A Clear Paper Trail

The Failure of MCPS Recycling and Environmental Education Programs

MCSEA Montgomery County Student Environmental Activists 27aug01

MCSEA Montgomery County Student Environmental Activists

Founded in 1996, Montgomery County Student Environmental Activists (MCSEA) is a student-run volunteer organization with members at over a dozen public and private high schools in Montgomery County, Maryland. MCSEA is dedicated to advancing student participation in environmental activism throughout Montgomery County. MCSEA conducts campaigns, educates, and sponsors outings for its members. All activities are centered around our belief that above all, nature has intrinsic value beyond human needs or wants. We are active politically in order to protect our environment locally, nationally, and internationally. We regularly voice our opinions through petitions, rallies, letters, public education, and lobbying.

Executive Director: David Sievers
Recycling Campaign Co-Chairs: Yochi Zakai, Erica Morgan

301.530.7667 / www.mcsea.org

MCSEA is a proud affiliate of the Sierra Student Coalition, the student-run arm of the Sierra Club, the nation’s oldest and largest grassroots environmental organization.

This report is printed on 100% post-consumer recycled paper. What did you expect?

A Clear Paper Trail The Failure of MCPS Recycling and Environmental Education Programs Released on August 27, 2001

Contents

Executive Summary
History and Background
The Need for Environmental Education and Recycling in our Public Schools
Recycling Saves Money and is the Law
Recycling in the County and a Lack of Data on Schools
The MCSEA Study
Findings
Environmental Education
Survey Comments
Recommendations
Conclusion
APPENDIX A Sample Survey Form
APPENDIX B MCPS Tonnage Report

Executive Summary

The importance of environmental education and waste reduction is as great as these programs are lacking in Montgomery Count Public Schools (MCPS). Despite the rhetoric of waste reduction and recycling, MCPS has not produced a substantial reduction in its refuse output. Waste reduction efforts are nonexistent and recycling in the school system consists of nothing more than a lot of blue bins being misused. To the dismay of observers, there is no countywide environmental education curriculum.

Through a study and survey of all MCPS high schools, MCSEA has produced hard evidence of the failure of MCPS waste reduction, recycling and environmental education programs. Fourteen out of the twenty-three (61 percent) high schools failed the survey (do not have a working recycling program and receive a grade of E). Six (26 percent) high schools received a grade of D and have some sort of recycling program. One school received a grade of B, and two the grade of A, with established recycling programs. Bethesda-Chevy Chase, Blake, Northwest, Paint Branch, Quince Orchard, Seneca Valley, Sherwood, Watkins Mill and Walter Johnson High Schools received passing grades. Even on the kind of inflated grading scale that MCPS uses, the majority of high schools’ recycling programs failed. These findings were backed up with comments from students themselves. “Bins are in the most useless places. No one bothers to recycle.”

At the beginning of every school year, there is much talk of “educating the leaders of tomorrow.” A well rounded education is the key to creating “leaders of tomorrow.” If MCPS produces leaders totally lacking an environmental ethic, they will be poor leaders indeed. If we do not instill a strong environmental ethic in new generations than the traditional school’s purpose will be rendered obsolete.

Last year MCPS spent over half a million dollars on waste disposal. If the school system's recycled 50% of their waste, the total cost of disposal would have been about $300,000. That is over $200,000 better spent on educating our children than thrown away on trash.

The result of years of lobbying by students has been met with nothing but empty promises about revamped recycling programs and new hauling contracts. It’s time for this to change - MCPS should immediately take concrete steps to remedy this situation. This reports sets forth 8 recommendations for MCPS, including suggestions for source waste reduction, the involvement of local officials, an environmental science curriculum, accountability can consequences of failed incentives for success, and closing the loop by purchasing recycled products.

History and Background

In the early 1990s the Montgomery County government funded two programs with conflicting goals; one was the construction of a new incinerator, and the other was a recycling program.

The new incinerator was built under a cloud of opposition. Citizens from throughout the county organized to stop the incinerator, saying that instead of subsidizing the environmental degradation of a costly waste-promoting incinerator, the county should invest serious resources in the “three R’s” of solid waste management: reduction, reuse and recycling. Citizens argued that if the county were to require waste reduction, then building of the new incinerator would be unnecessary.

