schools 22 days early. We met in Portland in May. And they closed the schools that same month, Chicago-$61 million deficit; Detroit, Michigan-its board of education adopted a school year of 110 days reduced from 180 which meant they were open September 19, closed December 19, open again January 19, close April 19. I say these things, because while we are trying to improve the management of our resources, we need resources, Mr. Chairman, and we need teachers whose salaries are competitive. This is the nation's capital. It has a population which is 71 percent black. It a student population that is 85 percent black and I think the nation's capital can do as well as some of our other large cities and have a salary that is competitive and comparable to our neighboring communities as well as to New York, Chicago and Detroit. Thank you very much. Mr. CABELL. Thank you, Dr. Scott. TEACHING-ADMINISTRATIVE RATIO Taking into consideration the reduction that you say has taken place in your administrative level, what is the percentage today or the ratio between instructional and non-instructional or administrative personnel? Dr. Scort. I will locate it in one minute for you, Mr. Chairman. this. Basically, 89 percent of our personnel are assigned to local school units. In our reductions, we cut about half and half; 50 percent of the reductions came from 30 percent of the personnel. In other words, teachers constitute about 70 percent. We took 50 percent reductions and the other remaining staff took the other 50 percent, so we cut 180 some across the system. Mr. CABELL. You say they are assigned to instructional units but does that mean their duties are instructional or are they still administrative but assigned to an instructional unit? Dr. Scorr. Let me break down the figures and I will give you the percentage classification and add a qualifying remark to the previous statement. We have 342 positions basically, roughly, in our budget with some increases in terms of the new fiscal year. Last fiscal year, '72 we had 342 positions of local school administrators-that is, the principals and assistant principals. Now, that is basically administrative support staff in the local staff unit-342 people. Mr. CABELL. How does your percentage or ratio of instructional to noninstructional compare with similar or comparably sized systems using the same criteria for their allocation as to administrative or instructional? Dr. SCOTT. I will give you the percentages that you asked for. We compared favorably in the fiscal year '72 budget. With the decimation we have done to the administrative and supervisory staff with the '73 budget, we are in a very, I would say, unfavorable position in terms of service. Let me give you the percentages in terms of administrators, and we provide a definition. That documentation is before the committee, am I right? We have 424 administrators, I can read that one for you-that constitutes 4.1 percent of our total staff. Now, again, 342 of those administrators at least are principals and assistant principals who are on the line, direct local school-based administrators. Supervisory personnel, constitute 89 positions or less than 1 percent of our total personnel force. I doubt that there is another school system which has such a limited cadre of individuals providing supervisory service. Teachers constitute 6,788 positions, at 65.9 percent of our operating budget in terms of personnel; specialists constitute 586 positions-that is, 5.7 percent of our total staff. Technicians are 67 positions, .6 percent. Paraprofessionals, 195 positions, 1.9 percent. Clerical, 567 positions, 5.5 percent. Custodial, 1,581 positions, 15.4 percent. Now, Mr. Chairman, we have more custodial than we have administrators, supervisors and specialists and technicians combined in the D.C. public school system. SALARY INCREASES BY PERCENTAGES IN H.R. 15965 Mr. CABELL. On this breakdown that you provided us as to the application of the percentage increases and the variations we have used the term with reference to the D.C. Government bill of a 7 percent increase, but in looking at the increases we find a variation of from 10.6 percent down to 7.1 for the classroom teachers. COMPARISON OF PRESENT AND PROPOSED AVERAGE SALARIES AND PERCENTAGE INCREASES BY SALARY CLASS FOR DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA TEACHERS AND SCHOOL OFFICERS Source: Government of the District of Columbia, Personnel Office, Aug. 4, 1972. Now, this is a litle unique. Most of the salary advances that I have seen, the higher percentages have been given to the lower income workers, employees, and the lower increases given to the managerial which. I think, is wrong because you are destroying a basic pattern of differential up and down the line; but it is a little hard to understand why that it is already your higher salaried brackets that are getting your highest percentage of increase. Can you speak to that? Dr. Scort. Mr. Chairman, I think there is a very logical explanation for that. I think one has to go back first to the two things: (1) a comparative analysis of the competitive nature of our administrative and supervisory schedules as compared to our surrounding areas, and compared to other large cities. For instance, an assistant director in the Detroit Public School System would make $25,000 a year. If I as superintendent were going to recruit a person to fill a vacancy of assistant superintendent in the Washington Public Schools, I couldn't talk to an assistant director, couldn't even talk to a junior administrative assistant. That individual at maximum makes more than my assistant superintendent. To carry that further, the deputy superintendent and the vice superintendent currently make $31,000 a year. A high school principal with a doctorate in the City of New York makes $31,000 a year, so I am saying that the salaries on the administrative level are not competitive with Montgomery County or Prince Georges County. The principals make more. The other concern is that the board in passing its recommendations in the last salary bill, made some adjustments which I, upon review with the personnel office, feel to be unwarranted in terms of reducing the level of some of the administrators. Our key positions, especially the local school principal, should be placed at a salary that will attract the finest individual. We had a situation where assistant principals were leaving the assistant principalships and going back to the classroom, because a classroom teacher with the same number of years of service would make more. I think what this salary schedule attempts to do, and I think the range of the total thing runs from 2.6 for the superintendent's raise to one of 10.6 to for the class 10 positions is to provide some equity on a competitive basis and based on previous kinds of distributions of the weight. The salary proposed here will make the teacher's salary comparable to the surrounding areas. It is not as much as the deputy and I would like. The administrative salaries would still fall somewhat below the national average for large city school systems. Mr. CABELL. It is a little bit hard to reconcile your statement there about assistant principals going back to classroom teaching, when looking on this chart