ment of the Public Schools of the District of Columbia, we find one project here, Evaluation of Title I Program, for a total of $208,000. That is one program. And looking at this, we see that you have got $43,000 for personnel compensation, which I think is mostly those who are already working for the school system; $1800 for personnel benefits; and $159,961 for other services. Now, would you please tell me what the "other services" are? Dr. Scorr. Mr. Chairman, Dr. Mildred Cooper is head of the Research Department, and participated in the negotiation for that contract. It is a contract that has been going on about four years. Dr. COOPER. It is $120,000, Mr. Chairman. The balance of the money is for operations within the school system. Mr. CABELL. What other services would there be there? It just says "other services, $159,000," for a total of $208,000 cost of that particular program. Dr. COOPER. The $120,113 is for the contract with GW. Mr. CABELL. Now, does it go through GW this time? Mr. CABELL. Was that contract made through GW? Dr. COOPER. Right. It is still with George Washington. Mr. CABELL. I don't know where you are getting your figure of $120,000 and something. I am looking here at the breakdown furnished by the District Government. Dr. COOPER. Contract Number 71194 is for $120,113. Mr. CABELL. This is 20-C under Federal Grants for 1971 and 1972. Dr. COOPER. I do have a copy of the contract. Mr. CABELL. Well, I would like to know, if I may, just what that $159,000 covers. Dr. COOPER. The balance of the money is for the operation in the school system, for Title I evaluation. Mr. CABELL. This was a study. This was an evaluation, as I get it. Dr. COOPER. It is the operation in the Department of the service of evaluation, in addition to the contract. Mr. CABELL. Well, you show that you have a total of four personnel assigned to that department, apparently. Dr. COOPER. This is right. Mr. CABELL. I can't quite follow the logic of listing a $43,000 item and breaking it down for four people, and then just throwing $159,000 into the bucket, so to speak. Dr. COOPER. No, Mr. CABELL. I certainly would think it would be more likely and more appropriate to break down $159,000 than it would to break down $43,000. Dr. COOPER. We do have that breakdown in our allotments. Mr. CABELL. But it isn't broken down for purposes of your budget justification. Dr. COOPER. We have key punch costs, computer costs, personnel costs, Mr. CABELL. Why would we get a statement that there was only this $131,000 in grants of 71 projects, and yet one project runs this amount of $208,000? Dr. COOPER. There is some confusion there, because the contract is $120,113, and this is out of Title I funds. It is not regular appropriated funds. Mr. CABELL. It is taxpayers' money, nonetheless, even though it might not come out of your pocket direct. It is an expenditure of tax funds. Dr. COOPER. Yes. Mr. CABELL. And this for both years. The figures furnished to me by the District Government show $208,000 for both years. Dr. COOPER. I could provide the breakdown for you, because we do have it itemized. Mr. CABELL. What is paid to the contracting agency? Dr. COOPER. $120,113. Mr. CABELL. You pay them $120,000. Dr. COOPER. GW, the Educational Research Project at George Washington University; right. For 1970-71 Mr. CABELL. Do you know who some of their subcontractors might be? Dr. COOPER. They do subcontract for key punching, for printing, this kind of thing. Mr. CABELL. Do they have one person that they pay a pretty heavy sum to for contract management, for project management? Dr. COOPER. No. Mr. CABELL. You are positive of that? Dr. COOPER. That is right. Mr. NELSEN. Mr. Chairman. Mr. CABELL. Yes, go ahead. SCHOOL BOARD Mr. NELSEN. In reviewing the budget, I am just curious to know how extensively does the School Board review with you your total operation. I am interested in seeing to it that local citizen responsibility be motivated. And I was hoping that your answer would be that they worked quite extensively with the Board before even your submission to the City Council. What is your view on that? Have they done that? Are they willing to do it? Does the Board have the personnel to help them with a coordinated program with you? Dr. SCOTT. Mr. Nelsen, the budget that is being proposed now has probably undergone more involvement than any other previous budget. There has been citizen input. This is the one "first" where we had major redirection in terms of base priorities. The budget focuses basically on four areas. The most important, of course, is to try to eliminate the retardation in the basic skills. That was given top priority. So we had to make some judgments and this is why we were faced with termination of certain programs and personnel because of the fact of these judgments. The budget process here is a very difficult one for the rather limited staff in terms of numbers, because it is a consistent process, and putting programs in the budget justification in terms of figures is a major endeavor. But I think this budget reflects exactly what you stated, that there has been wide citizen participation. This in itself delays. somewhat the process, but it does involve a greater cross section of citizen involvement. I think the Board has consistently required that of me as Superintendent and this budget, I think, really represents a more thorough examination of a justification of what we did before. We will continue that process. We really ask some basic questions-does such and such justify itself on the basis of our priorities—and we came up with what we had. And the Board clearly indicated what its priorities should be and I had to follow that mandate, and I think we did. Mr. NELSEN. Of course, in the procedure in our midwest schools, and in many parts of the country, is that the administrators in the school system sit down with their school board and they in turn carefully review it. And in my judgment, this is quite a necessary step to get the community interest, citizen participation, which hopefully would remove some of the responsibility of this committee and transfer it to the parochial interest of the District of Columbia, under what we would hope will be good leadership on the part of the Board. I am also wondering if the Board of Education has allotted to them personnel that gives them the chance to take care of detail that they must assume as Board members. Dr. SCOTT. The Board hired a consultant this past budget preparation to work with the Administration in transmitting the Board's concerns to Mr. Cornick. I think that was a very close and effective relationship. Mr. NELSEN. Thank