b'Author . \n\n\n\n\nTitle \n\n\n\n\xe2\x96\xa0i Ai.\'i \n\n\n\nClass \n\n\n\nImprint. \n\n\n\nBook. \n\n\n\n5 \n\n\n\n\xc2\xbbn5 llwb \n\n\n\n16\xe2\x80\x9417372-1 GPO \n\n\n\n\n\n\nl^\'^fey \n\n\n\nti-^J^l^O\'v- \n\n\n\nANALYSIS OF SCHOOL EXPENSES \n\nOF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, \n\n\n\nReport to the Board of Directors \n\nOP \n\nThe Merchants\' Association of New York, \n\nDECEMBER 19, J 900. \n\n\n\nApproved by Unanimous Vote of Twelve Directors and \n\nOrdered Published After Verification by \n\na Special Committee. \n\n\n\n% ANALYSIS OF SCHOOL EXPENSES. \n\nNew York, Dec. 19, 1900. \n\n72? tJie Board of Directors of the Merchants Association of New York. \n\nGentlemen : \xe2\x80\x94 In a previous report to you the assertion was made \nthat the Board of Estimate and Apportionment acts upon the City \nBudget and votes appropriations without having full knowledge of the \nfacts, for the reason that the present defective system makes such \nknowledge difficult and often impossible to obtain, and in consequence \nthat Board is compelled to depend upon the verbal statements of \ndepartment heads. \n\nThe examples that follow are cited to show \n\n1. That the official reports of the Board of Education are especially \n\ndefective in data relating to average attendance, which is \neither the statutory or actual basis of appropriation and \napportionment, and which greatly affects the amounts of \nspecific outlays ; \n\n2. That such data of attendance as are given are inaccurate and \n\ncontradictory, and therefore unreliable ; they are defective \nbecause they lack comprehensive exhibits of details ; because \nthe details given are not usefully digested or classified ; and \nbecause their sums total do not produce the aggregates else- \nwhere stated as resulting from them ; \n\n3. That estimates submitted by the Board of Education to the \n\nBoard of Estimate and Apportionment are in part based upon \ninaccurate data which overstate the average attendance ; that, \nthe estimates for supplies assume the previous year\'s outlay \nas a correct basis, Avhen it is in fact incorrect and excessive ; \nthat the estimates of probable increase in attendance are like- \nwise excessive ; and that a progressive and cumulative \nincrease in the annual outlay for supplies may be effected \nwithout being subjected to real scrutiny, and without obvious \nappearance of disproportion ; \n\n4. That the current estimates for supplies, which assume last years\' \n\noutlays as a basis, allow $3.38 J^ per capita for new scholars, \nwhile the actual per capita cost last year was but #2.02, \naccording to the published reports of the Board of Education ; \n\n5. That the current estimates for supplies assume an increase in \n\nattendance in Manhattan about three times as great as the \nnormal increase and four times as great as the officially stated \n\n3 \n\n\n\nVs. \n\n\n\nincrease of the last school year ; that a large part of the \nincreased attendance thus assumed and provided for is \ndeduced not from previous attendance and annual increase of \npopulation, but from the capacity of new schoolhouses, which \nwill be occupied in large part by scholars already enrolled \nand attending the public schools, in temporary rented prem- \nises, which the new buildings will displace; that while official \ndata of school population and its increase show an estimate \nof 5 per cent, increase in attendance to be excessively liberal, \nthe estimates for supplies ask for 26 per cent, increase in the \nappropriation to provide for the increased attendance ; \n\n6. That the outlay for general supplies, repairs, fuel, lighting and \n\njanitor service is extremely disproportionate as between the \nBorough of Manhattan and the Borough of Brooklyn, on the \nbases of equivalent results or equal services, and that there \nis a similar disproportion as between the various schools, \nespecially in Manhattan ; \n\n7. That the printed estimates in the Budget contain no data that \n\nwill enable the Board of Estimate and Apportionment to \nreadily discover the discrepancies cited ; that they cannot test \nquestionable items, because they cannot segregate the ele- \nments of cost, and therefore cannot compare the results of a \ngiven outlay with the results of other outlays for identical \npurposes under equivalent conditions ; and, to sum up, that \n\xe2\x96\xa0 . every essential of effective audit and scrutiny is omitted. \n\nBecause of these oinissions the printed reports of the Board \nof Education have no statistical or actuarial value whatever. \nThey contain no proper schedules or exhibits of details, no \nlucid digests, few needful or verifiable aggregates, and no \nclear summaries. They neither exhibit nor explain. As \nserious statements of the business affairs of a great corpora- \ntion they are mere travesties. \n\nSome of the conditions of fact upon which the foregoing proposi- \ntions rest are set forth below in detail. \n\nUntil the present year the estimates of the departraents have not \nbeen in printed form. They have occupied many thousand typewritten \npages, and it was therefore a physical impossibility to examine them \nreadily and with proper care. The people of this