/^4^ L 183 .N5 E5 1901 Copy 1 REPORT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUGATION OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK TO THE MAYOR OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK. In regard to a statement dated December 19, 1900, published and circulated through the medium of the Board of Directors of the Merchants' Association of New York. HALL OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION. PARK AVENUE & FIFTY-NINTH STREET, JANUARY 9, 1901. Office of the I*resition, but this Association has given wide circulation to its report, notwithstanding the fact that the data contained therein have no foundation whatever. I will not permit any association to disti-ibute such a dt>cument without replying to it, and I therefore enclose you a statement, coming from the Board «>f Education, which refutes every assertion contained in this so-called " Analysis of School Kxpenses of The City of New Y'ork " sent out by The Merchants' Association. Through you I desire to challenge this Association to contradict or refute any statement made by me in the report which I have the honor to submit herewith. Very truly yours, MILES M. O'BRIEN, Presidt'tii, €Joard i>f TfiiAi-iitivn,' Department of Education of the City of NewYork, Park Avenue and Fifty-ninth Street Borough of Manhattan, January 9, 1901. Hon. Robert A. Van Wyck, Mayor of the City of Nnv York: Dear Sir : There has been circulated recently a report made to the Board of Directors of the Merchants' Association of NewYork, which report appears to have received the approval of twelve direc- tors of said organization, and was then ordered published after alleged verification by a Special Committee. The report is voluminous, and emanating from an organization claiming to be devoted to mercantile and commercial interests, and having as its principal feature or line of action, the regulating and disciplining of railroads and other corporations, when their interests unduly clash with those of the merchants; it suggests itself at once that there must be some particular reason or motive for this marked interest and activity in the line of educational research, which would appear to be somewhat remote from the sphere of usefulness in which the organization is ostensibly engaged. However, whatever the purpose may be, and what motives governed the twelve directors of the Merchants' Association in giving publication to an untruthful and mischievous statement, this department is not prepared to sug- gest at this time. Sufficient to say that the published statement attempts to convey improper impressions to the public mind, and appears to wantonly discredit the administration of one of the most important factors in city affairs, namely, the Public Schools of the City of New York. Seven distinct specifications have been formulated, as well as general criticisms and statements. The Department of Education reports as follows: SPECIFICATION 1, " That the official reports of the Board of Education are espe- cially defective in data relating to average attendance, which is either the statutory or actual basis of appropriation and apportionment, and which greatly affects the amounts of specific outlays." The foregoing statement is almost wholly hypothetical. There is, however, a percentage of truth injected, sufficient to give color to the statement. Attendance is statutoril}- defined, and is the basis upon which the General School Fund is a])j3ortioned to the several boroughs. The Special School Fund is not within the purview of the statute relating to attendance of scholars. The Special School Fund contains such items as are the subject of peculiar criticism in the report, viz. : general repairs, supplies, fuel, light, rents, etc., etc. . The statute referred to is Section 1065 of the Greater New York Charter, which is as follows : "The special school fund shall be administered by the Board of Education. The general school fimd shall be administered by the respective school boards, and in the month of December in each year shall be apportioned for tliB next succeeding cal- endar year by the Board of Education among the different school boards of the city as follows : " 1. A distributive quota to each school board of six hundred dollars for every qualified teacher, or for successive qualified teachers, who shall have actually taught in the public schools under the charge of the board during a term of not less than thirty-two weeks of five successive days each, inclusive of legal holidays." " 2. The remainder of such general school fund shall be appor- tioned among the said school boards by the said Board of Educa- tion in proportion to the aggregate number of days of attendance of the pupils of the public schools resident in the boroughs under their charge, between the ages of four and twenty-one years, at their respective schools during the last preceding school year. The aggregate number of days of attendance of the pupils is to be ascertained from the records thereof kept by the teachers, as hereinafter prescribed, by adding together the whole number of days of attendance of each and every such pupil in the schools under the charge of the respective school boards. One day of attendance shall be counted for every child who attends one full day, or one full session, either forenoon or afternoon. Between the first and fifteenth days of January in each and every year, the Board of Education shall file a record of its apportionment of the general school fund with the comp- troller." The General School Fund (see Section 1060, Greater New York Charter) is applicable to the payment of salaries of the borough and associate superintendents and all members of the supervis- ing and teaching staff. From the foregoing it is readily perceived that the legislature discriminated in regard to the two funds; and rightfully and intelli- gently so, for the reason that the General School Fimd is applied to the purely educational side of the school system, in contradistinction to the Special School Fund, which covers the physical and special- ized side of the school system. While average attendance is a factor in school administration of considerable importance, especially when applied to the employment of the teaching force, it is not applicable arbitrarily to appropria- tions contained within the Special School Fund. For instance, take the items of "general repairs, rents, lighting, fuel," and to a large extent the item for supplies. The repairs to each school building are not necessarily of the same kind each year, for the reason that certain kinds of repairs to a building will last good for more than a year; it therefore follows that there may be no renewal of the same required to be provided for in the next estimate. The application of an arbitrary sum fixed by proportionate average attendance would therefore be uimecessary if not absurd. Again, it must be remembered that subsequent to the making of the estimate, an entire winter ensues; therefore, conditions in some localities and in many buildings may be somewhat different from what they were anticipated to be nearly twelve months before the contracts are made. It is probably unknown to the producer of the report that the bulk of "general repaii-s" is made during the summer vacation, say from July 1 to September 1, and necessarily so, in order that school sessions will not be interrupted. It is suggested that a hard winter may have some effect on the question of repairs to a school building, in some instances more than the matter of average attend- ance. The distinction is between the theoretical and statistical, and the practical and absolute conditions prevailing. More might be said in regard to the other funds mentioned, but it is deemed unnecessary in answering this specification to cite more than the one instance; others will be discussed fully in subsequent portions of this statement. As before stated, in the distribution of the General School Fund the ^^ aggregate days of attendance" appears as a factor together with the number of teachers employed. Suffice it to say, that nowhere in the Greater New York Charter can be found the principle promulgated, that average attendance is the basis of appropriation, distribution and expenditure. The principle put forward in the report is so manifestly imprac- tical, that the only excuse for its promulgation is the inexperience, nay, ignorance, of its sponsors, of school management. SPECIFICATION 2. " That such data of attendance as are given are inaccurate, contradictoi-y , and therefore um-eliable ; they are defective be- cause they lack comprehensive exhibits of details, because the details given are not usefully digested or classified, and because their sums total do not produce the aggregates elsewhere stated as resulting from them." The data furnished by and through the Department of Education is of three kinds : 1. Section 1085 of the Greater New York Charter provides that an annual report shall be made to the Mayor, as follows : "The Board of Education shall, between the first day of August and 'the thirtieth day of November in each year, make and transmit to the Mayor of the City of New York a report in wi'iting, bearing date on the thirty-first day of July next pre- ceding, stating the whole number of schools within their juris- diction, specially designating the schools for colored children; the schools or societies from which reports shall have been made to the Board of Education, within the time limited for that pur- pose; the length of time such school shall haxe been kej)t open; the amount of public money apportioned or appropriated to said school or society, the number taught in each school, the whole amount of money drawn from the City Chamberlain for the purposes of public education during the year ending at the date of their report, distinguishing the amount received fi'om the general fund of the State and from all other sources ; the manner in which such moneys shall have been expended; and such other information as the Mayor may from time to time require in relation to common school education in the Citj^ of New York. The Board of Education shall make such other re- ports to the Ma}'or as he may call for, and at such times as he shall require." It will be observed that the section is specific in its requirements as to the data to be furnished. 