(Subsequently, the following recommendations were received by the committee:) Mr. JAMES T. CLARK, THE WASHINGTON TEACHERS' UNION, Washington, D.C., June 9, 1966. Clerk, Committee on the District of Columbia, DEAR MR. CLARK: Enclosed are copies of the additional recommendation of the Washington Teachers' Union presented at the hearing before Subcommittee No. 4 of the Committee on the District of Columbia, House of Representatives on Thursday, June 9, 1966. Respectfully yours, WILLIAM H. SIMONS, President. PROPOSED AMENDMENT The Washington Teachers' Union recommends that the following proposal be incorporated in the salary legislation before Subcommittee No. 4 of the Com mittee on the District of Columbia, House of Representatives. "All temporary teachers who have completed two or more years of satisfactory service in the Public Schools of the District of Columbia will be granted permsnent status immediately upon the successful completion of all necessary require ments as prescribed by the Board of Education for their position." The Union makes this recommendation because temporary teachers who have been satisfactory for two or more years have already demonstrated the fact that their service is acceptable. These teachers have received the same supervision that probationary and permanent teachers receive. To require them to do an additional period of probation would be repetitious. The incorporation of this would improve the morale of the temporary teachers and would help to spur them to get all of the necessary qualifications. Hon. JOHN DOWDY, U.S. House of Representatives, AMERICANS FOR DEMOCRATIC ACTION, DEAR SIR: We are interested in your consideration of the bills submitted by Rep. Broyhill and Rep. Sickles proposing to raise the salaries of the teachers of the District of Columbia school system by 12%. We wish to lend our enthusiastic support to such measures for we are fully aware of the urgent need to attract competent permanent teachers by a real commitment to quality education on the part of the community and the Congress. We have become aware that some are opposing these bills on the basis that the rate proposed exceeds the President's anti-inflationary guidelines. We feel that since education is widely held to be a form of community investment, it cannot properly be regarded to have the same relation to the problem of inflation which industrial or financial expenses might have. Further, we support one salary scale for principals. We feel that the decisive factor should be that of obtaining the best leadership for the directing of programs of greatest student need, regardless of the size of the administrative unit. We oppose having different levels of principals' salaries based on size of admini strative units for it places too much emphasis on purely quantitative factors. We hope you will be encouraged by our support to consider favorably the bills submitted by Representatives Broyhill and Sickles. Respectfully, ARNOLD ZANDER, Chairman, Greater Washington Chapter ADA. (Whereupon, at 12:25 o'clock p.m., the subcommittee adjourned.) APPENDIX Government OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, The Honorable the SPEAKER, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. EXECUTIVE OFFICE, Washington, August 31, 1965. MY DEAR MR. SPEAKER: The Commissioners of the District of Columbia have the honor to submit herewith a draft bill "To amend the District of Columbia Teachers' Salary Act of 1955, as amended." 1 The purpose of this bill is to authorize the payment of additional compensation in specified amounts to junior high, senior high, and vocational high school teachers who are assigned to perform extra duties on a continuing basis during hours beyond the regular school day. A study has been recently conducted by the staff of the District of Columbia Personnel Office to determine the extensiveness of the practice of providing extra pay to teachers in twenty cities over 500,000 in population and in communities in the Washington Metropolitan Area. Other information obtained in the study was the types of activities for which payment was being made, the amount of payment, and information as to the experiences of these cities in the installation and administration of such practices. Replies to the inquiries were received from all cities contacted except two, and from all communities in the Washington Metropolitan Area except Falls Church. Analysis of these responses indicates that: (1) Seventeen city school systems of the eighteen responding to the questionnaire have some form of extra duty pay. In the Washington area, four of the five school systems have extra duty pay provisions, with Prince Georges County paying for football only. Montgomery County does not have an extra duty plan but does pay its football coaches for practice held prior to the opening of the school term. (2) Fourteen city school systems have had extra duty pay plans in effect for 10 years or longer and three of the four local school systems have had extra duty plans in effect for 10 years or longer. (3) Sixteen city school systems found few, if any, administrative problems in administering their respective plans, although one city cited constant pressure for rate revisions. Two of three area systems found the major difficulty was in the requirement to change rates. (4) There is no uniformity in the amounts of payment made or hours spent on like activities in the various school systems. Sixteen city systems reported that teachers' regular salary was not a determinant for the amount of extra duty pay. Three of four Washington area school systems reporting did not determine extra duty pay based on regular salary. (5) All systems that reported extra duty pay plans required teachers to carry a standard teaching load except that one city system reduces the teacher load for the teachers supervising the yearbook and newspaper activities. (6) Generally, no minimum number of hours is required for