Sunday, February 21, 2016
Assignment for Feb. 26th
After watching "The Lottery", write a blog post of at least 300 words in which you respond to the video by sharing what you learned and any questions, thoughts, or reactions to the information relayed in the video. I would also like for you to include thoughts from "Waiting for Superman" and "The Inconvenient Truth Behind Waiting for Superman" by referencing each video in your response. After you write your post respond to 2 classmates posts. Ensure your response is at least 100 words. I will grade the completion of the assignment at the 5:00 on Feb. 26th (which means this should be completed by the end of class time). Those of you who did not do this assignment last time, please respond to 4 classmates posts to get additional credit for the missed assignment.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
"The Lottery" was very similar to the documentary, "Waiting for Superman" since it highlighted the story of young students who entered charter schools' lotteries. Parents in both documentaries view “winning the lottery” as the only way their child will receive a phenomenal education. However, not everyone agrees with these parents. In both “The Lottery” and “The Inconvenient Truth Behind Waiting for Superman,” teachers, parents, students, and education leaders advocated for the removal of charter schools.
ReplyDeleteWhen trying to move Success Academy Charter Schools inside the same buildings as a public school, Eva Moskowitz quickly found the “adults” did not welcome her there. The discussions during Moskowitz’s meeting with education and city leaders quickly turned into arguments. For example, instead of focusing on Moskowitz’s plans and schools, a council member called her arrogant and accused her of lying that she lived in Harlem. During a parent meeting, anti-charter school parent supporters screamed and cursed to let Moskowitz and charter schools know they were going to do everything in their power in order for the prevent the merging of both schools.
Something interesting that came up in “The Inconvenient Truth Behind Waiting for Superman” are the behavior tactics implemented by charter schools. A mother shared her son’s experience. He was not allowed to sit in a chair for three months. I am curious to know more about the reason why charter schools do this. I understand that they want to correct student behavior but I want to know why they think not letting a student sit in a chair works. I also wish to know more about the theory (perhaps this may be a fact) of prisons looking at the number of failing fifth grade students and using this information to determine how many prison cells they will need (this came up in “The Lottery”). I’ve heard of this before but am not sure if this is true.
I am interested in the question that you bring up about behavioral issues and the means that charter schools handle them. This brings back my concerns about accountability. Because the charter schools are funded by private corporations, they will do whatever it takes to make sure that no bad news gets out about any issues in the school. This is a concern that many anti charter school mothers proposed. They could not believe that charter schools would not take their special education students but I think I know why. It is either one of two reasons- they truly do not right now have the means to support special education students or they are too concerned about statistics and maintaining a good image.
DeleteRafely,
DeleteI thought debate portion of The Lottery featuring the arguments against Eva Moskowitz was very interesting. As you mentioned, instead of focusing on the issue at hand (whether or not Harlem Success would move into the failing public school building), Moskowitz was personally attacked and called an arrogant liar. This makes me question the validity of the public school’s argument and the intelligence of the debaters. It seems crazy to me that people wouldn’t want to send their kids to a charter school that is producing such great results instead of the failing local school. This makes me wonder whether the community members are misinformed about the charter school, delusional about the public school, or if there is a lot more to this story and debate that wasn’t aired. I understand that the film was biased and showcased their argument in the best light but based on what I watched it was shocking to me that there was so much lash back and that Harlem Success was not granted the building.
-Emily Enyedi
You bring up a lot of really intriguing questions in a way that I have not yet really thought about. I do not have answers to your questions, but I would definitely like to also know more about the questions you posed. They are all definitely interesting to think about, and I think they are something to really be thought about.
DeleteThe behavioral tactics stuck out to me as well. However, I am not really surprised. One of the main aspects of charter schools besides choice and accountability is strict discipline. The issue is that many poor, minority students come from neighborhoods where violence is all around them. Therefore, punishment of something as petty as losing their chair is not comparable to the type of abuse they may have witnessed in their lives.
DeleteIn terms of the prediction prison cells needed in the future based off of failing 4th and 5th grade boys, I believe it. Prisons are businesses. Schools are being used as businesses. It is a smart business move. The kids are looked at as numbers in school just like inmates so in their eyes it should be a simple transition.
