April 12, 2015 - 15:21
Waiting for ‘Superman’ examines the issues facing public school systems in the United States in many cities. It uses statistics and narratives of teachers, reformers, and families to address standardized testing, public school funding, teachers’ unions and tenure, tracking, and how each of these can affect a public school system and the ability of the students in that system to succeed. It compares the academic standards of different states and the dropout rates of different high schools in cities across America, and speculates on why some schools are failing. It also discusses what happens to most high-school dropouts, and why it is increasingly important in today’s society for children to be well-educated and prepared to attend a four-year college, if they so choose. It explores charter schools as an alternative to neighborhood public schools, and paints them as a possible solution to many of the issues facing urban public schools. Geoffrey Canada, founder of the Harlem Childrens’ Zone, is interviewed and explains many of the issues that are addressed in the film. He is pro-charter schools, and we have read some of his opinions in the NY Times article The Push-Back on Charter Schools.
While watching the film, there were many topics that I noticed the film addressed but did not expand upon as much as it could have, because we have read or talked about other perspectives on these topics, and learned more details in class, than the film presented. For example, when the film first introduced the concept of charter schools, it said that charter schools are “public schools with public money, but independently run”, and it stated that about a fifth of charter schools produce “amazing results”. The film then looked at a few examples of very successful charter schools (such as KIPP schools) and followed the narratives of families who wanted to send their children to those charter schools for various reasons. The film only looked at the top performing charters, and left out many of the problems with charter schools. One of the readings we discussed in class investigated the opacity of charter school funding and organization (Pedro Noguera, Why Don’t We Have Real Data on Charter Schools?). Most charter schools receive some private funding and do not publish how they spend it, which makes it difficult for other schools learn what makes some charters successful, and others less so. As we discussed in class, this creates competition, rather than collaboration, in a public school system. Schools are forced to come up with their own, creative solutions to educational problems and compete for the best students, instead of learning from each others’ successes. The film also did not address what happens in a school district when a large number of students leave a public neighborhood school in favor of a charter school. The district will lose money when this happens because they must pay a set amount of money per student no matter what school those students go to, and they must also pay to keep both the neighborhood schools and the charter schools open. Additionally, when too many students leave a neighborhood school to go to a charter school, the neighborhood school may be forced to close because it costs too much to maintain the near-empty building. This then leaves the district with the dilemma of where to send all of the students who were attending the neighborhood school.
Another topic the film somewhat glossed over (but we have covered more in depth in our class) is standardized testing and the No Child Left Behind initiative. The film depicts how excited teachers and parents were when President Bush first announced NCLB in 2002, but then gave statistics on how poorly most states were doing in meeting the goal outlined by NCLB (that every state would have 100% of students proficient in math and reading by 2014). When this film was made in 2010, no state was close to meeting this goal. In Washington, DC, only 12% of 8th graders were proficient in math, and even in high-performing states such as Massachusetts, fewer than 50% of 8th graders were proficient in math. The amounts of student who were proficient in reading were similar in all states. The movie did not delve into why states were unable to meet these standards, and what NCLB planned to do to help states meet these goals. It did not discuss what happens to a school if it does not meet adequate yearly progress (AYP) for one or more years. In the article How to Destroy a Public School System by David Denvir, we read about the drawbacks of letting schools be taken over by charters when they fail to meet AYP, and how closing neighborhood schools can destroy the feeling of community in that neighborhood. Often, NCLB does not offer proper support or resources to “failing” schools, it simply threatens them with the possibility of being shut down or taken over if they do not raise their test scores. The pressure of needing a certain number of students to pass an exam stunts teachers’ creativity and makes many adhere to a strict to-the-test curriculum which leaves students bored and frustrated.