2. Section 1084 of the Greater New York Charter provides for an Annual Report to the State Superintendent, as follows : "The Board of Education shall, between the first day of August and the thirtieth day of September in each year, make and transmit to the State Superintendent of Public Instruction a report in writing for the State school year ending on the next preceding thirty-first day of July, which report shall be in such form and shall state such facts as the State Superintendent and the school laws of the State shall require." It will be observed that the nature, and form of the statistics to be furnished, is regulated by the requirements of the State Superin- tendent, and, by way of explanation, is intended to conform with the State System. 3. Section 1079 of the Greater New York Charter provides for a report to be furnished to the Board of Education by the City Super- intendent of Schools, as follows : " The City Superintendent of Schools shall have the right of visitation and inquiry in all of the schools of the City of New York as constituted under this act, and he sJiall report to the Board of Education on the educational system of the city, and wpon the condition of any and of all the schools thereof, but he shall have no right of interference with the actual conduct of any school in the City of New York. He shall have a seat in the Board of Education, and the right to speak oij all matters before the Board, but not to vote." 6 There would appear to be nothing remarkable in the fact that with three distinct sets of reports and statistics, and not prepared on uniform requirements, the novice in school affairs should fail to appreciate their separate use and virtue. It is not remarkable that, through ignorance or otherwise, the novice has intermixed such re- ports and statistics, and innocently or disingenuously based the statistical fabric thereon. It is not unlikely, nay probable, that the statistics rec[uired to ])e furnished to the State Superintendent of Public Instruction under authority of statute, covering a State school year (two parts of two calendar years) will differ materially from a report to the Mayor made under authority and in pursuance of another section of law. Could it ])e otherwise? Such statistics of its affairs, both physical and educational, such as are necessary and requisite for the transaction and proper conduct of business, are available at all times in the Department of Educa- tion. It is a matter of oiDinion whether it is necessar}-, on the score of usefulness as well as economy, for the Department of Education to maintain a bin-eau or go to the expense of the prejjaration of statis- tics, which may only be required on special occ'asions to disabuse the public mind as to the worthlessness of such a report as is now under consideration, j^i'esumably prepared for discreditable if not impro]ier purpose.;, and at any rate with cpiestionable motives. The following are copies of communications from the City Super- intendent of Schools, and the Borough Superintendent of Schools of Manhattan and The Bronx, which clearly show the inaccuracy of statements made in the report : OFi-irK.'^ OF THE Board of Educatiox, Park A\enue, cor. Fifty-ninth Street, Borough of Maxhattan, December 29, 1900. Hox. Milks M. O'Brien, Pnsidcid, Board of Education: Dear Sir: With reference to the "Analysis of School Expenses" submitted to the Merchants' Association by Mr. F. B. De Berard, I nuikc the following statement : I None of the figui-es i)resente(l by Mr. De Bei-ard are taken dii-ectly from the Annual Reports of the Cit}' Suijeiintendent of Schools. They have evidently been taken from the Annual Reports of the Board of Education, prepared l;)y the ^'ecretary upon statistics, so far as they relate to a^•( rage attendance, furnislied b\- the liorough officials. In his "Analysis" is found the following statement : ' ' The number of jjupils enrolled is no safe index of the num- ber of seats required. Evening schools increase the em-oll- ment, but do not require more school buildings or more seats. , Of the 320,000 different pu]5ils who are enrolled in Manhattan more than 12 per cent. (38,450) are on the registers of the even- ing schools, and the attendance is less than one-third of those enrolled. There are also summer schools, ^■acation schools, cooking schools, and various ' fads' for special students. Whether the enrollment and attendance of these is included in the aggre- gate cannot be learned from the official i-eports. For the most part they do not need special facilities in excess of those provided for day scholars. In effect the maximum attendance of da}' scholars (generally reached in October and November) shows the minimum number of seats required, pro^-ided the seats are where the pupils are. The reports of the Board of Educa- tion do not supply the needed data. All that can be learned from them as to the relative school capacity, attendance and their increase is the following, gleaned from fragmentary data and detached statements in various parts of two annual re- ports and the current official budget. The source of each citation is stated. " There does not appear to l)e any statement either in the Report of the Board of Education, or in tl e Report of the City Superin- tendent, showing a total enrollment of 320,000 different pupils in Manhattan and The Bronx. Th{> mimber is e\idently made up from the following, from the ReiX)rt of the Board of Education, for 1898- 1899, page 51 : Number of different pupils registered (Public Day Schools) 281,8-41 Number of pupils registered in Evening Schools 38,450 320,291 It is implied that this amount includes also the enrollment of pupils in vacation and otiier schools, which is not the fact. 8 Relative to the increase in the average attendance and in the number of sittings given in the "Analysis" (Table No. 8), it is stated that as there were 220,931 sittings in July, 1898, and 267,000 in De- cember, 1900 (an estimated number), the increase during the interval must have been the difference, 46,069 ; and, as the average attendance in July, 1898, was 186,990, and in December, 1900, 213,866 (also an estimated number), the increase in the average attendance was only 26,876. The figures in the records in the office of the City Superin- tendent show a very different condition in the Boroughs of Man- hattan and The Bronx: Average daily attend- Sittings, ance for the year. Julv 1. 1897-1898 187,883 218,272 1898-1899 207,470 232,931' 1899-1900 219,932 247,635 Average daily attendance for the month. Sittings. November, 1900 236,803 251,657 Increase, July, 1898-Nov.,1900 48,920 33,385 Excess of increase in average attendance over increase in sittings, 15,535. Number of seats in excess of average daily attendance for the month of November, 14,854. Number of pupils per 1,000 seats, 941. It is stated by Mr. De Berard, in his letter to the Commercial Advertiser, that the aggregate number of daj^s of attendance of all pupils during the year .1899-1900, 42,027,584, "embraces all classes of pupils except those of Corporate Schools." This statement is untrue in so far as it relates to " all classes of pupils." This number includes only pupils in attendance upon the regular public day schools, and does not include attendants in "Summer Schools, Vaca- tion Schools, Cooking Schools, and various 'fads' for special stu- dents." Neither does it include attendance in Corporate Schools or in Evening Schools. It is stated that " the average daih^ attend- ance is obtained by dividing the annual attendance by the number of session days." The printed report of the City Superintendent will show that the schools of Manhattan and The Bronx were actually in session 191 days. The aggregate number of days' attendance 9 divided by this number gives the average daily attendance for the year as 220,039, while the average daily attendance for the year by schools gives a total of 219,932, a difference of 107 accounted for by a fraction, more or less, in each of the details. From this number, 220,039, Mr. De Berard deducts the number of evening scholars in attendance the previous year, namely, 12,401. Whether this com- putation was made by Mr. De Berard through ignorance or through malice, I do not undertake to say. Attention is called by Mr. De Berard to the fact that in the Annual Report of the Board of Education for the year ending July 31, 1899, three apparently contradictory amounts are given as to the average attendance in Manhattan and The Bronx, as follows: Page 16, 202,133. Pages 52-57, 209,692 (should be 209,924). Pages 110-124, 231,277 (should be 219,626). These apparent discrepancies arise from the fact that each of the amounts given is computed on a different basis from the other two. The first, 202,133, is taken from the Monthly Report of the City Superintendent for June, 1899, and is the average daily attendance forthemonth,hasedonihc aggregate days' attendance for that month. The second and third amounts, obtained by adding (incorrectly) the average attendance for the several schools given separately in the report, were furnished to the Secretary by the borough officials, and are doubtless the average daily attendance for different months. The distribution of the General and Special Funds is not based on any of the data found in the Report of the Board of Education, though Mr. De Berard seems to think so. It is based (in part) upon the aggregate days of attendance of all pupils in the regular public day schools, a record of which is kept in the office of the Oty Super- intendent, and which is made from the sworn monthly statements of each of the principals. These sworn statements give the actual attendance for each day the schools were in session during each month of the school year. I have nothing to add to, and nothing to detract from, the follow- ing statement, which I caused to be published in the papers a few days ago -with regard to Mr. De Berard's "Analysis": 10 "The statement published in the morning papers by Mr, Frederic B. De Berard, a so-called expert, employed by the Merchants' Association, with regard to public school accounts, I contains the following sentence : ' During the last school year, although about 15,000 new seats were supplied, the attendance was less than the previous year. ' This statement is not true. The average attendance in the school year 1899-1900 exceeded the average attendance in the school year 1898-1899 by 19,314 for the entire city. The subjoined table shows the increase in average attendance by boroughs and also the )iet increase in sittings: 1898-99. 