Rafely,
DeleteI also found Moskowitz’s meeting with education and city leaders very disturbing. While she was giving her reason why she started charter school and explaining her rationale behind opening a charter (the fact that she also went to school in Harlem and wanting her children to have a better education than what she have gone through), the parents and oppositions instead tackled on the validity of her home address in inappropriate way. I believe that the opposition’s viewpoint was that Moskowitz’s charter schools are taking away their communities’ traditional schools, the very school that they got educated from. Also the fact that charter schools are lottery system that not everyone gets in, unlike other public schools in the district.
This idea that prisons look at third grade data to determine how many prison cells to make is a common point brought up. I too am unsure of whether this is factual or not, and sources I have read disagree with that. However, it is undeniable that there is a strong relationship between schools and prisons via the school-to-prison pipeline. Zero tolerance policies, pushout of "undesirable" students, and being surrounded by poverty and crime factor into the targeting of Black, brown, and disabled students being criminalized and treated unjustly. Differential treatment between black and brown and disabled students versus white and able-bodied students creates a disparity in the prison system that is blatantly racialized and disparate. We must look at how schools themselves and the processes within them fuel this pipeline because whether or not prison companies actually look to schools to acquire their anticipated numbers (which I don't necessarily think is false), prisons seek to make a profit off of black and brown bodies so schools have become complicit and active in aiding this prison industrial complex.
DeleteI also found the story about not allowing kids to sit in their seat until they “earn” it confusing and aggressively authoritarian. I am not at all convinced that the tactic works and it points to a problem within charter schools which is a lack of accountability. If a parent is upset with the practices of the school they really don’t have much recourse. They can go to the principal, take their kid out, or go to the privately appointed board none of which is a particularly good option. It is a trade off that has been made for the sake of innovation. Deregulation and lack of accountability are what you must give up and I am not sure if it is worth it.
DeleteI agree, the authoritative culture that is often pervasive in schools that serve poor black kids is more harmful long term than some may think. I really believe success requires a certain amount of failure, and room to potentially fail. When we tell kids(who come from a background where this type of culture is also common) to always follow petty rules no matter what it stunts their perception of how authority should function and the most effective ways to deal with challenges to authority. As poor black children in this country that a critical skill. There's a war going on that these kids are in the middle of. We need to be arming them with skills, not taking them away.
DeleteAfter watching all three movies I am still left unsure of how I feel in the charter school debate. I want to support charter schools because it seems to be the most efficient way to give students in need the best education they can get but I am conflicted. Something that really stood out to me in the Inconvenient Truth Behind Waiting for Superman is that they made it clear that the parents and teachers have very little power in charter schools. This occurred because of the involvement of private corporations. Initially, the start of charter schools was in the hands of parents but now it is in the hands of one or two people. With minimal oversight, there is little transparency for the students and their parents. There is a lack of accountability and that is nerve racking. When one person is given too much power it is hard to trust what is going on behind closed doors. But then why are such brilliant people like Bill Gates so for the Charter School Movement?
ReplyDeleteListening to Geoffary Canada again but this time in The Lottery stating that he and his colleagues will work as hard as we have to to make the children succeed makes me feel comfortable. What their school shows is that children are capable of an enormous amount of success. Their goal is college education, not the test scores and that all children can learn despite their upbringing. But which students are they leaving at the door step? I get that one of the big problems is neither the parents nor the children but rather a system that protects academic failure and limits the choices parents have. I believe these things; I understand that Charter Schools are trying to rid of the bureaucracies of public schools. All of that being said, in The Inconvenient Truth Behind Waiting for Superman, a striking line that stuck with me was when a teacher stated that "its like they push buttons and launch policy missiles. It feels like you’re doing your job and their job is to drop bombs on you. Teachers start out with the pure joy of teaching but leave because of the policies.” These policies are what stop public schools from moving forward and push them further and further into the dark. Again on the flip side, after hearing reform policy makers state over and over again that "competition and accountability" were the only way to improve our educational system, I started to second guess them. The differentiation between the charter schools and the public schools is the involvement of bureaucracy of management, the district, and the union contracts. Therefore, the charter schools are the threats to the good, bad, and ugly public schools. Do we want to move away from the bureaucracy and move into privatization? Although both sides have dark spots attached to them, which leaves more kids in the position to earn quality educations in which they deserve?
