This clip from Waiting For “Superman”, is crucial to understanding the movie and the education system. To understand the public education system we must understand that the inequalities, and how complicated they are to amend. To understand how the public school system works, we must know that although they are partially federally funded, the state sets up its own rules, that are generally conflicting. This makes school governance challenging because of all of the different rules set up by the state, federal government, or local school boards. These boards and rules were initially created to help schools, but now are apart of the problem which hinders schools. Jonathan Alter, of Newsweek, stated “this whole collection of people, which is sometimes called the ‘blob’.. has been an impediment to reform. No individual is necessarily to blame, but collectively, they are the Goliath of the system.” The image coinciding with Alter’s quote is an image of a teacher attempting to fill her students with knowledge, but instead they miss due to rules and regulations.
Kahlenberg and Potter would respond to this scene with agreement that the rules and regulations set up in the public school system do not help students. In Alter’s comparison, he is point out that the ‘blob’ is essentially Goliath. In this sense, I believe Kahlenberg and Potter would see the teachers as the David, who has still not won victory. The weapon that teachers might use to beat Goliath would be teachers unions.
In Davis Guggenheim video documentary, Waiting for Superman, he uncovers the struggles that many families in america face when dealing with our public education. He works closely with five specific families and follows their pathway through the education process. He records the obstacles and struggles that they face in order for their child to get into the best public education they can. Each family comes from a different economic background and different geographic location, yet they all seem to face the same conflict within our public education.
The first child that Guggenheim introduces is Anthony. He is a young african american boy, who lives with his grandmother, Gloria. Anthony tells us that he never knew his mother and that he had to repeat second grade because his father died of a drug overdose. His grandmother is in the process of entering Anthony into the lottery to attempt to send him to SEED Charter School.
Anthony and his father (5:25)
We meet Daisy next. She explains that she might want to become a nurse after school and that her father struggles because he does not have a job, and that her mom receives the income. She is hoping to attend KIPP LA Prep, but if she not accepted from the lottery then she will attend a lower ranked school in LA. Next is Fransisco. He is a first grader who lives in the Bronx. Fransisco already attends a struggling school and he himself has a very hard time with work even though his mother is very supportive. He hopes that he is accepted into Harlem Success Academy in Harlem so he can get the correct support that he desperately needs. Biana is in kindergarten and attends a school which her mother cannot avoid to pay anymore. She also hopes, just like Fransisco, to be accepted into the Harlem Success Academy in Harlem. Lastly, we are introduced to Emily. She is an eighth grader who is hoping to be choose from the lottery for Summit Preparatory Charter High School.
Guggenheim mentions in the beginning of the documentary that everyone wants to send their child to the best school possible, but the struggle is to understand how to tell what is the best choice for each child. In one of the first scenes that we see, Guggenheim talks about how his views on public school education have changed greatly over the past few years. Especially even more now that he has to choose a school to send his own children to; “Ten years later, it was time to choose a school for my own children. And then reality set in-My feelings about public ed didn’t matter as much as my fear of sending them to a failing school. And so every morning, betraying the ideals I live by, I drive past 3 public schools as I take my kids to a private school. But I’m lucky-I have a choice” (3:55 – 4:10)
https://vimeo.com/69353438#t=235
Such educational academics such as Halley Potter and Richard Khalenberg would most likely disagree with the increase of success of the charter schools. Yet I believe after watching this documentary that there could be something to charter schools and success with students considering the overwhelming amount of individuals that apply for only so few spots knowing that their chances are lower than 20% to getting accepted to their school of choice.
Works Cited
Guggenheim, Davis. Waiting for “Superman.” 2010. Film.
Kahlenberg, Richard D., and Halley Potter. A Smarter Charter: Finding What Works for Charter Schools and Public Education. Teachers College Press. 2014.
Among the many takeaways from Guggenheim’s “Waiting for ‘Superman'” documentary is that which correlates the problems of failing neighborhoods with the problems of failing schools, which is highlighted in the scene below.
Time: 22:41-23:45
Source: “Waiting for ‘Superman'”
In this scene is where an age-old debate is turned on its head and then given substance with evidence in the scene that follows. Educators of the past, as Guggenheim discusses, had thought that poor and crime-ridden neighborhoods produced children with the nature of their surroundings embedded in their DNA, and thus schools were infiltrated by these children and were doomed to fail. This seemed then and seems now like the excuse made by educators to dilute the issues of their failing education systems. The example made by an educator in the film shows that there were plenty of students entering the schools initially, but the change between the number of enrolled students from freshman year to sophomore year was drastic. The situation is easy to imagine: students begin motivated to learn and search for a life beyond their impoverished neighborhoods, but obtain the sentiment that there is no future for them when they aren’t being educated properly.