1899-00. Inc. in Net inc. A V. attend- Av. attend- A v. attend- in Sit- ance. anee. ance. tings. Manhattan and Bronx 207,470 219,932 12,462 14,704 Brooklyn 124,200 129,175 4,975 2,297 Queens 19,895 21,227 1,332 1,541 Richmond 7,332 7,877 545 125 Totals 358,897 378,211 19,314 18,667 " It seems extraordinary that a respectable body of men like the Merchants' Association should give to the public statements that are false, for the purpose of discrediting the school svstem of the city. " As I have shown, Mr. De Bei'ard has falsified the public school statistics by subtracting from the attendance on day schools the attendance on evening schools. This fact is what is shown by a con- sideration of the context from Avhich my original excerpt was taken — a context which Mr. De Berard claims I did not consider. Very respectfully, [Signed] William H. Maxwell, City Superintendent of Schools. 11 I Offick of HoRuueiH Supfkintexdkxt of Schools, Paik Avenue and Fifty-ninth Street, Boroughs of Manhattan and The Bronx, Nkw York, Janwirij 4, 1901. Hon. Miles M. O'Brien, President Board of Education, Boroughs of Manhattan and The Bronx : Dear Sir: I have receivetl a copy of a leport to the Board of Directors of the Merchants' Association of New York, under date of December 19, 1900, entitled 'Analysis of School Expenses of the City of New York." I have examined the report with great care, and find that the divi- sion of the subjects is such that an answer to almost all of the state- ments will be made, naturally, by the departments to which they specially refer. I find, however, one portion of the report under the head of "School Accommodations" which would seem to call for special discussion l)y myself, on behalf of the Boi-oughs of Manhattan and The Bronx. On page 19 I find the following statement: ' ' For the most part they do not need special facilities in excess of those provided for da}' scholars. In effect the max- inuim attendance of day scholars (generally reached in October and November) shows the minimum number of seats rec^uired, j^rovided the seats are where the ]5upils are." This method of determining the minimum number of seats re- quired, is absolutely incorrect. The number of ))U])ils in any one grade in a school \\'\\\ vai'y from month to month, and the variation, especially in the lower primary grades, is very great indeed. These variations in the different grades in a school are not coincident, the attendance in one grade ])ossibly being at its maximum, when the attendance in some other grade is at its mininnmi. Hence it follows that the minimum mmiber of seats required in any one school is the sum of the maximum a tendances in the sejiarate grades in that 12 school, no matter at what different periods the maxima maj^ occnr. In like manner the minimum number of seats required for any borough would be the sum of the minimum numbers of seats as calculated for the separate schools. On page 20 appears the following statement : "It appears from the foregoing data that the number of sittings available keeps well ahead of the demand for them." The foregoing data refers to those given in Table No. 8, page 19. Even if we were to concede the claim that a comparison of the num- ber of seats with the average attendance would determine the suf- ficiency of supply of sittings, the conclusion expressed in the state- ment above quoted would depend for its validity upon the accuracy of the numbers given in the table. But these numbers are very incorrectly reported, as will be seen from a comparison with the official figures, which will be found be- low. An example of the lack of accuracy in the reported statistics is to be found on the last line of the table, which would appear to give figures for the calendar year 1900. The latest report of the year was for the month of November, and no average attendance had been calculated for the year. The table reports 267,000 seats, and 213,866 average day attend- ance, but the number of regular sittings in all the schools on Novem- ber 30, 1900, was but 251,657, while the average day attendance for November was no less than 236 803. CORRECTION OF STATISTICS IN TABLE NO. 8. Total Seats. Average Day Attendance, July 31, 1898, 218,272 187,883 (For year 1897-1898). July 31, 1899, 232,931 207,470 (For year 1898-1899). July 31, 1900, 247,635 219,932 (For year 1899-1900). Nov. 30, 1900, 251 ,657 236,803 (For month of November) . A comparison of the average attendance for the month of Novem- ber with the number of sittings, shows that there is a difference of but 14,854, a difference that is absolutely insignificant. It must be kept in mind that the average attendance is the mean number of pupils in attendance, and does not in any way indicate the addi- 13 tional number of pupils who are in attendance on the most favorable days. When it is understood that in many classes there is not a single absence in a week, and in a goodly proportion of the classes there is a perfect -attendance for a month, the weakness of the con- clusion drawn by the compiler of the report must be evident. The number on register at the 6nd of November was 253,189, almost 2,000 in excess of the number of regular sittings, and, further- more, the published report of the City Superintendent for the month of October, found in Journal of the Board of Education for Novem- ber, 1900, states that no less than 21,646 pupils were taught in "part time-' classes. Yet the framer of the report concludes that "the number of sittings available keeps well ahdad of the demands for them." Respectfully, [Signed] John Jasper, Borough Superintendent. SPECIFICATION 3. That estimates submitted by the Board of Education to the Board of Estimate and Apportionment are in part based upon inaccurate data which overstate the average attendance; that the estimates for supplies assume the previous year's outlay as a correct basis, when it is in fact incorrect and excessive; that the estimates of probable increase in attendance are like- wise excessive; and that a progressive and cumulative increase in the annual outlay for supplies may be affected without being subjected to real scrutiny and without obvious appearance of disproportion." That estimates submitted by the Board of Education are in part based upon inaccurate data which overstate the average attendance, is untrue. At the period of the year when it becomes the duty of the Board of Education to submit its estimates, it is impossible to give accurately the attendance of the current fiscal year, for the best of all reasons, the fiscal year has not passed. Therefore, so far as the current fiscal year is concerned, the only information 14 that can be given is an estimate in character, of which fact the Board of Estimate and Apportionment is well aware. The statement that ' ' the estimates for supplies assume the pre- vious year's outlay as a correct basis, when it is in fact, incorrect and excessiA'e, ' ' requires some comment. Notwithstanding the judgment and experience contributed by the Board of Education as to the requirements of the school system, it is the common custom for the Board of Estimate and Appor- tiormient to reduce amounts asked for. It is to be assumed that the Board of Estimate and Apportion- ment of which the Comptroller, the chief fiscal officer of the city, is a member, is actuated by a reason and not a simple impulse, when it apportions city moneys. The Board of Education must therefore accept the funds placed at its disjiosal, and expend the same so far as they go, to the best interests of the school system. The Board of ]'>lucation must also accept the funds as the result of the deliberations, judgment and views of the Board of Estimate and Apportionment, as to the amounts necessary to be expended for the public schools. It ^\'oukl therefore appear to l)e j^erfectly proper for the Board of Education, in its next year's estimate, to assume the amount of the previous year's fund for supplies as a basis upon which to predicate its requests. Still further, the fact remains that the school sys- tem is not decreasing in size ; on the contrary, the school population is rapidlv increasing, and as a matter of pure reasoning it is logical to assume that such an item as "Supplies" will therefore grow apace. The statement that a progressive and cumulative increase in the ainuial outlay for supplies may be effected without l)eing sub- jected to real scrutiny, and without obvious apj^earance of dis- proportion is not borne out 1 )y facts, for instance : The amount allowed in Manhattan and The Bronx, for Supplies in 1898 was $542,691.78 Supplies in 1899 was 575,253.28 Sui^plies in 1900 was 500.000 Sujiplies in 1901 was 600,000 With the desire to reduce exjienses to the lowest point, the Board 15 of Education refrained from expending its entire approj^riation for supplies for 1899 and voluntai'ily reduced the aj3})ropriation of that year, the unexpended balance of which was utilized for pur- poses provided for by a special act of the Legislature, viz.: the deficit in teachers' salaries in other boroughs. The effect of this frugality has been painfully felt during the current year (1900) for the Board of Estimate and Apportionment also reduced the amount asked for by a large sum, and schools have suffered ac- cordingly. A glance at the figures will therefore demonstrate that the " progressiAc and cumulative increase" referred to in the report is largel>- imaginati^•e, and the average increase not abnormal when conditions and requirements are considered. SPECIFICATIOX 4. "That the current estimates for supplies, which assume last year's outlays as a basis, allo\\- $3.38^ per capita for neAv scholars, while the actual per capita cost last year was but $2.02, according to the pul)]ished reports of the Board of Ed- ucation." The foregoing statement appears to be largeh" surmised, and not wholly founded on the facts. Such facts as haxe been u.