**************************** REMARKS PREPARED FOR RICHARD W. RILEY U.S. SECRETARY OF EDUCATION *************************** WHITE HOUSE WASHINGTON, D.C. Friday, July 29, 1994 CONFERENCE ON CHARACTER BUILDING FOR A DEMOCRATIC CIVIL SOCIETY *********************************
I want to congratulate Professor Etzioni and Bill Galston for their dedication to this initiative. I am so pleased that all of you have come here to attend this important conference. Our being here today reflects the concern of so many Americans that we have somehow become disconnected from our children. There is a great impatience out across the country with how our young people are growing up -- a deep concern -- a sense that while many of our young people may be part of the global MTV experience -- something valuable, essential and central to the American experience is not being passed down to them.
A few months ago, when I delivered my first "State of American Education" address, I told the audience that I was deeply troubled by the idea that we seem to be drifting toward a new concept of childhood -- a concept which says that children can be brought into this world and allowed to fend for themselves.
This conference clearly has one purpose -- to have conversation about ending this drift, this sense of disconnection. This is all to the good. I am encouraged by the common ground that is being sought by people of all political persuasions -- just as I am encouraged that the Congress is seeking to include character education in its reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
All of these initiatives and so many others -- including Hugh Price's thoughtful speech this week to the National Urban League -- reflect our shared concern that this drift -- this disconnection from our young people -- must stop. So let me make a few observations as we go forward, for surely this will not be the last such conference at this level.
As we go forward, I believe it is imperative to reach out to those Americans who are deeply concerned about their children's character and, at the same time, deeply skeptical about the government's role in what they consider a family role.
There are many Americans, and many of them are deeply religious, who are skeptical about any expert or federal official, including the U.S. Secretary of Education, having a role in informing them how they should mold their children's characters. Yet, they are deeply concerned about characters and ethics.
We need to be aware of this skepticism, recognize why it has developed, and work to find those connections that enable us to reach out to these Americans. We need to be responsive to their deeply felt concerns about safety and discipline. We must let them know that we share their belief for schools to be havens of order in a world that they view as increasingly uncertain, vague, confusing and dangerous for their children.
We need to reassure these parents and all parents that our ideas for improving schools start with hard work, honesty, responsibility and safe schools ... that we want excellence, high standards, parent involvement and above all -- an end to the era of low expectations.
There is nothing conservative nor liberal about making our schools havens of order and learning, and bastions of good citizenship. When Bill Bennett was U.S. Secretary of Education, he applauded my efforts in South Carolina to improve basic skill performance and student attendance, impose tough rules for academics and sports, and encourage greater student enrollment in difficult and advanced courses.
And, now that I am Secretary of Education, I agree with him when he suggests that schools need to emphasize the fundamentals, build character, and create a stronger sense of citizenship among our young people.
It is also so important to recognize that the great strength of this Country is not centered here in Washington but out there -- in the civic society of America.
All across the country there are civic associations, neighborhood and community-based groups, and religious congregations that have always been concerned about the character education of our children. They must be included.
Here, I make special mention of the broad-based religious community that is America.
Last week, we had two interesting meetings that I bring to your attention. The first was a meeting with a small group of teachers who have been recognized as either "State Teacher of the Year" or "National Teacher of the Year." These teachers are some of the best teachers we have in the country and they are all deeply religious and spiritual. We met to think through and bridge the growing gap between educators and religious-minded parents.
These teachers clearly understand the difference between teaching and preaching. But surely their faith infused their sense of character and how they acted as positive role models for their students. They spoke of the great sense of fear that some parents have, the sense that educators talk one language and parents talk another.
One of the most impressive stories that I heard was from an elementary school teacher who, every summer, went to visit the families of his future students. He wanted to understand the parents' values and expectations ... to understand what he could do to help their children learn. I think this is so important.
My second meeting was with representatives of many religious groups to discuss finding ways to connect parents to the process of learning. Forrest Montgomery, who is here with us today, from the National Association of Evangelicals, was part of that discussion as well as my Deputy, who is also here, former Governor of Vermont, Madeleine Kunin.
Our discussion with these religious representatives focused on how we can help each other and work with each other to involve the American family in the process of learning. More than a few people have heard me say that the fastest and most effective way we can improve learning in America is to find ways to help parents slow down their lives and stay connected to their children.
Parents are the first and the most important teachers of character. And they are also the most important ingredient in the success of a child in the process of learning. A child who is taught a love of learning early on by a parent, regardless of that parent's station in life, is a child who will, in all likelihood, succeed in school.
My point in all this is that the process of helping our young people develop good characters does not start at the federal level. A heavy-handed, top-down, federal effort to build character is just the wrong way to go.
The fact that President Clinton speaks again and again, with an enormous sense of concern, to young people about the choices they are making ...
The fact that every member of this Administration -- from Vice President Gore to Attorney General Janet Reno to serious thinkers like Bill Galston -- all are working so hard to raise the level of the national dialogue on character.....
The fact that we create and support programs that are, by definition, character-building -- from our proud military units and law enforcement groups -- to our new National Service program, Americorps -- to federal fire-fighting units whose members, as we have recently seen, will go to their deaths fighting fires ...
All these worthy initiatives should not obscure the fundamental truth that the character education of our children begins far away from Washington.
The process of building character does indeed begin with the family -- what Communitarians call "moral anchoring" -- and here I include extended families of grandparents, uncles, aunts, step-parents and guardians. As I travel around the country, whether it is to cold Wisconsin or to very warm Hawaii, I am constantly aware that there continues to be a vital inter-generational connection in the process of character building.
