STATEMENT OF MR. WILLIAM S. JACKSON, PRESIDENT, ASSOCIATION OF CLASSROOM TEACHERS, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA; ACCOMPANIED BY MRS. ANN COLUZZI, SECRETARY, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA EDUCATION ASSOCIATION

Mr. JACKSON. Mr. Chairman and members of this committee, my name is William S. Jackson, Sr. I have with me my legislative assistant, Mrs. Ann Coluzzi.

I am appreciative of this opportunity to present this testimony on behalf of the United Teaching Profession here in the District of Columbia which includes the District of Columbia Association of Classroom Teachers and the District of Columbia Education Association.

H.R. 15491

I respectfully request your approval of H.R. 15491. This bill contains a modest but most necessary salary increase for education of the public school system of the District of Columbia.

In today's changing world, the school has a great part to play in helping each child grow in social usefulness to the extent that he will become a responsible member of society. Yet, one of the major crises in this country is how to operate our schools in the direction of meeting the goal of a responsive education for all pupils.

Certainly we all will agree that children are our Nation's most precious resource. If today's children, more pointedly, if the children of the District of Columbia, are to solve their problems of tremendous magnitude, which they will face in the future, they must be taught and developed to their fullest capacity by teachers with the finest of educational background and training.

Therefore, if we are to maintain a high quality teaching staff in the District of Columbia, a professional salary scale for teachers cannot be too greatly emphasized.

It may be argued that in the field of education, as in the sciences, the number of trained individuals exceeds the job openings available. Those of us who are interested in the children we teach and, indeed, the survival of public education, are concerned not with the quantity of those labeled teachers, but with the quality brought to the teaching profession.

While a just salary range does not imply better teachers per se, it allows a school system the option of selecting those most qualified for available positions.

In the past the District of Columbia Public School System has attracted and maintained a high proportion of accomplished teachers. The quality of employees has been dictated by high standards and until recently a competitive salary scale.

While many true professionals still work diligently in their roles as educators, many others have become discouraged when their years of effort and concern are not compensated. Those who have worked exhaustively to meet strict educational requirements have discovered that associates who have chosen other professions or other school systems are receiving generally far more compensation for far less educational preparation.

The financial problems of the District of Columbia Government we all know to be extreme. However, we urge you not to economize by short-changing those engaged in perhaps the most vital role in modern society. Those of us who care deeply about the children we teach, those of us who are concerned about the future of the District of Columbia School System, those of us who believe our work is truly important are anxious that the District maintain an adequate salary scale so that successful teachers will not be forced away and qualified teachers will be attracted to us.

SALARY COMPARISONS

While a salary increase for teachers is essential for the competitive salaries paid by Government and industry, the concern becomes more that of attracting and keeping qualified teachers. The need for salary increase is an economic one. Recent research indicates, "For a moderate standard of living for a family of four living in the city in the spring of 1971 it was estimated that the annual cost would be $10,971. The average salary paid public school teachers in 1970-71 was $9,269, which is 83.4 percent of the requirement for a moderate standard of living. . . . The average earnings of Federal civilian employees in 1970 were 19.8 percent above those of teachers for the same year (calendar-year basis). Estimated average weekly earnings of employees in contract construction were $212.04 for the same year. . . .

The median earnings of women professional or technical workers in 1970 were $7,850. And I might inject that our society needs to do something about the stereotyping and sex typing of women's roles in the world of work.

This is 35.9 percent below the median of $12,255 paid to men professional or technical workers in that year." (Economic Status of the Teaching Profession, 1971-72 NEA, p. 5.)

The research cited indicates a definite need for a salary increase for teachers. Considering the beginning salary of $7,800 for a District teacher with a family, this family could not enjoy a moderate cost of living.

It seems to me that to maintain this level of living would be to discriminate against the teacher in the market place.

The following table is presented to show the increase in the beginning teachers' salary for a three year comparison according to the increase in H. R. 15491. Even if Mr. Fauntroy's bill was enacted the increase for D. C. teachers would still be substantially below that of many other systems as this tabulation shows.

(The table referred to follows:)

EXAMPLES OF SUBSTANTIAL INCREASES IN SCHEDULED SALARIES BETWEEN 1970-71 AND 1972-73-27 URBAN SYSTEMS WHOSE 1972-73 SCHEDULES WERE ADOPTED BY AUG. 7, 1972

Mr. JACKSON. Since the cost of living has increased from 116.3 in June, 1970, to 124.9 in June, 1972, or an increase of 7.4 percent, the increase called for in the Fauntroy bill would mean an actual increase of only 1.6 percent above the cost of living.

Therefore, what seems to be a 17 percent increase in salary as proposed in H.R. 15491, is simply 9.0 percent due to the cost of living increase.

Observing the three bills before this committee, it might be well to state that each bill has some positive points worthy of note.

AMENDMENTS PROPOSED

Permit us to call your attention to one item that needs consideration: In Section 2(a) (D.C. Code, Section 31-1511(a)), in listing those positions which are exceptions to the required Master's degree. H.R. 14674, unlike H.R. 15491 and H.R. 15965, adds the positions of "Director of Food Services, Assistant Director of Food Services, Supervising Director of Military Science and Tactics, . . . teachers in the senior high school, teacher of academic subjects in the vocational high school ..."

