A virtual space to extend our classroom community...
Thursday, January 20, 2011
March 24…Waiting for Superman
What do you think was Davis Guggenheim’s purpose for creating the film? Was it effective? Did Ravitch’s critique change how you feel about the film and/or charter schools? Was she fair?
Guggenheim purpose of filming "Waiting for Superman" I believe was to show an alternative to public schools, that may or not be a better route for a child who may attend a fail factory. Seeing the movie a second time and after reading Ravitch's "The Myth of Charter Schools" I don't believe it's effective, in the sense that Charter Schools are the way to solve our education crisis, but it's effective as maybe giving parents a way out of the system if they are dissatisfied with it. And as I already mentioned, Ravitch's bit on "Waiting for Superman" has definitely changed my opinion on the film. When she mentioned the SEED charter school and how they spend 35,000 dollars on their students is a stark contrast between a figure that Guggenheim gave at one point in the movie.
Guggenheim when mentioning the price of prisons and how much it costs to keep them there explains that each inmate costs the state 33,000 dollars a year, and if we took that amount and multiplied it by four, there would be enough money to send a kid to a charter school for eight years and some money to get her started on college. If we were to use that logic for Anthony and SEED, his schooling to college would cost a quarter of a million dollars! That's the same price it would take to keep an inmate for roughly seven and a half years.
I believe Ravitch's critique was fair because she did the research and has seen everything first hand. Guggenheim does sort of pull the wool over our eyes and assumes that we wouldn't be emotionally moved and most people aren't educated enough to do same extension research Ravitch did. I agree with Ravitch in that schools are somewhat of a problem and there is a lack of accountability, but until socioeconomic factors, like family income, are accounted for, there's not much a school can do.
I believe Guggenheim’s purpose for creating this film was to create a documentary to expose the flaws of the American public school system. He explicitly points the finger at teachers, unions, and the public school system. As Jacob mentioned, I think he also uses the film to also demonstrate the “effectiveness” of charter/private schools. Guggenheim most definitely paints a picture that the charter school system is much more successful in producing better quality students. I think Guggenheim is very effect in making those points. He makes many references to statistics as well as uses interviews from successful/influential persons from education. He combines his facts (if you will) and experts (if you will again) along with emotion by using the stories of children from challenging backgrounds who fight alongside their families for their desire to gain acceptance to these charter schools. Ravitch’s critique definitely had an effect over how I felt about the film. I think she makes very fair points about other external factors that influence students. The source of many problems cannot be concentrated down to a single entity. Ravitch makes a valid position when stating that Guggenheim ignores the other factors that can affect the potential of a student. Things in your personal life, such as family or income, and personal drive most certainly play a role in performance for all people in all aspects of life. A family feud can affect a student in school or an adult at work. Guggenheim clearly ignores such factors in his film. This is where his tunnel-vision blocks a more wholesome, and more realistic, view.
"Waiting for Superman" was filmed in a way that is captivating to the viewer, it is emotionally pulling and dramatic- like most good movies, it feeds on our weaknesses. Now I do believe that Guggenheim has a point; there are certainly problems within the public schools. However, I disagree with the origins of those problems. I believe that we are producing poor students as an effect of our degrading culture. Although a great teacher is always an inspiration and motivational tool for a student, the success of a student essentially lies within that child. It is the will and desire to learn, the thirst for knowledge and support from strong families that leaves our children apathetic and uncommitted to learning. In order to see a real change in our students we need to look much deeper than which teachers are best at what they do.
I believe Guggenheim wrote this film because of some personal interest in Charter schools. Although his intentions might very well be good, I would not be surprised if he had a personal gain for promoting public schools. The reason I dance with this idea is because of the romantic, biased view he paints of Charter schools. I do not doubt that some are spectacular and that the idea might be great, I am simply weary of an unbalanced opinion. Especially if it has been well publicized and promoted.
CORRECTION: It is the will and desire to learn, the thirst for knowledge and support from strong families that creates the best students. If a child lacks these things it leaves them apathetic and uncommitted to learning.
I believe that Guggenheim's film is very accurate in regards to interested and struggling parents. The cases he presented are cases of poor parents working menial jobs and instilling values of hard work in their children. For them, the system is very unfair. However, I agree with Ravitch's position that there's more to a good student than just doing homework. Family life, among other things is a strong influence.