-ed have been distorted and misapplied. It is untrue that the provision in the piinted Inulget for sup- plies for new schools and additions to be opened during the xeav 1901 is based upon the per capita cost for supplies as furnished to the schools during the previous year, and for the following reasons: That the cost of equipping new buildings, etc., with supplies is necessarily a more important and costly transaction than the usual supply of materials required for an old school during the year. In the equipping of a new school it is necessary to provide certain articles and educational appliances for permanent use, such as globes, maps, charts, and other items too numerous to mention. A school once equipped with these special supplies, can then be maintained at a less armual rate of cost, because the renewal of such items occurs only at long intervals. It requires no great amount of business discernment to understand that the initial cost of 16 enlargement of any system is occasioned by the purchase of plant, and that regular maintenance costs less. The average cost of equipping elementary schools in the former City of New York, now the Boroughs of Manhattan and The Bronx, has been found to be about $3.38^, assuming that the proportion of Grammar and Primary classes are about equal. This fact has been ascertained by the careful examination of the records of the Board, from time to time, by the Committee on Supplies, and the officers in charge of the Supplies Department, assisted by appU- cation of past experience to the anticipated requirements of the system, and guided by the discretion in the management of its affairs with which the Board is vested. Attention is particularly called to the following (see top of page 8 of report). Manhattan (average attendance fiscal year) : Day Schools Nos. 1 to 169 (aggregates not given; deduced by adding columns of details on pages 110 to 119 214,946 High Schools, Training School and Truant School (page 123) 3,930 Evening Schools (page 17, for school year ending July 31, 1899) 12,401 Total Manhattan 231,277 The report (pp. 7 and 8) contains a complaint that, to ascertain the average attendance of scholars, about 500 separate items must be collated from three separate schedules, isolated from each other, and distiibuted through 25 pages; 16 long columns must be added, etc., etc. That the manufacture of such statistics was laborious and arduous, and that the results therefrom are misleading and mischievous, cannot be denied. An examination of pages 110 to 119 of the annual report of 1899, shows that the figures of average attendance submitted, viz: 214,946, do not appear to be borne out by an addition thereof, which appears to aggregate 215,696. At- tention is particularly called to the fact that the quotation herein- before made shows that the compiler of the report has deliberately intermixed figures and statistics belonging to the fiscal and school years. Attention is also called to the fact that for the purpose of sho^^•ing 17 a difference between equipping new elementary day schools with supplies ($3.38^), and the alleged cost of supplies for schools already established ($2.02), the report has included not only the alleged attendance in the elementary day schools, but also figures representing High Schools, Training Schools, Truant Schools and Evening Schools. Following the quotation hereinbefore referred to, the report contains another set of figures applied to the Borough of Brooklyn, wth the fiscal and school years again intermixed. Immediately following appears the statement: "The average attendance cited above was the basis for the distribution of supplies; it is for the fiscal year, January- December, 1899." In Aiew of the positive statement that the figures submitted by the statistician are for the fiscal year, it is almost needless to say that the presence of data appertaining to the school year at once demonstrates inaccuracy and disestabUshes the statistical fabric. In the initial equipment of a new school building it is necessary that each grammar pupil shall have the following articles: 1 Arithmetic $ .50 1 Geography .72 1 Grammar . .... .50 1 History . . . . , .65 2 Supplementary Readers ... .50 2 Copy Books 12 1 Grammar Book .... .40 2 German Copy Books 12 25 Pencils 25 50 Pens .10 1 Ruler 01 1 Speller 21 A chilji will require at least 20 pads for use throughovit the year, . . . .33 $4.41 Besides the foregoing, each room should be furnished with : 18 1 Set of Maps, costing . . . $36.00 1 Globe 5.00 1 doz. Charts, at 36c. each . . . 4.32 6 doz. enamelled Cups . . . 2.16 6 doz. Camel's Hair Brushes, at 24c. per doz. 1.44 3 doz. Compasses .... 3.00 1 Set Drawing Models ... 9.40 3 Wash Basins, at SI. 80 per doz. . . .45 3 Scrap Baskets, at $3.08 per doz. . .77 1 Call Bell .16 1 Pencil Sharpener .... 3.00 1 Teacher's Memorandum Book . .20 1 Class Book 35 1 Teacher's New Record Book . . .41 1 Inkstand, Teacher's Desk . . .30 In addition to the foi-egoing, the children must be su])plied with cb-aA^ing paper, and if it is a girls' school, sewing materials. In the general fitting up of the school, a complete set of records, ex- clusiA^e of those enumerated, will be necessary, a bell for principal's desk, yard bells, crayons, drinking ^•essels, pointers, clothes poles, blackboard rubbers, blackboard rulers, and janitor's supplies, etc. In the initial equipment of a new school building it is neces- sary that each primary jDupil sliall have the following articles: 1 Reader, $.18 30 Pencils, ..30 30 Pens, .05 2 Copy Books, .10 1 doz. Pads, .19 1 Music book, .20 .02 Besides the foregoing, each room should be furnished with 1 Burt's Primary Reading Chart, 1 Set of Primary Language Studies, 12 Charts, at .36 each, 1 Map of the United States, 1 Hemisphere, 1 Map of New York Citv, 1 Globe, . . ■ . 1 Teacher's Memorandum Book, $12 .00 12 .50 4 32 2 25 2 25 1 00 5 25 20 1!) 1 Class Book, .... .85 1 Teacher's New Record Book, . .41 1 Inkstand for every teacher's desk, .30 1 Pencil Sluir])enei', . . . 3.00 1 Call Bell .16 3 Wash I^asins. at $1 .80 per dozen, . . 45 3 Scrap l^askets, at S3.08 per dozen, .77 1)1 addition to the foresioing, the hitjher <;:rades nmst be fnrnished with drawing paper, color books, and if it is a girls' scho(»l, se\ving materials. In the general fitting uj) of the school, a complete set of records, exclusi\e of those enumei'ated, will be necessary, a bell for ])rincipars desk, yard l^ells, crayons, drinking vessels pointers, clothes poles, black1;)oard rul)bers, blackljoard inilers, and janito]-'s supplies, etc. A casual inspection of the foregoing items and figin-es shows that the average struck, viz: $3.38|, is very low. It is only by the transferring from time to time of the permanent appliances from one classroom to another, that the initial cost is kept down. This operation is often attended by inconvenience and delay, but it is necessitated by the determination of the Conuiiittce on Supplies to so shai)C its expenditures as to keep within the financial limits defined l:)y the Board of I'].stirruite and Apportionment. SPECIFIC.VTIOX 5. "That the current estimates for supplies assume an increase in attendance in Manhattan about three times as great as the normal iucrea.se and four times as great as the officially stated increase of the last school j'ear; that a large part of the in- creased attendance thus assumed and provided for is deduced not from previous attendance and annual increase of popula- tion, but from the capacity of new school houses, w'hich will be occupied in large part by scholars already enrolled and attend- ing the public schools, 'in temporary rented premises, which the new buildings will displace ; that while official data of school population and its increase show an estimate of 5 per cent, increase in attendance to be excessively liberal, the estimates for supplies ask for 26 per cent, increase in the appropriation to provide for the increased attendance." 20 The foregoing statement is disingenuous, inasmuch as it seeks to include as a matter of average attendance, the equipment of ne^ school buildings, with special supplies. New buildings cannot be equipped with supplies on a basis of average attendance; the only practical and satisfactory way is to provide supplies sufficient to cover the seating capacity — in other words, to cover the possible maximima enrollment. How could it be possible to base the require- ments in a new school building upon average attendance, when the building has never been tenanted? The assumption that new buildings displace temporary rented premises is not always connect; on the contrary, it is more frequently otherwise. In fixing the loca- tion of a projected new building, the existence of rented premises is necessarily considered, as is also the overcrowded condition of other nearby school buildings.