city owe Comptroller \nColer a debt of gratitude for compelling a reform in this respect. This \nyear, for the first time, the City Budget has been submitted to the \nBoard of Estimate and Apportionment in printed form and with some \nsemblance of logical arrangement, whereby the various estimates may \nbe partially scrutinized. I am under deep obligation to the Comptroller \n\n4 \n\n\n\nfor a copy of this important public document, which is not for pu])lic \ndistribution, and without which no useful examination can be made. \n\nThe valuable beginning thus made is the more deserving of praise \nbecause of the exceeding difficulty of the task, incident to harmonizing \ninto one workable system the chaotic accounts of more than ninety \nseparate municipal, village, town and school corporations merged in the \nconsolidated city. But the admirable restilts already gained by the \nComptroller\'s logical and analytical methods only emphasize the need \nof going further on the same lines. There are still many defects which \nreadily conceal waste. Some of these exist because the Comptroller has \nnot the legal power to correct them. This is illustrated by the annual \nreport of the Board of Education, whose accounts are not subject to \naudit in detail by the Comptroller, and whose estimates and reports are \nnot in such form as to make thorough scrutiny practicable. \n\nBecause of the legal po"werlessness of the Comptroller to check \nwasteful outlays of whose character he is aware, this city suffers heavily. \nI have personally inspected a large number of bills on file in the Com- \ntroller\'s office whose original amounts were largely in excess of the \nmarket value of the articles and the services charged for. These large \novercharges were pursuant to agreements or contracts entered into by \ncity officials under statutory provisions which enable them to commit \nthe city to the payment of such obligations. The Comptroller cannot \nsuccessfully resist payment unless he can prove intent to defraud. The \nonly effective protection which he can afford the city\'s interests is to \ndelay payment and through such delay force a partial reduction from \nthe overcharges. \n\nWhile this particular form of waste of the people\'s money is not \nlegal fraud, it is fraud in its essence. Because the Comptroller is unable \nto prevent it tinder existing conditions, it is desired to appeal to the \nLegislature for the necessary statutes to cure this evil. The city now \nloses many hundreds of thousands of dollars annually by it. The proofs \nwill be forthcoming whenever the public wishes thein. \n\nI have, awaiting your inspection and action, further examples of \nextreme wastefulness and of a probable fraud in the city\'s revenues. I \nam prepared to point out in one bureau alone a waste of nearly 60 per \ncent, in salaries of somewhat more than $200,000, and to demonstrate the \nwaste by showing conclusively that not only equal but more efficient \nservice has been rendered for less than one-quarter of the amount so \npaid. \n\nI respectfully request that you will take decisive action upon these \nmatters at the earliest practicable moment, for the reason that in case \nit is not deemed wise for this Association to enter upon them it is my \npurpose to at once arrange otherwise for their proper disposal in the \npublic interest. Respectfully submitted, \n\nFrederick B. De Berard. \n5 \n\n\n\nn. ANALYSIS OF QUESTIONABLE ITEMS. \n\nThe validity of specific outlays for specific purposes can only be tested by a comparison with other \noutlays for similar purposes made under similar conditions. There are 191 separate school premises \noccupied by schools in Manhattan and 132 in Brooklyn. The amount of outlay proper for each of these \n(aside from that required for teachers) is contingent wholly upon the capacity, character and equipment \nof the respective buildings and upon the number of scholars in attendance. The proper measure of \ncapacity is the number of sittings and classrooms; the relative economy is affected by the equipment, and \nthe number of scholars is, of course, shown by the record of attendance. The Special School Fund of more \nthan $4,500,000 is divided among these 323 school premises in 21 distinct schedules. Each of these \nschedules is isolated from the others. Nowhere in the estimates or reports are the amounts apportioned \nto each school under the respective schedules collated and reduced to an aggregate. Nowhere are the \noutlays of the various schools so collated that they can be compared with the outlays of other \nschools for similar purposes. Above all, they are nowhere brought into comparison for test purposes with \nthe data which should control the outlays, namely, with the measure of the capacity of the school and the \nresults as shown by the attendance. The statements of average attendance are contradictory and wholly \nunreliable. This is shown by the analysis in detail which follows in Sec. VII. of this report. There \nis no detailed schedule of the number of sittings in the various schools. As it is therefore impossible to \nlearn with exactitude the relative capacity of the various schools, the proper demands of each for fuel, \nlighting, janitor