This is an archive page.  The links are no longer being updated.

REMARKS BY:	DONNA E. SHALALA, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
PLACE:		Virginia and Leonard Marx Lecture, Teachers College, Columbia University, NY, NY
DATE:		September 29, 1999

When Larry Cremin recruited me he told me to enjoy the entire institution -- and I did. A number of world- class scholars made me feel at home from that first day in September 1972. I will always be grateful to Larry, and of course, the late Harry Passow. The indomitable Maxine Greene broadened my thinking. And Lambros Camitas and Chuck Harrington -- my suitemates -- kept me interdisciplinary. There were lots of others who are still here -- Lois Bloom, Hope Leichter, George Bond, Ann Lieberman, Dale Mann, Jo Shepard, Rob McClintock. My graduate students who went on to distinguished careers -- were all a joy. We moved to the "penthouse" on top of Dodge -- it became my kibbutz.

And I should add that I'm particularly proud of producing a few academic stars: Susan Fuhrman, the Dean of Education at Penn, Allen Odden, Professor of Educational Policy at Wisconsin, and Elad Peled who taught at universities in Israel. Most of my other graduate students went on to fine careers in education and health policy and administration. I'm proud of them all.

From TC's founding back in 1887 -- through the era of William Heard Kilpatrick to the time of Larry Cremin -- right up to the work of your student teachers in the New York schools today -- TC has always been ahead of the curve.

Larry used to say that we didn't simply study American education; we helped to define it. Yes, we tried to answer tough questions - but, even more important, we made it our mission to question the answers. And, as a result, TC helped set the pace for American education for most of the 20th century.

But today I don't want to talk about where we've been, but about where we need to go.

A generation ago, Professor Cremin described how the seeds for the transformation of America's public schools could be found in the great social movements of the teens and twenties. Well, in much the same way, I think we're seeing a new consensus take shape about public education today -- a consensus that, in many ways, reflects the centrism that dominates so much of our nation's political life.

Now, consensus isn't a word that comes up often when we talk about public education. After all, over these last 16 years educators have witnessed one of the most contentious debates ever.

But, despite all the passion and supercharged rhetoric, I still see the basis for a consensus. And, I'm not alone. While many Americans believe their own schools work, a recent poll found that 67 percent are dissatisfied with the way public education is functioning. But more important than that is the fact that Americans generally agree on what it will take to make our public schools work better.

As a nation, we believe there's value in challenging all children academically. We believe in holding teachers, administrators and policymakers accountable. We believe in the critical role of parental and community involvement. Yes, we have mixed feelings about investing serious resources in our schools, but we also understand that every child who starts school should begin on equal footing. In fact, the poll I referred to found that no less than 88 percent of Americans agree on the importance of early childhood education.

I was particularly taken with that last finding in that it suggests American families understand something that still eludes too many in the education debate. It's that a school's success isn't simply a question of having staff who are ready to teach, but making sure that every child is ready to learn.

Are innovative techniques important? Of course they are, but they're of little consequence to a child sick at home because her parents couldn't afford to have her asthma treated. Do we need computers in the classroom? We know we do, but we also know we need to get handguns out of the schoolyard. Should teacher training in the core curriculum be strengthened? Without a doubt, but once it is, there will still be more than 890,000 young children in this country with enough lead in their blood to harm their ability to learn.

This is not a question of traditionalism or progressivism, but simple pragmatism. That's why, at this point in the debate, I'm convinced we need to challenge the school reform movement to commit itself to three fundamental principles:

The first is early childhood development. Assuring that children have both the health and the skills they need to learn before they start kindergarten.

The second is safeguarding the health of children once they start school. Seeing to it that the work of teachers isn't undone through illness, injury and disease -- whether physical or emotional.

And the third is that schools and their partners in the community must play a proactive role in preparing young people to lead healthy adult lives.

Let me speak to each point for just a moment. Though, I have to admit, I sense I may be preaching to the choir.

After all, it was scholars like Jeanne Brooks-Gunn, whose research found that the test score gap between white and African American children isn't some preordained fact of nature, but the result of poverty and its impact during the first five years of a child's life. That's why, my first point, making sure that children are prepared to learn -- in both mind and body -- is so critically important.

In 1991, Drs. Lucile Newman at Brown and Stephen Buka of the Harvard School of Public Health reported that 12 percent of preschoolers may be learning impaired as the result of preventable causes ranging from malnutrition to lead poisoning to neglect and abuse. That's why, at HHS, we've emphasized prenatal care and nutrition, and why we've seen to it that preschool childhood immunization rates are at an all-time high. But making sure a child is ready to learn goes well beyond that.

By the age of three, the human brain reaches 90 percent of its adult-size capacity. How children are nurtured from infancy can have an enormous impact on their entire lives. The economist Isabel Sawhill at Brookings tells the story of a school superintendent in Mississippi who reports that some children arrive in kindergarten not even knowing their own names -- only their nicknames.

We can all understand how a Kilpatrick or a Dewey may not have appreciated the importance of early childhood education, but there's no excuse for any serious advocate of education reform today to make that same mistake.