- New buildings rapidly fill when opened, and their existence, while relieving congestion somewhat, does not appear to have material effect in reducing the number of rented premises. This indicates per se, that the school population is increasing apace, and that while congestion is relieved from time to time in certain localities, there still exists a factor of arrearage, mainly accounted for by children in part-time classes, which arrearage is being only slowly reduced owing to scarcity of funds wherewith to buy sites and erect buildings thereon. The foregoing is advanced in order to show that the state- ment made " that new school houses will be occupied in large part by scholars already enrolled " is incorrect when regarded from a prac- tical standpoint, and could only have been made from a cursory and incomplete examination of conditions, and an incompetent and crude ■idea of current school affairs. In order to show the fallacy of the argument that the estimates for supplies ask for 26 per cent, increase in the appropriation to pro- vide for the increased attendance, the following is submitted: SUPPLIES, MANHATTAN AND THE BRONX. 1899 Asked for in estimate, . . . .$602,824.00 1898 " """... . 542,691.78 Increase, 1899 over 1898, . . $60,132.22 21 Asked for about 11 per cent, far all purposes. 1899 Allowed by Board of Estimate and Appor- tionment, .... $575,253.28 1898 Allowed by Board of Estimate and Appor- tionment, 542,691.78 Increase, 1899 over 1898, . . . $ .32,561.50 Actual increase received, about 6 per cent, for all purposes. 1900 Asked for in estimate, . . . $574 752 59 1899 " " - 602',824^00 Asked for less than previous year. . . $28,071.48 1899 Allowed by Board of Estimate and Appor- tionment, $575,253.28 1900 Allowed by Board of Estimate and Appor- tionment, 500,000.00 Received less than previous year. . . $75,253.28 1901 Asked for in estimate, .... $631,817 08 1900 '' - - .... 574^752 .'52 $57,064.56 Asked for an increase, 1901 over 1900, of about 10 per cent, for all purposes. 1901 Allowed by Board of Estimate and Appor- tionment, $600,000.00 1900 Allowed by Board of Estimate and Appor- tionment, 500,000.00 Increase 1901 over 1900, . . . $100,000.00 Actual increase 20 per cent, for all purposes. Attention is called to the fact, that of the appropriation of 1899 over $100,000 was voluntarily rehnquished and applied by authority of statute to the deficit in teachers' salary accounts in the Boroughs of Queens and Richmond. In granting a greater percentage of in- crease in 1901, the Board of Estimate and Apportionment is merely ameliorating the conditions occasioned by frugality in 1899, and shortage in 1900. 22 Attention is also called to the fact that any increase in an estimate over that of the previous year is detailed, and shows per se the objects for which it is proposed to expend the additional money I'equested. It is manifestly unjust to arbitrarily assume that increases in appro- priations are intended to cover only increased attendance of pupils. It seems incomprehensible that any organization of progressive nature, or person with normal instincts, should advance such a theory ; if such were to obtain, educational advancement would stop, and increased expenditures would only mean provision for the addi- tional number of scholars whose ages entitled them to enter the public schools during the fiscal year covered by the appropriation . Summer schools, playgrounds, gymnasiums, kindergartens, work- shops, kitchens, etc., require the installation of apparatus, and the furnishing of supplies completely outside of the usual routine materials required for the ordinary elementary day-school classes. It can be stated emphatically, without fear of contradiction, that the citizens of New York would not submit to be shorn of the advan- tages of modern methods of education, which have been and are being added to the school system from time to time; nor would they submit, without complaint, to fall very far behind the plane of cities of lesser magnitude. Attention is called to the fact that in cases where the city author- ities fail to provide funds to carry out a certain object, it is not unusual for the Board of Education to renew its request in the esti- mate for the next year. This fact may account, in part, for the sug- gestion made by the analyst as to "progressive and cumulative .increase." SPECinCATIOX 6. " That the outlay for general supiDlies, repairs, fuel, lighting and janitor serATce is extremely disproportionate, as between the Borough of Manhattan and the Borough of Brooklvn, on the basis of equivalent results or equal services, and that there is a similar disproportion as between the various schools, especially in Manhattan." The subject of general su]:)plies has been treated of in cxtenso in 23 answering the preceding specifications, that it liardly appears nec- essary to make any further statements. In the matter of general repairs, the report seeks to show by the compilation of figures, that "the entire schedule of general repairs deserves the severest criti- cism. The most cursory study of it shows that it readih might, and probably does, cover enormous waste." To bear out this remarkable statement, the compiler of the report advances the following statistics (page 9 of repoit) : TABLE 2. GENERAL REPAIRS, DISTRIBUTION OF OUTLAY. Less than $500, ii a ii $500 and less than $1,000, ii >( u ii ,i $1,000 and less than $2,000, it II it it ii $2,000 and less than $4,000, ii ii ii ii ii $4,000 and less than $6,000, ii ii a ti (< Over $6,000, By ])rocess of arithmetic, it would appear from the above that the item requested for Manhattan was $277,087; as a matter of fact, it was $273,830. The verifying committee appears to have overlooked the discrepancy of some few^ thousand dollars. In order that there shall be a clear understanding on the subject, it should be stated that the Board of Education asked for 1901 under the appropria- tion heading of "General Repair^" the following: Manhattan and The Bronx, $493,537.75 Brooklyn, . . 392,441.34 Borough. No. of Average Schools. Amount. Manhattan, 18 $337.00 Brooklyn, 113 88.50 Manhattan, 46 772.00 Brooklyn, 3 818.00 Manhattan, 54 1,390.00 Brooklyn, 12 1,295.00 Manhattan, 42 2,537.00 Brooklyn, 12 2,477.00 Manhattan, 10 4,556.00 Brooklyn, 2 4,585.00 Manhattan, 1 8,335.00 Total, $885,979.09 In order to show the purposes for wliich it was i^roposed to ex- pend this mone}' , the Department of Education, in its usual printed estimate submitted schedules of details, of which the following are the summarized items (also printed) : 24 MANHATTAN AND THE BRONX. Item, General repairs, .... '' Sanitary repairs, .... " Heating repairs, .... " Electric installation, " Salaries, Inspectors and Draughtsmen, $273,830.00 106,620.00 42,325.00 23,500.00 47,262.75 ,537.75 BROOKLYN. Item, General repairs, . " Sanitary repairs, " Heating and ventilating, " Electric installation, "Fireproof stair work (special) " Materials for workshop, " Salaries, Inspectors and Draughtsmen, Workmen, .... " Clerk, and $96,885.00 72,535.00 36,405.00 24,875.00 63,800.00 16,000.00 80,141.34 1,800.00 $392,441.34 If we take the compiler's own figures, we shall assume that the number of schools are as follows : Manhattan and The Bronx, Brooklyn, 171 142 Now let us take the entire appropriation for each of the Boroughs mentioned, and divide by the number of schools as computed by the compiler. The follomng will be the result: Manhattan and The Bronx, $493,537. 75-=- 171 =$2,886 + average. Brooklyn, 392,441.34^142= 2,763+ average. The apparent difference is about $123 per building, but on the basis of "equivalent results or equal services" (as suggested by the analyst, and verified by the committee), Brooklyn schools are ac- tually costing more in proportion than in Manhattan, owing to difference in size of buildings and parsimony in the expenditure of money prior to 'consolidation," which facts are clearly demon- strated among other things in the following communication from the Su]-)orintendent of School Buildings: 25 Department of Education, City of New York, Building Bureau, Park Avenue and Fifty-ninth Street, Borough of Manhattan, New York, January 4, 1901. Hon. Miles M. O'Brien, President Board of Education: Dear Sir: In compliance with the instructions received from Mr. Richard H. Adams, Chairman of the Committee on Buildings, I herewith transmit to you the following report regarding certain allegations made in a pamphlet entitled "Analysis of School Ex- penses of the City of New York," issued by the Merchants' Associa- tion of New York, December 19, 1900. An examination of the report shows most conclusively that the results are reached by the skillful and misleading juggling of figures, and what it is more important, an entire separation of figures from the facts. Report, page 5: " The accounts of the Board of Education are not subject to audit in detail by the Comptroller." This may be so, but they were up to May, 1900, and nothing wrong was found, and now the Commissioners of Accounts have full legal power to investigate in detail all of the financial transactions of the Board of Education. Report, page 6 : "The amount of outlay proper for each of these (191 school premises in Manhattan and 132 in Brooklyn) and (aside from that required for teachers) is contingent wholly upon the capa- city, character and equipment of the respective buildings and upon the number of scholars in attendance. The proper mea- sure of capacity is the number of sittings and classrooms." The above reads well, and seems to convey a truthful statement, but in reality it, together with all the deductions and inferences 26 made therefrom and further specified in tables 1 and 2, is absolutely worthless, and the innuendos and harsh words uncalled for, for the reason that in comparing the cost of repairs of the public schools of Manhattan with those of Brooklyn "The proper measure of capacity is 'not' the number of sittings" and it has always been supposed that e\'ery well-informed citizen of Manhattan and Brooklyn was aware of these facts. Take, for instance, the first fifty school buildings (P. S. 1 to 50, in- clusive) in each borough, it will be found 1. That the a^'erage size of the Brooklyn school buildings is thirty classrooms, while those of Manhattan are twenty per cent, greater. This, then, is the real measure of capacity as to sittings. The school buildings of Manhattan are, however, larger in another way, which requires funds for maintenance or repairs, but without any increase in the number of classrooms, l^eing 2. That 25 per cent, of those enumerated in Manhattan have a fifth story devoted to physical and manual training, raising the average size of the buildings l)y 6^ per cent. 3. That 10 per cent, of those enumerated in Manhattan have roof playgrounds, not found in those of Brooklyn. 