For example, from watching Guggenheim's film you would think that the high school dropouts in the streets and in prisons are only there because they had aspirations defeated by "the system." From personal experience, knowing kids that dropped out in high school, I would say that a lot of them didn't care in the first place. Some had two stable parents who couldn't control them because pop culture influenced them to want to rebel and be "cool" and to say the least not study and just party. Pop culture and peer pressure to do drugs and join gangs are things that multiply the effects of "failure factories" and school officials have no idea where to start correcting for that. There's a line between poverty and personal accountability.
Guggenheim made this film to show the merits of charter schools and the shortcomings of public schools. That said he was also trying to make another successful documentary from a movie market position. He made good use of graphics and real people to create a strong emotional investment in his topic. Even when showing statistics for reading capabilities little animated children (not happy children, but children failed by their education system) held up little signs with the numbers. He definitely made good decisions on how to make a movie that effectively moves people to agree with what many are so willing to agree with: our school systems are failing. I'm not saying that I think our schools are doing amazing (I don't actually have a good understanding of the research on this) however I merely point out that this is a common belief as evidence by its prominence in political campaigns. Ravitch's critique seemed fair to me. The film does seem to simplify the problem down to an easy to understand us vs. them discussion of unions, bad teachers, and drop out factories. To think of the problems so simply doesn't do it justice. Ravitch makes some important points about how outside factors can play a very important role on education.
I believe that Guggenheim's purpose for the movie was to expose what he saw as the horrors of under-performing public schools, many of which were attended by children of low-income families or in less fortunate areas with less resources. I believe Ravitch's statement that Guggenheim was trying to promote the idea that bad teachers and teachers unions were the source of evil. I didn't think right away that he was passionately promoting charter schools, but perhaps I didn't gather all of the movie. The way he portrayed the information in the movie was as effective as most documentaries. I think of the phrase "Figures lie, and liars figure" when watching this movie. He arranged his movie to stir the emotions of the audience. He did an effective job of that. Ravitch's critique definitely changed the way I felt about the film because it provided that other side of the argument that the documentary lacked. It disproved and corrected a lot of Guggenheim's figures, which makes me think twice about the validity of the movie. Of course, it isn't surprising that the documentary lacked more than one viewpoint so that the audience could make their own decision rather than having one idea forced on them, but I feel that Ravitch's argument was somewhat the same way. What I gathered from her critique was that Guggenheim's criticism of the "bad teachers" was wrong and that the real problem was an outside factor: poverty. Great. All we need to do is end poverty and be more like Finland! That's the simple solution. In the end, I see both the film and the critique as the same thing, just a critique.
Guggenheim's main purpose of "Waiting for Superman" is to expose the public school system for what it really has to offer, nothing. He tries to give a voice to those parents who do not have much choice in what schools their children attend to receive the best education. His focus on the parents shows how much they should be involved in their child's future. Guggenheim also puts a lot of focus on charter schools and how much they have to offer. He wanted his viewers to see how big of a difference things seem to be between public school systems and the independently run schools. Guggenheim puts strong emphasis on weeding out the bad teachers who only keep their jobs due to contracts, unions, and tenure. Good teachers produce good results and in his view we need to find a way to obtain better results in public schools.
After reading "The Myth of Charter Schools" I feel somewhat naive because I was so drawn in emotionally by what the kids were going through I forgot to look at the bigger picture. This is exactly what Ravitch did in her critique. Guggenheim tried to make it seem as if change occurs in a straight line. Ravitch didnt necessarily try to put down the documentary but to show how one-sided it is to others. The most important point she mentions, in my opinion, is how Guggenheim puts much emphasis on the teachers and less on other environmental factors. Everyone doesn't have devoted parents or the same learning abilities as other kids and he definitely leaves out those important factors. I really value her critique because she gave various counterarguments to his documentary with ample amounts of evidence. She provides the reality point of view to the problem of the public education system. Until the truth can collectively be understood by educators, leaders, and public officials, the public education system cannot endure an effective change to help students receive quality education.
