Most Americans probably agree that the government needs to be more careful about the way it spends their money. So when members of Congress propose taking an ax to programs that have already been funded for this fiscal year, they look very tough and very prudent. But I wonder how many people realize exactly what's being done in the name of good management. Some of the proposed cuts, or rescissions as they are called, are downright mean -- like the elimination of heating subsidies for poor elderly citizens. Others -- like some of the education cuts -- will destroy or endanger important long-term goals and should make the American public question the sense of priorities they reflect. In terms of education cuts, I don't know which is more shameful, the 43 percent cut proposed for Goals 2000 or the proposed zeroing-out of the Safe and Drug-Free Schools act. I'll talk about both.
We've been working for a long time to create an education reform that would raise the achievement level of all our students. Goals 2000: Educate America Act, which was signed into law last year, gives us a good shot at doing that. It is not perfect: Like a car in its first model year, Goals 2000 has some bugs that need to be worked out. But it balances two essential elements. One is the idea of challenging national or state standards for what students should know and be able to do -- which is an essential ingredient in the successful education systems of other industrial democracies. The other is a recognition of the central role that states and communities must play in deciding how to bring the new standards to the classroom.
The cuts that are being called for will cripple important Goals 2000 programs or eliminate them altogether. All funding would be wiped out at the national level. This means, for example, that there would be no money for technical assistance to reforming schools or for the peer review panels, composed of teachers, community members, business people and others, which are designed to evaluate state improvement plans. But since most of the 1995 funding is to flow through the states to school districts, local reform efforts will take the biggest hit. With almost 40 percent of the local-level funding gone, many schools will not get seed money to help them in translating the new standards into school improvement plans that make sense for their schools. And even if they are able to manage that with existing funds, they will have no money to help teachers prepare to teach the new and demanding curriculums.
It's popular now to talk about wresting power from the government in Washington and returning it to the hands of the people. But what is the point of gutting an education bill designed to give local people a central role in deciding how they want to change their schools? It seems like some kind of bad joke.
Another bad joke is the proposal to take away all funding from the Safe and Drug-Free Schools act. We know that safe and drug-free schools are a top priority for most Americans. They realize that kids who are frightened cannot learn, and many fear for the safety of their own children. This new law, which completely reworks existing legislation that dealt with drugs alone, proposes a whole range of programs to address the problems of school violence, from peer mediation to extra security personnel and metal detectors. Many schools hesitate to expel dangerous or disruptive students because it doesn't do these youngsters -- or their communities -- any good to put them out on the street. Safe and Drug-Free Schools would also help solve this problem by offering money to help set up alternative classes for these kids. If the rescissions stand, these programs will be over before they start. Schools will also face big cutbacks in their drug programs, most of which depend heavily on federal money. In New York City alone, these programs will lose a quarter of their funding.
The proposal to cut $1.7 billion from the federal education budget this year raises serious questions about the priorities of the people who are pushing it. Do they think it is more important to finance a capital gains tax cut for the wealthiest Americans or build more weapons systems than to help create safe and high-achieving schools? If so, I believe most Americans would agree that they've gone far beyond whatever mandate they had. The cuts are still under discussion and maybe our elected representatives in Washington can be persuaded to think again. It's up to the people who care about education and safe schools to speak their minds.