Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1929-12-08

but S17,322,42O. This fully negatives
the inference of his (Carusi'S) entire
letter that the Board of Education has
tried to have the appropriation of the
entire S20,000,000 intended in the act"
Mr.. Simmons added that the total &C
tually appropriated was STATS $50, and
not $l4,268 $50, as DR.. Carusis table
showed.
Discussing the District fund surplus.
which DR.. Carusi had said indicated a
more liberal policy might have been
followed in regard to schools, Mr. Sim
mons declared that there were only two
periods when the District had a sur
plus. The first surplus. amounting to
$5,257,528, arose. he explained, while
the $3.50 and 60-40 plans of appro-
priating for the District we're in effect.
OF this sum $4,656, 500 was appropri-
ated for school buildings and grounds
under the five-year program. The sec
ond surplus, totaling $6,126, 600.32, arose
at the close of the fiscal year 1928, and
by the end of the following year it had
increased to $8,126, GOATS. This whole
sum, however, was not free, he pointed
out, since between 100000 and
100000 is required to assure the Dis
trict OF the y-aS-it-goes system. He
added that for three of the five years
covered by the building program the
surplus did not exist. When the second
surplus was discovered, Mr.. Simmons
told the House, his committee asked the
District to present additional estimates
for $1,674,500.
DR.. Carusis contention that ''by the
bookkeeping device of eliminating GER
tain so-called special funds" an effort
was made to have it appear the schools
were receiving more than one-third of
the District budget" was met with the
assertion that such an opinion dis
closes "a deplorable ignorance of the
law" He explained the law makes the
gasoline tax and waterfront proceeds
available for certain purposes only and
that to allot any part of these funds to
schools would be in direct violation of
the law.
The Representative then went on to
analyze briefly the 1881 estimates now
before Congress. Twelve school build
ing projects were submitted to the Bud
get Bureau by the Commissioners, he
pointed out. OF these four were not
in the program. The board asked $780,
600 for senior high schools, 81 800 900
for junior high schools and only $780,
900 for elementary schools, despite the
fact that the board president stresses
the need for the last type of school,
The Budget Bureau, after consideration,
submitted to Congress estimates calling
for expenditures of $655,000 on senior
high schools, $l.160,000 on junior high
schools and $685. 900 for elementary
schools. Mr.. Simmons pointed out in
this connection that "a class rooms
added by the Budget Bureau are not in
the program, and he characterized this
as proof of the bureaus desire to meet
the school needs here and of the faults
OF the program.
Examinations Are Listed.
Discussing in detail the portable
school and part-time class situation in
the District, Representative Simmons
told the House that current conStruc-
ton and construction provided in the
1881 estimates will eliminate all but 26
part-time classes and all but 19 porta-
bles. This will be attained by divisions
as follows, according to his assertions:
Division /. At present provision ex-
lists for relief OF l6 of its 20 part-time
classes and for of its l8 portables:
1881 budget proposes elimination of ali
but four portable and four part-time
classes
Division 2. Neither portable nor part
time classes.
Division 3. Provision now being made
for relief of 20 of its "a part-time
classes and elimination Of three of its
seven portableS.
Division 4. Neither portable nor part
time classes.
Division 5. Provision now being made
to relieve IA Of Is part-time classes and
elimination of seven of it's nine port
ableS: 1881 budget proposes elimination
OF all .portables and all but two part
time classes.
Division 6. 1881 budget proposes
elimination of two of its three port
ables and II of its 20 part-time classes