The County Council and Executive agreed that waste reduction and recycling were important issues. The County Council set a goal of recycling 50% of the county’s entire solid waste flow by the year 2000. Strangely, they approved the building of the incinerator as well.

The Montgomery County Public Schools were at the forefront of the County’s recycling efforts, and set up a recycling program in 1991. Several effective student-run recycling programs existed before 1991. These were absorbed by the new MCPS initiative, which unfortunately never matured. Beyond the enthusiasm for the first year of a new program, no effort was exerted to keep the program active. Within two years, the receptacles were no longer used appropriately and teachers could no longer be sure that janitors would empty the recycling bins properly. An attitude developed in the school system that recycling was simply too much trouble. This attitude was reinforced by an MCPS administration that did nothing to keep the recycling program active.

The Need for Environmental Education and Waste Reduction in Public Schools

Our global environment is facing an unprecedented crisis. From Maryland to Alaska and Indonesia to Russia and Brazil to Cameroon, ancient forests are being logged to fuel consumer consumption, especially of paper products, and especially by the United States. Enormous strip mines scar the Earth in the United States and throughout the Third World, extracting minerals to be made into disposable soda cans. People everywhere are being displaced, land and water polluted by petroleum extraction, which goes into the plastic in our food containers. In the midst of this, mere lip service is paid to the cause of protecting our environment. The time for action is now, but what is being taught to the students of today, and the leaders of tomorrow, is that the environmental protection is inconvenient and thus unimportant. Nowhere is this truer than in the much-vaunted public schools of Montgomery County, Maryland.

Every day, students who attend Montgomery County Public Schools watch paper that could be recycled instead hauled away to the landfill or the incinerator. Soda cans join food waste in cafeteria trashcans. There is no curriculum for environmental science classes, and instructional materials in some science classes are even provided by industry trade associations, telling students things like why mining is entirely environmentally benign.

The importance of environmental education is well established among today’s educators. It is not “brainwashing” to tell students the truth – that America has lost 96% of its old growth forests, that fisheries are in free-fall decline, that by the time kindergartners get to college they might only be able to study orangutans and rhinos in zoos. So elementary school students are lectured about global warming, the ozone hole, endangered species, and the necessity of recycling. Children are sent out with plastic garbage bags and rubber gloves to gather trash, but then watch ten times as much trash get thrown away every lunch period. Students are told about the necessity of recycling, yet their schools do not recycle, and they see their teachers throw away recyclable paper daily. Such hypocrisy does not go unnoticed by children, who are perceptive and look to adults for clues as to how to behave and to think. Their enthusiasm about the environment only lasts until they notice that it is an afterthought to most of their teachers.

Speech without action is worthless, because it teaches children that the environment is a joke, something to be spoken about in sanctimonious tones, and otherwise ignored. Lip service to the environment must stop and be replaced with concrete and effective initiatives for environmental education. Students must be made to see that teachers mean what they say about planet Earth. The school system itself must become an object lesson in environmental awareness. System-wide waste reduction and recycling programs that are taken seriously by administrators is a logical place to start.

Recycling Saves Money and is the Law

Recycling is economically, educationally and environmentally sound. There is a substantial economic incentive for MCPS to recycle. For every ton of refuse that MCPS disposes of, they must pay the County Division of Solid Waste Services a tipping fee of $44.00. However, for every ton of yard waste recycling that must be disposed of the tipping fee is only $29.00 per ton, and there is no tipping fee for recycling of scrap metal, plastic bottles, aluminum cans (collectively known as commingled items) or paper. Furthermore, since 1991 MCPS has paid a contractor to pick up recycling from every public school. Even when a school fails to recycle, this contractor is still paid to collect their recyclables.

MCPS pays nothing to recycle commingled items and paper. The cost of recycling yard waste is significantly less than that of refuse. Therefore, if MCPS reduced the amount of refuse produced it would save money.