Last week, Tom Fleming, a former National Teacher of the Year from Michigan, told me how a retired postal worker got called into a school that was getting out of control simply to be a positive male presence. He became the first "Security Dad" in that school and now an entire program has been built around men from the community, many of them retired, who volunteer their time to set a standard that defines character.
Another observation. We may all know our stuff, and we may have our hearts in the right place, but we canNOT say that we speak with the voice of the young. We may feel young; we may be in tune with those who are younger; but we are not young. I say this with the full awareness that 50,OOO young people will descend on RFK stadium this Monday to listen to Mick Jagger of the Rolling Stones, a man who is just ten years younger than I.
My sensitivity in listening to the voices of the young was heightened by an opportunity I had to speak to a Crime Leadership briefing at the White House a few months ago. It was an important meeting and people spoke with a great sense of conviction about what they were dealing with back home. I always learn something when I go to these meetings.
But at some point a young man got up and made the observation that, at the age of 21, he was the youngest person in the room. He went on to say that if you are going to talk about "us," then some of "us" needed to be in the room.
It was a point well taken. Let's not tune out our young people -- however harsh their complaints -- or force 1950's solutions on them that may not have anything to do with their day-to-day experience.
Another observation. Even as we share our concerns about the "disconnection" of so many of our young people, we should be keenly sensitive about over-labeling them. Calling this generation of young people "slackers" or the "X" generation may make good copy but it is -- to my mind -- a broad generalization and -- from my own direct experience -- a wrong one, as well.
Yes, juvenile crime is up. And, yes, I am shocked into stunned disbelief by the cold, angry fury -- the sheer alienation of some of our young people. But, let us not over-label and mark off an entire generation.
One of the great problems we now face in American education is the reality that in our haste to do good -- in offering pull-out programs and setting up special education classes -- we may have contributed to a sense of classification and racial stereotyping that tells young people early on in life that they will not make it.
About the surest way I know to create an angry, violent 19-year-old dropout is to give a young person a watered-down curriculum from first grade on. When you do that, you are telling these young people at an early age that they aren't good enough ... so why even try.
Young people are not dumb. They know, at some instinctive level, when they are being sorted out, left out, and put on the economic margins for the rest of their lives.
When we continue to allow young people to graduate from high school without the ability to read -- when we do not provide them with a curriculum that includes great literature or algebra -- all this should suggest to us that we have some serious thinking to do about revising our sense of expectations.
What is so very promising about the movement for school reform is the collective recognition that when we set high academic standards and have high expectations -- young people strive to meet the goals. That is the great hope and central purpose of the Goals 2000 Act.
We saw a graphic example of what can happen when you have high goals, good teaching and parent involvement in the seven students who recently won the international math competition with a perfect score. As important as that was, I also was pleased to see that later that same evening, our students spent time with teams from other nations, playing the guitar and singing songs.
People often scoff at the fact that we have a National Education Goal that we be first in the world in math and science by the year 2000. This is but one indication that if we take the education of our children seriously, and work together, great things can happen and high goals can be achieved.
I would also suggest to you that a school with high academic standards is often a safe school. A smart and safe school can become an enormous positive influence in the surrounding neighborhood, however troubled it may be -- and also on the families of the students. The leadership of a strong principal, a few good teachers and committed parents can make all the difference.
I am also convinced that American education cannot succeed if we simply view it as an economic task -- and teach every student the appropriate technical skills needed to find an economic niche in the new Information Age.
In the great 1954 Supreme Court BROWN V. BOARD OF EDUCATION decision, one of the central tenets was the recognition that "education is the very foundation of good citizenship." It remains so today.
Our schools can surely do more to help young people shape their characters and sense of citizenship. Passage of the GOALS 2000 ACT will, in the years ahead, give every local school district the opportunity for parents, teachers and other community members to come together to define what they want their schools to achieve for their children -- not just what high academic standards to reach for -- but how to reach them as a community. This process will be encouraged by voluntary national standards -- including the new civics standards which involve the good work of many of you who are here today.
As we go forward, let us also reflect on some of the more difficult problems that we need to sort through. If parents are their children's first and most important teachers, and state and local communities have first responsibility to decide how education will take place -- what then is the proper federal role?
How can the federal government provide meaningful support to character education efforts without overstepping its reach?
Is it simply a matter of going with whatever people believe is right at the local level, so long as it's Constitutional?
What if the school community is deeply divided, and there seems to be no way to be neutral?
Where do we draw the line between the values and principles that we demand people to accept as members of our democratic, civilized society -- and those which reflect legitimate alternative beliefs which must be respected, but not accepted, by all?
An Hispanic child, for example, may drop out of school in order to support a family. His or her sense of "loyalty" to the family is in conflict with our civic norm that every child needs to get a good education to be a full participating member of our democratic society.
These are just some of the questions that I encourage you to think through as you continue this dialogue tomorrow.
Here, it is important to recognize that there is no single, simple solution to these questions. Whether it is the six pillars of good character espoused by "Character Counts" -- the stress on "civic virtue and moral character" of the Character Education Partnership -- or the Communitarian quest for "balances between individuals and groups, rights and responsibilities" -- we need to be inclusive and continue to make new connections.
I am encouraged by our coming together. Whatever our sense of unease, let us recognize that we Americans have never been able to rest easy when we see a gap between our ideals and the conduct of our daily lives. We have a stubborn tenacity about us -- a deep and moving idealism -- that keeps us focused on doing right. As De Toqueville said, "America is great because America is good." And when America ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.
Our meeting here today is one sure affirmation that this sense of determination -- this sense of purpose and commitment -- is strong and alive. We intend to do right by our young people in molding their characters and making our schools havens of order and learning, and bastions of good citizenship.
I will do all I can to work with you on this important American commitment to the future of our children.
Thank you.