service and general repairs cannot be ascertained. \n\nThe only clue to capacity which these extraordinary public reports supply is a statement of the total \nnumber of sittings, whose form and manifest omissions make it of questionable value. It is a very flimsy basis, \nbut such as it is it is the sole basis by which the validity of the estimates for the Special School Fund con- \ntained in the printed Budget of the current year and controlling the proposed disbursement of $4,641,890 \ncan be even partially tested. It does not permit of a comparison between the running expenses of the \nrespective schools, but it does permit of a comparison of the aggregate outlays of Manhattan and Brooklyn \nand a test of them by a common standard deduced from the number of sittings stated by the President of \nthe Board of Education. \n\nThe following analysis of certain items in the School Budget shows that for seemingly identical results \na much greater outlay is made in Manhattan than in Brooklyn. The data that establish that fact are all \ndrawn from the Reports of the Board of Education and from the printed Budget. They do not, however, \nappear in this form, nor in any suitable statistical form. They are not collated, but are widely scattered \nin separate reports, and in some cases require long computations. But until they have been so collated the \nitems of the Budget cannot be analyzed or tested. The estimates as presented to the Board of Estimate \nand Apportionment do not reveal these wide differences in the cost of equivalents and, of course, do not \nexplain them. That is to say, they are hidden by the reports whose function is to reveal and thereby to \nprevent such differences. The data of the reports cannot be properly sifted and collated in the form \nnecessary to test the items of the School Budget without many days\' patient labor by a statistical expert. \nUnless this is done by some one the Board of Estimate and Apportionment must of necessity vote the \nappropriation blindly. \n\nIt is not asserted that these differences cannot be explained, but that they art not explained ; that they \nare not easily discoverable, when they should be clearly set forth; that they may hide waste, and that \nunder the present system effective scrutiny by the Board of Estimate and Apportionment is extremely diffi- \ncult and, therefore, unlikely. \n\n\n\nTABLE No, L \n\nCOMPARATIVE COSTS: MANHATTAN \nAND BROOKLYN, \n\nComparison Between Equivalent Units for Fiscal Year Ending \nDec. 3 J J 899. \n\nSupplies (Per i,ooo Pupils): \n\nManhattan $2,155.29 Excess $3iS-37 \xe2\x80\xa2 \xe2\x80\xa2 \xe2\x96\xa0 \xe2\x80\xa2 i7\xc2\xab/^ \n\nBrooklyn 1,839.92 \n\nGeneral Repairs (Per 1,000 Sittings) : \n\nManhattan $2,118.53..... " $559-o3---- 35!^ \n\nBrooklyn i, 559-5\xc2\xb0 \n\nFuel (Per 1,000 Sittings) : \n\nManhattan $615.80 " $9i-53 i7f^ \n\nBrooklyn 524. 27 \n\nLighting (Per 1,000 Sittings) : \n\nManhattan $237.52 " $152.32 .... 1781^ \n\nBrooklyn 85. 20 \n\nJanitors (Per 1,000 Sittings) : \n\nFor school year ending July 31, 1899. \n\nManhattan $i,395-5o " $497-02 551^ \n\nBrooklyn 898.48 \n\n\n\nCitations of Official Data Upon Which the Above Comparison Is Based. \n\nAs all the foregoing figures are deduced, it is necessary to prove them by citing the data upon which \nthey are based. They are therefore given below. The insufficiency of the reports could not be more \nclearly illustrated than by tracing the steps without which analysis cannot be made, and which are required \nby the essential omissions. \n\nSupplies. \xe2\x80\x94 Sec. 59 By-Laws Board of Education requires an annual report in January for the \npreceding calendar year, of the amount of supplies furnished each school, the cost per pupil, the aggregate \ncost of supplies as compared with the previous year. Sec. 62 provides that supplies shall be distributed \namong the respective schools in a fixed proportion based upon attendance. These details for the year \nending Dec. 31, 1899, may be found in the Annual Report of the Board of Education for 1899, pages 109 \nto 133. Summaries of the respective aggregate outlays are given on the pages named: \n\nManhattan $498,469.50 (Page 124) \n\nBrooklyn 282,958.70 (Page 133) \n\nThe average attendance which should govern the distribution of these supplies is not stated in the \naggregate. To ascertain it, about 500 separate items must be collated, from three separate schedules, \n\n\n\nisolated from eaoh other, and distributed through 25 pages; 16 long columns must be added, and the \nattendance of two sub-classes must be deduced from gross figures elsewhere given and covering a different \nperiod. These details may be found on the pages named : \n\nMai^HATTAN : {Average Attendance Fiscal Year.) \n\nDay Schools, Nos. i to 169. (Aggregates not given; deduced by adding columns of details \n\non pages no to 119.) 214,946 \n\nHigh Schools, Training School and Truant School, (page 123) 3,930 \n\nEvening Schools (page 17, for school year ending July 31, 1899) 12,401 \n\nTotal, Manhattan 231,277 \n\nBrooklyn: {Average Attendance Fiscal Year.