In the 2000-2001 school year MCPS recycled 2,000.50 tons and threw away 12,556.83 tons.¹ The reported recycling rate for the entire school system this past school year was 13.7%, a far cry from the 50% mandated by the county in 1992 and pathetic if one considers that the program has been in place for 10 years. According to data analysis by MCSEA of the 2000-2001 school year tonnage report, if the school system would have recycled 50 percent of its waste, as current law requires, they would have to spend $336,502.36 a year in tipping fees. In the 2000-2001 school year the school system actually spent $568,623.94. If the MCPS had the same total waste stream, but recycled 50 percent instead of 13.7 percent, then they would have saved $232,121.58 (or $19,343.47 a month). With an effective waste reduction program in place this number would undoubtedly be higher. (See Appendix B for monthly tonnage report and detailed cost analysis.)

Promotion of waste reduction and recycling is an educational imperative. The goal of any school is to educate its students to become good citizens and productive members of society. MCPS is teaching their students that careless disregard for the law and environment is acceptable. MCPS is a part of the Montgomery County Government, which has been ordered by the County Council (Resolution #12-945, Action #14) to recycle 50 percent of its waste by the year 2000. It is now the year 2001, and MCPS is only recycling 13.7 percent of its waste. The school system is flagrantly disobeying a county law. Is this how a school system should be educating its children?

Waste reduction and recycling are environmentally sound practices. Through reduction and recycling, we can prevent the production of millions of tons of greenhouse gases, reduce the production of toxic wastes in manufacturing, reduce the toxic output of the refuse incinerator, and save oil, metal, energy, and water. We wouldn’t need to raid ancient forests to make notebook paper. We wouldn’t need aluminum strip mines that leach poisons into drinking water. According to the US Environmental Protection Agency, recycling paper uses 60 percent less energy than manufacturing paper from virgin timber. Recycling a glass jar saves enough energy to light a 100-watt light bulb for four hours, and making aluminum cans from recycled metal requires only 5 percent as much energy as when made from virgin ore. In terms of natural resources, enough aluminum is thrown away in America every three months to rebuild the entire US commercial air fleet, and a ton of paper made from recycled materials saves about 17 trees. Recycled products can serve a variety of uses, including remanufacture into new containers, manufacture into drainage pipes, toys, carpet, filler, clothing, and media casings (plastic containers), glasphalt (a type, of asphalt) and various types of paper products.

MCPS is teaching students that it is acceptable to waste natural resources. By creating a countywide recycling program and then allowing it to falter and remain dormant for a period of ten years, the school system has educated a generation of children into thinking that waste of natural resources can be ignored.

In addition to surveys, MCSEA also looked at the economic incentive for recycling. By looking at tonnage data for the MCPS waste stream and how much is paid for trash and recycling removal, MCSEA was able to determine how much money could be saved on waste removal by increasing recycling rates (see Appendix B for details).

---

¹ When MCSEA requested recycling data from 1991-2001 from the Division of Solid Waste Services, DSWS responded that the MCPS recycling program started in November 1999, and that is the first month they provided data for. See Appendix C for monthly tonnage reports.

---

Recycling in the County and a Lack of Data on Schools

In December 2000 the County Council held a hearing to discuss the state of recycling throughout the county. The total reported recycling rate for the county was 36.5 percent, far short of the 50 percent goal. When calculating total amounts of waste recycled, the county divides the waste stream into three categories: Single family housing, multi-unit housing, and business. Single family housing recycling was at 58%, but multiunit housing was at 10.8 percent and business recycling was at 29%. MCPS, included in the business category, recycled 13.7 percent of its waste in the 2000-2001 school year (Appendix B). In fact, MCPS is the largest “business” in this county, with more facilities (properties and buildings) than any commercial business enterprise.

The County Division of Solid Waste Services (DSWS) has a program called SORRT (Smart Organization Recycle Tons) dedicated to help businesses recycle, which recently included an initiative to aid the school system. This past year, SORRT staff held meetings in every high school cluster to teach school business managers how to initiate and run an effective recycling program. At these meetings SORRT staff announced that they would perform random qualitative checks of the recycling program at every school. These checks, performed by SORRT staff in the 2000-2001 school year, are the only information the county has ever had regarding the condition of individual school’s recycling programs. These meetings and random checks were not initiated, run, or even attended by any staff of MCPS administration. Ten years into the school system’s recycling program, and an internal accountability study has never been performed.

