Esperando pelo Super-Homem

Greetings again from the darkness. The system is broken. I am neither a teacher, Union official or politician ... simply a U.S. citizen who sees a real problem with a public education system that seems to adequately serve very few.

After viewing Davis Guggenheim's documentary, I find it fascinating to read some of the comments made. To my eye, the film does not blame any one group for the problems - though lousy teachers and a misguided union do take some serious criticism. Shouldn't they? The film makes the point that excellent teachers and principals can definitely make a difference. The specific subject families show caring, involved parents and eager to learn children. Of course, not every family or child fits this definition. But shouldn't the system work for the engaged parents and students?

There is no shortage of blame in this game - politicians, unions, teachers, administrators, parents and rowdy kids. Regardless of the situation, it's clear that the overall system is flawed, especially in lower income areas. Do neighborhoods drag the school down or is it vice versa? To me, it doesn't matter. The system should reward the teachers, parents and children who do want to teach and learn.

Regardless of your politics or personal involvement in education, I commend Mr. Guggenheim ("An Inconvenient Truth") and Mr. Gates and Ms. Rhee for rocking the boat ... for getting the questions asked in a public forum. This movie should inspire much debate and discussion - typically the beginning of real improvement and change. Let's hope this is the needed start to finding a better system.

This movie flows in the same vein as the Oprah Winfrey Show, Fox news, CNN, and McDonald's. It's tasty, yet difficult to digest.

There are a few themes strung throughout this noose of a movie. One major theme is: win the lottery and you'll succeed. There are two lotteries in Waiting for Superman. One is the lottery that is played out in the gymnasiums of the schools, with numbered ping-pong balls and kids who make your heart ache. The other lottery is 500 billion dollars, the $$$ of the school system in America.

For students in this movie "win the lottery and you'll succeed" means they have to be lucky, or else the public school system will fail them. This may change though, as superman is on his way. Superman is not in the guise of an administrator or a teacher. Superman is a politician (and his sidekick an entrepreneur). The business of education is a lottery. Billions of dollars are to be had by superman if he and his sidekick can fix the lottery. Students must rely on luck concerning their lottery; yet, superman can supersede luck because he and his partner have a lot of money. But they want more.

The definition of "fix" is different for politicians and businessmen than for regular people. For most, fixing the education system means making it better for the majority of people involved. For superman and his partner, fixing the lottery means using his influence and wealth to enable a tiny percentage of the population to suck money from the education system. If superman fixes the lottery, he is much more likely to 'win' the cash that comes from the business of education in America.

There are many problems with education in North America. Inviting businessmen into the sphere of education in such a manner is not a path to improvement of the majority.

Waiting for Superman does one thing right above all else: it gets a conversation going. Then something else has to matter, which is how much the people who get to talking really know about the education system in America, which has been making students fall behind compared to others throughout the world (i.e. USA ranks 25th among students for math and reading, albeit we're #1 when it comes to confidence! yey we're #1!) David Guggenheim's documentary shifts between personal stories of (mostly) inner-city kids whose parents want their kids to do well but are doubtful for good reason about whether their kids will get the fair chance, and try ultimately to get them into charter-school systems that rely on a lottery system of picking who gets in and who doesn't.

This makes up the emotional core of the picture, and it's a good one. Where things get both interesting and tricky is when Guggenheim gets into the main issue at hand: what's wrong with our countries schools, especially in inner-city/urban ones like in Harlem and DC where there are "Drop-Out Factories" created in part by students in bad neighborhoods but more-so by teachers who just don't give a good-damn about teaching. Guggenheim rails against the teacher union's seemingly monolithic nature when it comes to sacking bad teachers (we learn about the "Lemon Dance" system done with teachers who are tenured who are just bad period). Meanwhile he paints a very rosy picture of the Charter/private schools, and why not? They show how the teachers do give a damn about the students, and the better attention paid - and as we see teaching is a kind of art form that one can master - the better the students.

But doing a little research before or after the film shows that Guggenheim, for all of his good (and they are good) intentions, omits or shallowly covers certain things, such as the Kipp charter schools (it's mentioned only briefly in the doc but 1 out of 5 Charter schools really work best at what they do, and not mentioned is how kids that don't keep up in the first couple of years just get kicked out, period), and about the nature of public school teachers. The call for reform is not unwarranted, and I became saddened by the DC Chancellor's idea of giving double to teachers who don't take tenure being shot down, not even addressed, by the NEA. At the same time that Guggenheim gives some strong attention to the flailing public school/public-school-union system, and to how good though competitive Kipp and schools like it are, little attention is paid to what the urban/inner-city neighborhoods are really like that kids like this are in. I question the statement a person interviewed makes about the school system negatively affecting the neighborhoods more than the other way around. To me it would appear to be a vicious cycle where both sides need reform for true change.

But Waiting for Superman, a film meant to rile up the audience into attention like Guggenheim's previous doc An Inconvenient Truth, is useful as a way to get people who have no idea what's going on what is going on, at least the cliff-notes version of it. It isn't the digging-deepest look at the subject, yet I did feel moved by how the people trying to get by with their kids are good people wanting the best for their kids. Probably the big irony that Guggenheim does, after giving so much positive hype for how charter schools work (i.e. 96% of students go on to college who attend), is showing the lottery system as the climax, and how very few spots there are in the schools. The doc could go even further with being an activist-style position trying to affect change, or give clearer facts; there's a lot of cute-quirky animation to bring along the information, though the interviewees selected are kind of cherry-picked for its ultimate effect.

It is, in short, a good documentary but not quite a great one, and will be a big upper or a big downer depending on who you are in the audience, if you have kids, if you're a teacher, or if you're in the "rubber room" in one of the NYC schools.

Waiting for 'Superman' is a documentary from Davis Guggenheim, the director of 2006's An Inconvenient Truth, that examines the faults and labyrinthine bureaucratics of America's educational government, a government more interested in protecting the jobs and pay salaries of lazy educators in public schools, rather than properly educating the average child.

The film isn't all that shocking. I admire the format, and the presentation of the film, but problems with the education of American children have been a highly publicized matter, especially a few of the points of which Guggenheim presents. At times it even feels like he's stating the obvious, and even repetitious in regards to sub-par school houses he points fingers at.

But the film's strongest impact comes from the case studies of five children, who show strong potential, but their parents struggle to set them up with the necessary education, placing them at the mercy of lotteries that determines the lucky few who get to attend successful charter schools. Their build-up is near impeccable, leading up to the film's emotionally powerful third act. A third act that, afterwards, is complimented perfectly by "Shine", a beautiful end credits song by John Legend, and overall one of the film year's very best original songs.

It isn't perfect, but I'm gonna give Waiting for 'Superman' *** out of ****

This documentary attempts to explain why public schools in the US are failing. It blames some of the usual suspects (lousy teachers, unions) without getting their side of the story. It acts as if mediocre politicians who want to act as if they're "bringing change" as they further their political careers are doing their best. And "superteachers" are of course the heroes even though they spend most of the documentary telling us how wonderful they are and how it's the other teachers who are to blame for all the problems. And seriously, since when is Bill Gates an expert on education?

Political and social contexts, economic causes and other factors not related to "bad teachers" are totally ignored, which makes the documentary pointless and superficial. Instead, the solutions are empty rhetoric, meaningless business jargon and ridiculous psycho-babble.

So if you want a more comprehensive and serious analysis of the why schools are failing you should watch The Wire season 4. Sad, isn't it?

PS. It's worth listening to the closing song. I think it's John Legend.