Mr. BRADEMAS. Before I introduce our final witnesses for the day, the chair might take a moment to announce that the next hearings on this legislation will be held on Tuesday of next week, April 21, in this room at 9:30 a.m. when we shall hear from the U.S. Commissioner of Education and Assistant Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare for Education, Dr. James E. Allen, Jr.; Mr. Leslie L. Glasgow, Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Fish and Wildlife, Parks and Marine Resources; The Honorable Sam Gibbons, Member of Congress from the State of Florida; John Osman, Staff Director, Urban Policy Conference program, Brookings Institute; and Jefferson B. Fordham, president, Association of American Law Schools; Dean, University of Pennsylvania Law School.

We are now very pleased to welcome an old friend of this subcommittee, Dr. John Lumley, the Assistant Executive Secretary for Legislation and Federal Relations of the National Education Association, accompanied by Dr. Donald Hawkins, the Director of Project Man's Environment.

Dr. Lumley, it is good to see you, sir.

STATEMENT OF DR. JOHN LUMLEY, ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE SECRETARY FOR LEGISLATION AND FEDERAL RELATIONS, NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION; ACCOMPANIED BY DR. DONALD HAWKINS, DIRECTOR, PROJECT MAN'S ENVIRONMENT Dr. LUMLEY. Thank you, sir. It is always a pleasure to be here, as you know.

I brought with me a statement from the Association of Classroom Teachers, prepared by Betty I. Buford, president. She asked that it be included in the record.

Mr. BRADEMAS. Yes.

(The statement referred to follows:)

STATEMENT OF THE ASSOCIATION OF CLASSROOM TEACHERS, NEA BETTY I. BUFORD, PRESIDENT

The Association of Classroom Teachers, NEA, representing approximately 900,000 classroom teacher members of the National Education Association, is constitutionally committed as an integral and vital part of the parent association to keep classroom teachers aware of their responsibility to provide quality education for all.

Classroom teachers are extremely concerned that all segments of American society must immediately receive intensive education in the multi-faceted realm of environmental education and ecology. Early and immediate involvement of those charged with the education of our citizenry from kindergarten through grade 12 and beyond in the development of curriculum and materials is the thrust of the resolution adopted by some 4,000 delegates to the classroom teachers representative assembly July 1969 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. ACT resolution 69-31 states:

"ACT recognizes the lack of awareness and understanding among students of environmental problems relating to the technological age. It believes that understanding these problems can make possible proper reassessment of value judgments of the natural environment so that man's right to life can be protected. ACT therefore recommends that state boards of education develop curriculum studies of ecological and environmental problems for kindergarten through grade 12. It further recommends that classroom teachers promote understanding of the need for such studies in their communities in preparation for implementation of such curricula in local school systems."

As first steps to this end, offices and staff of the Association of Classroom Teachers have been pleased to lend their support to efforts of NEA's Project Man's

Environment (ME) with particular emphasis on curriculum evaluation and participation in exploratory meetings to examine possible approaches to a nationwide program of environmental education in the United States.

The thrust of H. R. 14753, the Environmental Quality Education Act, is consonant with the objectives and purposes of the ACT resolution and would facilitate implementation of common goals. The Association of Classroom Teachers particularly calls to the attention of the House of Representatives Select Subcommittee on Education the intent of the ACT resolution that there be immediate and massive grass roots involvement of public school personnel on a total spectrum. This is implied in H.R. 14753. It is urged that the mechanisms be more thoroughly and carefully delineated so there can be no misinterpretation of this concept.

The Association of Classroom Teachers stands ready to serve in any capacity to provide information, serve as reactors, or work for passage and implementation of the act when passed.

Mr. LUMLEY. My name is John Lumley. I am assistant executive secretary for legislation and federal relations of the National Education Association, a voluntary professional association chartered by Congress more than 100 years ago. At present, we list more than a million members, most of whom are teachers.

