Waiting for 'Superman'

As I've mentioned before, one of the things that I'm passionate about is education. Growing up I attended a small, public high school in Pennsylvania. My graduating class had 81 students. I am fortunate to be where I am today because I had teachers who pushed me--who would except nothing short of my best effort. However, I realize that not everyone has access to the opportunities and the education that I had. 

I recently had the opportunity to watch the documentary "Waiting for 'Superman.'" For those who haven't seen it, it was directed by Davis Guggenheim and released in 2010. It focuses on the problems in the American public education system and failing test scores. Additionally, the film looks at charter schools--one answer to some of the problems of public education. Waiting for 'Superman' follows a handful of students, as they enter lotteries in their respective school districts, hoping to become one of the chosen few selected for entrance into the charter school. 

Waiting for 'Superman' Official Trailer

The film was interesting to me as it shed light on charter schools. There are some charter schools which provide specialized education or curriculum (e.g. the arts, technical vocational training). Other charter schools attempt to provide a better general education than other nearby or neighborhood public schools--similar to the type of schools that are profiled in the documentary. But is the charter school model really the answer we need or are there other issues at hand?

I'm not opposed to charter schools in general. Charters are great in that they can allow communities to  create an education system that works for their students/teachers/parents/etc. At the same time, they can often bypass some of the bureaucracy and red-tape public schools must handle. Some of these charter schools are doing quite well.  But in Waiting for Superman, they paint quite a rosy picture of charter-type schools. It sends the message that the only hope for the future of our society is for students to escape from underperforming public schools with lazy, uninterested teachers and attend the shiny new charter schools.

And yet...
One statistic mentioned passingly in the film was that only 1 in 5 charter schools have students performing above the level of public schools. We don't hear about the remaining 80% of schools that are performing at the same level or even below public schools. This raises the question--are charter schools really the answer?

The film criticizes teachers and teacher's unions as one of the major problems in the public sphere. They suggest a merit-based pay system for teachers whose students perform well. Certainly, there are teachers in any school system (not just public schools) that are lazy and uninterested. (I'm sure many of you have seen the video recorded earlier this month in Duncanville, TX, where Jeff Bliss stands up to his teacher for simply passing out worksheets instead of actively engaging the class.) But to me, it seems like merit-based pay will only encourage teachers to cheat--loading their classes with only the top students. Or if they can't do that, continuing the NCLB/Race to the Top model of teaching to the test instead of encouraging exploration and critical thinking skills.

Jeff Bliss stands up to his teacher

Several of the factors the film fails to address are perhaps better indicators of educational success. Academic and writer Rick Ayers had some very strong things to say about Waiting for Superman and the state of education in the United States. I will let you read his Huffington Post article here. To quote one of his main messages:

"The film dismisses with a side comment the inconvenient truth 

that our schools are criminally underfunded. Money's not the

 answer, it glibly declares. Nor does it suggest that students would 

have better outcomes if their communities had jobs, health care,

 decent housing, and a living wage." (1)

I couldn't agree more with his assessment. According to a report published last autumn from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 26 states will spend less per pupil in 2013 than they did in 2012. Of these 26 states, 3 of them (Arizona, Alabama and Oklahoma) are cutting funding by more than 20% per student. In all, 35 states are still spending at levels lower than before the recession (even after adjusting for inflation) (2). Our schools cannot perform well when we are drastically cutting their funding. 

And it's not just school funding. As Ayers so accurately writes, "The failure of these students [...] is not some mysterious or impenetrable problem. It is constructed, it is created, by our schools--which very efficiently reproduce the class and racial fissures of our society" (3). Students cannot be at their best when they are worried about where their next meal will come from, or whether or not they will have a roof over their head at the end of the month.

Education reform, what so many people in this country are demanding, cannot focus solely on schools. In order to see change--deep change, real change--we must begin by addressing disparities within communities. 

References:
1) Ayers, Rick. "An Inconvenient Superman: Davis Guggenheim's New Film Hijacks School Reform." The Huffington Post, 17 Sept. 2010. 
2) Oliff, P., Mai, C., and Leachman, M. "New School Year Brings More Cuts in State Funding for Schools." Report by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Published 4 Sept. 2012. 
3) Ayers, Rick. "Constructing the Achievement Gap." The Huffington Post, 8 Feb. 2010.