The MCSEA Study

MCSEA has worked for several years to bring waste reduction, recycling and environmental education to MCPS. Meetings with senior MCPS officials have yielded nothing but empty promises, and the only places where recycling programs succeed is where individual students themselves take the initiative to start them. MCSEA set out to assess the state of the school system’s waste reduction, recycling and environmental education programs. This report is designed to, the best of our ability, fully document the status of the school system’s waste reduction, recycling and environmental education programs.

MCSEA examined recycling capacity and current program status. Three to five students from each high school completed a survey (Appendix A) rating the school’s network of recycling receptacles and how well students and staff use them. The survey also solicited comments about the recycling program in individual schools, the attitudes of school administration and faculty to waste reduction, and the amount of environmental education received by each student.

Findings

The results of the survey are overwhelming– only a small minority of MCPS high schools received a passing grade on their recycling program. Student comments, backed up by data from the school system, reveal that waste reduction, recycling and environmental education programs barely exist in MCPS.

Fourteen out of the twenty-three (61%) high schools failed the survey (do not have a working recycling program). Six (26%) high schools received a grade of “D” and have some sort of recycling program. One school received a grade of “B,” and two the grade of “A,” with established recycling programs. Bethesda-Chevy Chase, Blake, Northwest, Paint Branch, Quince Orchard, Seneca Valley, Sherwood, Watkins Mill and Walter Johnson High Schools received passing grades.

At Sherwood, the Business Manager implemented the program. But, the recycling programs at Bethesda-Chevy Chase, Blake, Paint Branch, Seneca Valley and Watkins Mill high schools are all student initiated and run. At Bethesda-Chevy Chase the National Honors Society runs the program, at Blake a student in the homeroom class empties the recycling, and at Paint Branch and Seneca Valley the Environmental Science classes empty the recycling bins. At Walter Johnson a single student placed receptacles in every hallway and classroom, and the collection is now run by building services staff.

It goes without saying that student participation is key to any effective recycling program, but the level of involvement students have at the schools with functioning recycling programs should not be necessary. Any program that relies on student administration has an inherent flaw. The turnover rate of students is too high for students to be considered effective long-term stewards of the recycling program. Students are not required to run their own trash programs and recycling is as important, if not more important than refuse disposal. Since trash collection is the exclusive domain of building services, it is unfair to expect students to manage the recycling programs at their schools. Like other programs, the recycling program must be managed by administrators and run by paid staff.

MCPS is now recycling 13.7% of its solid waste, but MCPS, independent of student initiatives, hardly recycles at all. MCPS has had 10 years to get it right. There is no excuse.

MCPS Recycling Survey Results

KEY

0 - No recycling program in place
1 - Collection cans in place but not used
2 - Collection cans in place and used MCPS Grading Scale Used
1.8 - 2 = 90% receives grade of “A”
1.6 - 1.8 = 80% receives grade of “B”
1.4 - .16 = 70% receives grade of “C”
1.2 - 1.4 = 60% receives grade of “D”
< 1.2 = <60% receives grade “E” = Fail

*Seneca Valley and Quince Orchard received a forced grade of D because comments on the surveys received were comparable with other schools that received a grade of D or higher.

Environmental Education

It is important to teach the broader ethic of conservation to children so that they may grow up to support and practice sustainability. The MCSEA survey found that the state of environmental education in the county school system is dismal. In elementary schools, a curriculum called Caring for the Earth for third through sixth grades was developed. This curriculum was developed over 11 years ago when elementary schools still had sixth grade classes. This curriculum is an excellent way to teach an environmental ethic in elementary schools, but it has not been revised in 11 years. MCSEA is not aware of its current availability to teachers.

In middle school, students report little to no environmental education. Every student participles in an outdoor education program in the sixth grade. Besides this three-day program (which was cut from five days), environmental education is spotty and depends on the school and teacher.

High schools have no environmental education requirement. Environmental science classes are offered as an elective in most schools, but the majority of students do not take them. Sometimes environmental issues come up in classes dealing with the natural sciences, but again it varies from school to school and teacher to teacher. MCPS has not created a countywide curriculum for environmental science.

