« PreviousContinue »
PURPOSE OF THE BILL
Enactment of this bill will give to the District of Columbia a plan which has proved of benefit in many other cities.
Under present rules of the Board of Education, teachers and officers who desire to improve their services by taking further study courses are allowed leave of absence without pay.
This bill will liberalize the existing arrangement by authorizing the Board of Education to grant this leave, under certain restrictions, with part pay. The part pay would amount to the difference between the salary which the employee would have received if not on leave and the basic pay of the employee's grade.
Should an employee receiving a salary of $2,000 be granted this special leave, he would receive the difference between $2,000 and the basic pay of the grade which is $1,400, the said difference amounting to $600.
COST OF THE LEGISLATION While the places of the employees on leave would be filled by properly qualified teachers and officers, the latter in most instances undoubtedly will receive a lower salary than the employees on leave. This arrangement precludes any supposition that the enactment of the bill would impose an inordinate financial drain upon the District.
In fact, the Bureau of Efficiency, studying the possible cost of this project in comparison with the experience in other cities, estimates the cost of this legislation at not more than $8,000 a year. The Board of Education, however, is of the opinion that the cost may be at times as much as $15,000 a year.
The committee feels, in common with the District Commissioners, the Board of Education, and the Teachers Council, that this estimated cost is inconsiderable in view of the benefits to the teaching service made possible by the bill.
The bill restricts the privilege of this special leave to teachers, chief examiners, and administrative and supervisory employees, all of whom must have been in the District public school service for at least six years.
The employee to whom leave is granted must report in writing to the superintendent of schools the manner in which the leave is being used. For failure to comply with the rules of the Board of Education, or for failure to pursue satisfactorily the purpose for which the leave was granted, the board may terminate the leave at any time.
The bill contains a clause assuring the District schools of the benefits of an employee's special studies while on leave, through a provision requiring such employee, before taking such leave, to agree in writing to remain in the school service for two years after the expiration of the leave.
In case of resignation before the end of the two years, the employee is to refund to the United States Treasury such proportion of the amount paid him during the leave period as the unexpired portion of the two years may bear to the entire two years. This provision does not operate in cases of termination of service by death, resignation because of ill health with the consent of the Board of Education, or to resignation or termination of service at the request of the board.
During the leave period the employee is to be considered as in active service and is to continue the contributions required by law to the teachers' retirement fund. Employees on leave are to be regarded as drawing their full pay so far as the computation of annuities for retirement are concerned.
The bill is approved by the Bureau of the Budget, the District Commissioners, the Bureau of Efficiency, the Board of Education, and the Teachers Council, representing the teachers and officers of the District public schools. The committee knows of no opposition to this progressive legislation, and urges its passage.
There are appended hereto, as part of the report, letters from the commissioners and from Dr. Frank W. Ballou, superintendent of schools, in support of the bill. COMMISSIONERS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,
Washington, June 9, 1930. Hon. ARTHUR CAPPER, Chairman Committee on the District of Columbia,
United States Senate, Washington, D. C. SIR: The Commissioners of the District of Columbia have the honor to submit the following on Senate bill 4597, Seventy-first Congress, second session, entitled "A bill to provide educational employees of the public schools of the District of Columbia with leave of absence with part pay for purposes of educational improvement, and for other purposes," which you referred to them for report as to the merits of the bill and the propriety of its passage.
A draft of this bill was sent to you on May 24, 1930, with request for its introduction and enactment. The bill was forwarded at the instance of the Board of Education of the District of Columbia. It was submitted to the Bureau of the Budget under the provisions of circulars No. 49 and No. 273 of the Bureau of the Budget with request that the commissioners be advised whether it was in conflict with the financial program of the President. The commissioners were advised by the Director of the Budget that the legislation would not be in conflict with the financial program of the President.
The commissioners believe that the proposed legislation is meritorious and in the public interest. Very truly yours,
L. H. REICHELDERFER, President Board of Commissioners of the District of Columbia
WASHINGTON, D. C., June 27, 1930. Hon. ARTHUR CAPPER, Chairman Committee on the District of Columbia,
United States Senate, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR SENATOR CAPPER: You asked that I submit a statement for your committee relating to the bill now being considered by your committee which provides for leave of absence for teachers and officers in the District of Columbia for educational purposes with part pay.