A recent review of literature by a team of researchers from the University of Wisconsin, the Rand Corporation, and Rutgers concluded that quality early interventions -- including early childhood education - - lead to higher school achievement, a reduced need for special education and, as children grow older, less crime. A Packard Foundation analysis of nearly 150 studies of high quality intervention programs in the U.S. and other countries came to the same conclusion. And, in light of the fact that 21,000 New York public school students are being held back this year, I think it's important to point out that early childhood education also results in less retention in grade.

Over these past six and a half years we've been able to more than double funding for Head Start -- and bring it to younger children through Early Head Start. I'm proud of that fact - and you should be, too. But more important, we've revamped the program. In 1993, we formed a special advisory board to recommend measures to update and improve Head Start.

We reached out to some of the most important voices in child development. People like Liz Schorr at Harvard, Diana Slaughter-Defoe at Northwestern, Judith Jones of the National Center for Children in Poverty here at Columbia, and Ed Zigler of Yale.

Ed, of course, was one of the original architects of Head Start when it began in 1965. What he and the other members of the committee told us was that Head Start needed to improve staff training, career development and wages. That we needed to improve management. And that we needed to provide better facilities. And we took their advice to heart.

In fact, since then we've turned around 200 grantees we identified as deficient. 100 other grantees have been terminated or relinquished their Head Start grants. And I should point out that this is the first time in the history of the program that any Head Start program was terminated. We've also launched the Head Start Family and Child Experiences Survey. Many of you know it as FACES. It's providing us with the first opportunity ever to use performance measures with a nationally representative survey of the Head Start community.

What we've learned so far through FACES has been encouraging. For example, we've found that the typical four-year-old completing Head Start does gain the knowledge and skills in early literacy and numeracy -- as well as the social skills -- that signify a true readiness to learn in kindergarten. We also found that, despite the many obstacles they face most Head Start parents participate in one Head Start activity each year. What's more, 90 percent of parents report being very satisfied with the program.

But the truth is much more needs to be done. We need to continue to monitor quality. Demand the highest standards in curriculum, training and programs. And, when a Head Start center plainly isn't working, we need to close and replace it.

The bottom line is that there are still over one million kids who should be in Head Start -- but aren't -- and almost three million young children who ought to get into Early Head Start -- but can't. That's why it's up to us to challenge the education reform movement with the simple message that the way to create high- performance schools tomorrow begins with investing in Head Start and Early Head Start today. But it's not just early childhood education. It's quality after school care, too.

Today, 65 percent of American women with children under the age of six are in the workforce. For women with children between the ages of 6 and 17 the number soars to 78 percent. Now, most Americans understand the value of quality child care to working parents. But few realize that NICHD found that quality child care also provides long-term education gains for kids. Studies confirm that children receiving quality care demonstrate greater thinking and attention skills. They show fewer behavioral problems. Conversely, kids receiving poor care have been found to suffer from delayed language and reading skills -- and show more aggression toward others.

Given the kind of impact child care workers clearly have on a child's ability to learn, you might expect there'd be minimum expectations of child care providers. But the truth is that while hairdressers and manicurists must receive hundreds of hours of training to become accredited, only a handful of states require providers to receive any early childhood education training at all prior to serving children in their homes. Back in Washington, we've tried to address that. In fact, our Child Care Initiative would represent the largest single investment in quality child care in the history of this country. Even more, by emphasizing training, it would help transform childcare from the job it is and into the profession it ought to be.

Do public schools have a role to play in early childhood education and the provision of after-school care? I think they do. At a minimum, if we're going to create a seamless system the development of services in both fields needs to be coordinated with local schools. But, even more, as we address the need for school construction and renovation -- an issue I'll speak to in a moment -- we also need to consider possibilities for co-location.

We've already made inroads in promoting exactly this kind of coordination between Head Start programs and the providers of child care for pre-schoolers. As you know, the fact that Head Start is a part-day program has historically presented a special obstacle to the children of working parents. In response, we're now providing incentives for Head Start programs to coordinate their hours and services with child care providers -- up to, and including, co-location. Just imagine, for a moment, how much more effective we could be if we could forge similar partnerships involving public schools.Closing the circle between public health and public education goes well beyond strengthening early childhood education and child care. That leads me to the second point of our agenda, safeguarding the health of America's students.

Years from now, historians might agree that the most important education initiative of this decade wasn't the discussion of core curriculum or cultural literacy. No, it was the creation of the CHIP: the Children's Health Insurance Program. Why? Because we know that uninsured children are less likely to be immunized as pre-schoolers and, as they grow up, are less likely to be treated for illnesses from asthma to tooth decay. In fact, twice as many uninsured kids go for a full year - or more - without ever seeing a doctor as children who have health insurance.

And anyone who's ever taught school knows what that means. It means children who should be learning in classrooms are waiting outside hospital emergency rooms. Or, even worse, they're not receiving any care at all and are sick at home watching TV. According to one study by the State of Florida, uninsured children are 25 times more likely to miss school!