\') \n\nDay Schools, Nos. i to 121, ) ^a , , . j j j , jj- \n\nHigh Schools, Truant School, ( (Aggregate not given; deduced by addmg columns of \n\nTraining School, ) \'^^\'\'"\'\' \xc2\xb0" P*^""\' "^ \'\xc2\xb0 \'3\xc2\xb0) 150,367 \n\nEvening Schools (page 67 for school year ending July 31, 1899) 3,464 \n\nTotal, Brooklyn 153,831 \n\nThe average attendance cited above was the basis for the distribution of supplies ; it is for the fiscal \nyear January-December, 1899. It is considerably greater than the actual average for the school year \nending July 31, 1900. The later period should normally have the larger attendance. An analysis of the \nwhole subject follows in Sec. VH. \n\nNmnber of Sittings.\xe2\x80\x94 Th\\s is stated in aggregate in the Report of the President of the Board of \nEducation, addressed to the Mayor, under date July 31, 1899. (Page 16 An. Rept. Board of Education.) \n\nManhattan and The Bronx 232,931 \n\nBrooklyn 140, 520 \n\nNo detailed statement of sittin\'gs is given. \n\nJanitor Service. \xe2\x80\x94 For School Year ending July 31, 1899. \n\nManhattan (page 58) $325,074. 12 \n\nBrooklyn (page 61) 126,251.59 \n\nThis does not include extra payments to janitors for evening schools, which are not separated from \nteachers\' salaries. The amount is small. \n\nRepairs, Fuel and Lighting. \xe2\x80\x94 For Fiscal Year, January-December, 1899. \nManhattan: (Pages 87 and 93, Auditor\'s Report.) \n\nGeneral repairs $493,407.93 \n\nFuel 143,420.00 \n\nLighting 55,318.00 \n\nBrooklyn: (Pages 88 and 95, Auditor\'s Report.) \n\nGeneral repairs $219,610.00 \n\nFuel 73,661.00 \n\nLighting 11,971.00 \n\nNote. \xe2\x80\x94 Some additions to the number of sittings stated above were made in the period between the \nclose of the school year and the close of the fiscal year. The number is not stated by the reports. The \ndeduced outlay per thousand sittings is obtained by dividing the total outlay for the fiscal year by the \nnumber of sittings reported July 31st. Because of the discrepancy in the periods, the true figures will \nvary slightly from those deduced, but the relative amounts will not be appreciably affected. \n\nThat the proportionate outlay for the items cited is greater in Manhattan than in Brooklyn is obvious \nfrom the foregoing comparison. Whether the difference is warrantable cannot be accurately learned from \nany exhibits contained in the reports or the Budget. \n\n\n\nIII. GENERAL REPAIRS. \n\nThe account of General Repairs is wholly blind. It cannot be analyzed. The current Budget calls for \nnearly $900,000.00 on this account for the two boroughs under Schedule i, pages 1366 to 1376. The nature \nof this Schedule may be inferred from the statement that under the head "Heating" after striking out the \namounts for new apparatus, leaving only the amounts for repairs and ordinary replacement, the average \namount asked for Manhattan is S249.00 per school, as against $150.50 for Brooklyn. The "Sanitary" \naccount is even more questionable. The entire Schedule of General Repairs deserves the severest criticism. \nThe most cursory study of it shows that it readily might, and probably does, cover enormous waste. The \nestimate for the current year cannot be analyzed to any material extent by comparison between the several \nBorough estimates, but some useful insight can be gleaned from the following table; \n\n\n\nTABLE No. 2. \n\nGENERAL REPAIRS: DISTRIBUTION \nOF OUTLAY, \n\n\n\nLess Than $500. \n\nNumber of Schools, Manhattan 18 \n\n" " Brooklyn 113 \n\n$500 AND Less Than $1,000. \n\nNumber of Schools, Manhattan 46 \n\n" " Brooklyn 3 \n\n$1,000 AND Less Than $2,000. \n\nNumber of Schools, Manhattan 54 \n\n" " Brooklyn 12 \n\n$2,000 and Less Than $4,000. \n\nNumber of Schools, Manhattan 42 \n\n" " Brooklyn 12 \n\n$4,000 and Less Than $6,000. \n\nNumber of Schools, Manhattan 10 \n\n" " Brooklyn 2 \n\nOver $6,000. \n\nNumber of Schools, Manhattan i \n\n\n\nAverage Amount \n\n\n\nif337-oo \n88.50 \n\n^772.00 \n818.00 \n\n\n\n151,390.00 \n1,295.00 \n\n|2,537-oo \n2,477.00 \n\n^,556.00 \n4,58S-oo \n\n^8,33S-\xc2\xb0o \n\n\n\nThe table below shows the cost of repairing new school buildings in Manhattan. This is about twice \nthe average allowance for repairing old buildings in Brooklyn. \n\nTABLE No. 3: COST OF GENERAL REPAIRS: NEW SCHOOLS. \n\n\n\nDec.,iJ \n\n\n\nFirst Year of \n\nService, SCHOOL. \n\nYear Ending : \n\nJuly, 1899 No. 42. \n\n" " 153- \n\n" " \xe2\x96\xa0\xe2\x96\xa0\xe2\x96\xa0 " 158- \n\n" " " 160. \n\n" 157- \n\n" 165. \n\n" 166. \n\n" 159- \n\n" 164. \n\n" 40- \n\n" 167 . \n\n" 173- \n\n" 169. \n\n" 44- \n\n" 174- \n\n" 109 . \n\n\n\nDec, 1900. \n\n\n\nESTIMATES FOR i<)oi.- \nSanitary. \n\n\n\nGeneral \nRepairs. \n\n$ 385 $160 \n\n. 1,000 160 \n\n\n\nNumber \nClassrobms. \n\n\n\n1,085. \n\n1,585. \n500. \n\n385- \n\n\n\n150- \n\n150- \n\n575- \n\n185. \n\n3,435 250. \n\n58s 250- \n\n650 150- \n\n585 15\xc2\xb0- \n\n1,500 150. \n\n500 150. \n\n500 150. \n\n\n\nHeating. \n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\xe2\x80\xa2$250 42 \n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\xe2\x80\xa2 150 14 \n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\xe2\x80\xa2 310 48 \n\n\xe2\x96\xa0 \xe2\x96\xa0 300 39 \n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 \xe2\x80\xa2 200 45 \n\n\xe2\x96\xa0\xe2\x80\xa2 300 45 \n\n. . 260 39 \n\n. . 490 48 \n\n. . 