Purely Joyful Movie!

The film creates a perfect balance between action and depth of basic needs, in the midst of an infertile atmosphere.

Story: It's very simple but honestly that is fine.

Very good movie overall, highly recommended. Most of the negative reviews don't have any merit and are all pollitically based. Give this movie a chance at least, and it might give you a different perspective.

Well, that is a difficult movie/documentary to review. I cant say this is a masterpiece but it is not as bad as some people claim. Lets start with the positive things. There is a concrete idea about the US education system problem (I am not saying the idea is right or wrong. There is an idea). The presentation of the idea is fine but for something to be called "documentary", I would expect more evidence about the proposed claims. Some potential solutions are also presented and they sound like there is a way to fix the problem. Looking at the negative things, the list is longer I am afraid. First of all, I was confused about the status of the private education (as someone not living in US). At the beginning, I felt like the whole movie will be about how great the private schools are and how bad the public education is. It didn't go in that direction but the target was certainly the public schools. The attack on the unions just doesn't feel right. If your system does not let you show the stick, you can encourage people with carrots. Instead of trying to force teachers out of the unions by offering more money, it is possible to offer more money for better performance. Therefore, the proposition "we were going to fix everything but the unions didn't let us do" sounds childish and blaming unions for the performance of teachers is quite one-sided (as most reviewers point out). I agree with the "better teacher for better education" idea but the proper way to have better teachers is not bribing them to leave unions. Instead, one can offer performance based promotions and better education for teachers (yes, education of the educator). Anyways, the last ten to twenty minutes were really pointless as well. To sum up, the movie is pointing a problem but the way they try to propose potential solutions is somehow problematic.

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.

"No child left behind" is a line that many have heard constantly when referring to public education. However, when looking at the failure rates in many inner-city schools, it is visible that many children are being left behind. In the documentary directed by Davis Guggenheim , "Waiting For Superman," the question who is to blame and what can be done is raised as they follow the course of a couple of children who are trying to enter a charter school via a lottery. Although he failed to show the public school teachers side of the story, the director made a very strong and effective argument against the public schools system through the use of statistics, appeal to emotion, and call for action, but not so much for charter schools.According to Guggenheim, a part of the issue is the public school system itself and its web of "power". Every district has its own set of rules and standard apart from the ones nationally enforced. In the film this was explain quite simply. If a student fails a test in one district's school, that same test may still be a passing grade in another district. Every school district can have different standards and that can really cause problems. If all schools do not have the same standards then that only leaves gaps in the children's education when the move on into higher education such as high school and college. Equal education for everybody is one of the main points of the film. Children in low income communities are not receive equal education when compared to children in wealthier places, such as the suburbs. By following this handful of low-income students in the road to attempting to escape this system and move into a charter school, the director appeals the audience's emotion. They are showing small, innocent children who have big hopes and dreams for the future go through the struggle of having to attend "failure factories", as they are referred to in the film, and face the inequality of education. Additionally, Guggenheim goes on to blame teachers and the teacher unions as the biggest reasons to the failure of public schools. It is stated in the film that there are great teacher, but there are also some very terrible ones and unfortunately these bad teacher cannot be fired as easily. According to statistics given in the documentary, some teacher are covering only 50% of the required material while other teachers covering up to 150% of the material and yet they get paid the same. The reason is simple: the teacher union. According to the contracts in the union, schools are not allowed to make pay distinctions among the teachers for being "better" teachers. What is even worst is the fact that due to the tenure teachers have the terrible teachers cannot be fired. Teachers who are failing to do their jobs correctly are being kept in these schools and continue to take opportunities away from their students. Charter schools are in a way offered by the director as a type of solution to the flaws in the education system. All throughout the film, charter schools are spoken pretty highly of and the whole film revolves around a group of children who are so desperately attempting to be enrolled into a charter school through a random selection. Slowly but surely, charter school are getting more attention do their "high success rate" more parents want their children enrolled. The director makes sure to put these types of public schools that are independently run as great institutions where there are greater success rates and where children are coming out better prepared for what lies ahead, but, and here is the huge but, it was mentioned in the documentary that only 1 out of 5 charter schools are producing these outstanding results. It was mentioned so fast in the film that people could have easily missed it. Four fifths of charter schools are also not providing the results that are needed for change. The director failed to acknowledge the reasons as to why these independently run schools are failing and that is a tremendous flaw in his argument pro charter schools. If these charter schools were really the solution then why are only very few of them actually succeeding?The documentary itself is a demand for action.There is a particular quote in the film that states that great school will not come from lotteries done by charter schools are by Superman. Great schools will come from us, the people. If the people are willing to voice their opinion on the terrible education the children are receiving then there can be changes to the system. People need to voice their opinion against the unequal power web and the inability to fire teachers who are not doing their jobs. The power for the change lies in the hands of the community, they need to make their voices heard for the greater good. The solution may not be charter schools, but there is still hope. According the film, in order to begin the process of restoring the public education system there is a need for, "quality teacher, more class time, world class standards, high expectations, real accountability…" (Guggenheim, "Waiting for 'Superman' (2010)") It all boils down to teacher have to be the very best, people have to be willing for change, communities have to commit to the schools, and the people must be willing to act.The documentary, "Waiting For Superman," told a very the very compelling stories of a group of students attempting to escape the flawed public education system while also underlining the issues in the system and why it is not succeeding. The director blames the different standard in every district and also the teachers. Through the use of data, emotion, and a call for action, the documentary "Waiting For Superman" had a powerful and effective message.Work cited Waiting for 'Superman' (2010) (Motion picture). (2011). Paramount Pictures.