Guggenheim’s purpose for making the film was definitely to alleviate some “liberal guilt,” as Kurt is so fond of saying. Seriously though, it seemed like the purpose was mainly to show how bad unions are and how adult interests have taken precedence in America over children's education. It was hugely effective in one aspect: playing on the audience’s emotions. Guggenheim makes the viewer hate the American education system as it wreaks obvious havoc on the future of the children in the film...with the exception of the upper-middle class white girl, of course.
Ravitch’s critique definitely altered the way I viewed the film; her exposing the one-sidedness of the statistics employed in Waiting for Superman was hugely helpful in my understanding of the film, and her assertions of it being little more than propaganda. Guggenheim makes a compelling case for the success of charter schools, but Ravitch calls him out for cherry-picking his data and facts, portraying the motivations, mechanisms and results in a light skewed in favor of the charter school movement and against the teachers unions.
Guggenheim's purpose of showing an alternate to public schools was effective but was it just publicity for charter schools? Why would he want children to go to 'for-profit' schools when they are doing only as well as the public schools? Instead of coming together to solve the problems of education we are creating more havoc and competition among ourselves. Teachers unions vs the government, students and parents vs school but who is willing and ABLE to change the entire system. Leaving the system this way is clearly not working but it is not just the education system, students have to battle poverty, neglect, family problems ... not just homework and that's something that we fail to realize. Nodding's ethic of care fits perfectly in here because if a student has other things that take priority over learning algebra then it's not that he or she doesn't care about learning, it's that the students care is in a different place right now. I think our job is to take away or atleast try to take away these outside dangers that threaten a child's well-being. If a family doesn't have enough money to buy paper and pens, should it be the child that suffers? No, we should all come together to provide what is necessary for life... education. It is not just the school, or just the educators, or just the neighborhood it is all of these things combined that create a place where learning is difficult. Tenure for public school teachers is clearly not working in some cases where teachers can say 'whether I teach you or not I get paid' and still not get fired. Why, in all other professions do you have to do your job to get paid but in teaching you can knowingly NOT do your job and still get paid the same amount. There needs to be some kind of check in place to ensure that the teachers getting tenure are teachers that care about their job and do well at their job... and if they don't do well but still really have a desire to teach then they can attend workshops to improve their skills. We need to begin thinking about other alternatives of rewarding teachers, not lifetime payroll no matter what.
I always go into documentary films with a certain critical mindset and this was no exception. The film is expertly done, managing not only to tickle your intellectual curiosity but inflame your emotions and sense of justice. It's impossible for anyone capable of empathy to not root for those kids, hoping that they win the charter school lottery, and disappointed when they're passed over. It think the movie did make some fair arguments about the way that the public education is run and how any bureaucracy tends to tangle up the system and keep real reform from taking place. But at the same time, this was a film created for a singular purpose by a man that has a singular opinion, and as such does not contain the complete truth. I think this is what I respected most about the Ravitch critique, was her addressing that this issue is multifaceted and to boil it down to one or two parts was never going to solve the problems in public education. Overall, I think "Waiting for Superman" is a good way to get people thinking about public education and becoming more involved in finding solutions.
I feel a bit guilty saying this but I actually, from my admittedly naive position, really agree with Ravitch's critique. As much as I found the film moving emotionally—I, too, had a little cry at the end—I was disappointed by the intense focus on certain points and the glossing-over, if not complete neglect, of other relevant factors. I found the "Rubber Room" one of the most deeply disturbing moments in the film, particularly the footage shot within it. That said, the film really did seem to present to me the idea that charter schools are absolutely the way to go, a far cry from the earlier critique we read of Arne Duncan. I understand that the overarching message must have been that our schools are in such a dire state of unsatisfactory results that parents will go to almost any length to get their children more, the most common option being the charter school. Charter schools, to me, have different downsides than public schools, but they have downsides nonetheless. From this, I can hope Guggenheim was hoping to call enough attention to the public schools that action would be taken to improve them. However, it felt as if he were condemning them and I can't help but think the wrong outcome will result: a growing emphasis on charter schools, on businesses within the schools and even more adults serving other adults than the needs of the children.