225 21 \n\n. . 270. . \n\n\xe2\x96\xa0 \xe2\x80\xa2 27S-- \n\n\n\n29 \n\n30 \n\n30 \n\n3\xc2\xb0 \n\n285 100 100 20 \n\n385 15\xc2\xb0 24 \n\n85 135 50 48 \n\n\n\n250. \n\n\n\nThe account of General Repairs embodies the most vicious defects possible to a system of audit. It \nlumps together in one inseparable mass outlays that should be differentiated into separate accounts of \nConstruction, Maintenance, Operation, Betterment, Labor, Materials, Administration, and similar group- \nings. Possibly the outlays are thus separated and recorded in the accounts of the Board of Education. \nThe published reports of that body do not indicate it. \n\n\n\nIV. FUEL AND LIGHTING. \n\nThe relatively greater outlay in Manhattan for fuel and lighting indicates waste. A comparison in \ndetail is required to exhibit the fact and locate the cause. The estimates do not supply details. The \nBoard of Estimate and Apportionment therefore votes the lump sums asked for these items without \neffective scrutiny. The following letter from the Department of Finance in reply to an inquiry on that \npoint explains itself : \n\n"Department of Finance, City of New York, Dec. 10, 1900. \n\n"Mr. Frederick B. De Berard, \n\n"Care of The Merchants\' Association of New York, \n"New York Life Building, City. \n"Dear Sir: \n\n"Replying to your communication of the 5th inst., which was received at this office on the 8th, I beg \nto state that the records of this Department do not show the cost of the fuel and the lighting of the City \nschools, separately. \n\n\n\n10 \n\n\n\nJ \nVI. SCHOOL SUPPLIES. \n\nThe estimates for school supplies are in effect deduced from a per capita basis, multiplied by the num- \nber of pupils. The provisions of Sections 59 and 62 of the By-laws arrange for standards of quantity per \nscholar, a per capita record of value, and a report of annual aggregate outlay, and average attendance as \nnearly as it can be ascertained. There are no data in the Budget or reports that enable the Board of Esti- \nmate and Apportionment to test the validity of the per capita cost. Hence the last appropriation is the \naccepted basis ; and as the per capita allowance for new scholars is also a settled factor, the only detail \nactually subject to question is the probable number of new pupils next year. The following table exhibits \nthe data relating to the supply account, as deduced from the official reports. Neither the aggregates nor \nthe average per capita amounts are presented, and it requires patience and industry to so collate them. \n\n\n\nTABLE No. 5, \n\nAVERAGE ATTENDANCE AS A PER \nCAPITA BASIS FOR SUPPLIES. \n\n\n\nManhattan \nJuly, 18 \nDec, 18 \nJuly, iS \nDec, I? \nJuly \nDec \n\n\n\n1900 \n1900 \n\n\n\nAverage Attendance for Preceding Year. \n\nNumber reported for apportionment \n\n" " " supplies \n\n" " " apportionment \n\n" " " supplies \n\n" " " apportionment \n\n" for whom supplies were allowed \n\n"_ " apportionment, estimated at normal rate of \n\n\n\nJuly, 1901 \n\nincrease \n\nDec, 1901, Number for whom supplies are asked, on basis of 1900, plus \n\nestimated increase \n\n\n\nBrooklyn : \n\nJuly 1898, \nDec, 1S98, \nJuly, 1899, \nDec, 1899, \nJuly, 1900, \nDec, 1900, \nJuly, 1901, \n\nincrease \n\nDec, 1901, Number for whom supplies are asked, on basis of 1900, plus \nestimated increase \n\n\n\nNumber reported for apportionment \n\n" " " supplies \n\n" " " apportionment \n\n" " " supplies \n\n" " " apportionment \xe2\x96\xa0 \xe2\x96\xa0 \n\n" for whom supplies were allowed \n\n" " apportionment, estimated at normal rate of \n\n\n\n199,261 \n209,090 \n222,093 \n231,277 \n220,039 \n231,277 \n\n226,639 \n\n2S3>277 \n\n124,694 \n126,900 \n127,916 \niS3>S3i \n130,131 \n153-831 \n\ni33,9\xc2\xb0i \n168,551 \n\n\n\nThe above exhibit shows that the annual attendance averages of the fiscal year, upon which the appro- \npriations for supplies are granted, are much larger than the annual attendance averages of the school year. \nOn the basis of the estimates of the current Budget, Brooklyn would get supplies for at least 35,000 more \npupils than the actual number. A study of comparative per capita outlays will shed light on the cause. \n\ni5 \n\n\n\nTABLE NO. 6: COMPARATIVE COST OF SUPPLIES. \nAGGREGATE AND PER CAPITA. \n\n{Supplies only.) \n\nMANHATTAN. Per Cap. BROOKLYN. Per Cap- \n\n1898 $454,118 $2.17 1898 $214,695 $1.69 \n\n1899- \xe2\x80\xa2\xe2\x80\xa2 498,469 2.15 1890 282,958 1.84 \n\n1900 498,469 2.15 1900 282,958 1.84 \n\nI901 602,166 I901 372,739 \n\nIn every previous instance the gross amount of the previous year\'s appropriation for supplies has been \naccepted as a basis for the next year\'s estimate. That rule is departed from in the present Budget, in the \ncase of Brooklyn. The quantities of the various kinds of supplies required are stated. The cost of supplies \nfor 153,831 pupils during the present fiscal year was $282,958. To supply an equal number about $330,000 \nis asked. It is significant that when reduced to a per capita basis the amount per scholar is $2. 