4. The school buildings of Manhattan almost without an exception are built with a cellar o'r sub-basement, in which is placed the heat- ing and ventilating ])lant, coal, etc., but not used by the pupils, while the entire first story, located above the street level, is used for indoor i)la>'rooms. Contrast this with the Brooklyn schools built for the most part without cellars ; the heating apparatus, coal bins and children's playgrounds being placed in the one basement. In otlier words, al)out 25 per cent, of the school buildings of Man- hattan consist of six floor surfaces at different levels, which we will designate as units, i. e. (a) cellar — heating apparatus, coal storage, etc. ; (b) 1st stor>' used as indoor playroom; (c) 2d, (d) 3d and (e) 4th stories, each divided into and used as classrooms, which alone indi- cate the capacity of the buildim/; (f) 5th story, used for physical and manual training — total of six units. The number of classrooms in three of these units is under normal conditions, the only measure of capacity of the structure as ai)i:)lied to sittings. The other 75 per cent, of the Iniildings ha\-e as many units as floors used for classrooms, plus the first story playroom and plus the cellar, 27 therefore if the biiikUug consists of two, three or four stories and cellar or sub-basement, then in each case two of the units or stories must be deducted from the classroom space Ijcfore the measure of •capacity as to sittings can be ol^tained. In Brooklyn there is as a rule onl}- the basement of fiist story to be deducted from the classroom space. If this be not sufficienth' comprehensive, tlien the following table must be not only comprehensive but conclusive that the statement made in ])aragrai)h 6, page 4, of the report '' That the outlay for . . . repairs, ... is extremeh' dispropcn-tionate, as 13et^\•een the Borough of Manhattan and the Boi-ough of Brooklyn upon the basis of equivalent results or equal ser\ices, and that there is a similar disproportion as Ijetween \'ari()us schools, especially in Manhattan." is utterly false and misleading. Taking, for example, the first fift>' schools in eacli Borough : riciu'ral Reiiairs. Proportionate (Total am"t wanted for Floor Area First Allowance. all the schools.) Fifty Schools. Gen'l Repairs. Manliattan and The Bronx, $493,407 2,688,000 sq. ft. $129,164 Brooklyn, 219,610 987.292 " 83,186 This same proportion follows throughout and proves that it really costs more to repair the Brooklyn schools than those in Manhattan. The reason that it costs more in proportion to repair Brooklyn than Manhattan schools is the fact that for years prior to consolida- tion the old city of Broolclyn did not appropriate more than 20 per cent, of the funds rec|uired each year to maintain the schools in proper repair, and therefore the l^urden uow falls on the old cit}' of New York. On page 10 of the report is table 3 gi\iiig cost of general repairs, new schools, preceded by the words ''The table below shews the cost of repairing new school l)uild- ings in Manhattan. This is about twice the a\erage alloA\ance for repairing old buildings in Brooklyn." Then follows the ta])le giving sixteen schools, which are (pioted as 28 given in the statement, school for school, and following each the explanation of the proposed expenditures : No. of First year of General Sani- Class- Service. P. S. Repairs. tary. Heat. rooms. Ending July, 1899, 42 $385 $160 $250 42 This gives a total of $795 for one year's maintenance of a building used by over 2,000 children during the school year, also for evening school during the winter term, one evening play center, and a sum- mer school. First year of service. School. Gen'l repairs. Sanitary. Heat. No. of classrooms. Ending July, 1899, 153 $1,000 $160 $150 14 The sum required is for general repairs and certain changes that have been found to be desirable in the playgrounds, boiler and coal rooms ; also for the erection of sheds to the closets. First year of service. School. Gen'l repairs. Sanitary. Heat. No. of classrooms. Ending July, 1899, 158 $1,085 $150 $310 48 Total of $1,545 — to be expended in repairing a building covering an area of 17,727 square feet, exclusive of yards, and five stories and cellar in height, being used by 2,227 day-school pupils and also for a vacation playground. The amount actually thought to be necessary to paint and otherwise renovate inside and out was $3,085, but this was arbitrarily cut down , as the total amount of the budget ran too high. First year of service. School. Gen'l repairs. Sanitary. Heat. No. of classrooms. Ending July, 1899, 160 $1,585 $150 $300 39 Total of $2,053 — to be expended in keeping in repair a building covering 14,373 square feet of area, exclusive of yards, and contain- ing five stories, cellar and roof playground, being used b}' 2,216 day pupils, also for vacation school, vacation playground and evening play center. The original figure was $3,000, but was arbitrarily reduced as was that for P. S. 158. First year of .service. School. Gen'l repairs. Sanitary. Heat. No. of classrooms. Ending Dec, 1899, 157 $500 $575 $200 45 Total of $1,275 — This building coAers an area of 15,760 square 29 feet, containing five stories and cellar, and does not receive the wear and tear of those in other parts of the city. First year of service. School. Gen'l repairs. Sanitary. Heat. No. of classrooms Ending Dec, 1899, 165 S385 $185 S300 45 Total of $870. This building covers an area of 18,612 square feet, containing five stories and cellar, and, like P. S. 157, does not suffer from the wear and tear as do P. S. 158 and 160. Fir.st year of service. School. Gen'l repairs. Sanitary. Heat. No. of classrooms. Ending Dec, 1899, 166 $3,435 $250 $260 39 Total, $3,945. The bulk of which is necessary to erect a retaining wall across the rear and ends of the school plot not provided for in the construction of the building owing to a defect in the engineer's survey. The plot is 250 feet by 100 feet, the building covering an area of 14,252 square feet, five stories high with cellar. First year of service. School. Gen'l repairs. Sanitary. Heat. No. of classrooms. Ending Dec, 1899, 159 $585 $250 $490 48 Total, $1,325. The building covers an area of 19,090 square feet, and is five stories in height, and besides being used by da}- school, is also used as a vacation playground and evening school. First year of service. School. Gen'l repairs. Sanitary. Heat. No. of classrooms. Ending Dec, 1899. 164 $650 $150 $225 21 Total, $1,025. The building is four stories high, and the most of the sum required will be for the erection of iron railings to protect the propert}' on the north and west sides. First year of service. School. Gen'l repairs. Sanitary. Heat. No. of classrooms. Ending Dec, 1899, 40 $585 $150 $270 29 Total, $1,005. The building covers an area of 11,250 square feet, and contains a cellar, five stories and a roof playground. It is used as a day and evening school. First year of service. School. Gen'l repairs. Sanitary. Heat. No. of classrooms. Ending Dec, 1899, 167 $1,500 $150 $275 30 Total, $1,925. The building occupies an entire block. The most of the funds required will be for improvements made necessary by 30 the regulating and grading of the street at the rear, done since the building was completed, and for the protection of the property^ building approaches, etc., when the street at the north is regulated and graded during the present year. First year of service. School. Gen'l repairs. Sanitary. Heat. No. of classrooms. Ending Dec, 1899, 173 $500 $150 .... 30 Total of $650. A sum not more than sufficient to keep the build- ing in repair. First year of service. School. Gen'l repairs. Sanitary. Heat. No. of classroom&. Ending Dec, 1899, 169 $500 $150 $250 30 Total of $900 — for general repairs and slight changes needed through change in departments. First year of service. School. Gen'l repairs. Sanitary. Heat. No. of classrooms. Ending Dec, 1900, 44 $285 $100 $100 20 Total of $485 — but this is not for the new building, for which noth- ing has been asked, but for the old one in North Moore Street. First year of service. School. Gen'l repairs. Sanitary. Heat. No. of classrooms. Ending Dec, 1900, 174 $385 $150 .... 24 Total of $535. The building is five stories high with roof play- ground, and will be used for regular day pupils and vacation schools. First year of .service. School. Gen'l repairs. Sanitary. Heat. No. of classrooms. Ending Dec, 1900, 109 $85 $135 $50 48 Total of $270— not for new P. S. 109, as stated, but for the old building, nothing being asked for the new school. The sum total for all the repairs noted is $19,895, which is one-half of one per cent, of the cost of the buildings ($3,966,678), exclusive of land and furniture, and if there be deducted from the sum for repairs an amount necessary to provide for matters outside of gen- eral repairs, such as the retaining wall, etc., the percentage will be greatly reduced. It will thus be seen that figures as given in the statement are worth- less without facts, and the facts herewith submitted were at the dis- posal of the Board of Estimate antl Apportionment as they were of the Board of Education. The compiler of the ])amphlet foi- the Mei-chants' Association 31 could have avoided making an exhibition of his ignorance and the worthlessness of his conclusions, had he ajiplied for information on the subject, which he never did of this Bureau. Had he done so, such information would have been as cheerfully furnished to him as it is to all applicants, without stopping to inquire what the motive might be which prompted the request. Respectfully, [Signed] C. B. J. Sxyder, Superintendent of School Buildings. The report attempts to show by segregating one item of the appropriation into groups, as follows: 1. Amounts less than $500. 2. " of $ 500 and less than $1,000. 