User reviews

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.

I may not be a teacher, but both my parents were, and I grew up going to public school and got many views of the educational system as a whole. I'm really surprised to see that some teachers went to this and were actually offended by what it offered.

This movie did not set out to blame the issues of this country's education on the teachers. It depicts the issues with the SYSTEM. It's a system that protects the teachers' needs over the students in some cases. We all are aware that teachers don't get paid very well, but there are many upsides to a career as a teacher, and some go into this field because they are gifted, but just as many aren't.

What this film attempted to say (in my opinion, successfully) is that we must put the child's needs above all. The system is BROKEN, and that's all the director wanted to say. Through the establishment of the abuses of the unions, the communication of the compelling stats, and the following of just a few examples of a larger populace of suffering students and their families, the director did a BEAUTIFUL job of bringing issues to the surface.

Teachers who are talented, work very hard, and are committed to pushing students and not cruising through should not take offense to this film. However, there are plenty of teachers out there who should find this film threatening, just as many departments of education should, because on the whole, American schools are failing, and we have a lot of work to do.

Because there are educators who are threatened by the message of this film, I say that is what makes it a success. What effective documentary doesn't shake up the system and strike fear in those whose system it threatens? I'm ready for more!!!

Yes, a 10. This movie is spectacular. I can't remember the last time I got so caught up in a documentary.

This movie seeks to do two things, 1) to show how bad bad public education in this country is and to suggest some of the reasons (the two teachers unions, the administrative bureaucracy, etc.); 2) to suggest a solution.

It does 1) in a devastatingly powerful fashion. There are other reasons for the poor quality of some American education that he does not broach, like the stupid training given by mediocre and bad schools of education, low teacher certification standards in some states, the danger of leaving it up to principals to hire teachers when some of them have no interest in or understanding of education, etc. But going into all of that would have made this movie hours and hours long. Still probably very interesting, but impractical as a commercial venture.

2) it does well also, but the viewer needs to sit back afterward and think through exactly what is being proposed as a solution. That solution is a certain sort of education now being offered in certain (not all, by any means) urban charter schools that function free of all the obstacles (bureaucracy, school boards, teachers unions, etc.) that block change in regular public schools. But the students in those charter schools are all there because their parents/guardians made the effort to get them there.

In other words, superlative teaching works with students who have support at home. This is wonderful, but it's not either a surprise or a miracle. It sounds like a magnificent way of educating the children of caring and concerned parents/guardians who can't flee the inner city to the better schools of the suburbs. But it does not address the problem of what is to be done with all the students who are children/wards of individuals who don't give a damn about their education.

That is probably the subject of another film.

This one, meanwhile, is magnificent, from first moment to last. The lottery scenes near the end are perhaps the most enthralling, but it is all very good.

I kid you not. Every American should have to see this movie.

P.S. I notice that there are some scathing reviews of this movie on here. Remember in reading them that WfS pulls no punches: it goes after the AFT and NEA with a vengeance, and those two organizations will no doubt do whatever they can to discredit this movie. Beware anything that comes from them, therefore. Bill Gates has long said that those two organizations are two of the biggest roadblocks to educational reform in this country. This movie documents that, and those unions won't take that lying down.

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.

This stirring documentary sends out shock-waves of injustice and even a bit of a sense of futility when it explores the state of America's public schools. Interviews with education specialists, school superintendents and even Bill Gates add up to an impressive assembly of informed adults who know what the problem is, but haven't figured out a way to fix it on a large scale.

Washington, D.C. schools superintendent Michelle Rhee says it well when she summarizes the basic problem: "Public schools fail when children's education becomes about the adults." The adults who fail these children are not limited to public officials and government bureaucrats, though; a large portion of the blame is reserved for ineffective teachers and the teachers' unions who ensure that those teachers receive tenure and cannot be removed from schools. The documentary focuses on five public school children who represent inner-city kids with broken families and day-to-day financial struggles (except for a student of middle-class parents in the Silicon Valley). With that one exception, all are enrolled in failing public elementary schools and have little chance of graduating high school if they move on to the assigned secondary schools in their districts. The tear-jerking climax sees each of the kids attending a lottery drawing for limited spaces at public charter schools and rare, effective public schools within or outside of their district. Witnessing the academic chances for these kids being decided by such a random, impersonal process is heart-breaking and calls into question the very nature of American values like "Protestant work ethic," "equality," "freedom" and "the ability to pull oneself up by one's bootstraps" and make the future brighter.

The language is limited to a few expletives. The film deals with a tangled web of adult issues that make a child's education more difficult, which probably puts it outside the spectrum of interest for most kids under age 12. However, when watched with parents, it could create some valuable family discussions on the importance of education and may even activate a family to become advocates for change. We award "Waiting for Superman" the Dove Family-Approved Seal for audiences over age 12 and praise the filmmakers for presenting many teachable moments.