a teacher to work before becoming eligible for extra duty pay. Rather, the length of time required was determined by the duration of the activity (e.g., season or semester). (7) The large majority of city and Washington area school systems responding to the survey recommended the adoption of extra duty pay plans. The draft legislation provides latitude for the inclusion of activities, in addition to those specified, as approved by the Board of Education with the concurrence of the Board of Commissioners. This bill was subsequently introduced as H.R. 10926 by Mr. Broyhill. In order to assure adequate safeguards, insofar as eligibility is concerned, proposed legislation requires that a teacher (a) must be assigned a stand teaching load for a regular day school teacher; (b) must have an activity wh involves the supervision and instruction of students who select such activ voluntarily, and (c) must have an activity approved by the Board of Educat as an authorized co-curricular or extra-curricular activity. The activity require no less than twenty-five (25) additional hours in any one semester o and above the regular school day. The estimated annual cost of these extra duty pay provisions for approximat 450 teachers is $225,000. The Board of Education as well as the Commissioners believe the prope legislation is desirable and recommend its enactment at this session. The Commissioners have been advised by the Bureau of the Budget that, fr the standpoint of the Administration's program, there is no objection to submission of this legislation to the Congress. Yours very sincerely, WALTER N. TOBRINER, President, Board of Commissioners. Hon. JOHN L. MCMILLAN, Chairman, House District Committee, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS, Washington, D.C., August 6, 1965. DEAR MR. MCMILLAN: We have reviewed H.R. 9876, which amends the District of Columbia Teachers' Salary Act of 1955. The Board of Education and the School Administration support much of this bill. However, there ar certain important exceptions, which are presented in the following sections. 1. SALARY SCHEDULE The Superintendent of Schools appointed a salary committee which was con posed of representatives of the D. C. E. A., Local #6 of the American Federation of Teachers, the Superintendent's Advisory Council, and the School Administra tion. The D.C. Department of Personnel cooperated closely with this committee in all aspects of its work. This committee unanimously recommended a salary schedule ranging from $5,700 at the BA minimum to $12,040 for a MA +6 credit hours at the maximum. The School Administration and the Board of Education supports this committee's recommended salary schedule. Copies of this schedule are attached. May we emphasize that the actions of this com mittee did not commit the groups represented. The committee was entirely an advisory group for the Superintendent. The Board does wish to advance teachers salaries to the levels presented in H.R. 9876 and indeed, beyond those levels. The Board does not feel the levels in this salary scale to be unreasonable. However, at this time, we favor a somewhat lower scale, in conformance with the salary committee's recommendations. 2. PARAPROFESSIONAL STAFF The Board of Education recommended two levels of supporting instructional staff. These levels are shown in the attached salary schedule. However, this is not a major difference since the Public Schools primarily wish to establish this type of position, but would be willing to begin gradually. 3. TEMPORARY TEACHERS The Board of Education and the School Administration support all the temporary teacher provisions except that they recommend that all temporary teachers be allowed to receive credit for as many as nine years experience outside or inside the District Schools. This eliminates the need for paragraphs (5) and (6) on page 10 of this bill. 4. EXTENDED SCHOOL YEAR (P. 12) The Board of Education and the School Administration have long favored providing year-round education. Thus, we favor provisions for an extended school year. We also support the 10% differential. However, it should be ob served that the salary schedule proposed in H. R. 9876 is not structured to allow an application of the 10% differential without creating salary inequities. For example, if a class 15 teacher, on maximum class D, were employed on an extended school year basis at the salary rate provided in H. R. 9876, he would receive $14,850 or $170 more than a class 10 assistant director who also was on maximum class D. Since the class 10 assistant director is a promotional position from the class 15 teaching position, an inequity will be created. Other inequities will occur in other positions as well. 5. PRINCIPALS SALARIES The Board of Education favors a four-level differentiation of principals' salaries based not on the grade level of children taught but rather on selected workload and responsibility factors. Thus, we do not support a single salary level in class 6. The class 6 salary levels shown in the attached schedule are the result of the work of the Superintendent's Salary Committee, although the proposed "variable base" was supported by a minority of the salary committee members. The premise for proposing this four-level salary class is that the "single salary" is valid in-as-much as the principal should not be compensated by the grade level of the school he administers. However, the single salary should have a variable base, determined by workload and responsibility factors. In summary, the Board of Education and the School Administration support in total or in principal, much of H. R. 9876. Our major differences are in the class 6 principals' salaries, the structure of the salary schedule in relation to the extended school year, and in the basic level of the salary schedule. Sincerely, JOHN M. RIECKS, Acting Superintendent of Schools. GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, EXECUTIVE OFFICE, Washington, March 