The response that Welner would have to the film overall would be one of disagreement with not only the portrayal of the charter school application process but the portrayal of the schools’ success. The concept of charter schools are discussed in the movie as a shining light for parents fed up with the public school system. The depiction of Charter Schooling in Redwood, California and other areas is that charter schools were more motivated to provide disadvantaged children with a better education. What we see in the film is the tragedy of being victim to the lottery system; what we don’t see is the complication with the system of getting into the lottery, as Welner discusses can involve lengthy applications, conditional acceptance into the lottery, the requirement of certain documents in application, etc. For this reason Welner would appreciate the reality of charters displayed in the end of the film but would desire more depth in the depiction of their formulation.
Bibliography:
Guggenheim, Davis. Waiting for “Superman.” 2010. Film.
Welner, K. G. (April 2013). The Dirty Dozen: How Charter Schools Influence Student Enrollment. Teachers College Record.
One of the most influential scene from the documentary is when Jason Kamras talks about how teachers were strictly evaluated and bad teachers should be fired to guarantee the quality of the education offered to children, while “there’s nothing more difficult than the life of a teacher.” (Guggenheim 41:23). The filmmaker switches the angle from the political scene, which people normally see on the television, to a teacher-to-student scene. Putting the evaluation forms and data aside, the film illustrates a real daily school life to the audience: how teacher actually interacts with students at school, which is barely seen by people. The film shows not only teachers’ struggles but also devotion at school (Guggenheim 41:30).
Waiting for Superman (39:30)Waiting for Superman (40:21)Waiting for Superman (41:30)
This scene is crucial that it shows the back scene of teachers’ life and also perfectly contrasts to corruption in Teachers’ Union. Teachers are facing all various uncontrollable factors and putting their efforts to make a difference every day. However, what is seen by the media is only the contract with the Teachers’ Union and all different types of teachers’ evaluation results. This contradiction indeed hinders American Education from moving forward, but behind the roughness the filmmaker still positively states the little hope that still exists at school.
The entire documentary mostly gives a heavy feeling and hopeless impression on the American education system. Even at the end when the little boy is finally offered for a spot at school, the scene is depicted with vagueness and low energy. The film focuses on the interviews and stories of the unaccepted children but never gives a word to these children who are accepted to school. There’s short footage showing their excitement right after lottery picking. But what are their thoughts and what are their expectations? Do they understand what is lying in their future? Does getting into school mean absolute success as what schools claim for? That’s something worthy to explore as well.
Bibliography:
Guggenheim, Davis. Waiting for “Superman.” 2010. Film.
In the documentary “Waiting for Superman” author/writer Davis Guggenheim delivers a very though provoking piece on education reform. Guggenheim touched on all recent debates/controversy of school reform, whether it be school choice, lack of funded, a over complex system, teachers unions and the public school systems, and measuring/rewarding the effectiveness of teachers. However ultimately it is made clear by the end of the documentary that Guggenheim believes that true reform must start with teachers. Guggenheim begin to define the problem by criticizing teaches unions and ten year. From minute 39:35-46:00, Guggenheim defines ten year, and the “lemon-dance”, or the system in New York commonly known as the rubber room. Inside this 6-7 minuets of the documentary the audience learns that teachers once they receive ten year; which is essentially automatic in the public school system; are close to impossible to fire. As seen in the 39:35-46:00 minute clip teachers can choose not teach, and/or commit assault physical and sexual and are still allowed to teach. In fact in minute 46:20 there is a figure presented showing the audience just how rare it is for teachers to loose their credentials in the U.S in comparison to doctors and lawyers.
(Guggenheim, 46:20)
Guggenheim also introduces Michelle read the Superintendent of DC schools. In 2007 when she was appointed reads goal was to turn the system in DC on its head. Like Guggenheim she believed that bad schools were a result of bad teachers. In order to help solve this issue she began clearing house closing 23 schools and reducing the number of employees within her office. Read was public enemy #1 to both teachers unions and communities. However her drastic decisions lead to an improvement in the DC education system. The author credits read with looking to expand on such success and blames the sudden halt in reform on the system. Re could not effectively evaluate her teachers, she could not implement fundamental changes that replicated charter programs like Kipp or Harmlem Success. Read tired to solve the issue of teacher effectiveness by introducing a policy that would change tenure. She decided to offer an option teachers could choose tenure or a potential salary increase based on teacher effectiveness. Ultimately the proposal was thrown out and not voted on. After this defeat read stated that when it came to education reform it was always about the adults (referring to the teachers) not the kids (referring to the students). (Guggenheim 1:23:50-1:26:03) This statement further confirmed Guggenheims belief that what is stop school reforms are the teachers and their unions, and that reform can only happen when teachers and their union fight for it.