Director Davis Guggenheim waited for Superman as a child, because children like the hope that somebody will come and rescue them and the world. I knocked the U.S. Education system documentary "Waiting for Superman" down two stars for two reasons. One is that they just didn't give me enough hope.

The other main failing of this film, as other reviewers have pointed out, is that he didn't cover all of the many, many reasons for an under-performing education system. Well, he kind of did, but not very clearly. He spent more time on poor teachers and the unions, and many people seem to have come out of thinking that's all he talked about. Contrary to popular reviews, he did make other points. They were just too subtle. I will agree though that he was too heavy-handed with the American Federation of Teachers.

The primary focus of the film is five children each from different parts of the country and each desperate to get into a better school. I think he padded the documentary a bit too much with their situations, and a few too many tear-jerking moments. But when Guggenheim presented me with facts, knowledge and history, "Waiting for Superman" became both informative and emotionally-resonating. And yes, that's what a good documentary is, and that's why it gets 8 stars.

Perhaps "Waiting for Superman" should have been more well-rounded, but I don't think you can present more sides in just a two-hour film. And most important, the sides he did present are accurate, informative, entertaining and well presented. I wish I saw Superman at the end instead of just tears, but I still recommend it.

Checking a few reviews, I noticed that the point of this documentary film was not understood by some people. I hope that is not true of all viewers. Of course, not many of us in the USA are ever going to see this movie. In my area, 20 miles outside Washington DC, where a good part of the movie takes place, in their school system, the movie was showing in only two theaters. One a large, excellent multiplex and another small theater that seems to pick up movies usually not shown by the big theaters. I guess there were SIX of us in the big theater last Friday, October 22, 2010. Check out the box office statistics here and you will see the trend is UP from very few patrons to start with, although my guess is that the movie will go to DVD soon, never to be seen by many people.

Well, that might be an indication of how much we really care about children in this country. Especially about their education that is so lousy in much of the United States, not just in the giant urban centers, often surrounded by nice suburbs with nice schools we think are doing their job. Maybe most people just do not give a darn.

If nothing else, the film makes the point that it is a systematic failure of public education that we are seeing. Not a failure of individual teachers or poor neighborhoods, unfit parents, rebellious students, drugs or lack of funds. Further, the failures rest on the heads of ADULTS. That is all of us, folks.

The film maker wants you to see that, even with the best of intentions and plenty of money, plus the highest level backing (every President since Ike), we still have not found the courage and stamina to bring our students up to the very highest standard of education, be it in math or music, science or soldering.

We need to be sure every student in public schools graduates from high school prepared for life in this world. We are not doing this now and the future of the country really does depend on this one variable.

In this day and age education can prepare everyone for a job of one sort or another, be it mother or father or President of the USA. However, without that education it will be mighty hard to live a decent life and all the problems we see now in our civilization are going to be that much harder to deal with.

Please go see the movie and talk to all your friends and family about it. This movie should be shown in every little town and every city neighborhood in the USA.

Just get rid of the unions and make the schools competitive. And have vouchers so these poor inner city moms have a chance to get their kids into Catholic Schools that do a much better job for much less money per child, not because of religion (I have never had the gift of faith myself), but because of parent support and a wonderful lack of political correctness.

I am a public school teacher, my students rock the house (we beat our school and all of the other schools in our district) with their STAR scores (California's across the board testing system that the Unions of course, hate), which makes me a "good" teacher, I guess. And I say, thank you Mr. Guggenhiem, thank you! And please, parents, do not think that your child's teacher necessarily likes their union. I am not the only teacher who takes the union's "voting guide" to the polls to know exactly what and whom to vote against.

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.

When I watched this documentary, I couldn't help but take sides. How do you fix a broken system with another broken system? While Geoffrey Canada is successful at his charter school, not all charter schools survive much less thrive to produce excellent students. Yes, the film touches on the politics of getting a good education. But even with college degrees, you're not guaranteed a job in life especially now. I could tell you what it's like to be in the classroom as a substitute or teacher's aide or in-class support teacher but there's not enough room here. I would have to write a book about it first. When you cut money to schools, you cut support staff and not administration. Schools rely heavily on it's support staff to keep it functioning. The principal and teachers have one job to educate the students and to assure an education. This film documentary will raise a lot of questions about improving the broken school system in our country. There are some successful schools and failing schools as well as teachers. Not all teachers strive to fail. Sometimes, the teachers are burned out, tired, and exhausted from the bureaucracy themselves. I could go on and on about the system but it's not worth it. Everybody has a story and an opinion.

A very interesting documentary with a soul. However, it didn't really touch upon the challenges that face the teachers who do give their time, their creativity, their energy and their hearts. What about class size, disruptive students--ADHD, or just undisciplined, the disparity in skill level (hence some tracking), the lack of materials and facilities, etc.? What about teacher burnout? The message is clear that our system is broken, but fixing it is more complex than the movie implies. Was glad to see some successes. And I presume all the children featured will get outside assistance just by being highlighted in the film. A very interesting documentary.

