Bloomberg, Sharpton and Gingrich

By Helene Cooper

They don’t agree on much, but New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, the Rev. Al Sharpton and former Speaker Newt Gingrich put aside their differences on Thursday to talk up public education at the White House.

“This is an issue that should bring all Americans together,” Mr. Gingrich told reporters at a stakeout after meeting with Mr. Obama and the two New Yorkers.

“Fifty-five years after Brown versus the Board of Education, there’s still a difference in how students get up in the morning and go to school,” Mr. Sharpton said. “Some are treated differently. Some are funded differently. Some face different principles, different teachers. There is a difference in the quality of education.”

The White House session came on the same day that Mr. Obama unveiled $17 billion in targeted budget cuts, including some for education. But Mr. Obama’s stimulus plan includes $15 billion for early learning programs and big one-time spending for elementary and secondary education as well.

Related: Obama to Stay Neutral in Campaign for Mayor

Comments are no longer being accepted.

Axl May 7, 2009 · 3:24 pm

President Barack Obama deserves an award for tricking Newt Gingrich into a photo op with Al Sharpton. I’m glad they agree on something. Children are the future and education is the down-payment.

Tietjens May 7, 2009 · 3:49 pm

Newt Gingrich shocked those at the White House meeting with his five point plan for improving public education:

1) Scrap science classes altogether
2) Give students a tax cut
3) Make (Christian) prayer mandatory
4) Crush the teacher’s unions
5) Vouchers, vouchers, vouchers

In reference to teaching children their times tables, Newt claimed that there was one proven method: drill, baby, drill!

SJ May 7, 2009 · 3:50 pm

It’s extremely important for all Americans to have equal access to quality public schools.

Jimmy Ortega May 7, 2009 · 3:52 pm

Infrastructure in schools is a problem. How is that problem being solved?
It is unlikely that talking to buffoons like Sharpton or Gingrich will be helpful in anything but getting media attention. But, maybe that is the Obama goal.

JWM May 7, 2009 · 3:59 pm

SJ, I’d say to all quality schools via a voucher.

SJ May 7, 2009 · 4:34 pm

JWM, Just going along with what you said for the sake of argument: so you think that if we took all of the kids in public school today and dumped them into “quality schools”, then they would actually have the classrooms, staff, buildings, transportation and textbooks to teach those kids? Have you done research into how many “quality schools” there are and how many low quality schools there are? How do you know that quality schools have the spare capacity to handle hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of extra kids?

markOfBrooklyn May 7, 2009 · 5:26 pm

When all children goto quality schools then the same cycle repeats itself: there will be low quality anf failing quality schools. SO we’ll have to create another category of better schools to which we then dump everyubody and when those schools fail, we’ll startover again.

NC May 7, 2009 · 10:13 pm

— Tietjens – 4 & 5 are fine. Glad you’ve changed sides. Choice in some form will allow some kids to escape caretaker schools, now.

For those with inadequate parents, time is needed. We need to make illegitamcy rare. It was rare before the Great Society programs made it possible to live without working. Those programs must be eliminated over time, except anti-discrimination laws.

You noted “The number one factor in determining educational success is the income level of the student’s mother.” Surely that income must be earned, not transferred.

Greg of MA May 8, 2009 · 8:03 am

To NC and others:

Vouchers are a band-aid. They will not solve the education crisis facing this country. To suggest them even as an short-term solution demonstrates the lack of exposure to just how deep this crisis truly is.

I agree that parents need to be involved NC – in fact, that’s the number one issue. Lack of parental involvement significantly lowers a student’s chance of succeeding.

Second is funding, not just for teachers, but for the schools themselves. We need more teachers, for smaller classrooms, and better facilities. Schools must restructure to allow top-achieving students to receive the same amount of resources as low-performing students (who currently receive a disproportionately high number of resources). As far as teacher pay is concerned, merit based-pay cannot be solely based on the performance of the students. That will fail to attract quality teachers to instruct already low-performing students.

Third is community involvement. Schools that are successful have a high level of community involvement in the after-school programs offered, whether those programs be sports, theater, or other activities. A wicked intelligent woman once said “it takes a village to raise a child”.

NC May 8, 2009 · 7:22 pm

— Greg of MA –
“Schools must restructure to allow top-achieving students to receive the same amount of resources as low-performing students” – Absolutely.

For community involvement you need neighbourhood schools. No cross-bussing or constant school changes.

You can only change a few parents over a long period of time. Vouchers help some now. They introduce competition, the cornerstone of our economy. It is what we fundamentally believe in. Brooks has an editorial today about the charter schools operated by the Harlem Children’s Zone – I hope the schools are that good.

Alex May 12, 2009 · 2:56 am

Brooks’ editorial touts Promise Academy as a “Harlem Miracle.” In the long-running debate in educational reform between an approach that focuses on the larger community and environment surrounding young students and a focus exclusively on “no-excuses” schools, Brooks cites Promise Academy’s amazing gains in educational achievement among inner city youth as evidence on the side of a school only approach. However, as can be seen in Boston Review’s new article “No Ordinary Success,” Promise Academy actually represents a synthesis of these two camps emerging in the education reform debate. Whether successful schools like Promise Academy, the result of extraordinary teachers and resources, really represent a model that can be implemented on a larger scale remains to be seen.

Check out the article here: //bostonreview.net/BR34.3/forman.php