References:
Guggenheim, Davis. Waiting for “Superman.” 2010. Film.
One of the most pressing issues that Waiting For Superman engages with is the issue of school choice, and how charter schools with lotteries can sometimes be the only option for some students other than failing local school districts. One scene that embodies this issue is located at 1 hour and 8 minutes into the film, where a promising young student named Daisy is awaiting the outcome of a charter school lottery. Daisy would normally attend Stevenson Middle School based on where her family lives, but she has entered into the lottery for KIPP LA Prep. KIPP would offer Daisy a much better chance at a quality education. At KIPP, 8th graders get triple the classroom time in math and science, and, on average, double their math and reading scores by the end of the 8th grade (Guggenheim 1:09). This scene explains that many students are forced to go to local public schools based on where they live, often forcing children into failing schools. Charter schools offer an alternative for many of these children, but the lottery system prevents the vast majority of students from being able to take advantage of this opportunity.
(Source: Waiting For Superman 1:09:58)
As the scene closes, the camera shows the harsh reality of charter school lotteries, there are only ten spaces available for students at KIPP, and Daisy is on of 135 applicants. The majority of these applicants will not get a chance to attend KIPP. Kahlenberg and Potter explain that school choice is a “reality for most middle-class families,” because they can purchase property in good school districts (Kahlenberg and Potter, 165). For low-income students though, most are forced into failing schools in their own neighborhoods. Kahlenberg and Potter make the claims that “Our best hope of leveling the playing field is to expand public-choice options for low-income families (Kahlenberg and Potter, 165)”. For these two writers, charter schools offer a way to escape these local failing schools, and expanding capacities and schools to allow for more students to take advantage of these opportunities is key to creating a more equal education system.
Bibliography:
Guggenheim, Davis. Waiting for “Superman.” 2010. Film.
Waiting for Superman opens with Geoffrey Canada telling a story from his childhood- the moment he found out that Superman wasn’t real. He wasn’t sad like he would be finding out that Santa Claus was fictional but rather he was sad because he realized that there was no one to swoop in and save the day. The video later flashes to an inner city neighborhood, showing a broken swing set and row houses. The narrator is heard saying one of the most important lines of the documentary, “For generations experts tend to blame failing schools on failing neighborhoods. But reformers have begun to believe the opposite- that the problems of failing neighborhoods might be blamed on failing schools” (Guggenheim 23:51).
Price Comparison: Incarceration v. Private Education (Guggenheim 25:00)
Schools across the United States are failing students, not just in inner cities. The majority of eighth graders fall between 20 and 35 percent proficient in reading, with the nations capital at just 12 percent. The goal at the end of George W. Bush’s presidency was 100 percent proficient. People look at inner cities and blame the individuals who live there for the failed education and do not look at larger institutions. “Waiting for Superman” looked at Pennsylvania where 68% of inmates incarcerated are high school dropouts. With the amount of money it takes to keep one inmate incarcerated, the state could pay for a student’s private education. Is the education system failing the neighborhood? This comparison says yes.
We ignore the fact that the public education is failing all across the country, not just in inner cities. Suburban schools have glistening new sports fields so it is assumed the schools are better. In comparison to the rest of the world, though, the United States is starkly lower than most other industrialized countries in both math and reading.
Waiting for Superman explains not to just throw in the towel, that there is hope for public education. Money, laws, and reform have failed. Kids know and believe that education is a way out. But waiting in a chance in a charter school lottery continues to fail those who are not selected. Guggenheim and others who participated in the documentary believe it starts with the teachers and ends with everyone else who is dedicated to making schools better for their own child and other’s children.
Source: Guggenheim, Davis. Waiting for “Superman.” 2010. Film.