Survey Comments

The selection of comments below is taken from the surveys. They illustrate the basic theme of comments received, and are reflective of typical students responses to inquires about the recycling program in the county. In order for the recycling program to function effectively, the school community must care about it. The most effective programs in the county are ones where there is student, faculty, and staff involvement. According to one student at Quince Orchard, “The staff wear t-shirts that say ‘I recycle, so should you!’” The attitude of the school administration is vital. According to one student at Blake, “My principal has taken a strong stand on recycling by standing up during assemblies and talking about it . . . Every teacher tells their students to use the recycling bins.”

On the other hand, when the school community does not care, things fall apart. At Damascus one student wrote, “There are a few collection cans, and all are used inappropriately by the students and even the staff.” On the same line, at Kennedy a sophomore wrote, “Bins are in the most useless places. No one bothers to recycle.” Students do understand and are generally accepting of the program. At Seneca Valley one student wrote, “I think if we used more education then compliance will come.”

When it came to environmental education, students had similar things to say. One student wrote said that the environment came up “during classes that involve natural sciences, but [the discussions] did not seem that important.” A Walter Johnson student summed up the feeling of the majority of the responses received when he wrote, “I have never been educated about the environment in depth. Although it may have been hinted at, no part of my education has focused on it”

Recommendations

• Leadership: Leadership is key to accomplishing any task. Every official throughout the county government and school system must be held accountable for their actions and inaction. The County Executive and Council must work closely with the School Board and the Superintendent that MCPS to implement an effective waste reduction and environmental education program. The School Board and Superintendent must take responsibility for implementing this program.
• Source Waste Reduction: Reduction of refuse output through established and innovative waste reduction methods must be put in place.
  • Implement “smart buying” programs that facilitate the purchase of materials that produce a minimal amount of waste.
  • Limit the amount of paper used, for instance, transfer materials through technology.
  • Require the use of class sets of photocopied information
  • Implement composting programs at every school, run by horticulture classes
  • Require the use of reusable materials where available (i.e. plastic trays in cafeterias and reusable soda containers in school vending machines)
    
    
• Environmental education: An effective environmental education program must be implemented. The neglected Caring for the Earth elementary curriculum must be revised and republished. A mandatory environmental science curriculum must be created for middle and high schools.
  
  
• Involvement: Programs with popular involvement will be the most successful. Students, teachers, principals, and county administration must be actively involved in the program if it is to be successful. The Superintendent of Schools must be involved in the implementation of every aspect of this program.
  
  
• Report Cards for Individual Schools: For the first time ever, in November 2001, the school system will be able to measure the amount of recycling produced by each school. MCPS should immediately begin measuring the amount of refuse produced by each school. Using this data, report cards should be published monthly to the public. This report card should detail tons of refuse and recycling, recycling rates, and waste reduction efforts for each school in the county.
  
  
• Implementation of the Recycling Program: Students currently run the recycling programs, but it is not to be expected that students handle their own waste disposal indefinitely. Recycling programs must be coordinated and run by paid staff.
  
  
• Incentives: Schools that perform well should be rewarded, through public recognition and monetary awards. Perhaps the money saved in tipping fees should be reinvested into the schools that have saved it.
  
  
• Closing the Loop: Recycling alone will not ease the strains on our natural resources; we must also support recycling by buying recycled products. MCPS should buy recycled products whenever possible. MCPS procurement policies should take into account where products come from. For instance, MCPS should not purchase wood or wood products made with old growth or rainforest wood, or from companies known to engage in destructive environmental practices.

Conclusion

Montgomery County Public Schools stands to save, through waste reduction and recycling, money that would be better used to educate this county’s children than to pay for the dumping of trash. Additionally, it is the task of the public school system to inculcate values and behaviors that lead to good citizenship in adult life. In this, it has failed. The ethic of conservation and sustainability in an affluent society is necessary to protect our environment and conserve our economic and natural resources, and in failing to emphasize this, MCPS has endangered the economical, environmental, and social future of Montgomery County. Through bureaucratic inertia, MCPS has neglected a vital part of children’s education. It is high time to remedy this neglect. Montgomery County Public Schools must initiate comprehensive and effective waste reduction, recycling, and environmental education programs now.

Appendix A

Name:                              School:                              Email:                              Phone:

Montgomery County Public Schools Recycling Survey
Conducted by the Montgomery County Student Environmental Activists http://www.mcsea.org

Learn the Lingo. These are the terms that the school system uses, and we have adopted them to break the survey up into categories.