that has been furnished, the assistant principal starts today at $17,860 and today's average principal salary is $19,673; whereas, the classroom teachers have a start of $7,800 which appears, of course, to be rather low, but by the same token, today's teacher's average salary is $11,100. In previous testimony that we have had before this committee, the plea has been to aim toward classroom teachers because we had been told that is where the competition is; we are having to compete with other school systems, and in order to get the caliber and quality of teachers that we want, certainly want badly, that they are the ones who are suffering. You tell us, if I read your statement correctly, that the problem is in the middle and upper management ranks, where you are at a competitive disadvantage? Dr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I think in our presentation we are saying that this really does not constitute a pay raise. It constitutes an effort on the part of the school system, and the District Government, to try to give to the Teachers' Salary Act employees equity comparable to the GS employees and other employees who get a compensatory kind of factor related to the cost of living. I read in the paper that Congress plans to give a 5.2 percent raise which makes GSA personnel happy but really unnerves Teachers Salary Act personnel. When an assistant superintendent on a GS schedule, in the present bill proposed by Congress, would be a 20 percent increase, while the Teachers Salary Act personnel have not received an increase. The other concern is, Mr. Chairman, that you are talking about the average. I am saying that I think a teachers' salary bill should not provide for an injustice to any employee. I am not saying that the majority of assistant principals would be making less than a teacher at maximum. I am saying that there are situations where some good people wondered why they should work 12 months and I think that needs to be brought into focus as well, Mr. Chairman. Why work 12 months, when you can return to a ten-month schedule, make the same amount of money as a teacher and not have the burden of the administrative responsibility for what teachers and others do? The average salary is a lot different than the salary of one who would enter the first on the scale. Mr. BARRY. Plus, Mr. Chairman, look at these averages; they are not really that far. I think the Board's view is the teachers certainly should be making more than we are asking for here. If the policemen and firemen can make $10,000 starting out with a high school education, certainly teachers who have to go through a rigorous education in college should make more but if you look at the TS, a 15 is 7.1 percent. If you look at the salary schedule and the others are 8.4%, 8.18%, and 9.7%, is really not out of line. And the other thing— Mr. CABELL. How many of your teachers and principals resigned in order to get on your police force? Dr. SCOTT. Pardon me, Mr. Chairman ? Mr. CABFLL. How much trouble have you had with resignation of your teachers and principals in order to go to the higher paid jobs? Mr. BARRY. Mr. Chairman, teachers are teachers; they are not policemen and I think the problem here, and we ought to be straight about it, is that education is big business now; you can't run it like we did in 1848 when John Dewey was running education with the tworoom schoolhouse. Mr. CABELL. You answered my question when you said they are teachers and they are not police, and you are trying in these salary comparisons to compare an orange with an apple. Mr. BARRY. Well, I have to get off with that and compare Mr. CABELL. I think that more emphasis and more attention should be given to the teachers themselves and not what some comparable situation would be. An earth-moving machine operator draws far more pay on the job than does a lieutenant in the police, but I haven't found any of the policemen resigning to take a job as a bulldozer operator, so I think that sometimes we get off the track when we start making comparisons that don't hold water. Mr. BARRY. The reason I made that comparison, Mr. Chairman, this committee also the District Committee also deals with the salary in creases for policemen and firemen and there are a number of teachers who have raised this with me by the mere fact they have to go four years and earn a master's and some other degrees, since this is the same city and same committee that approved both salary increases, that is why I saw the relevancy of those two things together and I think citizens have expressed that and I am only trying to reflect the constituency of the city; I don't try or profess to know everybody here but I think the teachers are unhappy with the relationship of their posture in relationship to the firemen and policemen raises. That is the fact. PRINCIPALS Mr. CABELL. Dr. Scott, in my interpretation of some of your statements, if it is correct, I believe you indicated that you want to get to a single salary for your principals and vice principals, assistant principals? Dr. Scort. No, Mr. Chairman, that is not correct. Mr. CABELL. I did want to clarify that because I got that impression. Dr. Scort. No, that is not the case at all. Competitive salary schedule reflects ability and responsibility. Mr. CABELL. Because I know in the past there have been some very intensive studies made about the principal, differentials based on responsibilities, size of classes, number of teachers on the staff and things like that; and some time ago, I think it was possibly two years ago, it was indicated, in the case of your principals, that you were going to work toward the steps, diversification; but in looking over your distribution of principals by level of salary as of April 30, it is very definite that levels 3 and 4 have a preponderance of those involved, and there is only one sitting down here in level 1. Would that be justified? Dr. SCOTT. I didn't get the last part. You said a reference to level 1? Mr. CABELL. There is just one man, just one principal listed under level 1. Dr. SCOTT. Within the various classifications? Mr. CABELL. Yes. Dr. Scort. Well, basically, I was not here when it was adopted, and I would probably have made a strong recommendation to the Board against it. That is a sin of the past that I basically think needs to be reconstructed. Now, it became a system for salary that can't be implemented. We have to say that principals fall in three basic classifications-levels 5, 6 or 7. Let's take for instance, a principal with a very small school. Let's say you have an elementary school of 300, 350 youngsters. Many citizens would prefer to have a full time administrator. We would prefer not to have to pay that principal at the Class 6 salary but rather give him the title, "principal," and, let's say, pay him at a 7, this would give him the role and responsibility of a principal and pay him a salary that is related-that relates to the amount, the scope of his responsibility. This would prevent having a situation where a principal of a school with 400 youngsters makes as much as a principal in a school of 2,000 youngsters. And, also, I think the other factors are the complexities associated with the various kinds federally funded programs. 82-531-72—14 |