TABLE 42.-CURRENT EXPENDITURES OF PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEMS: UNITED STATES, 1959-60 TO 1979-80 A. INCLUDES THE EFFECT OF THE ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT OF 1965 B. EXCLUDES THE EFFECT OF THE ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT OF 1965 986 41.6 43.1 1 Includes only the current expenditures for public day schools allocated to popil costs, and excludes the other expenditures shown in footnote 2. 2 Includes current expenditures for summer schools, adult education, and community colleges operated by school districts, in addition to expenditures allocable to pupil costs. Estimated on the basis of actual enrollment and interpolated expenditures per pupil. 4 Derived from estimates furnished by States. 5 Based on assumption that current expenditure per pupol will be $95 higher than trend. The projections of current expenditures of public school systems including the effect of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 are based on the assumptions that: (1) the ratio of average daily attendance to enrollment in grades K-12 of public schools (table 3) will remain constant at the level of 0.923, the average for the 6 years 1963 64 through 1968-69; (2) current expenditures allocated to costs per pupil in average daily attendance will follow the 1959-60 to 1964 65 trend; (3) the ratio of current expenditures for all programs to current expenditures allocated to pupil costs will remain constant at the 1967-68 level of 1.035; and (4) an increase in expenditures of $95 per pupil will be added to the trend expenditures outlined above as a result of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. *Based on the assumption that the Consumer Price Index will follow the 1965-66 to 1696-70 trend through 1971-72. 7 Estimated, using the 1959 60 to 1964-65 trend. Based on continuation of 1959-60 trend in current expenditure per pupil. The projections of current expenditures of public school systems e cluding the effect to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 are based on the first 3 assumptions outlined in 100tnote 5 above. For methodological details, see app. A, table A-4, and discussion in text. Note: Data are for 50 States and the District of Columbia for all years. Sources: Data are based on statistics shown in U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Education publications: (1) "Statistics of State School Systems" circulars (1959-60 through 1967-69); and (2) Statistics of Public Schools," fall 1954 through 1969. Current expenditures were converted to 1969-70 dollars on the basis of the Consumer Price Index prepared by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Depart.nent of Labor. For method of converting, see app. B, table B-12. The expenditures shown in this table include current expenditures for administration for State boards of education, and intermediate administrative units. 82 531-72-20 TABLE 43.-CURRENT EXPENDITURES FOR SALARIES OF INSTRUCTIONAL STAFF IN REGULAR PUBLIC ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOLS: UNITED STATES, 1959-60 TO 1979-80 1 Data on number of instructional staff were taken from table 30. 2 The average annual salaries of instructional staff are about 4 percent higher than the salaries of classroom teachers. Estimated on the basis of the actual number of instructional staff and interpolated expenditures per staff member for salaries. Estimates of salaries furnished by State education departments. The projections of current expenditures for salaries of instructional staff in public elementary and secondary schoo's are based on the following assumptions: (1) Average annual salaries will follow the 1959-60 to 1969-70 trend; (2) the ratio of instructional staff to classroom teachers in regular public schools will follow the 1959-60 through 1969-70 trend; and (3) funds provided by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 will increase the number of instructiona staff over the number expected on the basis of trend alone by approximately 180,000 each year (see tables 26 and 30) Based on the assumption that the Consumer Price Index will follow the 1964-65 to 1969-70 trend through 1971-72. Note: Data are for 50 States and the District of Columbia for all years. Sources: Data are based on statistics shown in U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Education publications: "Statistics of State School Systems" circulars (1959-60 through 1967-68) and "Statistics of Public Schools," fall 1964 through 1969. Conversion to 1969-70 dollars was based on the Consumer Price Index prepared by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor. For method of converting, see app. B, table B-8. MOTOR VEHICLES ASSIGNED TO THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PUBLIC SCHOOLS Vehicles not included in above: Driver educational sedans (loan)......- 30 Total.. 205 Vehicles being procured for replacement-Fiscal Year 1973 replacement: 12 regular 24-passenger school buses for special education; 1 wheelchair (12-15 passenger) school bus for special education--- $107, 001. 75 Additional vehicles-fiscal year 1973 supplemental: 16 regular 24-passenger school buses for special education; 2 wheelchair (12-15 passenger) school bus for special education. 1 44-passenger school bus... for Urban Service Corps.. Total. 149, 009. 58 256, 011. 33 Note 1: Impact aid funds are designated specifically for transportation from overcrowded to undercrowded schools within the District. 1 Attendance records are not available for this school term. The figure of 140,000 pupils enrolled is a carry over from the past school year. The absenteeism in the District runs at more than 20 percent of the enrollment. The figure 130,000 as average daily attendance is a very generous figure for calculation purposes. The actual is probably under 125,000. a Some special education classes have as few as seven children for one teacher and an assistant. Mr. JAMES T. CLARK, WASHINGTON GAS LIGHT Co., Clerk Committee on the District of Columbia, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CLARK: This is a follow-up on my testimony last Friday, August 4, 1972, regarding H.R. 15965. I am pleased to furnish the following information relative to increased revenues to the District of Columbia Government which will result from rate relief granted Washington Gas Light Company by the Public Service Commission of the District of Columbia in 1972. Fiscal period ending June 30, 1973: Estimated increase in WGL Co., revenues. Estimated increase in District of Columbia government reve- Sales taxes at 4 percent, payable monthly after billing____ Fiscal period ending June 30, 1974: 1 $1, 523, 400 49, 200 102, 409 151.600 Estimated increase in WGL Co., revenues. 1,600, 00) Estimated increase in District of Columbia government reve- Gross receipts at 4 percent, based on increased WGL Co. Total... Very truly yours, $64,000) X .07. 60, 900 64, 000 107.500 132, 409 E. R. MELLON. 1 Based on 2.5 percent surcharge effective June 29 and 4.1 percent rate increase effective September 15, 1972 Hon. EARLE CABELL, C. & P. TELEPHONE, Washington, D.C., August 7, 1972. Chairman, Subcommittee on Business, Commerce and Fiscal Affairs of the Committee on the District of Columbia, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. MY DEAR MR. CABELL: At the hearing of your Committee on Friday, August 4, Congressman Gude asked if I would supplement my testimony with information on the average size of monthly telephone bill for residence and business customers in the District of Columbia. It is for June 1972 as follows: Residence__ Business $18. 67 299.45 Since a change in the gross receipts tax would probably be close to a uniform 1% increase in all bills the annual effect on the average residence customer's bill would be about $2.24 and on the average business customer's bill about $35.93. Also, I would like to submit some additional information which may prove helpful to you in estimating the effect of our recent rate increase on tax revenues to the District of Columbia. I have attached estimates of this increase on the current and next fiscal year which should be in a more useful form than that in my testimony. It is interesting to note that while the immediate revenue effect is not as large as stated in my testimony the full effect in the next fiscal year is larger. Respectfully yours, Attachment. CHARLES W. WEIKEL. ESTIMATED INCREASED TAX REVENUES TO THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA GOVERNMENT AS A |