Over the past couple months, I've been asked to participate in a few panel discussions about Waiting for "Superman". The film presents a stark, moving portrayal of the denial of educational opportunities in low-income communities of color. But while the movie includes statements such as 'we know what's wrong' and 'we know how to fix it', viewers of the movie are hard-pressed to identify those causes and solutions -- other than to boo and hiss at teachers' unions and to cheer at the heroic charter school educators.
So in the panel discussions we try to make sense of that simplistic black-hat/white-hat story. We argue about whether the movie offers a fair and complete picture (it doesn't even come close, unfortunately). But we never get to deeper issues about what's wrong and how to fix it.
I thought about that when leaving a showing of the other prominent documentary currently showing, called Inside Job. It offers an explanation of how the current economic crisis came about, describing the securitization of mortgages; the extraordinary leveraging of assets; the regulatory capture by Wall Street leading to minimal enforcement of federal regulations -- a deregulation intended to spur innovation; and the fraud, greed, hubris and general belief among hedge fund titans and others in the financial services world that they are infallible. The film also points out the growing and now extreme inequality of wealth distribution in the United States "The top 1 percent of American earners took in 23.5 percent of the nation's pretax income in 2007 -- up from less than 9 percent in 1976."
Consider those final three items: (1) the advocacy of deregulation in order to free up innovation, (2) hubris and general belief among hedge fund titans that they are infallible, and (3) increased wealth inequality. If Superman had explored these issues instead of bashing unions and promoting charters, moviegoers might have walked away understanding a great deal about why the families it profiled and so many similar families across America face a bleak educational future.
The movie certainly showed scenes of poverty, but its implications and the structural inequalities underlying that poverty were largely ignored. Devastating urban poverty was just there -- as if that were somehow the natural order of things but if we could only 'fix' schools it would disappear. Rick Hanushek is put forth, saying that if we fire the bottom 5 to 10 percent of the lowest-performing teachers every year, our national test scores would soon approach Finland at the top of international rankings in mathematics and science. But no mention is made of the telling fact that Finland had, in 2005, a child poverty rate of 2.8 percent while the United States had a rate of 21.9 percent. That gap has likely gotten even bigger over the intervening five years.
Rather than addressing these poverty issues, Superman serves up innovation through privatization and deregulation. We're shown charter schools that give hope to these families. But what we're not told is that the extra resources and opportunities found in these charters are funded in large part with donations from Wall Street hedge fund millionaires and billionaires. Problems of structural inequality and intergenerational poverty are pushed aside in favor of a 'solution' grounded in the belief that deregulation will prompt innovation, all the while guided by the infallible judgment of Wall Street tycoons. It's no wonder that Inside Job better explained the school crisis than did Waiting for Superman.
1) a summit on foreclosures (like "Education nation"). Attendees will be community organisers/groups llike ACORN which were crying out loud about predatory lending and those which work with poor people. And progressive economists like Krugman, Dean Baker, Rober Kuttner, Alyssa Katz (who wrote the awesome book "Our lot") etc - you know economists who raised alarm about the housing bubble.
2) Then NBC can host a session "Will there ever be a tsunami for Too Big to Fail banks?" (like the slimy "does education need a Hurricane Katrina?"
3) President Obama will be interviewed as part of the summit. And he will be asked : in view of foreclosuregate, do you think you will buy a house in the current market? And the Prez goes bombastic : "Let me be blunt. We are a nation of laws where contracts are sacred. I won't buy a house in such a nation. I am ashamed I didn't act with the fierce urgency of Now. Effective immediately, I am firing my economic team and will soon appoint credible economists who foresaw the housing bubble. I am immediately announcing a moratorium on all foreclosures. I will sign an executive order today . I apologize for using the conservative language while speaking against moratorium.Shame on me".
4) And the prez invites kids from homeless families (who have been screwed up in this catastrosphe caused by Wall street) to the White House. Just like he invited kids in the Superman movie.
And so on and on I dream.
So what does this mean? It means that the poorest neighborhoods can only spend the paltry sums they have on an education, while the wealthier communities create non-profit organizations and/or local bond measures to raise more money to augment what the state gives them. But even in the middle to upper middle class communities, parents are bombarded with nickel and dime requests for supplies and fees. So the real question is, why isn't enough money being allocated to public education to begin with? Because (a) corporations who do business in California do not pay their fair share of taxes because of good ol' Prop 13 and the profit-squeezing mentality of most companies these days, and (b) politicians have no stomach for raising taxes.
Teachers and administrators are not the bad guys here. They're doing what they can with what little they've got.
As a director of a policy think-tank, why not turn down invitations to sit on panels about movies and suggest that people who care to understand the issues read books, reports, and research studies? If your audiences are being frustrated by white-hat/black-hat stories, try educating them to going beyond viewing 3 hours of film to becoming thinking, responsible citizens. Then their notions might be based on facts, not the edited vision of documentry film-makers. Most of what people long to know is on the cutting room floor. I apologize for this sounding like a personal attack, but your serving on interpertative panels just adds credibility to a form that sheds so little light that panels have to be formed to explain that the films do not present the whole story.
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2010/nov/11/myth-charter-schools/
And btw, I agree with your insights about the effects of poverty in our society. Although I have never worked in an urban school system, nor have I had to deal with the levels of poverty that exist in many cities, for 17 years I was the principal of an elementary school in Appalachia with a relatively high percentage of students living in poverty. So, I have perhaps a greater appreciation for and understanding of the power of poverty than some others. I always tend to get a little impatient (to say the least) with those who like to claim that poverty is just an "excuse" offered by those who aren't willing to work as hard as others. You are correct when you suggest that poverty is at the heart of so many of our societal ills.
