# We have operated two small work-study programs and are convinced that this type of activity is necessary for a large number of boys not suited for a standard high school program. Finally, there are many issues which point to a need for comprehensive planning at the state levels. Among them: 1. New means of financing education 2. Programs to improve preparation of teachers 3. State-wide school district reorganization 4. Consideration of extension of the present school term 5. Finding ways to increase the proportion of financial support to education by the states, including state support for building construction 6. Liberalized voting limitations on tax and bond issues 7. State-wide assessment of the educational effort In regard to the proposed amendment some concerns might be: 1. Rationale that requires 25% of funds to be granted to independent agencies is unclear. Any agency undertaking comprehensive educational planning on a state-wide basis cannot avoid involving state departments. It is almost certain that this will result in additional burdens being imposed upon the state by the activity of the independent agencies. The state departments are already over-burdened and under-staffed. The provision seems to be inconsistent with a statement in the Background and Need, i.e., "The best planning-that which will be most responsive to the needs of the persons to be served-must be carried out at the state and local levels. 2. The amendment, in addition to achieving its planning aims, ought to recognize the facilitate strengthening state departments of education. This would be consistent with present provisions of Title V. Chairman PERKINS. Thank you very much. Our next witness this morning will be Dr. Breit, who will be introduced by Congressman Adams from the Seventh District of Washington. I might say before Congressman Adams proceeds that Congressman Adams has not only always tried to improve elementary and secondary education, but also all forms of education. You may proceed. STATEMENT OF HON. BROCK ADAMS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN Mr. ADAMS. We are very pleased to have our colleague, Mr. Meeds, on this committee, Mr. Chairman. It has been very helpful to our overall educational problems in the Northwest to have his voice heard here. I appreciate the chairman inviting me over this morning. It is a great pleasure to introduce Mr. Breit this morning. Particularly, I hope that during the course of the questioning you will have an opportunity to explore the title III projects with Mr. Breit. This was something that was a dream that many of us had when we first saw the Seattle Center facilities that were left after the Century 21 Exposition. These, through title III, we think are now providing what may be a model throughout the country where you can establish an excellent, centralized downtown facility that children from the entire area can come to for an excellence in education, and may begin to provide a breakthrough in the stuggle to try to provide a meaningful education in our central cities. I think the testimony this morning from Mr. Breit will demonstrate some of these things. Although the percentage may look small in our racial imbalance, for example, in the city of Seattle, it so happens that from my district in the central area we have high schools where the percentage of Caucasian children, for example, is below 50 percent. Some of our grammar schools are now at 90-10 percent. So this is a very meaningful thing for them. We hope it will provide a breakthrough. I am proud to have Superintendent Breit here this morning. It is a great pleasure to introduce him to the committee. STATEMENT OF FRED BREIT, DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT, SEATTLE PUBLIC SCHOOLS, SEATTLE, WASH. Mr. BREIT. Thank you, Chairman Perkins and members of the House Education and Labor Committee. Our superintendent of schools, Dr. Forbes Bottomly, was scheduled to attend this hearing, but due to important bills pending at our current session of the State legislature, is unable to leave Seattle. He sends his sincere regrets. It is indeed a pleasure and special privilege to have this opportunity to review the many benefits of Public Law 89-10 to students in the schools serving the city of Seattle and the Greater Seattle area. We have a thriving city that possesses the ingredients for a promising future. Out of the diversity of our human talent and cultural resources, we have the potential for developing a dynamic educational program that could not exist in less populated areas of the State. A program of this nature would be highly attractive to parents and would tend to reduce migration of families to the suburbs. With the financial assistance of Federal funds, we are now in a position to move into new and broader dimensions of educational planning that include nongraded programs, continuous progress concepts, team teaching, flexible scheduling, and the employment of computerassisted instruction. In order to accomplish these objectives, mobility of students will be essential with transportation provided for those who need it. At the present time, we do not provide transportation and parents are required to carry the burden of this expense. Even though we have an excellent school system in the city of Seattle with strong community support, we do not possess the funds needed to take giant strides toward truly imaginative programs. This is evidenced by the fact that during the past 14 months the Seattle School District has found it necessary to present five levy and bond issues to the voters in order to secure maintenance and capital outlay funds to meet the regular ongoing financial requirements of the school district. Through the availability of title I funds, approximately $1,500,000 for 1966-67, the Seattle School District has worked with citizen advisory groups and local Office of Economic Opportunity representa tives in developing additional educational services to meet the special needs of students who come from low-income families. Students in this category have such limited cultural backgrounds and great deprivation that only through massive effort can educators hope to remedy some of these shortcomings. Federal funds have enabled the Seattle schools to accelerate their efforts in this direction. We have reduced class size, provided teacher aids, counselors, nurses, and social workers, purchased special materials and equipment, developed new teaching materials, revitalized classroom procedures and arranged for intensive inservice training for teachers. Along with this, we have utilized the services of 1,700 community volunteers who provide