"In addition to the activities specified in this subsection, the Board of Education with the concurrence of the Board of Commissioners, on the written recommendation of the Superintendent of Schools, may include other activ ities meeting the eligibility requirements stipulated in this subsection, in amounts not to exceed the highest rate of additional compensation provided in the above schedule. "(2) Payment of such additional compensation shall be made in a lump sum at the end of the school year or upon termination of service for that portion of services rendered. Such additional compensation shall not be subject to deduction or withholding for retirement or insurance, and such additional compensation shall not be considered as salary (i) for the purpose of computing annuities pursuant to the Act entitled 'An Act for the retirement of public school teachers in the District of Columbia', approved August 7, 1946 (60 Stat. 875, D.C. Code, sec. 31-721 et seq.), as amended and the Civil Service Retirement Act, or (ii) for the purpose of computing insurance coverage under the Act entitled 'An Act to authorize the Civil Service Commission to make available group life insurance for civilian officers and employees in the Federal service, and for other purposes', approved August 17, 1954 (68 Stat. 736), as amended. Such additional compensation may be paid for more than one activity assigned to a classroom teacher so long as such activities are not performed concurrently." SEC. 2. This Act shall take effect September 1, 1965. (H.R. 15479, 89th Cong., 2d sess., by Mr. Fraser, on June 6, 1966) A BILL To amend the District of Columbia Teachers' Salary Act of 1955, as amended. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 13 of the Act entitled "An Act to fix and regulate the salaries of teachers, school officers, and other employees of the Board of Education of the District of Columbia, and for other purposes", approved August 5, 1955 (69 Stat. 521, 529; D.C. Code, sec. 31-1542), as amended, is amended by adding at the end thereof the following subsection: "(d) (1) The Board of Education of the District of Columbia is hereby authorized to pay additional compensation, over and above the salaries in the salary schedules in section 1 of this Act, in the amounts hereafter fixed or prescribed in accordance with the provisions of this subsection, to classroom teachers in salary class 15, at the indicated levels, who are assigned to perform extra duties, on a continuing basis: Provided, That a teacher, to be eligible for such additional compensation, must also be assigned the standard load for a regular day school teacher at his respective school level. The Board of Education is further authorized, with the approval of the Board of Commissioners of the District of Columbia, on the written recommendation of the Superintendent of Schools, to fix or prescribe the amount of additional compensation for teachers who perform such extra duty. "(2) Payment of such additional compensation shall be made monthly following the rendering of such service. Such additional compensation shall not be subject to deduction or withholding for retirement or insurance, and such additional compensation shall not be considered as salary (i) for the purpose of computing annuities pursuant to the Act entitled 'An Act for the retirement of public school teachers in the District of Columbia', approved August 7, 1946 (60_Stat. 875; D.C. Code, sec. 31-721 et seq.), as amended, and the Civil Service Retirement Act, or (ii) for the purpose of computing insurance coverage under the Act entitled 'An Act to authorize the Civil Service Commission to make available group life insurance for civilian officers and employees in the Federal service, and for other purposes', approved August 17, 1954 (68 Stat. 736), as amended. Such additional compensation may be paid for more than one activity assigned to a classroom teacher so long as such activities are not performed concurrently." SEC. 2. The Board of Education of the District of Columbia is hereby authorized to make such regulations as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this Act. SEC. 3. This Act shall take effect September 1, 1966. Mr. DowDY. Mr. Broyhill, most of these bills are yours. Do you have a statement you would like to make at this time? STATEMENT OF HON. JOEL T. BROYHILL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF VIRGINIA Mr. BROYHILL. Mr. Chairman, I have a prepared statement I would like to submit for the record and make a brief description of the bills because I know the District of Columbia Board of Education and the Board of District Commissioners will make a more detailed explanation. Mr. DowDY. Your prepared statement will be made a part of the record at this point. (The statement follows:) STATEMENT OF HON. JOEL T. BROYHILL IN SUPPORT OF LEGISLATION TO INCREASE SALARIES OF D.C. TEACHERS H.R. 9876, H.R. 13710, H.R. 15054 On July 15, 1965, I was pleased to introduce the bill H.R. 9876 at the request of the D.C. Teachers' Association, the main thrust of which would be to afford the teachers and other professional employees of the D.C. Board of Education a realistic and well-deserved salary increase. This scale would place the starting salary for a teacher in the District of Columbia with a bachelor's degree at $6,000, and such a teacher would attain a maximum salary of $12,000 in eighteen years. This proposed legislation would afford the D.C. teachers the highest salary scale in the Washington Metropolitan Area and at least one of the very highest in the entire country. It is my earnest conviction that the conscientious and dedicated teachers in the Nation's capital well deserve this recognition, and I am pleased indeed that my colleague from Maryland, Congressman Sickles, has recently joined me in sponsoring this legislation. Inasmuch as the U.S. Bureau of the Budget has indicated that the Administration will not favor legislation this year providing any employees of the District of Columbia government a salary increase in excess of the percentage increase afforded during the 89th Congress to Federal government employees, I may be forced to modify my position on this matter, but in any event I shall support that legislation which will afford the teachers of the District of Columbia the greatest increase in salary which may realistically be expected to win approval. With this thought in mind, I introduced H.R. 15054 on May 16, 1966, a bill which essentially has the approval of the U.S. Bureau of the Budget and the D.C. Board