around the Skelly Wright decision, is one mother had a youngster in the fourth grade, and the child had seven substitutes between September and December.

When I inquired, I learned, and when I asked last week they confirmed that this does happen, that in that school they did not have enough, according to the Skelly Wright decision, black teachers. There were, it is alleged, not other black qualified teachers on the roster, or whatever you use to draw them from, and there were white teachers available, but the white teachers could not be hired as permanent teachers in that school and, therefore, they had the seven substitutes in a couple of months' time on a temporary basis.

Dr. Scort. Mrs. Green, that has to be absolutely false. We have a preponderance of qualified black teachers. They outnumber the number of white teachers on the staff. There can never been a situation where a black, by mandate of the court, would have to fill it, and we cannot find a qualified black. We have long since passed that stage. especially in elementary and secondary education, so that parent is absolutely wrong. And I would have to reject that in total.

Mrs. GREEN. The person who was here last week affirmed that this had happened and can happen, because I think it was a school board member.

Dr. Scorr. Mrs. Green, I think what you are referring to is the movement in equalization of having to maintain a ratio balance in our staff where a white teacher, in schools west of the Park, would have to be transferred in order to bring a black teacher in, in order to keep the 1967 compliance, as well as the order of 1970 of Judge Wright. That we have to do.

Mrs. GREEN. What does the ratio have to be?

Dr. SCOTT. I think the ratio falls-Mr. Campbell, do you have that ratio?

Mr. CAMPBELL. It has to be within 10 percent of the average, the city average.

Mrs. GREEN. 10 percent of the city average?

Mr. CAMPBELL. Yes, which could vary depending on our total number of teachers and the breakdown between the races.

Mr. CABELL. Is that a city average; is that city population, scholastic population?

Mr. CAMPBELL. No, the number of teachers, the over-all ratio of black to white.

Mr. CABELL. But, is that ratio based on total District population or scholastic population?

Mr. CAMPBELL. Based on the race of the teachers employed.

Mr. CABELL. I know. But, you have not answered my question. What is your base? Is your base for determining those percentage ratios the population, total population of the District, or is it the population of the schools, the students enrolled? You know, there is quite a difference.

Mr. CAMPBELL. The ratio is based on the race of the teachers employed. If we have 90 percent—

Mr. CABELL. You have not answered my question.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Well, I am afraid I am not getting your question. Mr. CABELL. When you are talking about ration percentages, and

racial ratios as between white and black teachers, is that the basis on which you are making that comparison

Dr. Scorr. Mr. Cabell, I think what Mr. Campbell said, at least it came through to me, whatever the percentage distribution is of the current staff, if it is 90 to 10, we must maintain that ratio within the

Mr. CABELL. That is without respect to

Dr. SCOTT. The District population in total.
Mr. CABELL. Or the scholastic population?
Dr. SCOTT. That is right.

Mr. CABELL. Well, that answers my question.
Dr. SCOTT. That is Judge Wright's mandate.

Mr. BARRY. Mr. Chairman, let me indicate that in 1967 Julius Hobson and other plaintiff's brought a suit, and the Judge ruled that the school system had to do a certain kind of thing, and one was the discrimination in terms of ratio of teachers, black and white, as well as the resources.

And on May 25th, 1971, the Judge ruled that we had to use teachers' salaries as the basis of equalization, and that's why we have had to have movement of teachers. The board, I think, has gone on record that we want to use all of the resources of the school system to equalize rather than teachers' salaries, but until that happens, we have to abide by the Judge's order or be held in contempt of court, or do something else.

So, that is why teachers have been shifted, that is the Judge's ruling, not our ruling.

Mrs. GREEN. Are you saying that the full thrust of the Skelly Wright decision was that whatever the ratio of teachers within the D.C. schools is, whether it is 50-50, or 70–30, or 90–10, that he went only so far as to say that in each and every school, then, it shall be the same ratio?

Mr. BARRY. I think there is a deviation.

Mr. CAMPBELL. It permitted a deviation.

Mr. BARRY. Plus, I think, plus or minus 10 percent.