Sabrina,
DeleteI agree with you that this is a really complicated topic and that there doesn’t seem to be one correct answer. You bring up an interesting point about parents and teachers having little power and there being a lack of transparency in charter schools. While this might seem unsettling, it is a risk that many are willing to take because they are put into a situation with no other options. As long as charter schools continue to produce the phenomenal results that they do, I believe this lack of a “power-check” is worth it. That being said, I think checks and balances are important in any institution and perhaps charter schools should be restructured so that parents and teachers have more say. Part of the reason I take so much issue with teachers’ unions is due to their unchecked power. However, if the public schools in union states were all high achieving and there were no bad teachers who took advantage of the system, I might not mind as much.
-Emily Enyedi
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI think a really interesting point in your post is the reference to charters' aim to increase college enrollment rather than only boost test scores. I think this is good to note because it draws us directly to what goals different charters have. Often times in these debates terms like "success" are used by different parties in very different ways and it creates implicit tension between envisioned solutions. Public school defenders tend to criticize the emphasis on test scores in charter environments, but I think there is value in recognizing that charters do help many kids get into college. That being said, it is difficult to divorce the end goal of college enrollment from the high focus on tested subjects often seen in charter schools. Both emanate from the same teaching philosophy that can become very mechanistic. This has very direct consequences as seen in the article we read a few weeks back. KIPP has really high college admission rates but not particularly high college graduation rates. Highly regimented approaches to schooling seem to boost test scores and college acceptances, but also seem to fail in a broader preparatory sense.
DeleteI was also fascinated by the missile analogy. It's a perfect way to describe what is being done in our education system. Not only do most of these policy makers not have much or any experience in the classroom or in school administration, but they also do not make an effort to even step foot in these schools or speak to student, parent, and teacher concerns. They are in their own "control room" as "The Inconvenient Truth..." states shooting missiles without accurate information or informed perspectives. They utilize their power to further disenfranchise and obstruct the progress of already vulnerable populations by waving their magic policy wand expecting positive outcomes only to find that their policies don't work. I wonder why.
DeleteI believe Sabrina brings up a great point about the bureaucracy of public education and the ways it feels policy makers are so disconnected from what is going on in schools and in the classrooms. There are so many rules and regulations, which some view as setbacks and others view as protection. Your last question is a difficult one because both options seem like we have to pick between the lesser of two evils. Public school education should work to promote student learning and engage with the communities they are in. Schools in poorer neighborhoods should not have to perpetuate the systemic, societal issues that are working against these students. We must work to dismantle these systems and I believe schools should be able to work towards this goal. Neither bureaucracy nor privatization of schools are working to achieve this, and I think trying to solve this greater issue will leave more kids in a position to earn a quality education that everyone should be entitled to.
DeleteI also was fazed a bit about the reform movement after watching the Inoconvenient Truth. Parents and community members should have more oversight of charter schools and that should be done through the school boards which grant charters. At the end of the day community members and parents elect the people approving charters. That being said school boards should in some form have more oversight over charter schools. The failing charter schools must be closed and the best practices need to be expanded into public schools. The lack of involvement from the community is at the roots of Michele Rhee’s failure in DC and Corey Bookers partial failure in Newark.
DeleteIn my opinion, The Lottery has been the most influential piece we have examined regarding the charter school movement so far. Like in Waiting for Superman, it was very moving to see real students and their families so hopeful for a better opportunity. This film made evident that regardless of socio economic status, all parents truly want what is best for their children. In many cases, this does not equate a public school education. However, what the film does not mention is that some parents lack the cultural capital and/or resources to know what opportunities exist for their kids and simply put their faith in the local public schools assuming that they will do their job by adequately educating their sons and daughters. Those who do not know about charter schools or do not have access to them are at a great disadvantage like those who apply but do not receive acceptance through the lottery system. How can we educate the public about the charter school movement and the truth about failing public schools? How can we expand access to charter schools despite the bureaucracy? Charter schools like Harlem Success have changed the lives of hundreds of kids who would have been ‘doomed’ had they attended their zoned public school. Where a person lives determines which school they are assigned to attend. Since school funding is based on property taxes, this generally means that there are higher achieving schools in rich communities and failing schools in poorer communities. Even if their zoned school is failing, students have no other options for education - except for charter schools. While I understand people supporting the restructuring of public schools over the expansion of charter schools, I am shocked that anyone would argue that charter schools like Harlem Success are detrimental to the community even though the students attending are all at or above grade level unlike the majority in the local public schools. This makes me wonder about the intentions of the protestors and the teachers’ unions in general. I have never been a supporter of unions and based on what I’ve seen in The Lottery and in Waiting for Superman I do not think I could ever live or teach in a union state. However, that being said, I believe that most public school teachers have good intentions. The Inconvenient Truth Behind Waiting for Superman made this very clear. It is unfortunate that there is such an us vs. them mentality between the reformers and charter school leaders in Waiting for Superman and the Lottery and the public school proponents and union teachers in The Inconvenient Truth. If everyone could acknowledge what’s working and what’s broken and come together in creating solutions, perhaps this issue of American education wouldn't be nearly as complicated as it is today.