One of the most influential scenes in Waiting for Superman occurs when Anthony, a little boy from a poor neighborhood with a low quality school, is talking about the possibility of going to the SEED school, which is the first urban public boarding school in the country. In the scene, Anthony, who is only in fifth grade, discusses the pros and cons of possibly attending the school. He knows that he will have to take a big course load, wake up early, dress formally, and not watch TV or play games (Guggenheim 1:20:43). However, he knows that he will get a much better education. Although he says getting into the school would be bittersweet, as he will have to work very hard, go to a different school than his friends, and would no longer be living with his grandmother, Anthony does hope to get into the school to have a better chance in life and the opportunity to give his kids a better life than he has had (Guggenheim 1:22:36). This scene is so important because Anthony, who is very young still, can already see the direction his life will take if he attends his failing public school. He is also able to see past the immediate gratification of staying at his school with all of his friends, living with his caring grandmother, and having lots of time to play and have fun. He knows that going to the SEED school will be a big change and will be hard work, but he is able to look farther ahead, which is impressive for a fifth grader, and see that going to the SEED school will give him a better education and the opportunity to go to college. The filmmakers shot this scene by cutting between interviews with Anthony, interviews with Anthony’s grandmother, shots of Anthony and his class getting a tour of the SEED school, and shots of Anthony playing basketball outside in his neighborhood. From this, the viewer can see both Anthony’s and his grandmother’s point of view, and how difficult it would be for them to live apart, and what they would be giving up if Anthony got in and went to the SEED school, and the viewer can also see the type of life Anthony would be living if he did go to the SEED school; living in a nice dorm in a school with lots of resources.
Guggenheim 1:22:36
I think Welner would have mixed reviews about Anthony and the SEED school. The SEED school, unlike other charter schools that Welner criticizes in his article, does take in disadvantaged, “poor” kids. However, Welner acknowledges that some charter schools do this, but they cannot make up for the other charter schools that do not, when he says “In fact, the patterns are particularly stark when we realize that such at-risk students are disproportionately enrolled in a small subset of “mission-oriented” charters – those dedicated to serving a particular type of at-risk student. For instance, the “majority of charter school students with severe disabilities [in Florida] are concentrated in a handful of schools that specialize in those disabilities….” (O’Connor, J., & Gonzalez, 2011; see also Miron, et al. [2010] for a national picture). This leaves the remaining charters serving even fewer at-risk children”(Welner 2). While Welner would appreciate the SEED school for its focus on helping lower-income students, it would qualify as a “mission-oriented” charter. Anthony is probably among the more disadvantaged students applying, but selection bias does occur here because Anthony is very motivated and wants to get a good education. Overall, Welner would like that this charter school is serving poor students, and so is better than most charter schools, but still is a part of the flaw system.
Bibliography
Welner, K. G. (April 2013). The Dirty Dozen: How Charter Schools Influence Student Enrollment. Teachers College Record. [online], http://www.tcrecord.org
Davis Guggenheim, Waiting for “Superman,” Video documentary, 2010, 0:54
David Guggenheim’s documentary, Waiting for “Superman” explains the problems with the American education system. The documentary shows personal stories of families who are enrolled in the broken public education system. These parents have been trying to get a good education for their children, but because of certain factors, it has been hard for them to do so. The film follows these students till they are in the lottery system, where only one was accepted and one got off the waitlist. Waiting for “Superman” discusses how families from different backgrounds and places all have something in common, which is that the education that every student is receiving is not equally distributed.
One of the families that was followed was Daisy’s. Daisy’s parents, her dad who stays at home, and her mom who cleans hospital, have been trying to have Daisy received a good education. When the film first introduced Daisy, it was nice to see the she had big dreams for herself. Guggenheim follows her family from the beginning, interviewing her at home and at school, and then to the lottery at KIPP LA Prep. Daisy, who is very dedicated to her studies, wants “to have a lot of choices” (Guggenheim 7:00) She said, “I want to be nurse, I want to be a doctor and I want to be a veterinarian,” because she “wants to help someone in need” (Guggenheim 7:24). At Daisy’s school only 13% of the school will be proficient in math, of the 15 courses needed to go to a 4-year college, only 3/100 students will have graduated with the necessary classes and 57% will not graduate (Guggenheim 21:03-21:30). It was sad to see that Daisy was not accepted in the lottery because she is one of those students who is excited to learn, loves to learn and has big dreams for herself. Due to the socioeconomic factors it has been a struggle for her to receive an education that she deserves to have.
