The Austin Independent School District (AISD) received an unusual honor June 2,
when U.S. Secretary of Education Richard Riley paid a visit to Winn Elementary
School. Riley and U.S. Congressman Lloyd Dog-gett were on hand for the
dedication of the new Winn Gardens, a schoolwide gardening and xeriscape
project designed to teach students about plant life, ecology, and waste
reduction. In the U.S. Congress, both House and Senate Budget committees have proposed
drastic cuts in education funds. Title I funds for disadvantaged children,
Goals 2000 grant money, bilingual education, and the school lunch program have
all been targeted. Even the elimination of the U.S. Department of Education
itself is gaining supporters.
While no money has yet been cut from the fledgling Goals 2000 program, the
Department has launched a massive campaign to repair damage to the program’s
image. The $403 million optional grant fund, which grew out of a Bush
administration proposal, was implemented last spring with eight loosely defined
goals for improving education. Texas is eligible for $7.1 million, and AISD has
applied for some of these funds. Projects can be geared toward anything from
improving literacy and graduation rates to decreasing drugs and violence in
schools.
Riley spoke with the Chronicle after the garden dedication ceremony
about federal education policy under President Clinton.
Austin Chronicle: Mr. Secretary, schools like Winn are being
affected by changes in Title I laws. This has been very confusing to people.
Could you shed a little light?
Richard Riley: Of course, Title I goes to schools that have
disadvantaged young people, and you have constant shifts in those populations.
We have tried to concentrate more funds in the very poor areas. We were not as
successful as we would like to have been. We got some more concentration, but
not nearly enough. I do believe we’re going to be able to fight off the
[Republican] effort to cut the money. The House members voted to cut it, but
fortunately, Congressman Doggett was a voice against that. But the Senate
didn’t [cut the funds], and the conference committee left Title I intact.
Of course, the President’s upset with that bill anyhow, and he’ll probably
veto it. But at least we’re back even on Title I, where we should be. So from
the federal standpoint, the money is coming down. I think it’s a local matter
of shifting people and [money] here [at the local level]. I understand that
this school was not harmed by the shift, but some will be. I just hope local
people will realize that they’ve got to put the funds in to compensate for
those shifts that are taking place.
AC:Title I, which used to be called Chapter I, as it’s set up
now, is a little less proscriptive about how the funds are used, but a little
more proscriptive about how schools must demonstrate that they’ve used their
funds well. Is that accurate?
RR: I think you could say that. It used to be under the old Chapter I
that disadvantaged schools had a watered-down curriculum, and a watered-down
assessment. And that was a big mistake. We’ve raised everybody up, and that’s
what Goals 2000 is all about – high standards for all children. All of them
can’t reach the high standards, but certainly they can reach for them. So we
eliminated the watered-down part of Title I, and they have the same high
standards as all other children, and the same expectations. So you’re going to
see, I think, scores and grades going up across the board.
AC:If you had to tell people in Austin one thing about Goals
2000, what would it be?
RR: I would tell them that it [means] state responsibility, local
function – but state and local control. It’s bottom-up. The funds will come
down with broad goals, but the creative reform is bottom-up, where parents meet
with teachers, principals, and business people to make change occur. So it is
an exciting thing to me, and it is what I think the people want, if they
understand it properly.
This article appears in June 9 • 1995 and June 9 • 1995 (Cover).