It is with a good deal of pleasure and enthusiasm that I applaud the leadership and initiative of the authors of the proposed Environmental Quality Education Act (H.R. 14753). I also want to thank them and the members of this committee for the opportunity to present our views on this important topic.

For the record, it seems appropriate to cite the resolution on environmental education passed by the NEA last summer:

The National Education Association believes that each school system, in shared responsibility with classroom teachers, must continuously evaluate its curriculum, keeping it ever sensitive to the current and future needs of students. The Association recommends that each school curriculum reflect concern for such critical issues in our present society as: a. environmental education; b. American heritage; c. traditional American values; d. mental hygiene; e. safety education; f. conversion to the metric system; g. contributions of minority groups; h. cultural diversity; i. democratic processes; and j. human ecology. This resolution is not mere rhetoric. Not only has there been much planning and discussion of the need for a better and broader understanding of the qualities which make for a better life and for the preservation of our human and national resources, but we also have established, as of last August, Project Man's Environment (ME), operated by our national affiliate, the American Association for Health, Physical Education, and Recreation here in Washington at the NEA center. Dr. Donald Hawkins, director of project ME, is here with me to provide additional information and technical advice should this be indicated.

Obviously, we welcome Federal funds and support in moving toward curriculum improvement. We see no evidence of Federal control in the present legislation although we would welcome an explicit prohibition to this effect, if only to assert once again that traditional State and local control shall prevail.

In the same vein, I would like to suggest that you may wish to give the pending legislation a new thrust and a different organizational pattern. In short, we would like to see the preparation of educational and information materials dealing with environmental education placed under the auspices of an autonomous, nonprofit public institute or corporation, more or less along the lines of the Urban Institute,

or the Corporation for Public Broadcasting-a body with its own trustees, staff, funds, and a specific mandate.

This new institute will be in a position to seek out suitable talents on a short-range basis as well as for long-term commitments, and it could do so without the potential hazards of a Federal operation. The composition of the board of trustees should guarantee representation to all segments of the education community at the grassroots level and provide adequate voice for classroom teachers and other educators.

This National Center for Environmental Education should be broadly based and broadly supported, permitting Federal as well as private funds. Our environment now suffers from a fragmented approach which we are now seeking to overcome through new organizational devices like the three-man Environmental Quality Council and pending proposals for a Joint House-Senate Committee on the Environment.

The proposed center could be a means for coordinating our environmental education efforts, a rallying point for the various Federal agencies now seeking to improve environmental understanding and

awareness.

Instead of relying exclusively on new funds, we are eager to provide a place where other Federal activities can be brought together for better coordination into a synergistic effort-which is not the same as a monopolistic effort.

At present, there are environmental education activities-including adult education and community awareness-funded and sponsored by the U.S. Office of Education, the National Science Foundation, the Feederal Water Pollution Control Administration, the National Air Pollution Control Administration, the National Park Service, the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, and others.

These separate projects reflect the administrative divisions and the mission-oriented tasks of the funding agencies. Until such time as these agencies can be better coordinated, it makes sense to recommend the proposed nonprofit, publicly controlled center as a focal point.

The bill now before us does not contain a specific authorization figure. We visualize about $12 million per year as adequate for support of the center, including the sums to be disbursed through grants and contracts for the development and evaluation of curriculum materials and other informational and educational devices as described in H.R. 14753.

For the first year, we recommend even less than that-something like $2.5 million to get things off to a good start with the bulk of the money to be devoted to planning, program development, selection of qualified staff and consultants, and other organizational and startup expenditures, probably including manpower development with specific provision for paraprofessionals.

Having recommended this relatively modest amount, however, I want to make quite clear that we are looking for the payoff to come after the first year, extending over about 5 years. In other words, we would like to see you authorize a center for about 5 years, beginning with a year of planning with modest financial support, then 4 years of active operation, concluding with a modest phasing-out budget to permit evaluations and research to reflect back on the work of the previous 4 or 5 years.