Waiting on “Superman” explains and displays a lot of the issues surrounding the public school education in America. It shows when people come disadvantaged backgrounds, they receive a different education than families who come from more advantaged backgrounds. However, the documentary fails to address the people who succeed in the tracking system in public education. Guggenheim follows the students who are all from poor neighborhoods, who have poor schooling, but he does not follow other neighborhods, whether poor or rich, that have good schooling. To make the film more accurate to society Guggenheim showed show the public school system from all points of view.
Waiting for “Superman” (Guggenheim 7:10)Waiting for “Superman” (Guggenheim 1:34:35)
Citation: Guggenheim, Davis. Waiting for “Superman.” 2010. Film.
One of the most influential scenes in the film is when the American Federation of Teachers receives Michelle Rhee’s proposal that would rid tenure, but implement merit pay (1:25). This scene is highly important because it showed the politics that go behind education reform. The film casts Michelle Rhee as a woman who truly was trying to do something different, that would finally help America’s children. Yet it was teacher unions who impeded her from being able to do so. The filmmakers captured the absolute silence in the room after Michelle Rhee presented her proposal. The scene ends with Michelle Rhee solemnly, looking out the window into the D.C. night and saying, “Now I see in a lot more coherent ways why things are the way they are, it’s always about the adults” (1:26:08) . At the end of the scene there is a feeling of resignation and written on all Michelle Rhee’s face is “ I tried, I really did, but it wasn’t about the children, it was about the adults”. Thus, the film dangerously creates a frame that villainizes teachers and blames them for America’s poor performing children.
In response to the film, Welner would say that it lauds charter schools without explaining why they are “succeeding” in comparison to traditional public schools. In his article he says ”Charter schools tend to have fewer students with disabilities, fewer English learners, and a less poor population of students than their surrounding public schools” (1). English language learners are completely ignored in this film, and is one of the most ignored groups in various types of public schools, charter or traditional neighborhood. All of the parents applying for their child to attend charter schools spoke English, cared about their children, and did not seem to come from troubled homes. Their saving grace were charter schools, because they could apply and knew about it. Welner would say the film does not discuss the students who do not even know about charter schools, much less understand English to apply. The film casts charter schools as the saving alternative to traditional low income neighborhood public schools, and even schools in high income areas. KIPP academy was one of the charter schools lauded, in comparison to failing traditional schools and expensive parochial schools. There is one video clip that shows the KIPP founder stating,“KIPP academy highest performing public school in the Bronx”, followed by loud cheers from the students he is with.
Welner would also say that because charter schools have much less english language learners and special needs students than traditional public schools, they have higher performing students and thus high test results. Welner’s response to the film would most likely be that it skews the perception of charter schools, and does not discuss the ways charter schools select better performing students. The film lauds charter schools increasing school hours, adopting a “no excuses” policy, and their 90% graduation rate. The film narrator states “charter schools shatter the myth that those kids can’t learn”. It highlights the positives results of charter schools, but compares it visually and orally to traditional public schools. It never explicitly says “charter schools perform better than public schools”, but it implicitly gets that message across because it visually goes back and forth between the struggles traditional public schools face, their low performing students and test results, and the colorful, diverse classrooms in KIPP which are praised for their jump in reading and math scores.
Visual Evidence:
1:25:54
1:26:05
Source: Waiting for Superman. Directed by David Guggenheim. Film. 2010
Works Cited:
Kevin Welner, “The Dirty Dozen: How Charter Schools Influence Student Enrollment,” Teachers College Record, April 22, 2013.
One of the most influential scenes in Waiting for Superman starts with Francisco’s mother- Maria- telling the camera, “As I grew up going to college and was exposed to more, only then did I realize how much I was cheated as a child” (Guggenheim 53:43). Maria’s quote epitomizes the issue of disparity and collapse within American public schools, which the movie intends on exploring further. The shot then cuts to Maria holding a photo. She is dressed in a graduation robe, accompanied by her mom and dad on either side of her (Guggenheim 53:55). The shot focuses on the picture for a solid 10 seconds or so as Maria tells the camera, “My dad, because of the diabetes… wasn’t able to move too much… that day, he danced a song with me” (54:02). This scene does an excellent job of conveying the subtle hypocrisy within the American education culture: we prize education as something that everyone should have, yet we are guilty in either providing an extremely poor one or not giving an individual the means to receive one.