25, 1966. Hon. JOHN L. MCMILLAN, Chairman, Committee on the District of Columbia, DEAR MR. MCMILLAN: The Commissioners of the District of Columbia have for report H. R. 9876, a bill "To amend the District of Columbia Teachers' Salary Act of 1955 to provide a new schedule of salaries, and for other purposes." The first section of the bill gives it the title "District of Columbia Teachers' Salary Act Amendments of 1965." Section 2(1) of the bill amends section 1 of the Teachers' Salary Act of 1955 by substituting a salary schedule substantially increasing the pay of teachers and school officers of the public schools of the District of Columbia. Sections 2(2) and 2(3) amend sections 2 and 4 of the Act, respectively, to add as a Group D in the salary schedule, the educational level of a master's degree plus 60 credit hours. Section 2(4) amends section 5 of the Act by adding the position of "paraprofessional assistant" and authorizing the appointment by the Board of Education of annual substitute teachers. Sections 2(5) and 2(6) of the bill amend sections 7(a) and 9, respectively, of the Act to allow teachers a maximum of nine years of experience credit for placement purposes in lieu of the present maximum of five years. Section 2(6) of the bill also amends section 9 of the Act to place limitations on the number of years persons may be employed as temporary teachers. Section 2(7) of the bill amends section 10 of the Act to provide for promotions to the Group D level proposed in the bill. Section 2(8) of the bill amends section 13 of the Act to authorize extended school year programs with a 10 percent increase in basic salary for certain academic year (10 months) employees voluntarily participating in such programs, to revise upward the salary schedule for veterans' adult education summer high school teachers and employees in the adult education program, to establish rates of compensation for the "paraprofessional assistants", and to provide extra-duty pay for teaching employees who are required to report to school prior to the opening of the regular school year. Section 3 of the bill authorizes the Board of Education to provide certa inducements to prospective teachers, such as travel expenses and per diem allances, and a resettlement cash allowance. Section 4 gives the legislation the effective date of July 1, 1965. Although the Commissioners are heartily in favor of pay raises for teacher, they cannot support the rates proposed in this bill. The change in the sala schedule proposed in this bill for teachers and school officers would result in average over-all increase of approximately 21 percent. Teachers with a bachelor degree who are presently at the maximum salary step for their class and gro would receive over 28 percent above their present salary; those at the master degree maximum would receive a 26.9 percent increase, and those at the mar mum for the master's degree plus 30 credit hours would receive 29.3 percent i they remain in this group, or 34.3 percent if they are placed in the proposed group D, master's degree plus 60 credit hours. Following is a comparison of proposed salary ranges for teachers and othe employees in Salary Class 15 (approximately 94 percent of all employees covered under this bill) and their present salary ranges. It is the view of the Commissioners that the salary ranges incorporated in the bill are at this time unrealistic and accordingly the cost is excessive. However, the Commissioners wish to note that they are in general agreement with such provisions as placing a limitation on the number of years of employment for temporary teachers, allowing teachers nine years of experience credit for placement purposes (but for permanent and probational teachers only), the establishment of a position similar to the "paraprofessional assistant", and travel and relocation allowances for prospective teachers and school officers. The Commissioners cannot support the extra-duty pay proposal in the bill and have prepared separate legislation on the subject. They do not concur in the payment of extra compensation for teachers with a master's degree plus 60 credit hours. They cannot at this time support the ninety-day placement provision for temporary teachers, the extended school year compensation provisions, and the proposal for annual substitutes. The Commissioners are deeply sympathetic to increased compensation for teachers and school officers, but feel that a more conservative but competitive adjustment averaging 3.6%, in line with the wage guidelines established by the President of the United States upon the recommendation of his Council of Economic Advisors, will provide a favorable relationship to the salaries paid by other cities with populations over 500,000 and by the six other school systems in the Washington Metropolitan Area; will permit a more equitable salary relationship among the several groups of District employees; and also will come nearer to being within the financial ability of the District Government. If the same overall average increase of 21 percent as proposed in the bill, costing $10.7 million annually, were applied to all groups of District employees, the esti mated cost of pay increases would be in excess of $40 million annually. There fore, the Commissioners reiterate their opposition to this provision of the bill. The Commissioners have had prepared draft legislation providing for an average 3.6% pay increase for teachers, and also incorporating some of the provisions of H.R. 9876 which met with the approval of the Commissioners. This draft legis lation has been introduced as H.R. 13702, and the Commissioners recommend enactment of it, in lieu of H.R. 9876. The Commissioners have been advised by the Bureau of the Budget that, from the standpoint of the Administration's program, there is no objection to the submission of this report to the Congress. Sincerely yours, WALTER N. TOBRINER, President, Board of Commissioners. |