But even though we've already enrolled 1.3 million young people into CHIP, there are millions more who are eligible but haven't yet been signed up. And it isn't just CHIP. Across this country four million other children are eligible for Medicaid, but haven't yet been enrolled. Schools can - and are - playing an important part in helping to promote CHIP and Medicaid. There are schools in this country where teachers -- and even students -- are actively organizing grassroots outreach. And I invite each of you to become a part of that effort. Not simply because helping kids get insurance is morally right, but again, because health is a precondition for learning.

And that extends well beyond guaranteeing that children are able to receive the health care they need. It also demands that their schools be safe enough both to learn in - and to teach in.

As I mentioned a moment ago, we must address the issue of infrastructure. Not only are too many schools overcrowded, but some 28,000 need new heating, ventilation and air conditioning systems. 23,000 schools have inadequate plumbing and 21,000 need major roof repairs.

I think Sandy Feldman of AFT summed it up best when she said, "if we're serious about kids meeting new and higher academic standards, we have to make sure they have decent places to learn." But I know she'd agree that it takes more than brick and mortar to build a truly safe learning environment.

The 15 murders at Columbine High School shook America to the core. And it should have. Although most children are safe in their schools, the truth is that, today, homicide is the second leading cause for death for young people between the ages of 15 and 24. And, among African-Americans it's the number one cause. And, as Columbine and the shootings in Georgia remind us, this is not a crisis of overcrowded big city schools.

Just ask Elizabeth Meyers, a school social worker in a small town outside Lansing, Michigan. "At the white, rural high school where I work, kids talk to me about violence on TV and in music. They think the 'ghetto' is cool. That violence can't be avoided and that anyone who can't see that must be crazy."

What created the culture of violence? The truth is we don't know all the reasons. Right now Surgeon General Satcher is preparing a special report on youth violence. The White House is even establishing a new Council on Youth Violence. But we know some of the reasons. For example, the National Longitudinal Study tells us that adolescents who report a close connection with their parents were the least likely to engage in risky behaviors. That's why any effective strategy must include a long-term commitment to help adults strengthen their parenting skills.

Similarly, we now know that how a young person interacts with his or her school, community and family can often predict both positive and negative outcomes. What the data -- and our own experience -- suggests to me are three fundamental truths.

The first is that simply adding funds to federal programs -- while important -- cannot do the whole job. We need to also build new partnerships with state and local government, community organizations and, of course schools. The second, as Ms. Meyers suggests, is that we need to better appreciate how the culture of violence is truly impacting young people. That requires us to involve adolescents themselves as active participants in crafting our strategies. And the third, and perhaps most fundamental truth of all, is that policymakers need to define our mission less as preventing violence, and more as promoting positive youth development.

No one involved with TC needs to be reminded of the devastating effect violence -- and the fear of violence -- is having on teachers and students alike. Or that, faced with it, many parents have opted to abandon public schools entirely in favor of private institutions with smaller, more disciplined classes. While that's their right, of course, I do not think abandoning public schools -- let alone subsidizing it through vouchers - - represents any long-term solution.

Instead of investing in the abandonment of public schools, I'd rather we invest in making them safer. We can do it through strengthening the role of school counselors. Through community policing. Through presenting young people with positive alternatives and the skills to avoid confrontation and violence. That means using classrooms not only to teach science and math, but cooperation, team work and non-violent approaches to conflict resolution - something they're not watching on TV, they're not hearing on the radio, and tragically for too many, they're not learning at home.

And that leads to my third point, preparing students to lead healthy lives as adults. Today, fully nine out of ten Americans agree with the proposition that public schools should provide character education - including the teaching of manners and values. Now, I know there are some educators who hear that and cringe. Too often, it seems what some advocates of teaching values really want is to teach things that are better learned at home and in Sunday school.

I think, to most Americans, teaching values means helping students understand their responsibilities to others and themselves. It means teaching the value of non-violence. The value of avoiding tobacco, alcohol, drug abuse and sexual activity. It means teaching young people the value of respecting people who are different than they are. It's about positive youth development.

When I was Principal for a Day in a New York City high school, I asked the students how we could help them avoid risky behaviors. One young woman stood up and said: "Make me strong inside."

Can we have an impact? The data not only tells us that we can, but that we are.

Out-of-wedlock birth rates are down. We're even making headway in the fight against teen drug abuse and tobacco use. But, again, much more needs to be done. And that begins when educators recognize that health education - in the broadest sense of the term -- isn't ancillary to reforming America's schools, but integral to it. That's something I know each of you understands.

My friend, the late Al Shanker, once recalled a parable he had heard about some people picnicking beside a river when they see an enormous number of children carried down the river by the current. Their first impulse, of course, was to jump in and pull as many children out of the water as they could. But the children keep coming and the rescuers can't save them all. No one even thought to run up the river to see how they were falling in. Well, today, we're seeing millions of children being carried away in a current of ignorance and neglect.

And though it's our mission as educators and advocates to wade in and pull them to dry land, we also have a responsibility to go upstream ourselves - to challenge the poverty, to cure the disease, and to confront the apathy - and, by working together, see to it that no child ever falls into that river again. Thank you.