Guggenheim purpose of filming "Waiting for Superman" I believe was to show an alternative to public schools, that may or not be a better route for a child who may attend a fail factory. Seeing the movie a second time and after reading Ravitch's "The Myth of Charter Schools" I don't believe it's effective, in the sense that Charter Schools are the way to solve our education crisis, but it's effective as maybe giving parents a way out of the system if they are dissatisfied with it. And as I already mentioned, Ravitch's bit on "Waiting for Superman" has definitely changed my opinion on the film. When she mentioned the SEED charter school and how they spend 35,000 dollars on their students is a stark contrast between a figure that Guggenheim gave at one point in the movie.
ReplyDeleteGuggenheim when mentioning the price of prisons and how much it costs to keep them there explains that each inmate costs the state 33,000 dollars a year, and if we took that amount and multiplied it by four, there would be enough money to send a kid to a charter school for eight years and some money to get her started on college. If we were to use that logic for Anthony and SEED, his schooling to college would cost a quarter of a million dollars! That's the same price it would take to keep an inmate for roughly seven and a half years.
I believe Ravitch's critique was fair because she did the research and has seen everything first hand. Guggenheim does sort of pull the wool over our eyes and assumes that we wouldn't be emotionally moved and most people aren't educated enough to do same extension research Ravitch did. I agree with Ravitch in that schools are somewhat of a problem and there is a lack of accountability, but until socioeconomic factors, like family income, are accounted for, there's not much a school can do.
To any one who reads my post, I apologize for the grammar. I do realize that it is awful and that I need to proof read before posting anything.
ReplyDeleteI believe Guggenheim’s purpose for creating this film was to create a documentary to expose the flaws of the American public school system. He explicitly points the finger at teachers, unions, and the public school system. As Jacob mentioned, I think he also uses the film to also demonstrate the “effectiveness” of charter/private schools. Guggenheim most definitely paints a picture that the charter school system is much more successful in producing better quality students. I think Guggenheim is very effect in making those points. He makes many references to statistics as well as uses interviews from successful/influential persons from education. He combines his facts (if you will) and experts (if you will again) along with emotion by using the stories of children from challenging backgrounds who fight alongside their families for their desire to gain acceptance to these charter schools.
ReplyDeleteRavitch’s critique definitely had an effect over how I felt about the film. I think she makes very fair points about other external factors that influence students. The source of many problems cannot be concentrated down to a single entity. Ravitch makes a valid position when stating that Guggenheim ignores the other factors that can affect the potential of a student. Things in your personal life, such as family or income, and personal drive most certainly play a role in performance for all people in all aspects of life. A family feud can affect a student in school or an adult at work. Guggenheim clearly ignores such factors in his film. This is where his tunnel-vision blocks a more wholesome, and more realistic, view.
"Waiting for Superman" was filmed in a way that is captivating to the viewer, it is emotionally pulling and dramatic- like most good movies, it feeds on our weaknesses. Now I do believe that Guggenheim has a point; there are certainly problems within the public schools. However, I disagree with the origins of those problems. I believe that we are producing poor students as an effect of our degrading culture. Although a great teacher is always an inspiration and motivational tool for a student, the success of a student essentially lies within that child. It is the will and desire to learn, the thirst for knowledge and support from strong families that leaves our children apathetic and uncommitted to learning. In order to see a real change in our students we need to look much deeper than which teachers are best at what they do.
ReplyDeleteI believe Guggenheim wrote this film because of some personal interest in Charter schools. Although his intentions might very well be good, I would not be surprised if he had a personal gain for promoting public schools. The reason I dance with this idea is because of the romantic, biased view he paints of Charter schools. I do not doubt that some are spectacular and that the idea might be great, I am simply weary of an unbalanced opinion. Especially if it has been well publicized and promoted.
CORRECTION: It is the will and desire to learn, the thirst for knowledge and support from strong families that creates the best students. If a child lacks these things it leaves them apathetic and uncommitted to learning.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Guggenheim's film is very accurate in regards to interested and struggling parents. The cases he presented are cases of poor parents working menial jobs and instilling values of hard work in their children. For them, the system is very unfair.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I agree with Ravitch's position that there's more to a good student than just doing homework. Family life, among other things is a strong influence.