of Commissioners. This bill provides for a salary increase of 3.6 percent for all professional employees of the D.C. Board of Education, effective retroactively to October 1, 1965; and for a second increase of approximately 3.1 percent to take effect July 1, 1966. While the D.C. Commissioners recommended that this prospective second increase not be made effective until January 1, 1967, I feel that this later date would be discriminatory since it appears likely that all the other employees of the District of Columbia government will enjoy such a second increase as of July 1 of this year. These increases will place the District of Columbia highest among the jurisdictions of the Metropolitan Area in starting salary for teachers with the bachelor's degree and also with the master's degree, and thus in a very favorable competitive position for the recruitment of competent, highly-trained teaching personnel. Another major provision of H.R. 15054 would establish a formula for determining the salaries of D.C. school principals. The present system of unified salaries for all principals was adopted in 1962, as a provision in Public Law 87-881. Actually, this single salary scale for principals was never favored by the D.C. Commissioners nor by a majority of the members of the D.C. Board of Education, nor has it found acceptance in any major school system with the exception of Boston, where it is a subject of controversy. The formula for placement of D.C. school principals into four categories for salary purposes is the result of nearly two years of careful study by representatives of the D.C. Personnel Office and the D.Č. Public School Administration, and is based upon factors which are common to all principals' positions, without regard to whether the school be elementary, junior high, senior high, or vocational in nature. These factors are not equally weighted, and include academic program, supervision of teachers, school enrollment, co-curricular and extra-curricular pro grams and activities, supervision of non-teaching personnel, and extra administrative responsibilities. This plan will eliminate the obvious inequities of the present unified salary scale, under which the principal of the Capitol Page School with its enrollment of 71 pupils receives the same salary as the principal of the largest high school in the city, and it is my opinion that this formula may well become adopted as a model for other large urban school systems. The details of this formula are presented in this exhibit prepared by the D.C. Personnel Office, which I should like to place in the record at the conclusion of my remarks. This bill provides also for the appointment of noninstructional teacher-aids in the District school system, at a starting salary of $4,715 per year and a maximum salary of $6,605 attainable in ten years of service. These aids would assist the teachers in tasks related to instruction, such as setting up science experiments, monitoring libraries or homerooms, and correcting test papers. I am informed that more than 30 percent of the large school systems now employ such personnel, and that the practice is growing rapidly. A further important provision of this bill is to limit the number of years of employment of temporary teachers. Over the past eleven years, the percentage of teachers in the District of Columbia system who cannot qualify for a certificate and thus are employed as "temporary" teachers has risen steadily until today more than 42 percent of the entire staff are thus unqualified for permanent status The vast majority of these temporary teachers are unqualified for certification because they have not been able to acheive a sufficiently high score on the National Teachers Examination. While it is undoubtedly true that some temporary teachers may be among the most capable in the District system, a definite problem exists when this group constitutes so large a percentage of the total teaching staff as at present. At present, temporary teachers must be reappointed each year, and they may not be credited with more than five years of service for the purpose of salary placement. Also, they are not eligible for the same retirement or other benefits which accrue to permanent teachers. However, they may remain in the District of Columbia system indefinitely. H.R. 15054 would establish a period of years, dependent upon the length of previous service, within which a temporary teacher must qualify for probationary status or be dismissed from the system. A temporary teacher with at least ten years of previous service, however, would be permitted to continue in service contingent upon satisfactory service, and advancement to service step 10 on the salary scale would be permitted temporary teachers with fifteen years or more of satisfactory previous service. These modifications are designed to enhance the standards of professional competence of the D.C. teaching staff as a whole. The only other major provision of this bill is to authorize certain monetary inducements to the recruitment of new teachers, in the form of payment of travel expenses incident to a candidate's coming to Washington to be examined for appointment, and payment of certain relocation costs when a new appointee must move to the District to enter upon his duties. These benefits are identical to recruitment inducements recommended for the Metropolitan Police Force. I regard the salary and other benefits to the teachers and other professional school personnel in the District of Columbia embodied in H.R. 15054 as the barest minimum to which these dedicated and hard-working public servants are entitled. As I have stated, however, I personally prefer the more generous bill H.R. 9876. H.R. 10926 This bill, which I introduced on September 9, 1965, was requested by the D.C. Commissioners, and would provide a schedule of additional salaries for certain extracurricular duties for teachers in the D.C. junior, senior, and vocational high schools. This extra work, which must involve at least 25 hours of duty per semester beyond the normal school day, would include the work of athletic coaches, music directors, newspaper and yearbook advisors, and dramatic and forensics directors. The extra pay for these extra duties would range from $750 per year for a head coach of a major sport to $300 for a director of forensics. The bill further provides that in order to be eligible for such additional compensation, a teacher must also be assigned the standard teaching load for a regular day school teacher at his particular school