Davis Guggenheim is a gifted storyteller, and his new documentary Waiting for "Superman" is an emotional narrative propelled and made meaningful by the children whose story it tells. Anthony, Bianca, Daisy, Emily, and Francisco are winsome and riveting, and as viewers of the film, we deeply want the best for them; we want them to have every opportunity -- we want them to be safe, affirmed, supported, and we want their talents and ambitions to have secure environments where they can grow and gain focus. In Superman, the fate of their safe development becomes contingent on their improbable acceptance to a few high-demand charter schools, all of which read as veritable paradises in the dank world of public education (Guggenheim himself, as we learn in the opening of the film, drives by three public schools in order to drop his own children off at a private institution of learning). We wait with baited breath to hear the outcomes of their lotteries, the climax of the film, and witness their fates gambled.
What we want, and what we often call education is the safe and supported development of the whole and complex child, a delicate and imperative undertaking that is ideally shared by family, friends, and educators. In Superman it is not a task that public schools are living up to; they are presented as failure factories weighted down by "lemon" teachers and gated and protected by progress-hindering unions. As we wait for the names to pulled from hats, and the computerized randomization systems to spit out codes, and the numbered balls to be plucked from bingo cages, it is clear that the fates of the children in the film are as polarized as Guggenheim's view of education: the landscape of success is comprised of charter schools, and the abyss of failure is defined by public education. The perspective is divisively problematic; the film does well to galvanize an overdue conversation about education in America, but presents a fiercely oversimplified portrait of the players, makes sloppy assignments of heroes and villains, and misses a big opportunity by failing to offer anything besides ambiguity with regards to next steps for the education of children in the United States.
Superman points out that though the U.S. is falling farther and farther behind in international rankings of math and science, it is the global leader in levels of youth self-confidence. It's a tongue-in-cheek talking point, and what is untouched is a much more frightening and relevant statistic about another category where American youth lead internationally: child poverty. There is a manifest correlation between America's global educational decline and its internal swell of children living in poverty (currently more than 20% of children nationwide). Anthony, Bianca, and the other children in the film have the common support of remarkably dedicated parents, but this is not a guaranteed asset for all American children. There are more than a million children in the United States surviving in zero-parent households, and comparable numbers of children going hungry on any given day. As the middle class shrinks and the ravaging effects of class difference becomes increasingly apparent (and the intrinsic toxicity of imbalance palpable), the public education structures in this country will continue to quake. And it is not because of blithe unions and uninterested teachers. It will be because of the terrifying effects of poverty on the development of young people. Davis Guggenheim has his finger on the pulse, but it is still a long way off from the heart of the matter.
A child's success is based on so much. And so is a school's: effective teaching, thoughtful leadership, consistent parental involvement, and a positive and powerful school culture of trust, diligence, and high expectations. When these elements align, be it at a local neighborhood school, a charter school, an alterative school, or a private institution, it is it possible to foster the essentiality of asking tough and important questions. It is feasible to empower students with the critical reflection, skills of patient problem-solving and empirical reasoning, and curiosity to fully recognize the gaping class issues in America today. Ultimately, Guggenheim promotes a dialogue, which is a step in the right direction for American students and educators, but it is a dialogue that needs to be expanded beyond the unfairly polarized designations of tragedy and triumph.
Peter W. Cookson, Jr.: Waiting for "Superman": Another Rescue Fantasy?
Sabrina Stevens Shupe: Saving Schools from the 'Supermen'
2) Public schools can do the job. The top third of our public schools are the very best in the world. Those successful public schools are also are the best-funded. You can't lay off teachers and fail to even repair lighting and plumbing in a school building, and expect those schools and teachers to perform. It's madness.
3) I am dismayed to see how ignorant most Progressives are, when it comes to public Education, and how little they care to get to the bottom of the problems they think they see. "Waiting for Superman" is not a good documentary, yet many progressive people apparently love it. Progressives: Compare "Superman" to the Republican agenda that you already know. There is a REASON why the Republicans have been trying to dismantle public education for the last forty years. Buy a clue.
4) For starters, let's all go review what educational research says -- not the Management research that passes for Educational research today; but REAL educational research. How do children learn? What do they need? What gets in the way? What can teachers do, to promote learning? Let's do those things. We already have the data; let the data lead the way.
tt77
http://www.mendeducation.blogspot.com
do you plan on spending your entire career as a public school educator or are you just another "idealistic" upper middle class dilettante with almost no experience who comes in and tells everybody what is wrong with the schools and teachers in general?
or would you rather go work with michelle rhee at some high funded plush "think tank" that will save us from these horrid teachers who dare to have unions rep them?
fanned!
http://www.pnas.org/content/106/16/6545.full
And research shows that income level and education level of parents has a correlation with childrens' success in school.
http://www.education.pitt.edu/ocd/publications/backgrounds/01.pdf
This movie denies that money is an important factor, but does not tell how much private money has been poured into the Harlem Children's Zone. Do we want schools that beg corporations for money in order to become successful? What will be the price? I believe we've had a taste of this corporate giving when cola companies were competing for lucrative exclusive school contracts and made demands, such as that all students had to wear the company's logo t-shirt to school. While I have great respect for Geoffrey Canada and believe in his idea of uplifiting the whole community and not just the school, I noticed that he now does commericials for a credit card company.
It is not unusual for a student to be in and out of the class several times in a year as parents try to keep a roof over their heads. Doing homework is considered wimpy, and academic success brings immediate social misery. Are we surprised that these students do poorly? What charter school would even take them?
fanned
"17 percent, provide superior education opportunities for their students. Nearly half of the charter schools nationwide have results that are no different from the local public school options and over a third, 37 percent, deliver learning results that are significantly worse than their student would have realized had they remained in traditional public schools."
-Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO) 2009
So some, a minority, of the charter schools are doing better, the majority are just the same as public schools, and 37% of the charter schools are doing a worse just than the public schools. We need to end the myth that charters school are the solution, and try to figure out something else.
.
A well fed child with interested parents can get a good education almost anywhere. A hungry child with drug-addicted or totally absent parents needs regular meals and parenting before even the best teacher is going to make so much as a dent.
Inflation adjusted costs have doubled per student over the last 20 years.
Student proficiency has almost halved.
Any sane system would scrub the whole system, instead they are just given more $, like that will help.
Government is by definition the worst service provider, they do not compete so they have no regulating mechanism to improve service and performance.
Instead they always end up serving themselves.
This is on display, in all of its terrible and ugly realism, with public education.
Two: the USPS can deliver a letter across the continent, in two days, for .44. FedEx can't do it for less than 9.00. Even with the billions in subsidies, the cost of a letter via the USPS is still less than 1.00. There are plenty of areas where govt is far more efficient in providing services than the private sector. The singular problem with public schools vs any other system is that PSs are forced to accept all students, regardless of how some of those students will disrupt the classroom experience. Remove that problem and priavet & charter schools will be obsolete overnite.
Let's weed out those students who shouldn't be in a classroom and put THEM in charter schools or give THEM vouchers to attend private schools or simply put them into vocational/career track classrooms. It would be far less expensive to turn public school classrooms back into learning centers by removing the minority who are problem students.
If a public school kicks a student out of school, that student's test score is 0.
Maybe he should have done School Of Rock 2 instead...