15, exactly \nthe amount that has been the basis in New York for several years. \n\nOn pages 1398 and 1399 of the printed Budget will be found the estimates for supplies required for \nManhattan schools during the year 1901. The amount stated to be necessary is $631,817.08 \xe2\x80\x94 an increase \nof $131,817.08. Under Sec. 59, By-Laws Board of Education (cited above), $500,000.00 of this amount is \nnot subject to question; -\'it goes" without scrutiny. Only the increase is examined. Some of the \ndetails are as follows: \n\nNew Schools and Additions to be opened during the year 1901 \xe2\x80\x94 \n\nNo. 178 \xe2\x80\x94 18 Classrooms. | 90 Classrooms. \n\nNo. 182 \xe2\x80\x94 24 " VAv. 45 Pupils \n\nNo. 186 \xe2\x80\x94 48 " \\ per Room. New pupils 4,050 \n\nTo provide these new pupils with books and other supplies an allowance of $3.38;^ per capita is \nasked, making an aggregate of $13,709.25. \n\nThe plans for these schools were not finished until late last year; they were not authorized or con- \ntracted for until the present year, and they cannot be ready for occupancy until 1902. The completion and \noccupancy of a number of additions, kindergartens, workshops, gymnasiums and kitchens are likewise \nassumed, and requisition is made for supplies. The details should be stated in the report for 1900, which \nthe statute requires the Board of Education to make to the Mayor under date of July 31st. That report \nwas not made until after December ist; it has not been printed; a copy was asked for but could not be \nobtained; hence the desired details cannot be readily learned. The following items must therefore be \ntaken on trust: \n\nNew Schools and Additions. Seating capacity, 10,395 pupils, at $3.38;^ $35,817.08 \n\n5 Gymnasiums at $600 $3,000.00 \n\nS Workshops at $550 2,750.00 \n\n5 Kitchens at $450 2,250.00 \n\n15 Kindergartens at $250 3,750.00\xe2\x80\x9411,750.00 \n\nIncreased Attendance, High Schools 25,000.00 \n\nSummer Schools, Playgrounds, Etc 15,000.00 \n\nTruant Schools j, 780.00 \n\nIncrease in Attendance at Old Schools, 7,500 pupils, at $1.38 10,350.00 \n\nTotal Increase for Supplies for New Scholars $103,697.08 \n\nNearly 40 per cent, of the scholars assumed by the first item are non-existent. \n\nThe average cost of supplies per scholar, as shown by preceding tables, was in 1899 $2.15 in Manhattan \nand $1.83 in Brooklyn. The item for High Schools is on the basis of 57 per cent, increase in two years ; \nand the estimate for salaries and cartage is raised from $18,449 in 1899 to $28,750 in 1901. \n\n16 \n\n\n\nThe foregoing estimate specifies 17.895 new pupils. The assumed total increase is not less than \n22,000. That is about three times the number that the normal increase in population would supply. At \nthe close of the school year July, 1899, the school records of this City showed an abnormally large \nenrollment, attendance and capacity. Manhattan not only had more pupils in proportion to population \nthan other cities, but it had seemingly more accommodation for them. The analysis of average attend- \nance in the next section will show the bearing of these conditions upon the outlays for supplies and for \nnew schoolhouses. \n\nThe obvious intent of Sec. 62, By-Laws Board of Education, is to provide for a practically uniform \ndistribution of supplies \xe2\x80\x94 that scholars and schools having like needs shall receive equal quantities. It \ntherefore requires that supplies shall be distributed pro rata according to a fixed schedule or tariff which \nshall not be exceeded. To guard against wastefulness, Sec. 59 requires that the aggregate amount shall \nbe stated in an annual report, in comparison with the outlay of the previous year ; and that the cost per \npupil shall be stated. \n\nThe purpose of these sections is to provide a fixed standard of outlay and check waste by reports that \nshall expose it by comparison. Although the detached data are set forth in the reports, they are wholly \nundigested and are not utilized as intended. Unless classified and exhibited in comparative form, they are \nuseless; and they are not so exhibited. Only a superficial and uncertain comparison can be made. It \nshows that the per capita outlay for school supplies in Manhattan is uniformly much larger than in Brookly\'* \nfor corresponding classes of scholars. It also shows extreme variations in the per capita cost not only for \nidentical grades in the different schools of Manhattan, but also in comparative annual cost of identical \ngrades in the same school. Reports which will permit accurate comparison of complete data are desirable. \n\n\n\nVII. SCHOOL ACCOMMODATIONS. \n\nThe outlays for public schools in this city are based primarily upon the school records of attendance ; \nupon estimates of the school population for which sittings must be provided, and upon the shifting of \nestablished population into new areas previously settled but sparsely. \n\nIn 1890, according to the data of the U. S. Census, the proportion of children of school age to total \npopulation was smaller in this city than in the other cities of the State, and the proportion of private and \nsectarian school attendance was greater. Therefore, the proportion of the population for which public \nschool facilities were required was relatively smaller in New York and Brooklyn than elsewhere. The \nrelative school demands and facilities of the several cities were as