my guidance by the State Department of Education in South Carolina and published by Fergusion-Doubleday for national use, still represent the only effort (other than local) to develop a total curriculum approach to environmental education. I noticed the gentleman walking in with a set of the guides just a moment ago, for which I am pleased. Perhaps it would be helpful to the committee if I commented on each of the program elements under section 3 of the proposed act: SECTION 3. USES OF FUNDS (1) Making grants for: (a) Projects for the development of new and improved curricu lums. This is the essential first step. However, we should keep in mind two important things 1. Curriculum development is a lengthy process of writing, testing, revision, retest, and editing. I worked for 7 years on the South Carolina conservation curriculum improvement project, which resulted in those guides. We cannot expect any significant results from projects whose financing is limited to 3 years or less. 2. Many excellent curriculum materials have been produced by the environmental education projects under title III of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. They should be collected, evaluated, edited, and disseminated to the schools of America, especially those initiating new curriculum projects under this act. We must learn from our successes and our failures of the past. (b) Pilot projects to demonstrate and test the effectiveness of the curriculums developed : I am pleased to note that these demonstration pilot projects could include projects already funded under title III of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. In fact, I would recommend that 10 or 12 outstanding title III projects be continued for just this purpose. This could provide some of the regional centers so necessary for full implementation of any national environmental education program. (c) Projects for dissemination of materials and information: One of the great deficiencies of the title III environmental education projects was a lack of any plan for collection, evaluation, and dissemination, of the curriculum materials produced under clause (a) before demonstration pilot projects are set up, under clause (b). This evaluation and dissemination could be accomplished by the U.S. Office of Education staff or by contract, as indicated under paragraph (2), page 3, lines 14 to 19. (2) Evaluation. This job of evaluation, in my opinion, should be undertaken before dissemination, as outlined in clause (c). (3) Teacher training. This is good. However, until curriculum materials are developed, collected, and ready for dissemination, any programs of teacher training will have limited value. One of our biggest problems in environmental education historically has been the emphasis on teacher training for nonexistent school programs, with no curriculum materials for their use. (4) Adult education. Good. We must move on all fronts at once. I am a little upset about the clause, especially for adults in the bill, however. That is one line 7, page 4. I think we have a great potential in the youth organizations and I think we should not overlook this. (5) Mass media materials. Good. I understand that a program such as this is already underway by Public Broadcasting Corp. SECTION 4. APPROVAL OF APPLICATIONS Here, I am using my experience as a former specialist in the U.S. Office of Education and as consultant to many of these new title III projects. I am pleased to see the role of the State educational agencies spelled out. I might even go so far as to deny approval of the Commissioner if the State educational agency has serious questions as to the worth of a grant proposal under this act. I have worked with the supervisors of science, curriculum, and environmental education in nearly every State, and there is no more competent or dedicated group in this Nation. Their assistance to the Commissioner in his allocation of projects can make an important contribution to the success of the programs under this act. SECTION 5. ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY EDUCATION Your recommendation, Mr. Chairman, and other members of the committee for an advisory committee on environmental quality education is excellent and should be implemented. SECTION 6. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE Good. I would recommend U.S. Office of Education staff members to work with all of these agencies and organizations. All of these programs should also be under the direction of the Commissioner of Education. Only in this way will the competition which exists among the resource agencies be eliminated. COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. U.S. Office of Education. 1. Since environmental education involves every program in the U.S. Office of Education-elementary, secondary, higher, adult, vocational, research, and so forth-the coordinator must be of Associate Commissioner rank in order to direct the total program of environmental education at the national level. 2. Specialists in environmental education must be added to the U.S. Office of Education Washington and regional office staff's as the first order of business. We must learn from our experience with NDEA and ESEA, title III. I was fortunate to be on the staff when we set up the NDEA-National Defense Education Act-program in 1959 and 1960. The U.S. Office of Education was staffed with specialists in math, science, and foreign languages. These specialists provided consultant services, gave workshops, and generally coordinated a national program. Working directly with State educational agency specialists, also provided under NDEA, they produced spectacular results in improving instruction and curriculum in the designated subject areas. Under title III, ESEA, no specialists were provided, either in the U.S. Office of Education or the State level. Yet, 110 environmental education projects were funded. They received no U.S. Office of Education assistance in planning, conducting, or evaluating their projects, and no assistance in dissemination of the materials and information they produced. We must staff the U.S. Office of Education and the 50 State education agencies. The cost of $1.5 million per year, which I estimate will be a sound investment, just as it was in NDEA. B. State educational agencies should be included under section 3, page 3, lines 1 and 21. In fact, the State education agencies are better equipped to implement the programs included in this act. C. Funding. Provision should be made in the bill for local participation in funding, with complete local financing after 3 or 4 years. For example, during the first year, 80-percent Federal, 20-percent local; second year, 60 percent, 40 percent; third year, 40 percent, 60 percent; fourth year, 20 percent, 80 percent; fifth year, completely funded locally. If this is planned, it will be accepted by the local community and implemented. If it is not planned, programs will end when Federal funding ends, as happened with so many fine title III programs. Since Congressman Hansen is here, I will specifically