My Grading System

A+ = Masterpiece (I hold back on this one.) / A = Great. / A- = Really Good. / B+ = Good. / B = Decent (Serviceable). / B- = Flawed but okay (For those times there's something redeeming about the work). / C+ = Not very good (Skip it). C = Bad. / C- = Awful. / F = Complete Disaster (I hold back on this one too).

Note on Spoilers: I will try to avoid ruining a story by going into too much detail. But if I wish to include some revealing points to my analysis I will try to remember to add a separate spoiler paragraph.

Sunday, September 16, 2012

Waiting for Superman (2010)

Davis Guggenheim's documentary about our failing American Educaton system barely scratches the surface of a very complex issue and ends up being a narrow-minded film.  To say I was disappointed would be an understatement.  He addresses many truths about what's wrong with our schools and tackles the usual scapegoats when looking for someone to blame but misses the mark on a few crucial aspects.   Yes, tenure is a problem but he ignores the fact that there are a lot of bad teachers who aren't tenure.  From his documentary it appears that teachers are tenure as soon as they walk through the door.  This gives him the opportunity to bash the unions.  But with the school systems I'm familiar with, that's not how tenure works.  Another glaring hole is how one judges a good teacher and a bad teacher.  Test results.   I don't mind if it's involved with their evaluation but I don't believe teachers should be fired just because their kids did poorly on some test.  Tests should be a guideline only.  I know an excellent teacher who had the misfortune of being assigned the worse behaved kids on the planet, kids being raised by bad parents, kids who have zero respect for authority. Surprise, their test results weren't that great.  Put her in a class with well-behaved children and I guarantee they'd do better.  Teachers are just as unique as the children they're teaching and a good principle makes sure they matchup.   Oh, but Mr. Guggenheim never even addresses the possiblity of a bad principle.  There are a lot of bad ones out there but he only interviews the good guys.  Another chapter that I would have liked to have seen is on the tests that these schools use.  Who writes these tests and are the kids in Finland taking the same test as the kids in America?   He mentions crime and social problems but that's it.   What about the teachers who get abused but are not allowed to get said student suspended?  Oh, but we shouldn't protect our teachers, its a privilage to teach (or so Guggenheim implies).  The teacher unions are certainly corrupt and need to be fixed but they're not the problem.  Why are all the parents shown in the movie good parents?   What about all the bad parents out there?  There are so many issues mentioned and instead we have these sentmental stories about a group of kids who are forced into a lottery situation in order to get a better education.  Not that this would go away if we had a voucher system, if anything such a system would only make lotteries even more used.  Where the docuentary excells at communicating is on letting the teachers teach.  Get the bureautacs out of the way and let the teachers adapte to their studients.   The department of educaton is a necessary cabinet but it should only regulate rules like separation of church and state and making sure the basics are bieng covered.  To be fair this topic needs more than a signal film.  I wish Guggenheim planned on making this a series of documentaries (like Ken Burns' Civil War or Jazz).  This issue is too important for such an incomplete work.  Grade: C+  

No comments:

Post a Comment