Co-mingled items = aluminum cans, plastic bottles
Mixed paper = all paper (white and colored together)

For each question, please mark the status of your school’s program.

1 = Collection cans in place and being used properly
2 = Collection cans in place and not being used properly
3 = No program in place

Co-mingled collection in hallways                           ___________

Co-mingled collection in classrooms and offices      ___________

Mixed paper in hallways                                         ___________

Mixed paper in classrooms and offices                  ___________

Please answer these questions.

Do you feel that your school’s recycling program is effective? Please elaborate and give examples.

Has your school’s principal or administration taken a public stand on recycling? Are they taking their position seriously?

Please elaborate and give examples.

Has waste reduction or recycling ever been a part of your schooling? Please elaborate and describe the grade(s), class(es), or unit(s) you have participated in and their impact.

Has environmental education has been a part of your education in school? Please elaborate and describe the grade(s) and class(es) you have participated in and their impact.

Do you have any additional comments?

When completed, please return to:

Yochanan Zakai
11908 Tildenwood Drive
Rockville MD 20852-4316
301-231-9131 Yokai@aol.com 

This survey is designed to report the status of the Montgomery County Public Schools’ recycling program. We are compiling the results of this survey into a report that we intend to release in an effort to bring public interest to the situation of recycling in public schools. We, as students, have the unique ability to get the attention of the media focused on the school system that we must live with every day.

MCSEA is a youth run group of students dedicated to protecting the environment. Anyone can to come to a meeting and learn more about the environment and what you can do to save it. We thank you for your help in filling out this survey, and invite you to join us in compiling the final report. If you have any ideas, would like to help out, or just to want to learn more about MCSEA, then give me a give me a call. Again, thanks for your help!
          -Yochanan Zakai

Appendix B

Montgomery County Public Schools System-Wide Tonnage Report
July 1, 2000 to June 30, 2001

                  Yard         Commingled/Mixed 
                  Waste         Paper Recycling    
Month            (tons)          (tons)           Recycling Refuse
June 2001        43.16           232.24            1,167.76 tons
May 2001         53.04           149.80            1,235.17
April 2001       51.62           100.09              928.17
March 2001       68.10           136.72            1,195.48
February 2001    39.99           131.47               881.55
January 2001     56.03           103.45               987.39
December 2000    58.92            82.88               854.23
November 2000    33.04           112.96             1,015.50
October 2000     63.35           114.80             1,124.35
September 2000   48.5            108.26             1,128.36
August 2000      18.64           109.77             1,154.05
July 2000        21.59            62.14               884.82
Total FY 2000   555.98         1,444.58            12,556.83

June 2000        15.45           141.52             1,512.80
May 2000         43.45           112.73             1,453.30
April 2000       29.99            84.66               951.64
March 2000       45.67           113.28             1,224.83
February 2000    23.69            94.37             1,071.55
January 2000     29.92            39.74               814.01
December 1999    51.88            50.38             1,211.16
*November 1999   27.59            33.21             1,171.67
November 1999 -
June 2000 Total 267.64           669.89             9,410.96
Total Available
          Data  823.62          2114.47            21,967.79

Tipping Fees

                       Yard       Commingled/Mixed 
                       Waste       Paper Recycling    
                      (tons)          (tons)           Recycling Refuse
Tipping Fee/Ton       $29.00           $0.00                $44.00
Cost to MCPS in FY 2000
(Total x Tipping fee) $16,123.42       $0.00           $552,500.52
Total Current Cost                                     $568,623.94

Reduction Analysis
(Based on a 50% Recycling Rate)

                         Yard     Commingled/Mixed 
                         Waste     Paper Recycling    
                        (tons)        (tons)           Recycling Refuse
Total Projected Tonnage 560          6,718.69             7,278.69
Projected Cost to MCPS $16,240          $0.00          $320,262.36
Total Projected Cost                                   $336,502.36

Savings (Total Current Cost – Total Projected Cost)    $232,121.58

source: Thanks to MCSEA Montgomery County Student Environmental Activists for this great work
             www.mcsea.org 27aug01