mental crisis just by exposure to enviromental education. I think that with these students, it is essential, and that we need a new generation of environmentally aware public if those directly at work on the problem are to succeed in solving the crisis. We are going to have to have a general citizenry that knows what the environmental crisis is. This is not present now, and it is a primary problem of people directly working toward the environmental improvement problems as they are faced with them, and for the general public to be aware of many of the problems and causes. So I think environmental education at higher levels-high school and college will hit a large number of students with this awareness, students that maybe have already gotten the motivational punch from their elementary school level education, or maybe they haven't, but at any rate it will supply a general awareness of the problem. Then we can look at the best approach we might take to environmental education. I think the Environmental Quality Education Act is well rounded in this respect. There are three main ways I have heard expressed for environmental education. One is that privately managed programs which are currently being run should be expanded and increased and these would successfully handle the problem. Secondly, I believe that students will motivate other students through such activities as the Earth Day, and thirdly, the primary way of increasing environmental education which the bill here proposes is that a combination of teacher training, equipment funding, and organized school programs in environmental studies be organized and funded publicly. I feel this is highly important, particularly teacher-training, because teacher training is essential to the organization of any environmental education program now and they are very short in supply. Teacher training, as I pointed out, is financially many times the preferred method of carrying out the organization of environmental education because it does lower the per-student cost of such a program when one considers that each teacher will reach many students during his lifetime after being trained in a special program. However, trained teachers are of little use unless they have equipment, funding, and curricula which is offered in the schools and has been written up so they can use it. Again, I think the bill has good proposals here for the writing of this so the teachers can get started in their schools after they are trained. Again, I think that publications and other channels of communication are needed between schools and teachers. And many times I have seen a duplication of effort around the country because of the lack of this kind of information communication. I would like to see teacher training remain the responsibility of private programs only, but instead of having private foundation funding, I would like to have the public funding go to these private programs. Thus, seeing history and the value and approaches to environmental education, we can see that many of the provisions in the Environmental Quality Education Act are well equipped to handle the problem as I have summarized it here. I think that this is a good way to get a proliferation of environmental awareness in training and in attempting to solve the crisis today. PREPARED STATEMENT OF WILLIAM H. SCHLESINGER, CHAIRMAN, ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES DIVISION, DARTMOUTH OUTING CLUB It is a pleasure to be here today to describe some of my past activities and thoughts in the field of environmental education for the upcoming and timely Environmental Quality Education Act. In a time when many of us are inundated with information on the environmental crisis-pollution, population and man's survival-and in a time when we see high schools and colleges across the nation are busy organizing an actional and educational Earth Day, April 22, it is important to consider the possible impact and value of environmental education should it become a permanent part of the United States educational system. The idea of environmental education is not a new one, and perhaps we should first outline its history. Until recently, environmental education has primarily been the responsibility of natural history museums and conservation groups who have privately funded and offered programs for students, particularly high school age and younger, to participate in on an extracurricular basis. These programs have for the most part been excellent and have recently been joined by similar offerings by colleges and independent schools. Funded by themselves or private foundations, these groups have seen the need for more programs of the type which the museums and conservation groups had originated. One such program in which I worked is the Summer Science Project offered to junior high school students mixed from the intercity and suburbs and sponsored by Cleveland, Ohio's University School and by the Cleveland Foundation. Like many other secondary school special programs, it has depended almost entirely on a private foundations grant in its three summers of existence. Like many others it has found a large and exponentially increasing number of students and teachers interested in participating and at the same time funding increasingly difficult to obtain. The demand for more programs of this type and other civic projects has placed a phenomenal financial pressure on most private foundations. Thus, seeing the need for environmental education, many of these programs and their sponsoring foundations have oriented themselves towards teacher training programs in order to obtain a more favorable