you very much. EVALUATION OF TITLE I PROGRAM Mr. CABELL. Getting back to this evaluation of Title I, the advice that we have-and I believe you stated that the figure is $120,000? Dr. COOPER. That is right. Mr. CABELL. Now, then, what do these people do that you show? Dr. COOPER. The reason originally we developed the contract with GW was that we did not have the capacity to do the processing of the data. Mr. CABELL. I didn't hear you. Dr. COOPER. We did not originally, when we began contracting with them, back in 1966-67, have the capacity to do the processing of the data, the reviewing of the material. We did not have staff to go out into the field to do the kind of review that was required. It requires a certain kind of an expertise. GW developed a longitudinal plan which they embarked on in 1966-77. That plan has been carried forward. There is the gathering of data that can be studied on a longitudinal basis. It has been more efficient to continue this. Mr. CABELL. Can you tell me what happens to the other approximately $40,000 which is not accounted for here at all? Dr. COOPER. Yes, that goes to the Title I operation within the Department of Research and Evaluation. It pays for personnel costs. We have three professionals and one clerk. It pays for the usual operation of duplicating materials Mr. CABELL. Why aren't they broken down and accounted for as you have accounted for one Class 8 Research Associate, two GS-9 Research Assistants, and one GS-4 Clerk? Dr. COOPER. It is in the allotment we could provide for you Mr. CABELL. I can't understand why you list the clerks and then leave off another $40.000 worth. Dr. COOPER. It is broken down in the allotment. Mr. CABELL. It isn't on what was furnished to us. DR. JOHN JOHNSON, CONSULTANT Getting back to some of these consultants and so forth, is it true that a Dr. John Johnson of Syracuse University is a per diem consultant on Special Education to the D.C. School System? Dr. SCOTT. Yes, Mr. Chairman, he is. Mr. CABELL. How long has Dr. Johnson been in such status? Dr. SCOTT. I would guess, Mr. Chairman, about two and a half months he has been a consultant. Mr. CABELL. What is his per diem rate? Mr. CABELL. How long will you need him? Dr. Scorr. Dr. Johnson joins our staff officially on July 1. Mr. CABELL. I see. Is he still on the payroll of Syracuse? Dr. SCOTT. He is still employed by the University of Syracuse, yes. Mr. CABELL. So this was a nice way of providing some double compensation to him? Dr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, all universities and colleges have individuals who serve as consultants at various spots. I have no idea what his arrangement with Syracuse is. I negotiated with the individual, rather than the institution. Mr. CABELL. If it were contemplated that he would be put on regularly, why was he not put on regularly before, instead of on the per diem? Dr. SCOTT. The first need, one of the priorities I established here and the citizens helped me to make that determination, was Special Education could be re-examined. A major task force was put together. The suggestion was that task force needed an outstanding educational consultant to handle that. Our service revealed Dr. John Johnson, in my checking across the universities, was one of the most qualified and one of the individuals who was willing to come to the District to work in this capacity. Therefore, he was hired as a consultant. His services proved to be so effective, and also I learned that he had a desire to leave Syracuse University, but he was negotiating for a job some place else. It was my opportunity to try to get him at a level I could afford to bring him in and also to encourage him to come here. And it has been just fairly recent, in terms of a month or so ago, he made a decision to come. It is a matter of when he can leave one job to come here. Mr. CABELL. On that per diem, is that computed on a 7-day week? Dr. SCOTT. No, it isn't. It is each day, I think. Mr. CORNICK. Yes. Mr. CABELL. What has he been averaging since-I think some time. in April he was brought in? Dr. SCOTT. I can give you the dates. March 22, 23, 24; April 3, 28, 29, 30; May 27; April 16 and 17; March 4, 5, 26; February 18; May 5; May 18; May 13, 14, 15, and 16. His services have increased in the terms of frequency when it became known he was going to assume the responsibility of the Special Education Department. We are in a transition period. Some major decisions have to be made about Special Education. Therefore, I asked Dr. Johnson if he could increase his contact with D.C. Schools in order to make sure that transition is a smooth one. Mr. CABELL. It is customary to pay expenses in addition to the per diem remuneration? Dr. Scort. Yes. Mr. CABELL. Transportation and a per diem expense? Dr. SCOTT. Right. In fact, it would be very difficult to get anyone if you didn't. Mr. CABELL. What rate of expense; what per diem expense do you allow? Dr. SCOTT. Twenty-five dollars a day plus transportation. CONSULTANTS Mr. CABELL. Can you tell me and we had asked for this, tried to get this through the District Government, but the figures were obviously so inaccurate can you tell me how many such consultants you are employing? Dr. Scort. I think we can get you the information in terms Mr. CABELL. Approximately, what is your annual outlay for that? Dr. Scorr. I don't have that figure here. We have some indication of those individuals who work for other school systems in terms of their contact with D. C. Schools. But in terms of number of consultants, I don't have that figure. I could get that information for you. Mr. CABELL. If you will. The total number and the annual cost, including both those that are paid for out of Federal grants as well as those that are paid for out of your operating budget. (The information to be furnished appears at pp. 100-103.) NON-RESIDENT TUITION Mr. CABELL. During the school year of 1970-71, how many students in the D. C. Schools come under the D. C. Non-Resident Tuition Act? Dr. Scorr. Mr. Dick Hurlbut of that office-Mr. Chairman, I have some figures here in terms of non-residents. The figure of 1,487 for those who reside in the District and 363 for those who reside outside, for a total of about 1,850. Mr. CABELL. To complete the discussion on these contracts, the figures supplied this Committee by the D. C. Government stated that there were 71 projects in the D. C. Schools involving consultation services, at a total cost of $131,000. That is why I asked concerning this Title I study, which was far more in the project involved than was turned in for the total for the year. That was just on one project. |