3. " of 1,000 " " 2,000. 4. '' of 2,000 " " 4,000. 5. " of 4,000 " " 5,000. 6. " over 6,000 that the proportionate outlay for the items cited is greater in Manhattan than in Brooklyn. Note well the fact that the only seeming important discrepancy of any account, as a matter of statistics, is found in the groups of schools in which less than $500 appears as the proposed expenditure in any one case. It seems incredible that the compiler of the report and the com- mittee of verification in their examination of the printed estimate of the Department of Education and the particular item of General Repairs for the Borough of Brooklyn, failed to ascertain and report that a workshop has been in existence in Brooklyn for many years and workmen are employed in connection therewith, to make many of the minor repairs in the schools in that Borough. It is equally as remarkable that they failed to see the item "for ma- terials for work.shops, $16,000," and the printed list of the names of the employees in the workshop, with their salaries appended. If such fact had been taken into account, no such conclusions could have been drawn. If the statement made was intentional, it manifests a desire to 32 distort and misrepresent facts. If the statement made -was un- intentional, it shows per sc the absence of knowledge of facts on the part of the compiler and the danger of acceptance by the public of irresponsible and misleading gratuitous information. Your attention is called to the following remarks regarding the current budget at top of page 9 of the report: " The account of General Repairs is wholly blind." ' ' It cannot be analyzed. ' ' "The entire schedule of General Repairs deserves the severest criticism." "The most cursory study of it shows that it readily, might, and probably does, cover enormous waste. ' ' The account for General Repairs is wholly clear, and the esti- mate contains as much information as it is possible to give, unless whole copies of the plans and specifications were printed and sub- mitted. That it can be analyzed is evident from the summary statement hereinbefore submitted. That there is plenty of ma- terial for the analyst is equall}- as clear, or it would not have been possible for him and the committee on verification to have man- ufactured such statistics, which "deserve the severest criticism" and condemnation. That the accoimt readily might and 'probably does, cover enormous waste is so puerile, nay absurd, that it bears its own stamp on its face. How could there be any w^aste when at the date of the report, and even at this time, not one dollar of the money has been expended or work contracted for? Analysts should report on matters of fact, and not conclusions as to what they think might occur. If there is one dollar of proposed wasteful expenditure in the estimate for General Repairs for 1901 it is the duty of the Comptroller to Anthhold the appropriation until every item is justified. There will be no difficulty as to their justification. Attention is called to the statement "that the account of General Repairs embodies the most vicious defects possible to a system of audit. It lumps together in one inseparable mass outlays that should be differentiated into separate accounts of Construction, Maintenance, Oper- ation, Betterment, Labor, Materials, Administration and similar groupings." (See page 10.) 33 It is absolutely untrue that the account of General Repairs is in one inseparable mass. On the contrary, it has been jjresented in the budget in analyzed form to the Board of Estimate and Ap- portionment. It has been hereinbefore shown, by summary state- ments, that the account was segregated or grouped under several headings, which fact has been completely ignored by the producers oi the report. Even a cursory inspection of the printed budget as presented to the Board of Estimate and Apportionment, Jol. Bd. of. Ed., Sept. 26, 1900, pages 1434-1447, is sufficient to demonstrate that the state- ment made is deliberately false, and only one of the man}- instances of "straw man" to be found throughout the report. On the subject of Fuel and Lighting, the criticism is made ''The relatively greater outlay in Manhattan for fuel and lighting indicates waste." (Page 10.) Attention is particularly called to that portion of Specification 6, hereinbefore quoted, having reference to ''the basis of eciuivalent results or equal services." This statement is a particular instance of prejudice, and also of perversion and omission of facts. The analyst and committee of veri- fication are alleged to have examined some of the printed reports of the Department. From page 51 of the report of 1899, they culled some evening school statistics (average attendance, 12,401), and used the same in connection with their manipulation of alleged average attendance. If the analyst and the committee of verification had properly examined the annual report, and the next lines on the same page referred to, they would have discovered the folloM'ins: : MANHATTAN AND THE BRONX. Number of centers at which free lectures to working- men and workingwomen were given, . . 4'8 Number of lectures delivered, .... 1,923 Total attendance, 519,411 They would not have discovered any statistics of a similar char- acter in Brooklyn, because lectures have not been established there. The use of the school buildings in the evenings for lecture purposes 34 involves additional expenditures for gas, fuel, etc. It seems incom- prehensible that the analyst and the committee of verification over- looked such statistics, and one of the most important forms of popu- lar education in the entire city. It is possible that the compilers excluded the free lecture system from their consideration on the ground that it is one of the " various fads" (referred to on page 19). It appears to be unnecessary to make further argument on the sub- ject except to say perhaps that a further inspection of school statis- tics would have shown that there are fully twice as many evening schools in Manhattan and The Bronx as in Brooklyn with an attend- ance of over 3 to 1 in proportion. Add to these facts the Free Lec- ture Course attended by o\'er half a million people, and enough has been said. In the matter of janitors' salaries, the remark made in regard to "equivalent results" and "equal services" again comes into play. The report seeks to show, by placing schools of same number of class- rooms in comparison, that salaries are unequal. It does not follow because one school has the same class-room capacity as another that the janitor's salary should be fixed accordingly. Other factors are necessarily employed, for instances: Building surface, numl)er of 1,000 square feet. Sidewalks, etc., surface, number of 1,000 square feet. Number of boilers. Number of furnaces. Number of stoves. Rental allowance, etc. Exactly what the number of scholars has to do with the case is problematical; if salaries were based in such manner they would fluctuate, and the janitor of a school in a section which is losing its population owing to the northward or suburban trend thereof, ^^'ould be an unfortunate sufferer, while called upon to perform the same duties as if the building he had cliarge of was filled to its capacity. It is deemed unnecessary to show here the exact relati^•e differ- ences between the several buildings mentioned in the report, and reference is made to portion of tiie letter of the Superintendent of School Buildings as to details. 35 SPECIFICATION 7. ''That the printed estimates in the Budget contain no data that will enable the Board of Estimate and Apportionment to readily discover the discrepancies cited: that they cannot test questional )le items, because they cannot segregate the elements of cost, and therefore cannot compare the results of a gi\-en out- lay, with the results of other outlays for identical purposes under equivalent conditions; and, to sum up, that e^•ery essen- tial of effective audit and scrutiny is omitted. Because of these omissions the printed reports of the Board of Education have no statistical or actuarial value whate^'er. The}' con- tain no proper schedules or exhibits of details, no lucid digests, few needful or verifiable aggregates, and no clear summaries. They neither exhibit nor explain. As serious statements of the business affairs of a great corporation the>' are mere travesties." The foregoing specification is ingenious, although its basis is incorrect. It alleges that discrepancies exist; that questionable items are inserted; that no information is presented whereby dis- crepancies can be discovered by the Board of Estimate and Appor- tionment; that the results of a given outlay cannot be compared with the results of other outlays for identical purposes under equi^'a- alent conditions; and concludes, somewhat rashly perhaps, that because of alleged omissions in the printed estimates in the Budget, the printed reports are valueless, mere travesties, etc. There is a degree of ambiguity about this specification which is remarkable; and an analysis of its attempted logic produces doubt- ful results. It is clear, however, in one great particular, and that is the intent to so combine the details of the fabrication as to convey to the mind of the unwary and casual reader, that some WTong has occurred. Let it be clearly understood : 1. That the alleged discrepancies do not exist, and their citation is the result of statistical manufacturing and manipulation. 2. That the Board of Education has ne\'er submitted questionable items to the Board of Estimate and Apportionment, and that the imputation thus cast is as reprehensible as it is malcxolent and un- true. 36 3. That the Board of Estimate and Apportionment has ah\a5's had the Commissioners of Accounts at its command, whose duty it is and has been to analyze, tabulate, examine, and report to the Board of Estimate and Apportionment, on the estimates of all dejDartments. 