For example, from watching Guggenheim's film you would think that the high school dropouts in the streets and in prisons are only there because they had aspirations defeated by "the system." From personal experience, knowing kids that dropped out in high school, I would say that a lot of them didn't care in the first place. Some had two stable parents who couldn't control them because pop culture influenced them to want to rebel and be "cool" and to say the least not study and just party. Pop culture and peer pressure to do drugs and join gangs are things that multiply the effects of "failure factories" and school officials have no idea where to start correcting for that. There's a line between poverty and personal accountability.
Guggenheim made this film to show the merits of charter schools and the shortcomings of public schools. That said he was also trying to make another successful documentary from a movie market position. He made good use of graphics and real people to create a strong emotional investment in his topic. Even when showing statistics for reading capabilities little animated children (not happy children, but children failed by their education system) held up little signs with the numbers. He definitely made good decisions on how to make a movie that effectively moves people to agree with what many are so willing to agree with: our school systems are failing. I'm not saying that I think our schools are doing amazing (I don't actually have a good understanding of the research on this) however I merely point out that this is a common belief as evidence by its prominence in political campaigns. Ravitch's critique seemed fair to me. The film does seem to simplify the problem down to an easy to understand us vs. them discussion of unions, bad teachers, and drop out factories. To think of the problems so simply doesn't do it justice. Ravitch makes some important points about how outside factors can play a very important role on education.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Guggenheim's purpose for the movie was to expose what he saw as the horrors of under-performing public schools, many of which were attended by children of low-income families or in less fortunate areas with less resources. I believe Ravitch's statement that Guggenheim was trying to promote the idea that bad teachers and teachers unions were the source of evil. I didn't think right away that he was passionately promoting charter schools, but perhaps I didn't gather all of the movie. The way he portrayed the information in the movie was as effective as most documentaries. I think of the phrase "Figures lie, and liars figure" when watching this movie. He arranged his movie to stir the emotions of the audience. He did an effective job of that. Ravitch's critique definitely changed the way I felt about the film because it provided that other side of the argument that the documentary lacked. It disproved and corrected a lot of Guggenheim's figures, which makes me think twice about the validity of the movie. Of course, it isn't surprising that the documentary lacked more than one viewpoint so that the audience could make their own decision rather than having one idea forced on them, but I feel that Ravitch's argument was somewhat the same way. What I gathered from her critique was that Guggenheim's criticism of the "bad teachers" was wrong and that the real problem was an outside factor: poverty. Great. All we need to do is end poverty and be more like Finland! That's the simple solution. In the end, I see both the film and the critique as the same thing, just a critique.
ReplyDeleteAlexis said:
ReplyDeleteGuggenheim's main purpose of "Waiting for Superman" is to expose the public school system for what it really has to offer, nothing. He tries to give a voice to those parents who do not have much choice in what schools their children attend to receive the best education. His focus on the parents shows how much they should be involved in their child's future. Guggenheim also puts a lot of focus on charter schools and how much they have to offer. He wanted his viewers to see how big of a difference things seem to be between public school systems and the independently run schools. Guggenheim puts strong emphasis on weeding out the bad teachers who only keep their jobs due to contracts, unions, and tenure. Good teachers produce good results and in his view we need to find a way to obtain better results in public schools.
After reading "The Myth of Charter Schools" I feel somewhat naive because I was so drawn in emotionally by what the kids were going through I forgot to look at the bigger picture. This is exactly what Ravitch did in her critique. Guggenheim tried to make it seem as if change occurs in a straight line. Ravitch didnt necessarily try to put down the documentary but to show how one-sided it is to others. The most important point she mentions, in my opinion, is how Guggenheim puts much emphasis on the teachers and less on other environmental factors. Everyone doesn't have devoted parents or the same learning abilities as other kids and he definitely leaves out those important factors. I really value her critique because she gave various counterarguments to his documentary with ample amounts of evidence. She provides the reality point of view to the problem of the public education system. Until the truth can collectively be understood by educators, leaders, and public officials, the public education system cannot endure an effective change to help students receive quality education.
That's twice now that this blog has deleted the answer that I've tried to post. I'll do this later and take the late grade.