Thank you for your thoughtful commentary. I wish I were able to observe one of your panel discussions. I'm sure they are enlightening.
I'd imagine, living in a bad part of Washington DC, a way out is not as obvious as it would seem to those of use living in nice homes in the suburbs. We humans naturally rise to the level we were raised in. I grew up in a spacious house with big white walls and hardwood floors, and that's pretty much where I ended up as an adult - the path is obvious to me - but how to grow up to be CEO of some big bank making 20Mill/year? I have not the foggiest how somebody gets on that path, but in some households that's probably expected. If you grow up in real rat hole conditions, I'd guess the path to having a nice house in the suburbs is equally as baffling. What can be done about that?
But more to your point, I think it's a matter of obstacles/barriers and a matter of degree. Demography isn't destiny, but it sure does look like it when when it comes to overall odds and averages. Breaking the cycle on an individual level requires intensive supports. Breaking the cycle on a societal level requires meaningful structural changes in the distribution of wealth and resources.
http://nepc.colorado.edu/site-search/results/taxonomy%3A830.29%2C817
and
http://nepc.colorado.edu/site-search/results/taxonomy%3A830.29%2C819
In this empire of illusion that has come to be America, the corporate owned media ensure that slick propaganda, misinformation, and sound bytes pass for journalistic reporting, and the America public buy it hook, line and sinker. Market driven approaches have one goal in mind: increased profit with minimal outlay of capital. Inside job is exactly what is going on in education. No other profession would be expected to allow outsiders to come in and dictate what defines performance and how it will be assessed e.g. let's have a group of bankers decide what the standard for firemen should be or how many criminals each cop should catch to be considered effective.
We hail Finland as a model, but have no intention of incorporating any of their approaches because teachers form an integral part of assessment and curricular decisions, and the Finnish public consider teaching one of the most sought-after professions because of the influence and prestige associated with education.
Here in the U.S., quick, bubble-in testing now passes for accountability. Teachers have been branded the enemy who no longer can be trusted. Parents have been branded as incapable of making sound decisions about their child's education. And scripted curricula that demand "fidelity" ensure the assembly line of education can be controlled.
Clearly, what is currently passing for education reform is nothing more than smoke and mirrors designed to increase profit, control curriculum, and stupidify American education.
As for specific policies, I would stress two things: (1) no one policy is the 'solution', and (2) we won't see happy education results unless we address both concentrated poverty and schooling needs. W/regard to the latter, best practices call for strong supports for students and teachers; engaging, relevant curriculum; safe, inviting school cultures; etc. Policies like high-quality early childhood education are also important. Those of you who spend time in schools will immediately recognize these things as present/absent in the good/bad schools you visit. It's time we stopped looking for quick fixes and started making the necessary investments.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/answer-sheet/race-to-the-top/cutting-food-stamps-for-race-t.html
Resources are allocated by legislators who are elected by the "people." The resources will be distributed more or less in accordance with the populations perceptions of importance; education is not a high priority for the American population or they would not stand for this lopsided distribution of resources.
We have lowering test scores and high drop out rates. I maintain that the lack of interest indicates the people do not really understand the purpose or usefulness of education. Does this make any sense?
So what do we do to address this issue? Are there additional skills to teach students that will result in turning this situation around in a generation or so? Look at the quality of our political rhetoric for an indication of what is going wrong with education and this is not a result of inequitable distribution of resources.
Sincerely, Michael Gerety
Of course, it's important to add here that an investment in a high-quality and equitable ed system has benefits that go far beyond the economy.
Think about the individual. Education has a *direct* affect on an individual's 'economic health'. Poorly educated people generally have poor economic prospects... and those can prospects affect other areas of that person's life. It's true of the individual and of the US. Lately we have just been importing our educated workers via H1-B, etc.
Also, your earlier comment "But it's an equity crisis. In well-resourced communities...." suggests that money solves the problem, which is false. There are many examples of high-funded schools/districts that aren't 'performing'. Again, go back to the local situation... if you doubled the funding (double pay for the teachers, more equipment, etc) at a school in one of these 'low-wealth communities of color', would it change the output? You'd have the same teachers, same administration, etc. Contrast that to what happens in the private world... a company or division is not performing, they don't throw money at the under-performing team; they sack the CEO or division head, and the new guy comes in w/ new people and a new approach.
As for the poverty, how do you fix that? Yoou aren't going to fix that by handing out $100 bills, right? people need to be educated to get better jobs w/ better pay....
It would sure help if people knew who was on the side of the kids, and who was on the side of the money.
The money side consists of some of the richest people in America who have suddenly become in Education .
How dare teachers get paid for teaching! Money is for corporations, not middle-class drudges like you and me.......
It was pretty obvious to me that the makers of "Waiting for Superman" are advocating for the kids and parents whose hopes are pretty much dashed by the intractable, immovable bureaucracy of mediocrity in many, many public schools. The filmmakers could have improved the film by including interviews with good teachers, making it more clear that treating teachers as a monolithic entity, as do some defenders of the status quo, is not realistic or helpful.
It's not helpful to be uncritically for or against all teachers, all teachers unions, all rich people, when it comes to trying to figure out the next steps for public education in this country. None of these groups is monolithic. The landscape in the education reform arena is way more complicated than that.