Waiting for “Superman” (55:17)
Later in this scene, the filmmakers draw out how the emergence of charter and magnet schools are intended to give students and their families another choice for education(55:14). Maria’s son, Francisco, goes to a school that is not too great, so ideally-with the implementation of charter and magnet schools- he should be able to switch to a better public school. However, as the film points out, financial and geographical barriers play a large role in deterring families from applying to these special schools. As Kahlenberg and Potter write in their book, A Smarter Charter, “Some policy makers and educational reformers are skeptical about the possibility of creating schools that cater to the needs and desires of different backgrounds” (Kahlenberg and Potter, 124). For Francisco and Maria, a low-income family with a son who is struggling in reading, their needs will be different from a high-income student who is looking to excel in the arts or sciences. Kahlenberg and Potter provide several examples of public schools that attempt to meet the needs of everyone on the financial and educational spectrum, but are also quick to mention that there is an aggressive competitiveness behind applying for these schools. “Only one in five charter schools produce amazing results” (Guggenheim 56:03), which raises questions regarding if charter schools are worth the competitive application process. Overall, by exploring some alternatives to America’s public school education, the movie Waiting for Superman also reveals some underlying problems with the effects and integration of both charter and magnet schools in public education.
Bibliography:
Guggenheim, Davis. Waiting for “Superman.” 2010. Film.
Kahlenberg, Richard D., and Halley Potter. A Smarter Charter: Finding What Works for Charter Schools and Public Education. New York: Teachers College, 2014. Print.
In the film Waiting for Superman by David Guggenheim, the narrator expressed how success through the form of public education is based on the hands of luck. The public school system isn’t providing adequate tools to teach kids and provide them with future opportunities. The solution according to Geoffrey Canada is the creation of charter schools. Those who are wealthy enough to send their children to private schools choose that path for their children in order to provide their kids a better future, while those who can’t afford private schools are thrown into a failing public school system, or are entered into a lottery to be accepted into a charter school. Education is considered the great equalizer in order to fix the wage gap and ensure that all children are provided the same opportunities in the future, but when the education fails the kids, especially those of low SES, their only solution is to be thrown into a lottery.
The documentary allows viewers to see the struggle that families from lower socioeconomic status has to go through. The film follows five students who are entered into the lottery for a charter school. The most memorable scene however, was when the filmmakers highlighted the concept of baby schools and the boarding schools that the kids can apply to to receive a better education. In the process, they interviewed a young boy who stated “I want to go to college to get an education.” The filmmakers asked why and the child responded, “because if I have kids, I don’t want them to be in this environment…I want my kids to have better than what I have” (Guggenheim, 1:21:50). The fact that the child, at such a young age, understands that an education is important to succeed in life is remarkable within itself. However, the second part of his statement reveals his understanding that the problem isn’t just within the school system, but within the environment as well. His statements highlight Canada’s view that in order to change education you have to also change the neighborhood and the community as a whole. In order to receive honest answers from the child, filmmakers were sure to ask the child why receiving an education was so important. This opened the floor up to more discussion which was an important move on the part of the filmmakers.
At the end of the video the narrator stated we ask ourselves, did we do the right thing, did we do enough. The public school system has many failures within it that oftentimes penalizes the poor. Education is a broken system with too many holes, it seems that the only way to fix it would to be providing every student an equal chance, by providing equal incomes, equal environments, and equal home lives. The focus on equality; however, isn’t really a feasible task, and will never be a feasible goal. The rise of charter schools with this new lottery system of application seem to be a band aid to a much bigger problem. Kids who do not get their name selected are thrown back into the failing public school system. What then is the goal of education, if we know that providing equal opportunity is never truly feasible?
Source: Waiting for Superman 1:21:50
Source: Waiting for Superman 1:28:31
Bibliography:
Guggenheim, Davis. Waiting for “Superman.” 2010. Film.
David Guggenheim’s Waiting for “Superman” looks at how the American public school system is failing its students and displays how reformers have attempted to solve this problem. Towards the end of the film, there is a segment that illustrates the charter school lottery as it takes place for different schools. The film shows how the audience members, filled with prospective students and their families, all sit with apprehensive looks on their faces as they anxiously listen to the names and numbers of the children who are called and are therefore accepted into the charter school by luck of the draw.
The most influential scene during this segment is when one of the students, Bianca, and her mother, Nakia, wait for Bianca’s name to be called as the lottery nears the end. The filmmakers made sure to film how Nakia becomes increasingly more anxious and concerned as time passes during the lottery, but fewer spots become available and her daughter’s name has not been called (Guggenheim 1:32:49). As young as Bianca is, she too displays this look of defeat as her name is not called (Guggenheim 1:32:56). The film portrays the deep sadness that Bianca and her mother feel when Bianca is not accepted into the charter school as the two embrace one another at the end and Nakia dries her daughter’s tears (Guggenheim 1:37:35).