ReplyDeleteGuggenheim’s purpose for making the film was definitely to alleviate some “liberal guilt,” as Kurt is so fond of saying. Seriously though, it seemed like the purpose was mainly to show how bad unions are and how adult interests have taken precedence in America over children's education. It was hugely effective in one aspect: playing on the audience’s emotions. Guggenheim makes the viewer hate the American education system as it wreaks obvious havoc on the future of the children in the film...with the exception of the upper-middle class white girl, of course.
ReplyDeleteRavitch’s critique definitely altered the way I viewed the film; her exposing the one-sidedness of the statistics employed in Waiting for Superman was hugely helpful in my understanding of the film, and her assertions of it being little more than propaganda. Guggenheim makes a compelling case for the success of charter schools, but Ravitch calls him out for cherry-picking his data and facts, portraying the motivations, mechanisms and results in a light skewed in favor of the charter school movement and against the teachers unions.
Guggenheim's purpose of showing an alternate to public schools was effective but was it just publicity for charter schools? Why would he want children to go to 'for-profit' schools when they are doing only as well as the public schools? Instead of coming together to solve the problems of education we are creating more havoc and competition among ourselves. Teachers unions vs the government, students and parents vs school but who is willing and ABLE to change the entire system. Leaving the system this way is clearly not working but it is not just the education system, students have to battle poverty, neglect, family problems ... not just homework and that's something that we fail to realize. Nodding's ethic of care fits perfectly in here because if a student has other things that take priority over learning algebra then it's not that he or she doesn't care about learning, it's that the students care is in a different place right now. I think our job is to take away or atleast try to take away these outside dangers that threaten a child's well-being. If a family doesn't have enough money to buy paper and pens, should it be the child that suffers? No, we should all come together to provide what is necessary for life... education. It is not just the school, or just the educators, or just the neighborhood it is all of these things combined that create a place where learning is difficult. Tenure for public school teachers is clearly not working in some cases where teachers can say 'whether I teach you or not I get paid' and still not get fired. Why, in all other professions do you have to do your job to get paid but in teaching you can knowingly NOT do your job and still get paid the same amount. There needs to be some kind of check in place to ensure that the teachers getting tenure are teachers that care about their job and do well at their job... and if they don't do well but still really have a desire to teach then they can attend workshops to improve their skills. We need to begin thinking about other alternatives of rewarding teachers, not lifetime payroll no matter what.
ReplyDeleteI always go into documentary films with a certain critical mindset and this was no exception. The film is expertly done, managing not only to tickle your intellectual curiosity but inflame your emotions and sense of justice. It's impossible for anyone capable of empathy to not root for those kids, hoping that they win the charter school lottery, and disappointed when they're passed over. It think the movie did make some fair arguments about the way that the public education is run and how any bureaucracy tends to tangle up the system and keep real reform from taking place. But at the same time, this was a film created for a singular purpose by a man that has a singular opinion, and as such does not contain the complete truth. I think this is what I respected most about the Ravitch critique, was her addressing that this issue is multifaceted and to boil it down to one or two parts was never going to solve the problems in public education. Overall, I think "Waiting for Superman" is a good way to get people thinking about public education and becoming more involved in finding solutions.
ReplyDeleteSorry, I didn't know this post was here :(
ReplyDeleteI feel a bit guilty saying this but I actually, from my admittedly naive position, really agree with Ravitch's critique. As much as I found the film moving emotionally—I, too, had a little cry at the end—I was disappointed by the intense focus on certain points and the glossing-over, if not complete neglect, of other relevant factors. I found the "Rubber Room" one of the most deeply disturbing moments in the film, particularly the footage shot within it. That said, the film really did seem to present to me the idea that charter schools are absolutely the way to go, a far cry from the earlier critique we read of Arne Duncan. I understand that the overarching message must have been that our schools are in such a dire state of unsatisfactory results that parents will go to almost any length to get their children more, the most common option being the charter school. Charter schools, to me, have different downsides than public schools, but they have downsides nonetheless. From this, I can hope Guggenheim was hoping to call enough attention to the public schools that action would be taken to improve them. However, it felt as if he were condemning them and I can't help but think the wrong outcome will result: a growing emphasis on charter schools, on businesses within the schools and even more adults serving other adults than the needs of the children.