level. Further, such additional salary shall not be subject to deduction or withholding for retirement or insurance, nor shall such compensation be considered as salary for the purpose of computing either retirement annuities or insurance coverage. At present, of the public school systems in the Washington Metropolitan area, all have extra duty pay provisions for teachers except the District of Columbia and Montgomery County, Maryland-and the latter does pay its athletic coaches for practice held prior to the opening of the school term. Further, at least seventeen U.S. cities with populations in excess of 500,000 have some form of extra duty pay, and most such plans have been in effect for more than 10 years. The annual cost of this bill is estimated at $225,000. Mr. BROYHILL. On July 15, 1965, I introduced a bill that will provide a 12 percent increase in starting salaries for the District of Columbia schoolteachers. This would provide a salary scale that would compare most favorably with that of teachers in the school systems in the surrounding areas. I was very happy to see here last week that one of our colleagues on the committee, Mr. Sickles, had introduced an identical bill. This was a bill recommended by the D.C. Teachers' Association. Mr. Chairman, that particular bill, H.R. 9876, might be considered as rather excessively liberal by some, but if you look at what teachers are getting throughout the country you will find they are at the bottom of the totem pole so far as salaries paid other persons with a bachelor's degree. We have the average annual starting salaries paid to graduates with the bachelor's degree as of June 1966 as follows: Engineering, $7,944; physics, $7,440; chemistry, $7,284; accounting, $6,948; economics-finance, $6,888; mathematics-statistics, $6,744; liberal arts, $6,491; and teaching, $4,925. The Congress in many instances has acknowledged the importance of doing more in the field of education by encouraging more people to come into the teaching vocation, and yet we will not be successful in this general endeavor unless we provide more attractive salaries. I think H.R. 9876 is a major step in that direction and that it will set up a guideline for the school systems in the surrounding areas as well as the Nation as a whole, and may thus have a tendency to upgrade the teaching profession. The other two bills, H.R. 13710 and H.R. 15054, had the support of the District of Columbia Commissioners. I introduced those bills by request because subsequent to the introduction of the original bill, we provided a pay increase for the classified employees of the Federal Government and the District Government and, with the assistance of the President, to adhere to certain guidelines. It was felt it would be wise to propose legislation which would provide comparable pay for the District of Columbia school teachers. However, I think they have lagged behind so long that they should not be subjected to the rigidity of the guidelines applied in other areas. The chairman will recall that only the other day, another District of Columbia subcommittee ignored the guidelines in regard to salaries for the policemen and firemen of the District of Columbia. I think this subcommittee would be very wise to consider the same position toward the District of Columbia school teachers as we recognized for the police and firemen. While I have introduced these companion bills which have the support of the Commissioners and are in line with the classified pay increases and the guidelines of the President, I hope the committee will give strong and favorable consideration to H.R. 9876 and the companion bill, H.R. 15355, introduced by Mr. Sickels of Maryland. (Exhibits 1 and 2 follow:) Workload factors instrument for salary group determination of school principals Workload Factors A. Academic Program_. B. Supervision of Teachers. Numerical Points 300 Each principal has the responsibility of the academic program in his school. 300 C. School Enrollment.- The number of teachers supervised (an eight interval scale with a range of 30 to 300 points utilized). 200 School size of the building according to single day and cumulative enrollment determined by the formula [single day +50% (Cumulative-single day)]. 150 D. Co-curricular, Extra-curricular, Volunteer Program and Community Activities based on the following rating scale: First 10 activities (4 points each) Next additional 5 activities (6 points each) Next additional 4 or more activities (10 points each), maxi- E. Supervision of Non-Teaching Personnel.. Each individual rated 3 points with a maximum of supervisees 10. 2. Non-professional (20 points). Each individual rated 1 point with a maximum of supervisees of 20. Total___ BONUS POINTS 50 1,000 Special Educational Programs; Each program rated 10 points with a maximum number of 5 programs. Extra Administrative Responsibility: In administrative units 15 points per building over one, evening school program 25 points. An explanation of the rating scale of workload factors appears on the following pages. A. Academic Program It is generally agreed that the primary responsibility of the school administra tion is the improvement of the educational program. This responsibility is common to both the elementary and secondary levels of education. On an instrument gauging the job of the school principal, this common factor must be recognized. This scale weights this responsibility at 30% with an allocation of 300 points. B. Supervision of Teachers Of accompanying importance to academic program responsibilities is the supervision of teaching staff. The building principal provides the leadership and guidance as well as the background and knowledge so necessary for an effective and efficient unit. This supervision of teachers category is weighted at 30% on an 8 interval scale of 300 points. This scale is shown in Exhibit I, that follows this page. C. School Enrollment The size of a school has direct relationship to the volume of the problems which a building administrator must handle; more pupils create more problems. Also affecting the handling of a student body is the number of transfers in and out of the school building. The great mobility of students in the District of Columbia School System puts an especially heavy burden on certain schools. To take into consideration these factors, a formula has been devised which measures both the number of enrollees and the number of changes. The formula is: the school membership of a designated date during the school year plus one-half of the |