Peete a QOtNe .iset) ls aloe tN 9 
educational materials suffers for want of money and staff. The same is true 
of the Conservation Department, where the development of an interpretive 
program for the state parks represents an innovative effort and is all there 
is staff and money for. There is also a film library owned and lent by the 
Department of Conservation which was very poor a year ago, and within 
budgetary limitations, has improved greatly. But the extent to which the 
Department of Conservation serves as a resource for the Department of 
Public Instruction is negligible. They are unable to assist the Supervisor 
of Conservation Education in the development of curricula or teaching aids. 
The two departments are not equipped to work as a team in this area, 
although the personnel presently occupying these positions seem desirous 
of having as effective a state conservation education program as possible. 
So, the second proposal I have is two-fold: We need to seek authoriza- 
tion and funding for an expanded conservation education effort in the 
Department of Public Instruction. Salaries for, say, at least three more 
full-time professionals and two more clerical personnel should be appro- 
priated so that increased leadership can be offered to school districts in 
terms of workshops and teaching materials, and assistance to schools who 
seek help in integrating the study of human ecology and resource manage- 
ment into their school programs. 
Further, legislative approval and funding ought to be sought for the 
expansion of the Department of Conservation, establishing a sub-section, 
whose responsibility is not limited to activities related to parks and 
memorials, but extended so that it operates as a partner and resource for 
the Supervisor of Conservation Education. One of perhaps three new 
professional staffers of this division might well be a cinematographer. The 
intent that these two divisions operate cooperatively in conservation edu- 
cation ought to be specified in the authorizing legislation. 
Proposal No. 4: 
In the same bill, perhaps the status of the loosely organized Conserva- 
tion Education Council, which has not met in almost a year, could be 
clarified and expanded so that the members have the obligation to review 
state conservation education efforts, offer advice designed both to en- 
courage innovation and coordination of programs. Presumably, council 
members would still be available to evaluate school programs for their 
compliance with the law, and if they did evaluate them, would receive 
some compensation. (Parenthetically, Virginia’s State Conservation Council 
might well serve as a model since it is particularly successful.) 
Proposal No. 5: 
Although there is, or is about to be, a new “guideline” which stresses 
conservation as a necessary preparation for teachers, what we really need 
is a new certification requirement for primary teachers. I am apprehensive 
that such an addition to requirements already in existence would be resisted 
vigorously by colleges of education around the state. They would argue 
that the prescribed course for elementary teachers is already too long. 
However, the urgency of our need to have teachers who are knowledgeable 
about human ecology is too great; the case ought to be made before the 
State Certification Board for an increased requirement to consist of one 
course in human ecology and resource management and a second course 
in teaching methods in environmental education, unless these methods can 
be shown to be covered in existing social studies or science methods 
