the limitation of funds preclude the possibility of their being hired this year?

Source: D.C. Public Schools, Division of Budget and Executive Management, July 17, 1971.

Dr. Scort. No, whatever teachers we are hiring in any specialties would mean the Urban Teacher Corps people get priority because of that commitment.

We are also faced with another dimension, and that is when we implement the Wright Decree. We have a responsibility to equalize teacher services within five percent of the mean across the city in elementary schools.

As we see it now, that means the possibility of transferring teachers on the basis of their salary, in order to equalize. That may very well mean an individual teacher who has been teaching for a long period in one school may not want to transfer and would rather resign than

move.

We don't know. We are in a very bad situation come September, not knowing what we are going to have, not knowing what our budget is going to be, not knowing the impact of the Wright Decree in terms of our implementation of the clear decision the judge has indicated to us. So we don't know.

We are just mobilizing now to get some forces together to establish a rationale of information for the decree. How many teachers will resign rather than move, I don't know. I assume there will be some. I hope there is not a lot.

Mr. FAUNTROY. Thank you.

Mr. LINK. Mr. Chairman.

Mr. CABELL. Yes.

PUPIL ENROLLMENT

Mr. LINK. There were two or three questions came to my mind in the course of the discussion that our colleague, Mr. Fauntroy, had, that touched upon the enrollment. And you referred again today, Dr. Scott, to the drop in enrollment. How much has that drop been? What is the drop in enrollment?

Mr. CORNICK. About 2500 at the elementary level.

Mr. LINK. About 2500. Is that total elementary and secondary? Dr. SCOTT. That is elementary. We are figuring an increase in the secondary.

Mr. CORNICK. A slight increase in the secondary.

Mr. LINK. Now, have you been able to detect in what grades this drop-do you have it?

Dr. HENLEY. We have projections for next fall that we don't have with us now. (See p. 225.)

(The following information was filed for the record:)

Clarify why pupil population projections are only 95% correct

Pupil projection for D.C. Public Schools is a trend analysis of enrollment based on a past two year's experience. Birth statistics are used in projecting kindergarten membership. This method is dependent on the assumption that the rate of change for the next few years will be similar to the past two years. Effects of such factors as in- and out- migration, age-structure of city population, housing patterns and the like are not projected; the effects, however, are reflected as

soon as they become evident in school population. Given the foregoing method of projection, it is apparent that the projected enrollment are estimates and are thus subject to "error" as much as 5%, a level acceptable to many planners.

A comparison of the projected and actual enrollment for the school year 197071 gives the following per cent of error for each level:

Comparison of enrollment trends in private schools and their relationship to the reduced population of public schools. (Projection of enrollment including all schools)

The enrollment in both the private and the public schools shows a decreasing trend particularly during the last three years.

Statistics for the District of Columbia show that during the school year 196970, there was a decrease in enrollment between the October and June count of 5.033. Of this number only 447 pupils transfered to non-public schools representing 8.9% of the total. During the school year 1968-69, membership in June was 5.896 less than the October membership. Of this number only 270 (or 4.6%) moved to non-public schools in the District of Columbia.

PUBLIC SCHOOLS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

[Pupil membership in the regular public day schools of the District of Columbia (resident and non-resident) and membership of D.C. resident pupils in other schools, October 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, and 1970]