follows : \n\nPopulation Dependent on Public Schools, 1890. \n\nFor Each 1,000 of Total Population : \n\nManhattan : Children dependent on public schools 228 \n\nBrooklyn : Children dependent on public schools 225 \n\nAll other cities of the State : Children dependent on public schools 245.6 \n\nPupils Enrolled and Provided for in Each 1,000 \n\nChildren Dependent on Public Schools : \n\nManhattan 573 \n\nBrooklyn 579 \n\nAll other cities of State, average 559 \n\nIn 1890, therefore, this city\'s school accommodations were relatively greater than those of any other \ncity in the State, and the proportion of public school population to the total relatively smaller. Table 7 \nbelow shows that since 1890 the public school population of this city has apparently increased in much \ngreater proportion than elsewhere throughout the State. \n\n\n\n17 \n\n\n\nTABLE No, 7, \n\nINCREASED DEMANDS FOR PUBLIC \nSCHOOL FACILITIES, \n\n\n\nManhattan: \xe2\x84\xa2Puiat.on. \n\n1890 1,515.3\xc2\xb0! \n\niSqq 1,080,082 \n\n\n\nIncrease 473,781 \n\n" per ct 31-28 \n\nBrooklyn : \n\n1890 838,547 \n\n1899 1,130,000 \n\n\n\nIncrease 291,453 \n\nper ct 34.75 \n\nOther Cities: \n\n1890 801,378 \n\n1899 969,072 \n\n\n\nIncrease 167,694 \n\n" per ct 20.92 \n\n\n\nSchool Population, \n\nS to 17 \n\nYears Inclusive, \n\n(23.98 per ct.) \n\n363,369 \n476,976 \n\n\n\n113,607 \n\n...31.28 \n\n(24.10 per ct \n\n202,088 \n\n272,330 \n\n\n\n70,242 \n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\xe2\x80\xa234-75 \n\n\n\nPupils \n\nSchool Population. per M. \n\nDependent on Public School Public \n\nPublic Schools. Enrollment. School \n\n(22.80 per ct.) Pop\'n. \n\n345,488 197,945 573 \n\n453,510 320,291 706 \n\n\n\n108,122 122,346 133 \n\n. . .31.28 61.80 \n\n(22.5 per ct.) \n\n191,189 110,722 579 \n\n254,250 183,650 722 \n\n\n\n63,061 72,928 143 \n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 \xe2\x80\xa2\xe2\x80\xa234-75 65.36 \n\n(24.56 per ct.) \n\n196,818 110,000 559 \n\n237,986 156,957 659 \n\n\n\n41,168 46,957 100 \n\n.. 20.92 3\xc2\xb0-56 \n\n\n\nThe foregoing table seems to show that this city now has nearly 25 per cent, more pupils in proportion \nto population than it had in 1890; and that for a given population at least five schoolhouses are now \nrequired where four formerly sufficed. Coincident with the large increase in the proportion of public \nschool pupils has been a rapid increase of population; and upon the unusual demands due to these has been \ncumulated another whose extent and disturbing influence is not generally understood. This arises from the \nshifting of population and the rapid peopling of large suburban areas, lately farm lands and with only \ncross-roads schoolhouses. In the Borough of the Bronx, in Queens, and in all the outlying wards in \nBrooklyn, the dearth of school facilities has for two or three years been almost a public disaster. \n\nIn the year 1899 this city provided S8, 920, 587 for new schools, sites and buildings and their equipment. \nDuring the two school years ending July, 1898, and July, 1899, provision was made for twenty-nine new \nschoolhouses and additions in the Boroughs of Manhattan and the Bronx containing 55,000 seats. Being \nunable to obtain the official report for the year ending July, 1900, I cannot state whether others were \nprovided for in that year. A large number of plans were in progress and many sites had been previously \nbought or contracted for. Probably more than thirty of the new buildings and additions have already been \ncompleted. By the end of 1901 the completion of the improvements now in progress will have provided \nat least 60,000 new seats during the years 1898, 1899, 1900 and 1901. \n\nA still further great increase in the number of school buildings and seating capacity is urged, for which \nan enormous outlay is projected. \n\nThe situation has certainly been, and still is, a very difficult and trying one; but whatever the difficul- \nties and howe-ver pressing the need the conditions should be fully understood by the people of this city \nbefore more money is voted for rnore new schoolhouses. The map herewith has been prepared to show \nthe distribution of population, the school population and the school facilities of each school district; the \nlocation of all old schools and their capacity, and finally the location of the schools completed within the \npast two or three years, those now in process of construction or contracted for and building sites lately \nbought. \n\nThe map and the tables therewith show that the vast outlay of the past few years for school buildings \n\n18 \n\n\n\nand sites has been in large part cumulated in certain areas; that several new school buildings have been \nlocated in close proximity to each other in areas already having reasonable, although not ample, school \nfacilities, while other sections whose needs are extreme have been left unprovided for. This subject will \nbe separately and more fully set forth at a later date, when the question of the cost of recent school build- \nings and sites will be gone into. \n\nThis topic is now touched upon only for the purpose of separating the righteous cause of new schools \nwhich is a most pressing and worthy one, from the