Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1906-03-10
SCHOOL SUPERVISION
Supt. Stuart Testimony Before
House Subcommittee.
THIS CITY EXTREMELY LOW
In List of Thirty Large Cites It Is
Lowest.
THIS CITY EXTREMELY LOW
COST UNDER PROPOSED BILLS
Minimum Expense Under the Foster.
Gailinger, Goulden and Platt Meas
ures Greater Than Babcock Bill.

Superintendent OF Schools Stuart. testify
ing today before the Morrell subcommittee.
which is inQuiring into the public school
system Of the District, made the positive as.
sertion, backed by statistics that the COM
parative cost of supervision in this city was
extremely low. In a list of thirty of the
largest cities In the United States the cost
OF supervision in Washington was lowest
The members OF the subcommittee, In view
or the repeated statements of witnesses that
the local system was topheavy with super-
vision, appeared greatly interested in Mr.
Stuarts presentation of the case. More
over, 1t appeared from Mr.. Stuart's state
ment that the cost of supervision in Wash
lngton includes salaries OF superintendent,
assistant superintendents director of high
schools. director of manual training schools.
supervising principals, all directors and as
sistant directors and all special teachers
VINO nave supervision of the work of grade
teachers.
The cities mentioned by DR. Stuart with
their relative cost of school SUPERVISION,
are given below and form very Interest,"
ing exhibit.
Percentage of Supervisor.
The figures represent the percentage. tho
cost OF supervision is of the entire cost of
the maintenance of schools
Atlanta, 16.5: Providence I52: Albany.
IA; st. Louis, 12.5; Louisville l24; Pater-
son 1872; Newark. 12.1; Detroit ILa: Grand
Rapids. lis: Cambridge I1.6: Milwaukee,
l15 Rochester. ia: Syracuse I07; CO.
lumbus 1oI; Allegheny 104 San Fran
cisco. 1913; Minneapolis, 100: Chicago gs:
Kansas City. 81; Buffalo. 80: Los Angeles,
9,4: New Haven. o.; Pittsburg %. Dem
yer ST. Boston, 81: Cleveland 8 g. Omaha
SO; Toledo. 50; Philadelphia II: Indian-
apohs. sc: ST. Joseph. 65; Washington,
Another interesting feature OF sunt
Stuarts testimony was the comparison
made By him Of the working cest of the
paddock Foster Gailinger, Goulden and
Platt school bills. - -
Cost Under Proposed Bills.
The minimum cost" said supt. Stuart,
''of supervision, including the superfntend-
ent. assistant superintendents. group prin-
cipals or supervising principals and all d.
rectors of special work provided by the
Foster bill is 500, 700. or AS per cent more
than that of the Babcock bill.
The minimum cost of supervision, In
Guiding the superintendent assistant super
intendents. group principals or supervising
principles and all directors of special work
as provided by the Gallinger bill is s1S650,
or 2S.1 per cent more than that of the Bah
cock bill.
The minimum cost of supervision, In
intendent, group principals or supervising
principals and all directors of special work
provided by the Goulden bill is sl1 800.
or 11.9 per cent more than that OF the
Babcock BILL
1.-The minimum cost of supervision. in
cludng the superintendent, assistant super
intendent, group principals or supervising
principals and all directors of special work
as provided by the Platt bill is $4,000.
31.5 per cent more than that of the Bab-
cock BILL
presented by Mr.. Stuart shows that the
Babcock bill provides for thirty-two su-
pervisors and will involve the expenditure
in salaries of minimum OF se6 $50 and
a maximum of 1850; the Foster bill
provides for forty-seven supervisors, and
the minimum expenditure involved is sos. $50
and the maximum 10l.250, and the
Goulden bill provides for forty supervisors
at minimum expenditure OF S1S0J0 and a
maximum of S97, go.
Mrs. Gitterman's Explanation.
When the subcommittee met this morning
Mrs. Gitterman continued her testimony OF
yesterday afternoon. She took up the ques-
ton of supervision, charging that there was
much less economy OF supervision in Wash
ington than in the representative cities or
the country. Mrs. Gitterman pointed out
that in many cities of the country classes
OF less than twenty, or possibly ten, pupils
were not found In the high schools. And,
it1tlTIHB again 10 the question pf SupSINl-
sion. Mrs. Gitterman claimed that the sys-
TEN here amounted not only TO a double but
to triple supervision.
Superintendent OF Schools Stuart. refer
ring to the statement made yesterday by
Mrs. Gitterman to the cost Of super
vision in the local school system said that
II was entirely inaccurate, being more than
10000 out of the way. Mrs. Gitterfnan had
included in the cost of supervision tho
salaries of all superIntendents of buildings,
while. as Supt. Stuart pointed out these
eighth-grade principals OF buildings were
nothing more than class teachers. The $50
year additional paid to principals Of
buildings and the amounts paid to their
assistants should be the only other amounts
included In the cost of supervision Chair
man Morrell at this point Indicated that
this just the way the subcommittee
felt about IL.