student-cost ratio theorizing that each teacher reaches many students. The summer training workshops in environmental education offered by Tilton School in Tilton, New Hampshire for high school teachers are leaders in this field. Whatever their success and scope, most existing programs are doomed to reaching only a very limited audience and to continually facing financial difficulties-precisely at a time when environmental education should be widespread and greatly stressed. Having such an outline of the history and some of the problems, let us examine the value, purpose, and goals, both immediate and long range, of such environmental education. It is often said that very early in a child's education-sometime in elementary or junior high school-a child often receives a spark of motivation which provides the impetus for his further education and/or career in a particular field. I think this is often true with environmental education. Many times I have seen students. junior high school and younger, follow this pattern. The Summer Science Project by University School and the Future Science tist's Program by the Cleveland Museum of Natural History have provided many such students. From a long range viewpoint, environmental education at an early age level will provide the many individuals in the many fields of environmental work which will be needed now and in the future to deal with the environmental crisis. However, environmental education need not stop with early educational levels. Many students who miss the early motivational spark may well obtain it later in their education. Even if they never obtain it and enter careers other than those directly connected with the environment, and environmental awareness created by an exposure to environmental education will also be necessary if the crisis is to be solved. Indeed, the majority of students will probably never be directly involved with environmental work during their lives; however, they will be living in the environment, using its resources, contributing to its wastes and populating it. A new generation of an environmentally aware public will be necessary if those directly at work on the problem are to succeed in solving it. These citizens are the ones who will have to understand, accept and live by the new environmental ethnic-learn the reasons for zero population growth, the effects of wastes, economics and the use of certain products. Environmental education will probably serve its greatest function at the later educational levels creating this awareness and ethic in students and future citizens so they may lead an informed and understanding life. Thus, together with its great need for providing the spark of motivation for future careers in environmental fields, environmental education is greatly needed for the creating of a new generation of environmentally informed general citizens. The best approach to the initiation or strengthening of environmental education is highly debatable. Few maintain that the existing offerings and programs are enough to supply the demand for an informed citizenry and the demand for career workers. Some do maintain, however, that the privately managed special programs should be expanded and increased and that these would successfully handle the problem. Some believe that motivated students will motivate and make aware more students through such self organized efforts as the April 22nd Earth Day. The majority of educators believe that a combination of teacher training equipment funding and organized school programs in environmental studies is the solution to the question of approach to environmental education. I can see a place for all three facets; however, I firmly believe that the first two will continue their present programs and effectiveness and that we must initiate and/or strengthen the last as our approach. I feel the demand and urgent need for environmental education outstrips the resources, finances and energy of the two former alternatives although they should definitely be continued in conjuction with newly organized school programs. I feel that the broad based Environmental Quality Education Act is well equipped to fulfill the third alternative approach of training, equipment funding and organized programs. Let us examine the needed program in more detail. The need for teacher training is obvious and is necessary before any of the other is feasible. It is financially expedient for it does significantly lower the per student cost of any program as each trained teacher will reach many students in his teaching. Teacher training is now offered largely by special privately funded programs outside of school systems. I feel this is a successful approach and that teacher training should be continued by this type of program with recognition and accreditation by school systems. Funding has presented the major problem to this approach and has severely limited the number of this type of program in existence. Therefore, I think it is a high priority item that funding be removed from the responsibility of private foundations. Only then can the number of existing teacher training programs be increased and all the training that is needed be offered. However, trained teachers are of little use unless schools have a definite course offering or curricula in environmental studies which reaches all levels of students. Many independent secondary schools have made such courses available, but the majority of public schools at all levels have no such program. Exemplary programs are offered at Tilton School and University School in their regular school year in environmental studies and sciences. They