Evening star., 1937-10-28
SCHOOL OFFICIALS
HIT v. P. A. PLAN
Board Group Favors Reject
ing Proiect-U. S. Would
Control Workers.

The Board of Education will be
asked at its next meeting to reject. in
its present form, a Works Progress
Administration project involving allot-
ment of w. p A. workers to school
recreational projects.
Recommendation for rejection was
UNANIMOUSLY adopted by the Board
Committee on Community use of
Buildings at the Franklin School yes
terday because the project in its pres
ent form, the report said, is too meager
in detail and is inconsistent with the
recreational coordination agreement
entered into by the Board of Educa-
tion, the Municipal Playground De-
partment and the National Capital
Park and Planning Commission.
The new project. as outlined by Mrs.
Mary Steele, director of women's and
professional projects for the w. P. A.,
contemplates combining former Com
munity Center assistance project, un-
der which 90 w. P. A. workers are aid
ing the Community Center, with a
w. P. A. playground department
project and setting up new program
under which personnel distribution
would be vested in Lewis R. Barrett,
the co-ordinator under the tri-partite
agreement.
The workers would be distributed
according to greatest need, the COM
nittee was told. in furtherance of a
well-defined W. P. A. recreational pro-
gram.
Personnel Problem.
''The co-ordinating agreement into
which the board entered with the other
two groups emphasized that the au-
tonomy of each over its own recre-
ational facilities would be appreci-
ated," Supt. Frank w. Ballou told
the committee. This will put per-
sonnel who would be employed on
school property under direction of and
responsible to Mr. Barrett. who is in
no way connected with the board"
The personnel should be under the
board direction. as was the case in the
Community Center project which this
new proposal supplantS, Henry 1.
Quinn, a board member. declared.
The board has always insisted it
have control of personnel connected
with school operation" Quinn stated.
"This looks like one of the things that
happen all too frequently in Washing
ton. where a Federal agency tries to
impose a program on the community"
Not only that. but the project as
written is inconsistent with the way
similar projects are handled in any
community" interjected the superin-
tendent. I'VE have three e-party rec
reation agreement already. This pro-
poses to create a fourth party and
give that party control of personnel
wherever that personnel operates"
Coordinate Planning.
Pointing out that the new proposal
had not even been sent before the
District Recreational Coordination
Committee arising out of the three
party agreement, Robert Maurer, vice
president OF the board, said:
The coordination agreement con-
templated coordinate planning with
autonomous execution. This let's some
one else form the plans and direct
the execution"
will the loss of these w. P. A.
workers cripple any of our projects in
recreation?" asked Mrs. Mary Mcneil,
q committee member.
Mrs. Elizabeth K. Peoples, director
of the Community Center, said the
w. P. A. workers assigned to the de-
partment under the previous projects
had not been persons capable of high
leadership" in recreation, especially in
the white schools. The officials were
agreed tha, much more would be lost
in losing control over personnel work.
ing in the schools than if the present
20 workers are taken away.
Mrs. Peoples explained that the peo-
pie affected by the rejection would
be the 90 in the present Community
Center project plus those in the pres
ent playground project, plus any ad-
ditional who might be appointed under
the new project.