point out the American Falls, Idaho, project, one of the finest environmental education programs under title III, which has ended. The director and two other members of the staff are now directing title III projects in other States. This is a tremendous loss to Idaho, and it should not have happened. D. I. would recommend that the development of understanding of the problem of balancing the population with the available resources of the earth should be given priority in any environmental education program to be funded under this act. We are just kidding ourselves if we continue to concentrate on the visible effects of overpopulation-pollution, pesticides, poverty of the environment, the "P" problems, I call them. It is people who demand resources. Industries only provide them. It is people who produce wastes of all kinds. It is people who demand more and more electricity and power-with the resultant problems of powerplant pollution. At the same time, it is people who demand more outdoor recreation, more open space. If we allow the population in the United States to double by the year 2000, as experts predict it will, we can spend every dollar in the Federal budget every year and still do no better than keep even with the "P" problems. It is the job of environmental education to help the American people to understand this. E. I would give immediate consideration to reopening the shuttered Job Corps centers across the Nation as regional centers for environmental education. I believe these centers could be operated on a fulltime basis at little or no cost to the Government. Incidentally, since I wrote this, the Superintendent of Public Instruction in Washington, Louis Bruno, just received a multiple use permit from the Forest Service to operate the Cispus Job Corps Center outside of Vancouver, Washington, as a State center for environmental education. This can be done at no expense to the Government. The New Jersey State School of Conservation has been self-supporting for most of its 20-year history, with courses and workshops for up to 10,000 teachers and students a year. Next year its budget will be $299,000. The school must return $250,000 to the State, which means a $50,000 cost to the State. For this, 10,000 teachers and students will participate in 5-day programs of environmental education. The Southern New Jersey Center for Environmental Education, set up under a title III grant, will become self-supporting next year when Federal funding ends. Incidentally, they did this 80-20, 60-40 funding formula I recommended earlier, and it was planned in the beginning that the local community would eventually take over the funding. So, we are not guessing. It has been done. It can be done. F. We should not overlook some of the long-established centers where environmental education has been carried on. May I refer again to some of the programs in Wisconsin, for example, about which Congressman Steiger asked. Many of these could be expanded with some assistance under this act. One of the tragedies of many so-called innovative environmental education programs financed under title III was the Federal funding of new programs while long-established programs struggled along on a limited budget. For example, just 2 miles down the road from the New Jersey State School of Conservation, the largest title III program in environmental education in the United States was set up with a budget of $250,000 a year. The future of this program is in grave danger when Federal funding ends this year. This kind of situation could have been avoided by professional staffing at the U.S. Office of Education and State level, and provision for approval of projects by the State education agency. G. We should consider the establishment of an advanced center for environmental education, preferably a cooperative institute bringing together the combined resources of university, business, and community to serve the Nation's need for a quality environment. Such a center could provide: 1. Conferences on policy and practice in environmental education. 2. Seminars and institute study for leading educators and teachers. 3. Courses and seminars for curriculum planners. 4. Curriculum studies in all subject areas at all levels of education. 5. Preparation of publications to disseminate the deliberations of conferences; findings of seminars and studies; and improved instructional material as developed. 6. Assistance in the development of outdoor laboratories as integral units of school facilities across the Nation. I have also made preliminary estimates of what the program might cost. Mr. STEIGER. You attached this or am I missing page 13? Dr. BRENNAN. I left that out because I was not satisfied with it, sir. I would be happy to prepare a recommended budget, if the committee wishes. Mr. BRADEMAS. I think it would be helpful, indeed. I do happen to have your page 13 here. Are you suggesting that you would not like to have it in the record? 47-238-70-10 Dr. BRENNAN. Well, the Democrats tell me I am modest and the Republicans tell me I spent too much. Mr. STEIGER. So, you better stick with what you have then. Dr. BRENNAN. Well, the other thing is I wanted to read all of the hearings and get a little better indication of the direction in which this act is going before I can make specific recommendations. Mr. STEIGER. I ask unanimous consent that at whatever point Dr. Brennan is prepared we submit that. Mr. BRADEMAS. Without objection that would be agreed to and, indeed, I am sure all of us would be most grateful to have your judgment on this, because you will note that we don't have any specific dollar authorization in this bill and the reason, I think, and Mr. Hansen will agree, I think, is we want to hear from those of you who are going over the figure to tell us what you thought, and then we would make judgments on what we thought was feasible and realistic. (The document requested follows:) RECOMMENDED BUDGET Operations U.S. Office of Education Deputy Commissioner_ 15 EE Specialists, 10 regional, 5 in District of Columbia. 15 Secretaries at $6,000__ 50 State Department of Education EE specialists at $15,00050 Secretaries at $5,000__ Subtotal Program $35,000 300,000 90,000 750,000 250,000 1, 425, 000 3, 500, 000 A. 10 Regional centers at $350,000__ (a) Should-May be existing centers with capacity to per- (b) To serve as models for curriculum development, teacher B. 10 New centers at $200,000 for innovative program development 2, 000, 000 D. Research in EE, Scope, Sequence, Teaching methods-new media E. Training: (1) Teacher, in-service-model centers 5 at $200,000-- Subtotal E. 4 Government leaders: Service projects (1) to establish coop- (2) advisory centers using resources of land manage- F. Community projects, 20 at $50,000__ Adult education, pre-school-youth, community leaders. G. Media, PBC- Subtotal Total 500,000 2, 000, 000 1, 000, 000 1, 000, 000 1,000,000 11, 000, 000 200, 000 1, 000, 000 3, 000, 000 4, 200, 000 16, 625, 000 Dr. BRENNAN. I wanted to see a little more of the testimony before I made a definite recommendation. |