"Waiting For Superman" Gabriela Santillanes Professor Ivis UPP 101 Submitted March 17 2014 Project 3 In "Waiting for Superman" Davis Guggenheim examines the flaws in the school system and its effects on the students and families that are in "failing neighborhoods." We follow five students to see the push and pull factors of how the school system along with the educators are failing to work with the students and communities to meet the proficiency standards or how their opportunities diminish as they move deeper into the system. It also follows other educators, such as Chancellor Michelle Reeves, on the search of ways to improve the system and their realization that there are more obstacles to face besides doing things such as creating charter schools. The primary focus of this documentary is split in that it focuses on the school system failure effects. It also focuses on the effects of how failure or success comes from the quality and effort that a teacher puts in their work; this brings up many discussions and arguments concerning tenure, teachers unions, and societies focus on what's really important. "Waiting for Superman" shows the shift that Chancellor Reeves along with her predecessors and political leaders such as our presidents, which has led up to the examination of many schools all across the country. It brings up and discussed many questions such as are the students being prepared to meet the requirements our country has set; which is answered through the statistics used to measure the standards from the No Child Left Behind program. This focus is important because the issue of success in schools is an issue that many people are aware of, it has been area of concern for centuries amongst our political leaders, but a path to a possible solution has not been found. The No Child Left Behind programs has a standard of 20% to 35% proficiency in reading and math to see if schools are teaching students the basics. When "Waiting for Superman" director sees the numbers and witnesses that there is 12% in Washington DC it asks are the students getting stupider or is there a flaw in the system? This information presented is used to shine light on the main argument that the real problem might be blamed on the failing schools in failing neighborhoods, not necessarily the failing students.One of the interesting arguments made is how children who are in "dropout factories," schools that have more than 40% of its students that don't graduate, are redirected into the streets. One of the educators in the film talks about it is very easy to ask a child how many people he or she knows that went to prison or how many graduated high school; we would find that they would know many more who went to prison. The film informs its viewers that we spend $33,000 per year per inmate every fours years, $132000 in total for every inmate. If a child's family has the opportunity to they can send the child to private school to receive a much better education. If instead of investing the money that we do on inmates and instead use that money to send children to private schools for 13 years we would be saving $24,000 per person. " Waiting for Superman" discusses the redirection of funds to the students so we can then have them go to college and contribute back to the economy, versus spending the money on the inmates where we only have money going one way and never coming back to anything productive. This redirection is a part of fixing the failing school environments which would then in turn cause a failing neighborhood to being to have the possibilities of change. The film argues that a huge flaw in the school system is the role that teachers play. It makes a strong stance that the adults are more important than the children. This argument comes from the fact that teachers and those involved in the teachers union weren't even willing to consider a change in the tenure contracts and on how pay is handled when we take into consideration the quality of the education the teachers are giving and the amount of effort they put in towards their students. The film looks at concepts that are negatively affecting schools such as "dance of lemons" and the famous rubber rooms in New York. These rooms are were tenure teachers are pretty much getting paid to sit around and wait their "trails" from things as serious as sexual harassment or lesser offenses. "Waiting for Superman's" argument is based on the gathering of research others have done and applying it to their argument. The statistics they use is based on the research that others have completed; the No Child left behind data is applied to their argument as a big supporter as to how the system is failing where it was expected to create successful results. Although I believe that their argument has a good direction it can have a stronger foundation and benefit from original research. Their argument is definitely something that needs further researcher to help bring a possibility of a better chance for the students in this country. Education fro students and children needs to become a bigger priority instead of such a heavy focus on adults; which "Waiting for Superman" did a good job on. But it could have used more original research on areas where teachers are paid on the basis of their performance, or if this concept is even applied anywhere successfully. The film made very good use of the data they presented. Their presentation was very effective in the sense that it allows the audience to understand what is being presented and how it is applied in the school system. Their presentation technique was executed well in that it reached out to the everyday family. Works Cited: Guggenheim, Davis. "Waiting for Superman." Paramount Vantage, 2011