While the requirement of the Master's degree for probationary and permanent teachers at the senior high and vocational high school

level has posed problems in recruitment, we do not believe those problems are best solved by the lowering of academic standards and we might inject here that we would also encourage teachers to seek the same academic improvement at the elementary and junior high levels, as well.

Such a proposal should be given careful consideration by members of the teaching profession here in the District of Columbia before it is put into law.

ADMINISTRATORS' DIFFERENTIAL

Also, I might inject here that we are also concerned with a change in Section 5(d) of the D.C. Code Section 31–1522 in H.R. 15491 and H.R. 15965. This section deals with paying administrators on a differential scale, class scale, and we feel that doing this would violate the single salary scale. And we feel that it would set a dangerous precedent by also setting up a differential salary scale for teachers. And why we question this is we would wonder what type of standard or what type of material would be set up to judge what administrator or what teacher would be better fit to do the job than the other.

Finally, we feel that the destiny of this Nation is partially shaped by the quality of the educational opportunities found in the classroom. We further feel that there is a mandate for improving and upgrading the educational program provided for the children in the District of Columbia.

The success of the child's school experience is significantly shaped by quality teachers. Therefore, we trust that this committee will recognize and consider the close correlation between good professional salary scale and strong teaching staff that a school system maintains. We of the United Teaching Profession here in Washington, D.C., are proud that our testimony in support of H.R. 15491 carries the endorsement of the National Education Association, an organization of more than one million members who are committed to quality education and the economic security of teachers.

Today, we come not with empty rhetoric or veiled threats nor do we ascend these steps with a paternalistic air, but we come to the Government Seat as partners to promote the general welfare of our people in the District of Columbia.

We thank you for the privilege of appearing before you and trust that you will work for speedy passage of H.R. 15491. Mr. CABELL. Thank you, Mr. Jackson.

TEACHER CONTRACTS

Do you and your organization sit in on any of the negotiations at the bargaining table with the school administration when you are discussing contracts, problems, and so forth?

Mr. JACKSON. No, we do not. We do not have that privilege, sir. Mr. CABELL. Are you familiar-and correct me if I am wrong-with the stipulation existing in the contract where a teacher can have her contract not renewed, and supposedly for cause, to where they are not permitted to see any of the records of inefficiency or complaints that have been made, and does not have access to a review board or hearing on that?

Mr. JACKSON. From my understanding of the contract, we do have due process.

Mr. CABELL. The statement has been made that a number of teachers have been notified that their contract would not be renewed because of poor efficiency or performance was poor, but they are not allowed to see them, they are not allowed to see the source, and they are not given a procedure for hearing on that. Is that correct?

Mr. JACKSON. Well, I am not too familiar with that procedure. However, I do know that there are some teachers who have worked in the District in the past year who have lost their jobs, and I do not know what help has been given to them by our bargaining agents.

Mr. CABELL. Would Mr. Simons like to reply to that?

Mr. SIMONS. I would like to respond to that. No teacher who receives an unsatisfactory rating is denied a right of grievance and review of all the facts. And any teacher-we cannot make a teacher protest an unsatisfactory rating, but if any teacher wants to enter a grievance

Mr. CABELL. Well, what is the machinery? Before whom can they appear in protest of that?

Mr. SIMONS. The first step is to discuss the matter with the rating officer to see whether or not an error has been made. If that does not resolve the issue, then we have a hearing before the superintendent's designee.

If that does not resolve the issue, then the matter can be taken to binding arbitration so that every teacher is protected fully.

Mr. CABELL. Well, binding arbitration, who are the arbitrating parties? Would that be the union and the school board or

Mr. SIMONS. No. A neutral party, someone from the list furnished by the American Arbitration Association, or some other known arbitrator mutually agreed upon by the Board of Education, and the facts are read to that person.

Mr. CABELL. Has that procedure been resorted to on many occasions, to your knowledge?

Mr. SIMONS. Not in the case of a rating, but we have used the arbitration procedure for other grievances. However, I can give you an example of what happened last year when a teacher was terminated because of a misinterpretation of the Board rules. What happened in the hearing before the Board of Education was it was determined that an error was made and the teacher was reinstated with full pay. Mr. CABELL. I refer you to paragraph 9 of Article 6. I guess this is where it said no recording device shall be utilized at Steps 1, 2, or 3, of this procedure.

No person shall be present at any of these steps for the purpose of recording the discussion. At Step 3 there shall be a single chief spokesman on each side provided that this shall not preclude any participant at Step 3 from speaking thereat.

Now, are any proceedings of these hearings available?

Mr. SIMONS. Well, we consider the matter through Step 3 as an informal attempt to resolve the issue. There are written opinions given at the end of Step 2 and at the end of Step 3. The individual, if not satisfied with the decision at Step 3 then, as I say, would move on to binding arbitration.

Mr. CABELL. That is fine. I thank you.

82-531-72-19