Still, some parts of this film really complemented discussions that we have had in class and readings we’ve been assigned, and even went into more depth on some topics than we were able to go in class. One example of this is the section of the film that investigates the problems that arise from having teachers’ unions and tenure which is very easily attained. At the end of one of our classes, we made a list of pros and cons of teachers’ unions, yet we only discussed this list briefly. In the film there is a lot of focus on what makes a teacher “good” or “bad”, and why it is so difficult to fire a bad teacher who has attained tenure. Multiple examples are given of teachers with bad practices who cannot be fired, and what different states do to deal with these “bad” teachers. Often, the measures that states take to keep bad teachers out of the classroom without firing them are costly and leave teachers with all the benefits of full employment. One example given is the “rubber rooms” in New York, where bad teachers are kept for up to several months while they wait for hearings, receiving full pay and health care benefits. Not only is this costly, but keeping bad teachers employed really negatively impacts the success of a school and its students’ achievement. According to Eric Hanushek, who was interviewed in the film, if the United States could fire the bottom 6-10% of its teachers and replace them with average teachers, the US could compete with Finland in proficiency in math and reading (Finland had the highest NAEP scores in each of those categories when the film was made). Finally, it delves into the issue of teachers’ unions and the incredible amount of political power they have. It explains that teachers’ unions began as a way for female teachers to advocate for equal pay and job security, but now, according to Michelle Rhee, former chancellor of the DC public schools, many participants in teachers’ unions feel that they are entitled to a teaching job, even if they are unenthusiastic and do not cover the full curriculum that they are supposed to cover. Because of teachers’ unions, teachers have more job security than doctors and lawyers, and it is very difficult for a school district to take away the teaching credentials of a teacher, even if the teacher has sexually abused a student or committed some other crime. I feel like I better understand now why some teachers choose not to be in a union (if they are at a charter or private school), and why parents may want to send their children to a school that does not require teachers to be a part of a union.
The film also gives a more national perspective on many of the issues that we’ve discussed in class. We’ve used Philadelphia as a case study in this course, but this film gives examples of struggling urban schools in California, New York, Washington DC, Illinois, and many other states. It addresses the issue of varying state standards, pointing out that a student could fail a state standardized exam in Massachusetts, but drive an hour south to Connecticut and pass the same exam. It details the different courses in that students must pass in certain states in order to graduate high school prepared for a four-year college.
There are some issues and topics that this movie covered that we barely discussed at all in class or read about, such as the benefits and drawbacks of tracking students, and the fact that many lower class and minority students begin slipping in terms of grades and school attendance around fifth to seventh grade, and they later become the high school students most likely to drop out, even if they were motivated and performed well in elementary school. One of the narratives in the film is of a middle school student in California who says that she enjoys math, but isn’t very good at it. Her neighborhood schools have a good reputation, but her parents want to send her to a nearby charter school because the charter school does not have tracking. This school believes that all students, regardless of skill level, should be able to take the highest level of classes that they want to take. The film goes on to describe how tracking works, and says that often, when students are placed in a lower track, they have worse teachers, don’t learn as much, and it becomes harder and harder for them to catch up to their peers. While I don’t necessarily agree with this view of tracking (I think tracking can be immensely helpful to students and teachers, and in my public high school and many others, the same teachers taught the higher track and lower track courses within a subject), it is an important topic to address. The other issue introduced to me in the film is the idea that there is a specific period of time, usually in middle school, where economically disadvantaged and minority students begin to fall behind their peers (according to Geoffrey Canada). Many of our readings were about high schools or elementary schools, and my placement is at a Philadelphia high school. I wish we had talked more about what can be done in the middle school phase to prevent disadvantaged students from losing motivation and slipping behind (or from being pulled away from schoolwork by family issues and the need to earn money).
Overall, I enjoyed watching the film and appreciated that they used a combination of facts and statistics, and relatable narratives of families in different states, to inform the viewer about some important issues facing public schools in this country. Some topics were covered in depth and examined in a way that I feel complemented what I have learned in this class and other education classes I’ve taken. However, some topics were glossed over and in the end, charter schools were glorified as the solution to all of the issues discussed. I’m glad that, since we have discussed charter schools in depth in this class, I could keep in mind while watching this film that it does not give a reliable depiction of most charter schools, only the top fifth of them.
Sources:
Davis Guggenheim, Waiting for Superman (documentary), 2010
Pedro Noguera, Why Don’t We Have Real Data on Charter Schools?, September 24, 2014 http://www.thenation.com/article/181753/why-dont-we-have-real-data-charter-schools
Daniel Denvir, How to Destroy a Public School System, September 24, 2014, http://www.thenation.com/article/181754/how-destroy-public-school-system