10.10.10

I was able to see “Waiting for Superman.” The film has a definite perspective. David Guggenheim portrays charter schools as the solution to educating students who want to learn. And he portrays teachers unions and tenure as the enemy of educating children. It does not try to get the opinions of individuals that might counter his viewpoint. But perhaps having a balanced film was not his objective.

Having been an IRF for some eight years, I have witnessed poorly performing teachers who remain, especially at high priority schools for years and years. And have seen the failure of the system to moving them on from schools to other professions. Too often the “lemons” are simply moved on to another most likely high priority school. I think the union and the teaching profession should take charge in making sure that all teachers are competent and effective. When there is a poor teacher at a site, it reflects poorly on the teaching profession. We are only as strong as the weakest link. In reality, teachers who do not perform well should not be at any school. Last year I asked my union president what the union would do to keep poorly performing teachers from high-priority schools and the question was ignored.

On the other hand, Guggenheim fails to address important elements in contemporary education;

• The film shows parents who take the initiative to find schools that would benefit their children. Why does he not interview parents who have no initiative? What schools do the children of those parents go to? Charter schools? Private schools? And where is the portrayal of top public schools or children and parents who go to public schools?
• The film fails to address funding in education. California used to be the leader in the country for a fine K-12 school system and one of the top in university systems in the world. Now California now is 48^th in per pupil spending in K-12. And our state and UC systems cannot guarantee that that all qualified high school graduates have a place in college. Why does the film fail to address the supplementary private funds that some charter schools must get?
• Charter schools can be selective in the students they admit. What is the percent of special education children, English-language learners they admit compared to public schools. Public schools must accept all students.
• Most of the children portrayed are children of color. But it fails to address how racism has been a determining element in the history of US education to communities of color and we live in a society which is a largely a product of that system. Why is it that “drop out factories” are largely in communities of color? And why does it fail to address the role of culturally-relevant curriculum in the communities it serves?
• And when was it that test scores are the sole determinant of student achievement? What are other elements of a fine education that cannot be demonstrated on a test and how are they evaluated?
• What does the director propose instead of tenure so teachers are not fired or dismissed simply because they did not jump at the whim of their administrator? Tenure was established to provide academic freedom to teachers without fear of retaliation.
• Why has the director chosen to opt out of the public school system rather than getting involved in his local community public school to make it better?
• No one knows how difficult it is to teach, to address the various levels and modalities a teacher has in the classroom. Teachers have children who do not speak English but are expected to attain standards in English, children with disabilities, children with family problems, children with endemic poverty or abuse at home. I invite the director to come teach at my school for a year and attain the standards he is expected to reach.

Maybe there will be a film depicting how we don't care about children, because if we did we would provide them with everything they need so they can succeed: childcare, healthcare, free preschool, mental health, jobs, well-balanced curriculum. Perhaps.