In "Waiting for Superman", director Davis Guggenheim seeks to illuminate on the failure of the American education system. Following the stories of students seeking to better their educational opportunities, the documentary emphasizes the flaws within the education system that make it so difficult for students to get a proper education. The documentary does not present a solution to the problems, but establishes that there are many problems, and which methods are currently working. The film primarily focuses on the issues regarding the obstacles presented by the teacher union, the progression of the education system in America, and emphasizes the capabilities of a charter school. Although the evidence in the film establishes a significant issue in the functionality of the teacher's union and effectiveness in charter schools, the film fails to retain objectivity and provide pros and cons to the methodologies mentioned in the movie. The film argues that the education system within America used to be competing with among the top countries in education, but gradually became worse as time progressed and became unable to keep up with the rest of the world. After World War II, America underwent an economic boom. Schools put students into a track system where some students were almost predetermined to go to college and get a "high- skill job", be a skilled worker such as an accountant, or a manual laborer. The track system functioned at a satisfactory rate because there were jobs for everyone, the pay relative to then was better, and education wasn't as essential for a decent paying job in America. According to statistics presented by the film, until 1970 the American education system was the best in the world. America also placed 25th in world education, but also was the most confident country in terms of the level of education. While these problems seem to play out as essentially true, many of the statistics in the film are either omitted or interpretations of others' research, so caution is necessary.
The film argues that teacher unions are a large part of the problems within the American education system. The documentary focuses on the fact that the functionality of a school is largely affected by a teacher contract that stems from the union. With some teachers becoming less competent and beneficial to students following their acquirement of tenure, firing the ill-performing teachers can become difficult with the contract. The process of evaluating a teacher to fire them is extensive, difficult, and has a short time frame from which it can be proposed. The process makes a massive reform difficult to even begin. Furthermore, the contract limits that teachers cannot be paid based off their performance or how well they teach creating less of an incentive to become a teacher. While these points that the film mentions are all very significant to fixing the education system, the film selectively disregards certain aspects that would support a teachers union. For example, tenures are mostly seen as something to permit laziness among teachers, but it can also permit educational freedom and safety for teachers. Tenure can allow teachers to teach controversial topics such as evolutionary biology, or from classic texts that have been banned among certain schools. Teachers with tenure can also deviate from a curriculum solely meant for passing a standardized test, to make their lesson plans more interesting and inventive.Guggenheim also hints at modeling the school system based off of Finland, the country with the best education. However, the film fails to mention that the education system there has unionized teachers. The methods in which Finland attained its prestigious educational reputation were also not done in the manner suggested by the films, but in a much more gradual manner seeking and creating the best teachers.
The film also encourages and focuses on the viability of charter schools and their uses as an alternative to the standard public school. Charter schools are another form of public education, but are operated often with donations and with very limited space requiring a lottery system for it. In the film, charter schools are praised because of the philosophies that are generally exercised such as always having kids catch up if they are behind on their education. Charter schools are also utilized to demonstrate that the low income children that often score lower, have the potential to not only meet the standards of higher income children but to surpass them as well. The charter schools within the films are praised with their amazing performance, but the failure of some charter schools across the nation are ignored. A study performed by a Stanford economist reveals that only seventeen percent of half the charter schools in America are performing better than public schools. The other eighty three percent are all performing on the same levels as the other schools are worst. Moreover, if there are that many charter schools performing worse or just as well as public schools, why should they be getting any funding when that money could be potentially used to reinvigorate schools?
This documentary fails to touch on multiple key points, but is not a film to pass on. The film still touches on ideas and faults within the education system that are important to note. However, when watching this, it's important to keep in mind that this film has a strong bias for charter schools and against teacher unions. The largest success of this film is sensationalizing the necessity for education reform and making it an even larger issue than before. While the film doesn't provide clear, thought out solution, it does a fantastic job in establishing that there is a problem in need of a solution soon. Furthermore, this film implicitly demonstrates that solutions to problems as grand as education reform are not so black and white, and hopefully encourages viewers to investigate education reform, research, and formulate a personal opinion.
The film argues that teacher unions are a large part of the problems within the American education system. The documentary focuses on the fact that the functionality of a school is largely affected by a teacher contract that stems from the union. With some teachers becoming less competent and beneficial to students following their acquirement of tenure, firing the ill-performing teachers can become difficult with the contract. The process of evaluating a teacher to fire them is extensive, difficult, and has a short time frame from which it can be proposed. The process makes a massive reform difficult to even begin. Furthermore, the contract limits that teachers cannot be paid based off their performance or how well they teach creating less of an incentive to become a teacher. While these points that the film mentions are all very significant to fixing the education system, the film selectively disregards certain aspects that would support a teachers union. For example, tenures are mostly seen as something to permit laziness among teachers, but it can also permit educational freedom and safety for teachers. Tenure can allow teachers to teach controversial topics such as evolutionary biology, or from classic texts that have been banned among certain schools. Teachers with tenure can also deviate from a curriculum solely meant for passing a standardized test, to make their lesson plans more interesting and inventive.Guggenheim also hints at modeling the school system based off of Finland, the country with the best education. However, the film fails to mention that the education system there has unionized teachers. The methods in which Finland attained its prestigious educational reputation were also not done in the manner suggested by the films, but in a much more gradual manner seeking and creating the best teachers.
The film also encourages and focuses on the viability of charter schools and their uses as an alternative to the standard public school. Charter schools are another form of public education, but are operated often with donations and with very limited space requiring a lottery system for it. In the film, charter schools are praised because of the philosophies that are generally exercised such as always having kids catch up if they are behind on their education. Charter schools are also utilized to demonstrate that the low income children that often score lower, have the potential to not only meet the standards of higher income children but to surpass them as well. The charter schools within the films are praised with their amazing performance, but the failure of some charter schools across the nation are ignored. A study performed by a Stanford economist reveals that only seventeen percent of half the charter schools in America are performing better than public schools. The other eighty three percent are all performing on the same levels as the other schools are worst. Moreover, if there are that many charter schools performing worse or just as well as public schools, why should they be getting any funding when that money could be potentially used to reinvigorate schools?
This documentary fails to touch on multiple key points, but is not a film to pass on. The film still touches on ideas and faults within the education system that are important to note. However, when watching this, it's important to keep in mind that this film has a strong bias for charter schools and against teacher unions. The largest success of this film is sensationalizing the necessity for education reform and making it an even larger issue than before. While the film doesn't provide clear, thought out solution, it does a fantastic job in establishing that there is a problem in need of a solution soon. Furthermore, this film implicitly demonstrates that solutions to problems as grand as education reform are not so black and white, and hopefully encourages viewers to investigate education reform, research, and formulate a personal opinion.