This bill has been in the process of preparation and perfection during the past three years. It is supported by the Teachers Council, made up of representatives of the teachers and officers, by the school officials, and by the Board of Education. The bill was prepared by the educational authorities and has been modified to some extent by suggestions made by the Bureau of Efficiency, which bureau was asked by the Bureau of the Budget to examine and report on the measure.
The present teachers' salary act provides higher compensation for superior teachers and in other ways contemplates and encourages improvement of teacher: in service after they have been appointed on tenure.
The present rules of the Board of Education provide for leaves of absence for educational purposes of teachers and officers who desire to pursue further systematic instruction in higher institutions of learning to improve their service and to merit higher compensation or promotion. Such educational leave must now be taken by teachers and officers without compensation. This bill provides that teachers shall receive part pay during educational leave on the general theory that their improved service to the school system after return from such leave justifies payment of a part of their salary while they are on such leave.
Many of our cities provide educational leave with part pay. It is proposed in this bill that, in general, a teacher who is given educational leave by the Board of Education shall receive during said leave the amount of her salary which represents the difference between the basic salary of her salary class and the salary which she would have received as a teacher during the year of her educational leave. Stated in another way, a teacher in the elementary schools who would receive a salary of $2,000 for the next school year under the provisions of this bill would be entitled to receive during her year of leave the difference between $2,000 and the basic salary of her grade which is $1,400, or which is $600. If her salary is higher than $2,000, she would receive a correspondingly larger amount of money during her period of leave.
Under the provisions of this bill each teacher would be expected to return to teaching service and continue in the educational service in the District of Columbia for a period of two years. Other provisions of the bill guarantee that the teacher shall spend her educational leave wisely and in the interests of our educational service.
The cost of this bill will depend upon the number of persons who take advantage of its provisions. The practice in other cities led the Bureau of Efficiency to estimate that this bill would cost the public Treasury not more than $7,000 or $8,000 per year. I have estimated that it might possibly reach the sum of $12,000 or $15,000 per year. In my judgment, however, no other expenditure of public funds would contribute more directly and positively to the improvement of our teaching service than the expenditure of this amount of money under the provisions of this law.
In general, this bill should be looked upon as supplementing the teachers' salary act, which provided better salaries for teachers, and the higher eligibility requirements which have recently been established for appointments to the teaching service in the District of Columbia through the establishment of teachers' colleges in the District. All of these measures contribute substantially to the improvement of the teaching service. I heartily recommend this measure to the favorable consideration of your committee. Yours very sincerely,
FRANK W. BALLOO,
Superintendent of Schools. O
PROVIDE BRANCH LIBRARY IN GEORGETOWN
FEBRUARY 19, 1931.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
state of the Union and ordered to be printed
Mr. REID of Illinois, from the Committee on the District of Columbia,
submitted the following
(To accompany H. R. 12743)
The Committee on the District of Columbia, to which was referred the bill (H. R. 12743) to authorize the construction of a branch library in the Georgetown section of the District of Columbia, having considered the same, report it back to the House with the recommendation that the bill do pass for the following reasons:
Washington, when compared with cities of similar size, is found to have a lesser number of branches to serve the various districts of the city. The average number of branch libraries in 42 other cities above 200,000 population is 20. Cincinnati has 33, Minneapolis 21, Portland 17, Louisville 21, all being smaller cities. These figures are to be compared with the Washington figure of only three major branches, with five minor subbranches housed in rented quarters or in public-school buildings.
Because of this situation Washington's book circulation in 1930 was but 3.45 per capita as compared with the average 4.33 for the 42 cities above referred to. The per capita figure for Cleveland was 8.57, for Milwaukee 7.03, for Rochester 7.45, and for Portland 8.87.
In the matter of library per capita maintenance Washington stood twenty-first in the list with but 74 cents per capita compared with $2.12 for Cleveland and $1.51 for Boston. The percentage of the District budget allocated for library support was 0.9 per cent as compared with an average of 1.3 per cent for all 42 cities; 1.5 per cent for cities from 300,000 to 500,000 population, and 3.2 per cent in Cleveland and 2.4 per cent in Minneapolis. These figures appear to indicate
the need for more branch libraries in Washington, but we feel that such need is particularly acute in the case of the Georgetown section, now deprived of public library facilities, which section includes the oldest community in the District of