4. That the Commissioners of Accounts did perform this duty in regard to the estimates of the Department of Education, and their reports and findino;s are matters of record, and available for the use and guidance of every member of the Board of Estimate and Appor- tionment. 5. That the Board of Estimate and Apportionment, or an}' of its members, has never complained of the absence of requisite infor- mation, on the contrary, the method of compilation and information furnished has been the subject of favorable comment on more than one occasion. 6. That because of alleged omissions in the printed estimates, the 'printed reports of the Board of Education have no statistical or actu- arial value whatever, is a proposition per se, absurd. The printed estimates of the Board of Education are, as indicated by their desig- nation, estimates i^ure and simple of the approximate needs of the schools for the next ensuing calendar and fiscal year. These esti-- mates are, under the law, prepared and submitted many months before expenditures are made from the appropriations received from the city. Between the time of preparing an estimate and expending the money received thereunder, the situation and conditions change greath\ For instance, the first change will probably be the reduc- tion of certain appropriations by the Board of Estimate and Appor- tionment; this of itself may mean the total elimination of certain work proposed to be done or supplies to be furnished, and modifica- tion and reduction all along the lines. Again, market ])rices of building materials, supplies, etc., fluctuate, and rates of wages change. Strikes and labor troubles often affect conditions. It can be readily perceived, therefore, that the proposition to prepare the statistics of the annual report, based on the annual estimate, is at once impossible, na}', absurd. Because items, conditions and facts do not rigidly compare with mathematical precision, it is no reason for unjust condemnation. The estimate or budget is a financial proposition, and represents anticipated requirements, and things 37 which the Department of Education deems requisite and necessary to he done for the benefit of the school system. The annual report records facts and conditions, in other words, such things which have been accomplished with the financial means placed at the command of the Department, and the actual conditions prevailing during the period covered by the report. There should be no doubt in the mind of any one that the conclu- sions arrived at and comparisons drawn by the sponsors of the report are manifestly impractical and worthless. GENERAL. Among general remarks and criticisms the report further states, "that until the present year, the estimates of the departments have not been in printed form. They have occupied many thousand typewritten pages, and it was therefore a physical impossibility to examine them readily and with proper care. The people of this city owe Comptroller Coler a debt of gratitude for compelling a reform in this respect." While there is no intention of detracting from or diminishing Comptroller Coler's meed of praise, it is only fair to the Board of Education to state that it has always been its custom to submit the Budget in printed form. It can be stated without fear of con- tradiction that Comptroller Coler or the Board of Estimate and Apportionment cannot produce a typewritten Budget prepared by the Board of Education in ten years. Printed copies are still to be had of the Budgets for several years past. The statement made is absolutely without foundation or truth so far as relates to the Board of Education. The report further states: " The valuable beginning thus made is the more deserving of praise because of the exceeding difficulty of the task, inci- dent to harmonizing into one workable system the chaotic accounts of more than ninety separate municipal, village, town and school corporations merged into the consolidated city. But the admirable results already gained by the Comptroller's logical and analytical methods only emphasize the need of going further on the same lines." 38 So far as the harmonizing of the alleged chaotic accounts of the municipal, village, town and school corporations merged in the consolidated city, it can be stated in regard to the school cor- porations, that the Department of Education was placed under considerable disadvantages immediately after consolidation, by the action of the Finance Department in taking possession of all the educational records and data belonging to those school corporations. It was understood that the Comptroller's intention was to produce statements of affairs so that business could pro- ceed without stop or hindrance. The Comptroller engaged a large staff with which to produce results. The school corpora- tions became extinct on January 31, 1898, and it was not until fifteen months afterwards that this Department received from the Comptroller the first installment of "harmonized" and ' ' admirable results. ' ' How the school system could have been carried on meantime if dependence had been placed upon the re- ceipt of such information is difficult to imagine. However, appreciating that the wheels of school administration were becoming clogged, and sore distress occasioned to contractors and other creditors, the Department of Education took drastic, though practical means of acquiring from other sources the much needed information. The Department of Education succeeded in accom- plishing this result, and was able, by the means adopted, to set up its accounts, and resume business where the former school corpora- tions had left off. The records thus set up by the Department of Education were found to be of considerable use to the Comptroller's staff in forming their conclusions, and were placed at their disposal on request. The report goes on to call attention to the legal powerlessness of the Comptroller to check wasteful outlays of whose character he is aware, by reason of which it is further alleged that the city suffers heavily. The report further calls attention to bills inspected, now on file in the Comptroller's office (to which office the compiler appears to have had unusually easy access, considering the fact that the alleged investigation made is gratuitous and not called for by any public demand), which bills contain alleged overcharges, re- sulting from contracts or agreements made by city officials under 39 statutory provisions wliich enable them to commit the city to the payment of sucli obHgations. While the foregoing is included in the report on educational research, it is questionable whether or not it is intended to apply to the Department of Education. If the intention is veiled,and aims at the inclusion of the Department of Education, it is eminently proper to repudiate the statement. Great care is and has always been exercised by the Department in order to prevent waste and needless expense. It may not be gener- ally known, but it is nevertheless a fact, that competitive bids are sought for work or supplies of even small amount. In the case of work or supplies amounting to over $1,000, this Department con- forms to the usual custom of the city, statutory in some departments, although discretionary with the Department of Education. Bids are publicly invited and contracts let to the lowest bidder. In the case of work or supplies under $1,000, bids are invited from well- known and reputable concerns, and the orders are then given to the lowest bidders. It appears to be questionable whether the Comp- troller's conclusions as to the value of school work, materials and supplies, are of any greater value than those of authorities in actual charge of the school system, and it is equally questionable whether the Comptroller's means and facilities for the determination of such matters are any better, or as good as those of the educational author- ities of this city. If his means, methods, facilities for administra- tion, and knowledge, honesty and probity, are better than what is to be found in the other departments of the City Government, then it would be best and most economical for the entire city adminis- tration to be placed in his sole charge, not excepting the care and education of the children. Such a recommendation would be a fitting finale to the report under consideration. It can, however, be suggested with propriety that all the ability, intelligence and honesty is not solely centered in the Department of Finance; these qualifica- tions are also to be found elsewhere. The assertion that " while this particular form of waste of the people's money is not legal fraud, it is fraud in its essence" is some- what paradoxical, and whether it is an excuse for the wrongful pay- ment of claims by the Comptroller, or a suggestion that it is the 40 moral duty of the Comptroller to resist such payments, or that the Comptroller is the only one capable of saving the city from the re- sults of fraud and extortion, is indeed problematical. If any fraud exists, no matter in what form, it is the duty of the Comptroller under the law to refuse paj^ment; and if any fraud exists in the Department of Education, or any other department, it is his moral and legal duty to place such information in the hands of the proper authorities as will preclude the furtherance of such prac- tices. It should be expressly understood that in the making of contracts the Comptroller's indorsement is required by the statute, and it should be his duty to decline to approve any contract in which fiavd of any kind exists, of which he has knowledge. In conclusion, this Department desires to express its regret that a reputable business organization should' swerve from its particular line of usefulness, and permit itself to become the medium through which an unwarranted and unjustifiable attack has been made upon the administration and affairs of the public schools of this city. Yours respectfully. Miles M. O'Brien, President of the Board of Education of the City of New York. V LIBRARY OF CONGRESS !!!!!! !!!*! !!!!! !!!!! !!!!' !!!" < •< "'i' "i iiii iiii 021 780 316 i J p /'^^/ LIBRARY OF CONGRESS lllillllllll • 021 780 316 Hollinger Corp.