Stephen's got Davis Guggenheim, whose movie Waiting for Superman you might have already read something about. It was at Sundance, of course, and has a 93% Fresh rating at RottenTomatoes.
Oh, right -- the synopsis:
Every morning, in big cities, suburbs and small towns across America, parents send their children off to school with the highest of hopes. But a... Every morning, in big cities, suburbs and small towns across America, parents send their children off to school with the highest of hopes. But a shocking number of students in the United States attend schools where they have virtually no chance of learning--failure factories likelier to produce drop-outs than college graduates. And despite decades of well-intended reforms and huge sums of money spent on the problem, our public schools haven't improved markedly since the 1970s. Why? There is an answer. And it's not what you think. From "An Inconvenient Truth" director Davis Guggenheim comes "Waiting for 'Superman'", a provocative and cogent examination of the crisis of public education in the United States told through multiple interlocking stories--from a handful of students and their families whose futures hang in the balance, to the educators and reformers trying to find real and lasting solutions within a dysfunctional system. Tackling such politically radioactive topics as the power of teachers' unions and the entrenchment of school bureaucracies, Guggenheim reveals the invisible forces that have held true education reform back for decades.
Without digging too deep, I found several responses (outside of the orange bubble, not that those views should be ignored). Here's a concise summary, from Rick Ayers at HuffPo:
Davis Guggenheim's 2010 film Waiting for Superman is a slick marketing piece full of half-truths and distortions...I'm not categorically opposed to charter schools...But there are really two main opposing positions in the "charter movement" ...On the other side are the corporate powerhouses and the ideological opponents of all things public who see this as a chance to break the teacher's unions and to privatize education. Superman is a shill for the latter.
Here's more:
{the film}Its focus effectively suppresses a more complex and nuanced discussion of what it might actually take to leave no child behind, such as a living wage, a full-employment economy, the de-militarization of our schools, and an education based on the democratic ideal that the fullest development of each is the condition for the full development of all. The film is positioned to become a leading voice in framing the debate on school reform, much like Guggenheim's An Inconvenient Truth did for the discussion of global warming, and that's heartbreaking...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. Particularly dishonest is the fact that Guggenheim never mentions the tens of millions of dollars of private money that has poured into the Harlem Children's Zone, the model and superman we are relentlessly instructed to aspire to...
Waiting for Superman accepts a theory of learning that is embarrassing in its stupidity...
Despite some really sharp lines, that article really is heartbreaking. SFWeekly fundamentally agrees:
Davis Guggenheim's call-to-arms documentary on the failures of the U.S. public-education system — thoroughly laudable in intention if maddening in its logic and omissions — originated with his own guilty conscience. An Academy Award winner for 2006's An Inconvenient Truth, the director, whose debut doc, 2001's The First Year, heralded the dedication of five public-school teachers, now drives his own children (mother: Elisabeth Shue) past three crumbling public schools on their way to an expensive private one. "I'm lucky — I have a choice," Guggenheim, who narrates, admits, before asking an important question: What is our responsibility to other people's children?
Maybe, for starters, demanding a stronger, securer social safety net. But macroeconomic responses to Guggenheim's query — such as ensuring that all parents earn a living wage so that the appalling number of kids living below the poverty line in this country can be reduced — go unaddressed in Waiting for Superman, which points out the vast disparity in resources for inner-city versus suburban schools, only to ignore them.
Again, few would disagree that the unions' bloat and bureaucracy have often had a deleterious effect on public education, nonsensically protecting the rights of people who have no business being in a classroom...But Guggenheim's insistence on not engaging with the injustices that children of certain races and classes face outside of school makes his reiteration of the obvious — that "past all the noise and the debate, nothing will change without great teachers" — seem all the more willfully naive.
Responding to some of these criticisms, Guggenheim did an interview with Katie Couric, in which he declares that he's "A Big Believer in Unions". Bet that'll come up tonight. The descriptive copy at CBS.com is this:
In an interview for @katiecouric, Davis Guggenheim responds to the critics who suggest his documentary film, "Waiting for 'Superman,'" unfairly vilifies the union.
Here's something I left out of that Rick Ayers snippet above:
It is interesting to note that Arne Duncan, as well as the Obama kids, attended the University of Chicago Lab Schools - where teachers had small classes, good pay, and, yes, a union. Students did not concentrate on rote learning and mindless drill and skill or test prep. They were offered in part an exploratory, questioning curriculum. But apparently the masses need to have sweatshop schools. Waiting for Superman sets up AFT president Randi Weingarten as its Darth Vader -- accompanying her appearance on the screen with dire background music. They tell us that the teachers unions have put $50 million into election campaigns over the last ten years, essentially buying politicians. Actually, this number is a pittance compared to what corporations and the rich throw in. It is less than Meg Whitman spent of her own money in one run for governor of California. But the film carefully avoids interviewing Diane Ravitch, the lead organizer of the Education Trust and No Child Left Behind efforts who has been lately writing and speaking about her realization that these reforms have had a disastrous effect on schools and teaching and learning.
Hmm.
There are a whole lot of interviews and such online (google them up, I'm running short on time here, sorry). Here's from one, published this past Monday:
In your film, you touch on the fact that parents will do the right thing by their kids first and foremost. You have children who you send to private school, so by doing that, are you not perpetuating the situation?
You’re right, and I am part of the problem, and I start the film that way. I take my kids to private school, betraying the ideals I thought I lived by. And that’s what I wanted to do in the film by calling out the groups that need to do more for education, and I start with myself. When I take my kids out of public school, I am taking my influence and my concerns out. But there’s an important thing here to unpack: parents are going to continue to behave this way, because that’s what parents do. They will find the best school for their kids. Some will find private school, some will drive two hours, some will pretend they live somewhere where they don’t live, and some will move. They will go to great expense.
The point is, people move in self-interested ways, but now we have to move beyond that to have a commitment for great schools for everybody. The other people I blame are centralized bureaucracy, the Democratic Party and teacher unions. All these entities operate in self-interest. Politicians need to raise money to get elected. The Democratic Party has lost sight of what it should be doing, which is defending the disadvantaged. That’s their base platform, and because of their cozy relationship with union money, I think they’ve moved off from their principles. In making the movie, I had to be tough on all the adults. It’s what had to be done if we’re going to actually help kids. Acting in self-interest is really what is hurting our schools. We need to make the schools for kids and not about the adults running them.
My emphasis. You'll notice who's left out there.
Gah. I'm so glad it's Stephen who's got this interview.
Oh, and BTW: the FAQ at Stephen's "Keep Fear Alive" page points out:
- Can I make a donation to support the March to Keep Fear Alive?
Yes, we encourage you to make a donation to Donors Choose. Not only does it help students and teachers improve their classrooms, but it helps you get rid of all that money—money which is filthy and covered in microscopic germs. Yes, horrible germs which most likely have already invaded your body, and which medical science has no answer for. Quick! Quick! Get rid of all that dangerous money! It’s bringing nothing but sickness to you and your loved ones! Give it all away to Donors Choose.
Also, every time you purchase the official March to Keep Fear Alive merchandise the proceeds will go to support another worthy cause that needs your germ infested money – Yellow Ribbon Fund.
The current results of the Restore Truthiness campaign at DonorsChoose are:
Donated:
$340,939
Donors:
7,770
Students Reached:
115,561
I think I'm going to put a link to that in my header.
|