cause of the vicious and inaccurate reports of school \nattendance, the cover and the excuse for wasteful outlays, which if properly applied would soon pay for the \nneeded new schools. \n\nIt would be a serious mistake to accept the showing of Table 5 as a valid argument, showing the need \nof more schools. The purpose of that table, and those that follow, is to exhibit the official basis of this \nCity\'s school outlays; to show that it is disproportionately large in comparison with that of other cities: \nthat the data upon which it rests are misleading and untrustworthy, and that those which relate to sup \nplies are inaccurate and indicate large waste. \n\nThe number of pupils enrolled is no safe index of the number of seats required. Evening school \nincrease the enrollment, but do not require more school buildings or more seats. Of the 320,000 differen \npupils who are enrolled in Manhattan more than 12 per cent. (38,450) are on the registers of the evenin: \nschools, and the attendance is less than one-third of those enrolled. There are also Summer schools \nvacation schools, cooking schools and various \' \' fads " for special students. Whether the enrollment an \nattendance of these is included in the aggregates cannot be learned from the official reports. For th \nmost part they do not need special facilities in excess of those provided for day scholars. In effect th \nmaximum attendance of day scholars (generally reached in October and November) shows the minimui , \nnumber of seats required, provided the seats are where the pupils are. The reports of the Board c \nEducation do not supply the needed data. All that can be learned from them as to relative school capac- \nity, attendance and their increase is the following, gleaned from fragmentary data and detached statfr \xe2\x96\xa0 \nments in various parts of two annual reports and the current official budget. The source of each citation \nstated : \n\n\n\nTABLE No, 8, \n\nRELATIVE INCREASE OF SEATING \nCAPACITY AND ATTENDANCE, \nAND RELATIVE RENT CHARGES, \nMANHATTAN AND BRONX, \n\nNew Total Average Day Rents, \n\n^eais. Seats. Attendance. Schools. \n\nJuly, 1898 {a^ b) 220,931 {d) 186,990 \n\nJuly, 1899 12,069 {b) 233,000 {e) 209,692 $88,526 (1899) \n\nJuly, 1900 15,000 [c) 248,000 (/) 207,638 90,257 (1900) \n\nDecember, 1900 19,000 267,000 213,866 92,103(1901) \n\nAggregate increase Seats, 46,069; attendance, 26,876 \n\nNumber of seats in excess of average attendance 53, 000 \n\nNumber of pupils per 1,000 seats 801 \n\nEstimated on basis of 3 per cent, annual increase in population. \n\n\n\nReport Board of Education, 1899, page 10: "During the past school year (ending July, 1899) \neight new school buildings have been opened in Manhattan and the Bronx, containing 260 class- \nrooms and providing room for about 12,000 pupils." \n(6) Report Board of Education, 1899, page 16. \n\nReport of Board of Education, 1899, page 10: "A number of schoolhouses contracted for prior \nto consolidation * * * are now approaching completion in the Boroughs of Manhattan and \nthe Bronx, and will be ready for occupancy at or soon after the opening of the school year in \nSeptember next" (1899). \nNo aggregate given in official reports. Number obtained by adding 255 separate items, con- \ntained on pages 55 to 64 inclusive, Report Board of Education, 1898. \nAggregate of detailed items.^ages 52 to 57 inclusive. Report of Board of Education, 1899. On \npage 16 the average daily attendance is stated as 202, 133. This number does not conform to \nthe sum of the separate items in the schedules on pages 52 to 57. \n\nPaee 976 Official Budget for 1901, of which but 11 copies were printed. It states that the \n\naggregate number of days of attendance at Manhattan public schools for the previous school \n\nyear was 42 027,584. The day attendance and evening attendance is not segregated, nor the \n\nnumber of session days stated. The average number was deducted after the necessary factors \n\nhad been otherwise obtained. \n\nIt appears from the foregoing data that the number of sittings available keeps well ahead of the \n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Tiand for them. During the last school year, although about 15.000 new seats were supplied, he \n\n\xe2\x80\xa2endance was less than in the previous year. These new facilities have -^J-^f f \'f^.\'^^\'^^^^\'^\'^ \n\n..- -mises In I899, when the rent charge in Manhattan was about $88,000, the President of the Board of \n\n\xc2\xa3. ucation pointed out that the construction of new schoolhouses would materially lessen that charge \n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 .out 30 new schoolhouses and additions with from 45.000 to 50,000 seats have been added during the \n\n: \' St three years; nevertheless over $92,000 is wanted for rents during next year Admitting the^^^ge^t \n\nedof new schools the facts set forth seem to indicate that those provided have not been judiciously \n\n\'ated a^hrpoLs of congestion or deficiency. It should not be inferred that new schools are not \n\nquired becLse some new Ichools may have been put in inaccessible places. There are many sections \n\nhere new schools are urgently needed. \n\n\n\n(a) \n\n\n\n(0 \n(/) \n\n\n\n'