This scene is an important one because it highlights how the acceptance of students into charter schools is determined by the luck of the draw and how some students are not able to enter into the public school of their choice solely because luck was not on their side. The filmmakers deliberately kept the camera on certain students and their families, like Nakia and Bianca, in order to show how those who did not get into charter schools felt extremely disappointed and emotional because they had hoped to be accepted into a school that would not fail them.
The film illustrates the problem of how American public schools are failing children, as it explicitly describes many public schools as “drop-out factories”, in which over 40% of students do not graduate on time. In response to this problem, many reformers, including Geoffrey Canada, have tried to look for solutions. The film shows how Geoffrey Canada’s solution to this problem was to create charter schools that would give children and their parents more options within the public school system and would hopefully raise academic performance, decrease dropout rates, and increase the number of students who attend college. However, the film shows how even charter schools leave some children behind, as those who are not chosen by the luck of the draw in the lottery system, are not able to attend the charter schools of their choice. Through the stories of five children who wanted to attend a charter school, the film shows how one child was accepted and another child was accepted from the wait list while three children were not accepted at all. By showing its audience that even charter schools close their doors to some students, which them forces these students to attend failing public schools, the video illustrates how there are still flaws to the American public school system and challenges that need to be addressed. The goal of the film is to create a successful public education system filled with great schools that leave no child behind, and it calls for reform from all of us in order to reach that goal. At the end of the film, there is writing that states: “The problem is complex but the steps are simple. It starts with teachers becoming the very best, leaders removing the barriers of change, neighbors committed to their school, you willing to act” (Guggenheim 1:45:05-1:45:28). The film recognizes how the American public plays an important role in helping to accomplish the reform goal of making American public schools great.
Source: Waiting for “Superman” 1:32:49
Source: Waiting for “Superman” 1:32:56
Source: Waiting for “Superman” 1:37:35
Bibliography:
Guggenheim, Davis. Waiting for “Superman.” 2010. Film.
Filmmaker Davis Guggenheim’s documentary, Waiting for ‘Superman,’ covers the systemic issues with public education in America. The film follows the lives and stories of different families across the United States. They are from different cities, different racial backgrounds, and have different socioeconomic statuses, but, they all suffer from the US public school system.
Daisy, an ambitious, Latino ten year old lives in southern California. Guggenheim interviews Daisy and her family about their thoughts on education. The filmmakers cut between interviews, shots of Daisy at school and voice narration to help explain Daisy’s situation. She is a good student who wants to go to medical school, but the majority of her fellow classmates are learning below average. By the time Daisy graduates from Stevenson Middle School, only 13% of her classmates will be proficient in math (Guggenheim (0:21). When Daisy graduates to Roosevelt High School, there are 15 required courses that the students need to pass in order to be accepted to a four-year public university in California. Only 3 out of 100 students will pass all 15 courses. Additionally, 57% of Daisy’s potential high school classmates will not graduate.
Dr. Robert Balfanz at John Hopkins University calls schools like Roosevelt ‘drop out factories.’ There is a pattern of failing elementary and middle schools pushing unqualified kids through the school system. By the time these kids get to high school they are multiple grade levels behind and end up dropping out. We can define the one of the major problems with US public education as failing elementary and middle schools leading to drop out factories. Reformers came up with the idea of Charter Schools to help fix the systemic problems in urban lower education. The end goal for publicly funded, independent Charter Schools is to have more students stay in school and make it to college. However, Charter Schools are not helping all American children. These schools have limited spots and are required by law to hold a live lottery system where they will pick the applicants. Daisy applied to KIPP LA to escape the never-ending pattern; unfortunately she was not chosen and will have to attend Stevenson Middle School. Although Charter Schools are helping a small percentage of students, reformers, politicians and educators all believe that the entire public school system needs to change. Parents and students are forced to put their children’s education in the hands of a lottery system; their entire fate and success is decided randomly.
Work Cited
Guggenheim, Davis. Waiting for “Superman.” 2010. Film.
Davis Guggenheim’s Documentary, Waiting for “Superman” explores the corrupt American School system. The video explores several of the problems within the system, and tells the personal stories of several families and communities who have been impacted and disadvantaged by the broken education system. The documentary follows the students and families struggling to win in a losing education system.