Taken from wikipedia:

"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." — Rick Ayers, Adjunct Professor in Education at the University of San Francisco[23]

Author and academic Rick Ayers lambasted the accuracy of the film, describing it as "a slick marketing piece full of half-truths and distortions."[23] In Ayers' view, the "corporate powerhouses and the ideological opponents of all things public" have employed the film to "break the teacher's unions and to privatize education", while driving teachers' wages even lower and running "schools like little corporations."[23] The film does, however, note that since 1971, inflation-adjusted per-student spending has more than doubled, "from $4,300 to more than $9,000 per student," but that over the same period, test scores have "flatlined." Ayers also critiqued the film's promotion of a greater focus on "top-down instruction driven by test scores", positing that extensive research has demonstrated that standardized testing "dumbs down the curriculum" and "reproduces inequities", while marginalizing "English language learners and those who do not grow up speaking a middle class vernacular."[23] Lastly, Ayers contends that "schools are more segregated today than before Brown v. Board of Education in 1954", and thus criticized the film for not mentioning that in his view, "black and brown students are being suspended, expelled, searched, and criminalized."[23]

Diane Ravitch, Research Professor of Education at New York University and a nonresident senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, similarly criticizes the accuracy of the film.[24] Ravitch notes that a study by Stanford University economist Margaret Raymond of 5000 charter schools found that only 17% are superior in math test performance to a matched public school, casting doubt on the film's claim that privately managed charter schools are the solution to bad public schools.[24] The film does note however that most charter schools do not outperform and that it focuses on those that do. Ravitch writes that many charter schools also perform badly, are involved in "unsavory real estate deals" and expel low-performing students before testing days to ensure high test scores.[24] The most substantial distortion in the film, according to Ravitch, is the film's claim that "70 percent of eighth-grade students cannot read at grade level", a misrepresentation of data from the National Assessment of Educational Progress.[24] Ravitch served as a board member with the NAEP and notes that "the NAEP doesn't measure performance in terms of grade-level achievement", as claimed in the film, but only as "advanced", "proficient", and "basic". The film assumes that any student below proficient is "below grade level", but this claim is not supported by the NAEP data.

Princeton professor Cornel West said "I have great love and respect for brother Geoffrey Canada. But I had a deep critique of the film, in which he was central. Waiting for "Superman" scapegoats teachers' unions. Yet those countries with the best education systems in the world, like Finland, have over 90% of their teachers unionized, and their students take few, if any standardized tests. In Finland there are 2 teachers in classrooms of 14. Teachers receive the salaries of many of our businesspeople. 15% of their college graduates teach in schools rather than make their way to Wall Street to be millionaires. They reflect a fundamentally different set of priorities in America. And if we don't adapt to those priorities, we will continue to scapegoat, demonize & thereby undercut the morale of our teachers."

I pretty much never write reviews and I rarely ever watch documentaries but this was well worth it. The ending could not have been better and will leave any viewer who has a heart in a state of strong mixed emotions.

This movie was presented very unbiased and I should know because I consider myself a conservative independent and there was no liberal or democrat bashing in the movie. The movie does well at presenting both schools with high achievements and scores and those on the opposite end.

Anyone who has a child struggling in school yet desires the best education they can find for them will be touched by this movie and realize that they are not alone.

This is a frustrating documentary. It has a narrow agenda and presents a simplistic solution. It presents charter schools as a panacea and public schools as the problem. There is a deleted scene on the DVD that follows a family with two sons in different charter schools. One of the charter schools is failing. Yet this scene was deleted. Could it be that introducing such a wrinkle would undermine the simplistic message that charter schools good, public schools/unions bad?

Education is an extremely difficult and complex undertaking. There is plenty of blame to go around, folks. Stop pointing fingers at other people, and ask what you can do to improve your schools and your community. Let's not forget, either, that we live in a culture that does not value education. We pay lip service to education, but really we value money, celebrity, pop music, fashion, sports, and other shallow pursuits. It takes a village to educate a child, and this village is too interested in pursuing short-term pleasure to take much of an interest in Shakespeare or calculus.

On a personal note, I am a product of public schools from K-12, and I can say that you get out of your education what you put into it. Show up every day, take difficult classes, pay attention, do your work, read on your own, and you can transform a mediocre school into a real education. I guarantee there are good teachers at nearly every school, but you have to find them and appreciate them.

Yes, there are myriad problems, and they should be solved, but this documentary was frustratingly basic. At best it can serve as a starting point to make people aware of some issues. There were a few touching stories and interesting interviews, but like much of pop culture, this documentary did not delve into the true complexities involved.

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.