An Interview with Outgoing U.S. Secretary of Education, Richard W. Riley
During the last month of the Clinton administration, the outgoing U.S. Secretary of Education, Richard W. Riley, took time from his schedule to talk with us at School Construction News. The Secretary answered our questions concerning his department’s position on school construction issues, expected funding, outstanding initiatives, and accomplishments during his past eight years in office.
School Construction News: The Department of Education developed excellent guidelines for planning schools as centers of the community with six key criteria for designs that:
- Enhance learning
- Serve as centers of the community
- Involve all stakeholders
- Provide for health and security
- Make effective use of resources
- Provide for adaptability
How do you support the adoption of these principles? How do you see these ideas continuing to play out after the current administration ends?
Secretary Richard Riley: While a school building program is very important, I think how you build schools is equally important and we wanted to make sure schools were built the right way. I actually have done a lot of speeches on the subject of building schools for 2050 and not 1950. Also, we wanted to make it clear that we strongly supported the Johnson-Rangle bill* and the renovation and emergency repair measure that passed in Congress, as well as other things.
I think that the new administration coming in will find an America very receptive to the idea of designing schools and placing them in such a location as to make them wonderful centers of the community-and that’s the whole concept of community schools. I think that it’s a very good way for us to go in this country and I think there’s an awful lot of support for it.
SCN: Is the funding and renovation/upkeep of schools a bi-partisan issue? Do you see a continued emphasis on school planning/construction issues under a new Secretary during the Bush administration?
SRR: I think it’s important for all of us to realize that education really should be-and usually is-a bi-partisan issue. There will be differences between our administration and the new administration, but generally, fortunately, both are supportive of education.
The biggest school construction measure we had was the Johnson-Rangle bill on the tax side-and not part of the discretionary budget-which made it kind of complicated to get considered and passed toward the end (of the current session). However, we had 229 or 230 members of Congress sign on to the bill and, of course, 218 is a majority, so that clearly was a bi-partisan statement. I believe that if we had gotten it on the floor it would have passed very clearly and I have every reason to hope it would pass in the Senate.
However, because the bill was not part of the appropriations bill we couldn’t connect it to that debate, though we tried. But, I think it would be a wonderful thing-with all of the talk about bi-partisanship-for Congress to get into and the new administration to get into to see if they can get it passed.
I think it’s a very good statement when you have such strong bi-partisan support for a major bill that involves some $25 billion for school construction with the Federal government paying the interest on the bonds. With Nancy Johnson a Republican and Charlie Rangle a Democrat, this is something that is bi-partisan by its very nature. (It will get voted on in the next session)
As for the appropriations bill that President Clinton signed-it has in it what is referred to usually as emergency repair or urgent school renovation measures. It provides $1.2 billion for repairing and modernizing overcrowded and rundown schools; the money is not for new schools-that’s the big difference. (The Johnson-Rangle bill would be primarily for new construction and new schools) The breakdown is $901 million for emergency repairs, $274 million for technology, and $25 for a new charter school facility financing pilot program. That’s the major accomplishment in terms of school construction and it’s new and it’s the first time we’ve ever gotten into that kind of thing. I’m very, very pleased and proud that that has passed.
SCN: What constitutes an emergency? And should all schools expect the same things? What can schools expect from the government?
SRR: The appropriations bill is for new grants to help schools make urgently needed repairs and renovations. As I recall, the way we recommended it was that it’s primarily for school districts that would have difficulty financing such repairs and renovations.
The bill is mostly (prioritized) for poorer districts that couldn’t otherwise afford the repairs or renovations. Some 20% of schools do not have adequate safety features in place, according to a recent study our department conducted, so there’s no question the money is needed.
You’ll remember a couple of years ago the American Society of Civil Engineers graded the infrastructure needs in America and schools got an “F;” schools were clearly the lowest rated in terms of infrastructure. The engineers recognized the need, as did congress and the President and I think Americans will realize that we have had an enormous move toward supporting quality education-and part of a quality education is having a quality school environment.
People who are involved in construction appreciate school buildings, but those of us outside the industry very rarely do that. We just think of using a school building as long as you can until there’s a crisis. And that’s when you start having money problems; you have to replace the school as well as accommodate growth.
Another thing that many of us could do better is plan for school depreciation and put money aside to fund a new school or renovate a school when it has depreciated. We think the Federal government can help states and local school districts significantly in that area and that’s what we proposed and I’m glad to see that we’re making some success.
SCN: As we rush to meet the demand for more classrooms to ease overcrowding we run the risk of, once again, building schools “fast and cheap.” How can we avoid this trap and what instruction/guidance would you give to communities, school district, and policy makers to keep history from repeating itself?
SRR: The school growth situation and the enrollment increases are permanent. When we had the baby boom echo, we saw enrollment jump up and then go back down. However, our research and statistical data shows us that it’s no longer a blip that’s going up and then back down. It shows us that it’s up and continuing to go up. It’s not going to go up quite as fast and it should flatten off for a while in certain areas, but it is not going back down.
When you’re making a public policy decision and you have to develop a temporary solution to a permanent problem, it’s not going to be the best decision, but sometimes you have to do that because you don’t have any other alternative. Obviously the better decision is to resolve a permanent problem with a permanent solution. The permanent solution is building quality public schools to handle additional enrollment and not tacking on modular or temporary buildings. Of course, every school district has to deal with its own problems and it’s not wise for us over here in Washington to try to tell them how to make plans, but I do think they need to know that our research shows that enrollment increases will continue to go up. They are permanent. They need permanent solutions
* The Johnson-Rangle bill would make about $24.8 billion available for school modernization over the next two years by providing tax credits to purchasers of zero-interest school bonds. It also would extend the current tax-free treatment of employer-provided undergraduate assistance to college students until 2002.