The filmakes use the case of Daisy to engrain into viewers the extreme problems within the system. Daisy, an elementary student from Los Angeles, wants to go to medical college and become a surgeon. They map out her path to medical school. They show at Stevenson Middle School she will need to take eighth grade algebra, and this is supposedly where her medical journey will begin. By the time she graduates from middle school, only thirteen percent of her classmates will be proficient in math. Then the map moves across the city to Roosevelt High School, where Daisy will go to high school. The school is known to be one of the worst schools in Los Angeles. Los Angeles works in a way that you have to take a set of 16 courses, A through G, and you need to pass all the course in order to be accepted into a four year undergraduate university.
The filmmakers then switch to a group of girls racing on a playground, most likely during one of their gym classes. The way they shot this scene metaphorically presents the way the Los Angeles school system is set up in a way to create competition amongst the students. As the girls are racing the narrator gives the statistics about colleges (Guggenheim 21:30). At Roosevelt High School, only three out of hundred students will graduate with the amount of courses necessary in order to be accepted into a four-year university, and a 57 percent of the students do not graduate at all. The filmmakers intentionally have the girls running in this scene, showing that only the best will actually get to the finish line and prevail in the failing school system (the finish line is perfectly framed and held by an adult figure). The scene then abruptly cuts to a John Hopkins Professor claiming that right from the start, it is clear which students are going to graduate and which are going to not. The way this scene is shown is extremely powerful, because it sets the stage for how these “drop- out factories” work, and in the end only the lucky prevail.
The documentary is extremely successful in unveiling the problems within the public school system. But the film is biased, and does not tell the stories of the individuals who benefit from a tracking system. They manage to express the horrors of the education system, but fail to highlight to positives, which gives the video an overlying tone of hopelessness. The film mentions for a successful change to occur, an entire societal change will need to happen. They show how to system inhibits learning, but hardly no mention of how it motivates it. The film ends showing a boy managing to get in to a charter school, but even he struggled to get in the first round in the lottery. The case of this one boy is so minute in comparison to the rest of the film. There needs to be some sense of hope in order for the education system to move forward, and help benefit the youth of America.
David Guggenheim’s documentary, Waiting for “Superman,” addresses a broken education system that seems impossible to fix. The film follows five children through their process of applying to Charter Schools. Faced against great odds, one was accepted, three were declined, and one was later accepted off the waitlist.
Towards the end of the film, one of the students, Bianca, is unable to attend her parochial school’s graduation ceremony. Her mother, Nakia, had recently lost hours at work and was unable to keep up with the $500 a month tuition. In this key scene, Nakia tears up explaining that she asked the principal, “Why penalize her for my responsibility?… To not let her be a part of the ceremony is just harsh” (Guggenheim 1:11:00). The filmmakers shot this scene so that the camera pans over both mother and daughter’s disappointed faces as Bianca watches her peers enter their school – directly across the street for their graduation ceremony. This influential scene depicts the way that Bianca’s parochial school punishes her for something that was out of her control. She is clearly confused, and asks her mother, “I’m not graduating…When am I gonna graduate?” (Guggenheim 1:10:24). This scene captures how a Harlem school was unwilling to accommodate its student, and instead made her feel ostracized from her educational community.
Waiting for “Superman” 1:11:16Waiting for “Superman” 1:11:13
Another student in the documentary, Daisy, wants to go to medical school, but is on track to feed into Roosevelt High School. It is described as one of the worst preforming schools in Los Angeles. The narrator says, “Only three out of one hundred students at Roosevelt will graduate with the classes necessary for admission to a four year university, and 57% of Daisy’s classmates won’t graduate” (Guggenheim 21:31). Dr. Robert Balfanz, a professor at Johns Hopkins University, uses the term “dropout factories” at 21:59 of Waiting For “Superman.” He uses this term to describe the more than 2,000 schools across the United States like Roosevelt that push students through the system until they are too far behind proficiency levels to do anything besides drop out. He calls these schools where over 40% of the students don’t graduate, dropout factories.
The filmmakers use Bianca and Daisy as examples of students that face great obstacles in succeeding. They are quick to label schools as “dropout factories,” and show the perceived advantages of a non-tracking, innovative Charter School classrooms. However, the film uses selection bias, and does not address the good that can come from tracking in public schools, or the success that can come from attending a traditional public school. The film is biased towards all of the negatives that poor city schools face and present Charter Schools as the solution to every problem. In reality they may not be just that. The film creates another hole for itself because it does not even address Magnet Schools.
Guggenheim, Davis. Waiting for “Superman.” 2010. Film.