have the increased benefit of being an integrated type of discipline calling for the student to make use of knowledge of many fields to solve problems. Equipment funding is intricately tied into the problem at this point, for most schools have no extra finances for the curriculum writing or the teaching equipment needed for the initiation of environmental studies. Needs for effective communications of ideas and information are also great and are lacking at the present time. To prevent needless duplication of efforts such channels and publications for teachers and schools need to be developed. We have thus briefly seen the history, problems, value, purpose and needed new approaches to environmental education now and in the future. Many of the problems and approach solutions are the same for various educational levels. Environmental education is needed on a multi-level basis as we have seen also. I feel that governmental financial support and stimulation is essential for training, equipment purchasing, the acceptance and proliferation of environmental curricula in schools and for the effective dispersal of ideas and information. The Environmental Quality Education Act is well equipped to cover these areas of need. Mr. BRADEMAS. Thank you very much, Mr. Schlesinger, and let me express my appreciation to all three of you for very useful statements. Let me ask a few questions and any or all of you may wish to comment on them. One of the questions that comes up in talking to the press and to our constituents in our several districts is this: Does the sudden increase in interest-sudden, over the last year or so on the asked, "Can a theologian contribute to people having a great awareness of God?" Yes; but not easily or quickly. I wish I had some concrete proposals for you, but I really don't. Mr. BRADEMAS. Well, I will just make two quick observations before stopping. One, I noticed in the Sunday New York Times a story on the architecture of Columbus, Ind., where, you may know, J. Ervin Miller of the Cummins Engine Co. has helped the committees work with a whole series of leading American architects. And Mr. Miller made clear it is his own judgment that the impact of these developments may not be felt for a very long time to come in terms of actually changing attitudes on the part of the people of that community. But he is clearly committed to the view that I think you have just expressed, that it has to be very good. So maybe at least one answer is that the contribution of artists is to be a good artist in solving the kind of environmental crisis we have been talking about Mr. MOTHERWELL. If every man does his thing, we would have many fewer problems. Mr. BRADEMAS. Well, that may be a good point on which to conclude these hearings. Again, I want to express our appreciation to you for your splendid testimony, Mr. Motherwell, and, as well, to Dr. Sittler and Dr. Cole. Unless my colleagues have more questions, the Chair would like to announce tomorrow morning at 9:30, in room 2257, we will begin hearings with the Environmental Teach-in Panel, followed by the editor of The Environmental Handbook, Garret de Bell, and other witnesses who have been organizing the teach-in. We will adjourn for this morning. (Whereupon, at 11:35 a.m. the subcommittee recessed, to reconvene at 9:30 on Wednesday, March 25, 1970.) ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY EDUCATION ACT WEDNESDAY, MARCH 25, 1970 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, OF THE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met at 9:30 a.m., pursuant to recess, in room 2257, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John Brademas (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Present: Representatives Brademas, Scheuer, Meeds, Bell, and Hansen of Idaho. Staff members present: Jack G. Duncan, counsel; Ronald C. Katz, assistant staff director; Arlene Horowitz, staff assistant; Toni Immerman, clerk; Maureen Orth, consultant; Marty LaVor, minority legislative coordinator. Mr. BRADEMAS. The subcommittee will come to order for the further consideration of H.R. 14753, the Environmental Quality Education Act. Yesterday, we on the subcommittee heard from an ecologist, a theologian, and an artist concerning the need for Federal support for programs to encourage education in elementary and secondary schools in universities and in local communities about the whole spectrum of environmental problems. Today we are pleased to hear from some of the leaders of the environmental teach-in which is scheduled for the 22d of April, and we look forward as well to hearing from others who have been associated with the projected teach-in. Tomorrow, in room 2261 at 9:30, the subcommittee plans to hear testimony from distinguished educators who have specialized in the environmental field, including Chancellor Edward W. Weidner of the University of Wisconsin at Green Bay, accompanied by the vice chancellor of that university, Ray Vlasin. We will also hear from Dr. Clarence Schoenfeld, chairman of the center for environmental communications of the University of Wisconsin at Madison and editor of Environmental Education, and from Dr. Matthew Brennan, director of the Pinchot Institute for Conservation Studies. The Chair would like to observe how very pleased he is, as are the other members of this subcommittee, particularly the cosponsors of the Environmental Quality Education Act, including the gentleman from New York, Mr. Scheuer, and the gentleman from Idaho, Mr. Hansen, to note the growing involvement of both high school and college students in our country to improve the quality of our environ ment. |