special tutoring for our students. A notable example of our special title I effort was the 1966 summer school program for 3,000 disadvantaged students. Title I funds provided improvement classes in mathematics and reading, enrichment classes, and outdoor education. We had a ratio of one adult to every five students and provided a wide range of field trip experiences. In cooperation with three institutions of higher learning, teachers spent the afternoons developing new teaching materials and procedures for disadvantaged students. An important part of this entire procedure was the emergence of a better understanding of these pupils and their special needs by the entire teaching staff. Through this summer program, students not only were given a vital educational experience but also were removed, in many cases, from an aimless summer of wandering the streets. A number of our schools that meet the requirements for title I funds are overcrowded de facto schools in the central area of the city. To help alleviate this overcrowdedness and to provide a better educational environment, Federal funds are being used to transport many of these students to other schools in the district where space is available and facilities are now overcrowded. Another outstanding example of the value of Federal funds is the title III program developed by the Seattle public schools in cooperation with school districts in four adjoining counties. The program known as the "Puget Sound Arts and Sciences Center Project" is located at the Seattle Center on theformer World's Fair Century 21 grounds. This project housed in outstanding facilities provided by the city of Seattle could easily serve as a prototype for comparable programs across the Nation. The basic objective of the project, as developed in cooperation with a citizens' advisory committee, is to use the Seattle Center as a focal point for mobilizing all available community talents in the arts and sciences that can supplement and give new directions to the existing educational programs in Seattle area schools. A conscientious effort is being made to include students from all socioeconomic groups and racial backgrounds. Performances within individual school districts or in the unique facilities of the Seattle Center include professional repertory theater, children's theater, symphony orchestra concerts, grand opera, chamber opera, small ensembles, music coaching, and in-class dramatic readings. These performances range from intimate groups to string trios and bass quartets playing for elementary pupils, to the challenge of opera presented in the superb setting of the opera house. Approximately 200,000 students from 29 school districts enjoyed the various presentations of the performing arts program during the past year. As a source of new ideas for curiculum revision and the improvement of instructional procedures, many workshops and demonstrations utilizing professional talent were arranged for 300 participating teachers. The mathematics and science components of the title II program are designed to bring to students and teachers the newest materials, instructional procedures, and theories of learning that have been developed by distinguished national educators, including Jerome Bruner, Benjamin Bloom, David Riesman, Richard Suchman, and Jerrold Zacharias. Demonstration classrooms and model laboratories are available at the Pacific Science Center for use by teachers and students. During the past year approximately 40,000 students took part in the activities scheduled at the center. Staff members of the Seattle public schools, other participating school districts, and nonpublic schools in the Seattle area are most grateful for the financial support provided by the Federal Government in meeting the exceptional needs of our young people. Staff members have utilized these funds without Federal control and with a maximum opportunity to develop innovative programs to serve local needs. In regard to the amendments that have been proposed, we are not as a school system actively involved in all of the amendment proposals. However, we have reviewed them and feel they are all good proposals and we endorse them. (Mr. Breit's additional statement follows:) How CAN PUBLIC LAW 89-10 BE IMPROVED? Authorize funds so school districts can plan programs and secure personnel in ample time for the school year-September to June. In order to secure qualified personnel, school districts must hire teachers during the early spring months. This cannot take place if funds are not authorized until late summer or early fall. Include the funding of the Head Start Program in P.L. 89-10 so the program can become an integral part of the school district operation and under school district direction. Include funds for massive summer school programs in the large cities. It is essential that we provide a broad program of activities including improvement and enrichment classes, outdoor education, field trips, and physical education during the summer months for our young people. Provide federal funds for school districts that are planning new and bold patterns of organization such as educational parks and continuous progress centers that hold promise for outstanding educational programs geared to student needs for the future. Centers of this nature would embody the best teaching methods, materials and equipment, and would provide an opportunity for students of all races to work together. There would be no de facto centers. SUMMARY SEATTLE SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1 AS RELATED TO PUBLIC LAW 89-10 Profile of Seattle School District No. 1, King County, Wash. TITLE I-ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT OF 1965, PUBLIC LAW 89-10, 1966 FISCAL YEAR, JANUARY 4, 1966 to August 20, 1966 ALLOCATION $1,662,536 NUMBER OF CHILDREN SERVED Disadvantaged Children, 11,513. AIMS OR OBJECTIVES To pro To improve skills in reading, arithmetic and other academic areas. vide experimental backgrounds that will motivate learning to provide educationally deprived children with heightened aspiration and motivation to realize their potential capabilities and to initiate self-improvement. To help acquaint teachers with the background and problems of the educationally deprived children. GENERAL STATEMENT OF SERVICES PROVIDED The major emphasis of the educational services provided under Title I was in the elementary schools located in the areas of the city most highly characterized by low-income status and cultural deprivation. We sought to identify the special needs of the disadvantaged pupil and to correct them with priority fixed at the primary and intermediate grades. |