Mrs. GREEN. If you are saying that--just as a hypothetical case, that if in the D.C. schools 90 percent of the teachers were white, that there was nothing in the Skelly Wright decision that would have required a change?

Dr. SCOTT. No. I assume that the board would move beyond Wright in this regard. We do not discriminate in our employment. We take the teachers who are qualified. We hire them, you know.

Mr. BARRY. I assume, Mrs. Green, if we found a situation where 90 percent of our teachers were white, that with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the amendments of 1965 and 1967, with a population of 71 percent black, general population, and a school population 95 percent black, that something is wrong.

Mrs. GREEN. I would agree. But, my understanding of the Skelley Wright decision is not as you people have explained it, that it only requires you to have the same ratio in each school as is the ratio in the total staff. That was not my understanding of the Skelley Wright decision, and that is as far as it goes, you say.

Dr. Scorr. Well, Mrs. Green, we have submitted a report almost a year ago, and there has been no adverse comments from Judge Wright,

and certainly Julius Hobson has always been sitting on top of us in terms of what we have or have not been doing, fact or fiction, which is so evident, and evidently Judge Wright is fairly content in terms of the responses to his order, which was fairly comprehensive.

TEACHER HIRING POLICY

Mrs. GREEN. I might say to you, Dr. Scott, that this incident I know from my personal knowledge, because it was a close friend of mine. who applied for a position, and she was extremely well qualified, and she finally realized something was wrong.

And she said to the principal that was interviewing her, just be frank with me. Does the fact that I am white work against me in being employed in the school, and he said yes.

Dr. SCOTT. Mrs. Green, I would think it would be the reverse. We get far more black applicants than we get white applicants. You know, being a minority, you know, I can understand a minority response.

Mrs. GREEN. You don't do that? If a black teacher were applying in a school she would not say, Will my race be held against me, and have an affirmative answer, but a white teacher did.

Dr. SCOTT. I wish that could have been brought to my attention and to the personnel department.

Mrs. GREEN. That is not a school policy?

Dr. SCOTT. No; that is not a policy. If we are hiring people, and the teacher is qualified, and got her application in on time, then I doubt whether race would have anything to do with it, except in accordance with her particular assignment.

Mrs. GREEN. I think I can supply that for you, not for the record, but I think I can supply that information for you on the time and the place.

Mr. BARRY. Mrs. Green, our policy, as I understand it, and maybe Mr. Campbell can correct this, is that the principal does not initially do anything. We have a centralized personnel office where you go to put your application in.

Mrs. GREEN. I do not want to put this on the record, and I will supply it to Dr. Scott, the time, and the school, and the person.

Dr. SCOTT. Thank you.

Mr. CABELL. The Chair has a couple of questions, and I would request, please, to let us make these as short and to the point as possible, because we are anxious to hear the teachers and their representatives. and to get on with our business as rapidly as possibly.

PRINCIPAL REEVALUATION

Dr. Scott, in the bill, as submitted by the District, there is a provision for reevaluation of principals and principals' salaries, and as I get it, that tends toward giving the board and the superintendent a rather arbitrary discretion as to the salaries and placements of those principals; is that correct?

Dr. SCOTT. Well, Mr. Cabell, I think that you are correct except the use of the word "arbitrary". I think that word is rather misappropriate in terms of the applications.

Mr. CABELL. Well, we will modify that and say discretion, and what criteria is used in making that discretionary decision?

Dr. Scort. I would say yes, 100 percent right.

Mr. CABELL. In other words, it does not contemplate that you will have a yardstick by which these decisions are made?

Dr. SCOTT. No; Mr. Chairman. It states that the board, and the language of the contract, when you refer to the board, you are always talking about the superintendent and his administrative staff saying to establish an appropriate guideline, and as I read the legislation, it states in criteria which I think is sound, and that criteria would be applied in place of people to give more equity in assignments.

Mr. CABELL. You are going to have standardized guidelines to where it could not become capricious, or arbitrary, is that correct? Dr. SCOTT. That is right.

Mr. CABELL. That is your intention?

Dr. SCOTT. That is right.

Mr. CABELL. At this point, we will include in the record an editorial on "Principal Evaluation".

