Sunday, October 10, 2010

Fact based and perspective challenges to Waiting for Superman



I have posted here several critiques of  the film, “Waiting for Superman,” so I do not need to repeat these criticisms.  The most fact based criticism is here What Superman got wrong. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/answer-sheet/guest-bloggers/what-superman-got-wrong-point.html
My goal in the following is to share my own reaction to the film. First, it is an important film and I encourage people to see it.  It illustrates to a rather uninformed public and an often poorly informed press   several of the important issues including the budget crisis in schools and the importance of having quality teachers. 
Second. The film makes two glaring claims that were assertions by anti union advocates  when the film was made and now are wrong.  The film claims that the teachers union leadership in Washington D.C. would not allow the Michele Rhee offered contract to come to a vote.  In fact, since the film was made, the contract was submitted to a vote and it passed.  That is Rhee got the contract she wanted- which the film claims was made impossible by union obstruction.  Also, the film supports its claim that incompetent teachers are difficult to remove by citing the extreme case of the New York City room, called by the press the “rubber room.”  It is a compelling story.  However, the so called “rubber room was eliminated last year by the very union contract which the film makers claim was protecting incompetent teachers.

Yes, the film has several anti union charges by various selected speakers.  For example there is the assertion by a  New York Times writer that the two teachers’ unions dominate the Democratic Party.  This is a common claim among Republicans and a few Democrats.  And, yes, the film claims that the teachers’ unions gave significant funds to elect Obama.
However, it is not true that the teachers’ unions were the largest contributors to the Obama campaign.  The records clearly show that Finance Capital was the major large donors to the Obama campaign.
In addition, under Secretary Arne Duncan federal policy has continued and perhaps even accelerated in its anti union course.  The federal policy known as Race to the Top used competition between the states and a $ 4.1 billion dollar allocation  to get more than 34 states to change their laws and to encourage more charter schools- a policy supported by the film makers and generally opposed by the teachers’ unions. 
The film promotes a particular direction as reform. 
The narrator several times  says,  “reform experts agree “ when in fact they do not agree.  The narration recognizes only the Michelle Rhee, Joel Klien, direction of reform and does not recognize  the literally hundreds, perhaps thousands, of persons who have been working  in the trenches for substantive reform for decades.

Randy Wingartner, President of the AFT and seen if edited and clipped statements in the film described this group in August this way,  “Never before have I seen so few attack so many, so harshly, for doing so much—often with so little.
I don’t know if I should call the people attacking us, quote, “reformers,” as they like to be
known—or performers, which might be more accurate. Because many of them seem more interested in engaging in political theater than constructive conversation.
So I’ll just call them the “blame-the-teacher crowd,” and even though many of them have set their sights on all public institutions, I will focus on the institution that has gotten the most abuse—public education.
The blame-the-teacher crowd would have Americans believe that there is only one choice when it comes to public education: either you’re for students, or you’re for teachers.
That is a bogus choice.
When a school is good for the kids, it’s also good for the teachers, and vice versa. And if our leaders fail to recognize this, and fail to create a positive vision for our schools, we must lead the way.”
And, Diane Ravitch, the formerly neo conservative “reformer” during the Reagan Administration calls these folks, the “Billionaires Boy’s Club” In her new book.  For one of the many problems with this view of reform see, “Crooks, Fools, charlatans, and carpet baggers and school reform,” here http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=11455634&postID=2295608821022666888
The film maker distorts the needed discussion of school reform by citing only one side of the debate- that of the  Billionaire Boy’s Club and their well funded spokespersons.  The film decries the teachers unions as a special interest while reporting on Bill Gates, the Olin Foundation, the Bradley foundation, the Broad Foundation, and the entire raft of very conservative economic interests.   Their declared interest is the shrink the public sector – as in public schools- and to spend less money on tax supported institutions.   A second goal of several of these foundations is to defeat the power of teachers unions and the Democratic Party- that is why Meg Whitman, Arnold Schwarzenegger and others find them so appealing.  
 On several occasions the narrator is  the film is loose with the data, making claims that should require several qualifiers to be adequate.
Most of us do not regard the test based accountability  as required in No Child Left Behind and many state laws as sufficient nor adequate. It is often not even helpful in producing school improvement. 
The film also under reports the interventions of  the Harlem Children’s Zone.  Not only are the schools intensified, the children get health care, food, parental counseling, and a wide variety of supportive services in the Zone.  That is great. It is the way to intervene.  But, other schools do not have these funds and services.  For more on this approach see: http://www.boldapproach.org/.
So, the producers and the television talking heads claim that they want to discuss the film.  Fine. Lets discuss it.  But, lets let all sides in on the discussion and not frame the discussion as the film does as reformers v the teachers’ union.  That is a limited view of the many issues.  More to follow.

Post a Comment
 
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 Unported License.