(The editorial referred to follows:)

WRC-NBC-TV 4 EDITORIAL "PRINCIPAL EVALUATION", VOLUME SIX, NUMBER SIX, BROADCAST: JULY 20 AND 21, 1972

D.C. School Superintendent, Dr. Hugh Scott has proposed that tenure for school principals be eliminated and they be subject in part to an annual evaluation by a committee.

WRC-TV favors the idea that tenure be ended, we are skeptical about his evaluation proposal.

Tenure is a holdover from the past when school personnel was subject to abuse by a school board and community individuals and was necessary to protect members of the teaching profession. Such a guarantee to job rights seldom exists in other fields of endeavor, and tenure has been abused to protect the incompetent teacher and principal.

Certainly due process must be provided to replace tenure but it can be done with a procedure similar to Civil Service.

Dr. Scott proposes that the committee to evaluate the principal be made up of three students, three parents, three teachers and one administrator. The final evaluation would be made by an assistant superintendent of schools, who would be bound to give considerable weight to the recommendations of the committee. Certainly the school system should be more responsive to the consumers of education-the students and the parents. Their input into the educational process can be invaluable, but their evaluation should be carried out only under strict guidelines and criteria which are not yet set up.

The career and effectiveness of a professional educator-the principal-is at stake. He should not be subject to whim or pressure.

Tenure-no. Evaluation-yes. But WRC-TV suggests further in depth study of the superintendent's proposal before it is implemented.

SALARY OPTION

Mr. CABELL. There is another amendment proposed to eliminate the present option allowed the teachers as to whether they draw their total salaries at 10 months or 12 months. Now, when that was put into effect we had had considerable hearings on that and as my memory serves me, there certainly is a division among the teachers on that, and for that reason it was permitted that the teacher should have the option as to whether their annual check would be divided by ten or by twelve. Could you speak to that?

Dr. SCOTT. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I can. I can understand the division of opinion because I know it exists. Some teachers want theirs on 24 and some want it on 20. It is a mechanical thing because we are computerized. It is far easier for the system to implement accurately and make sure people get paid if we print out everything.

Mr. CABELL. But, if I understand it, once the option is exercised, then that option cannot be changed for that school year, is that correct! Mr. BARRY. Yes.

Mr. CABELL. Well, then, on your computerization or what have you, does it provide a bad administrative procedure just to have the two programs?

Dr. Scorr. Mr. Cabell, it means you have to check the list. In other words, the computer does not reject names, and you have to tell the computer what names to put on the thing.

Mr. CABELL. That is in your initial program?

Dr. Scorr. Right. Now, we have people going on for 21, and the names would keep going on, and some would be 10, and some would be 24, and we are trying to have it now whereby everybody's name would be coming up.

Mr. CABELL. It would not be practical just to have two computer reels, one for 10 months and one for 12?

Dr. SCOTT. I think I will let my business people

Mr. CABELL. The computer would not have to use its discretion then, it would read out the program in that reel.

Dr. SCOTT. Mr. Campbell, do you have any response to the practicality of that?

Mr. CAMPBELL. Just that it is more practical to have everybody on the same system, and it was a recommendation.

Mr. BARRY. I think it was a recommendation from our Price Waterhouse study also that we need to become more efficient.

Mr. CABELL. I am sure we will hear more on that subject but I did want to get the rationale of the school administration on that proposed change.

RETIREMENT SYSTEM

One other thing that I would like to ask you to comment on are the proposed amendments on the retirement system.

Dr. SCOTT. Well, I will have to have the District Government provide the response to that, in terms of the very technical area of retire

ment.

Mr. EHRLICH. If I may answer that question?

Mr. CABELL. Oh, yes. Please.

Mr. EHRLICH. Except for a few exceptions, the Teacher Retirement Act is very, very similar to the Civil Service Retirement Act, and the recent amendments to the Civil Service Retirement Act provided for certain revisions in their benefits that were primarily directed to individuals who at the time of retirement were either single and then later married, or who at the time of retirement were married to one spouse and then later changed spouses, and they liberalized the method by which annuities for those to whom they were married at the time of their death were allowable.

What we are proposing here is that these same provisions be applied to those who would retire under the Teachers Retirement Act.