ReplyDelete-Emily Enyedi
Emily,
DeleteYour comment about coming together, acknowledging what is wrong, and creating solutions speaks to the simplicity of the big drama. I'm afraid that it isn't quite easy. Everyone has different opinions as to what is broken. For example, some think failing schools are broken and others think the finger of those behind the "assessing" of public schools is what is broken (hope that made sense). People have different ideas about how to fix the problem, which is defined differently by different people. And taking it a step further, people have different ideas about what is means to be educated. So many philosophies, so many ideals, so many conflicting solutions. A true uniting solution seems so far away, unfortunately. So what can we actually do about this disunity? Idk.
It's important to see beyond these paradigms of "failing schools" to avoid simplifying the complexity of education, as Xilebel said. Though I think we are all in agreement that education needs to be changed for the benefit of all, we have to acknowledge that there are active processes that have been happening since public education began to expand. We both know about the history of exclusion and inequality that existed in education and how it remains unequal. We have to see the intersecting factors in schools as relating to race, class, and gender, among others, though I think these are the most salient in educational settings. We need to understand the nuances and data that supports the fact that schools are failing because they have been restricted from succeeding due to policies, removal of funding, differential and detrimental treatment of poor, disabled students of color. It's complex, but I think that when we bring in all these different paradigms, it allows to understand a bit better what this "failing schools" narrative is doing to absolve authorities and people implicated in education reform of structural forces that they perpetuate and uphold.
DeleteI agree with your comment that both Waiting for Superman and The Lottery were very moving films that made evident that charter schools provide an opportunity that the children cannot get at their zoned schools. I support restructuring the public schools so that these people don't have to worry about becoming the "chosen" one into the charter school. It was shocking to me to see parents who were strongly against charter schools and groups like Acorn because they completely ignored the benefits of the charter schools. Because restructuring public schools cannot happen very easily (and harder than expanding charter schools), expansion of charter schools is currently a more efficient and effective way to provide more opportunities to the students who live in the failing public school district. The two groups who are for and against the charter schools seem to be fighting for the wrong cause, because the main problem is the public school, not the charter school.
DeleteSimilar to you, I am also starting to question the motives of the teachers union. In fact, after watching “The Lottery” and "Waiting for Superman", I started to feel that teachers union acts more as a hindrance for children who are seeking to get the best education possible. Along with its 600 page contract, I do not view teachers union as an ally. According to “The Lottery”, teachers union hired a group called Acorn to protest against the spreading of Harlem Success Academy. Though Harlem Success Academy might not be the best solution to educational problems that we face today, I do not think that these kinds of charter schools are detrimental to the community. Statistically speaking, we do see that charter schools have helped to improve literacy rates in individuals living in poverty. Furthermore, parents are making their children to go to charter schools since they provide an academically challenging environment, which may promote children to excel in school. As a result, I am beginning to wonder what the real intentions of teachers union were when they said charter schools are detrimental despite many positive progresses that charter schools have made.
Delete-Jack Kang (Dong Yeob Kang)-
What is the purpose of the endings of the Waiting for Superman and The Lottery films we have seen? Are they supposed to point out one of the main flaws of charter schools? Are they supposed to make one dislike charter schools and their reform? They have made it evident that not every child can get in. They point to the crushed dreams of those who do not get “lucky” enough to get a “good education”. They show the hopelessness these families feel when their names don’t get chosen. Is the point of this to call the nation to action to promote more charter schools? Or to show how much of a jerk the charter system is? I am confused as to why these pro-charter films chose to end with hopelessness. And how about the titles? Waiting for Superman? The Lottery? These are not appealing nor promising at all. I have to wait for Superman? Who is Superman? Charter schools? And The Lottery? I have to win a lottery to get a “good education”? This is not promising. Not appealing. And not fair. I am quite confused (and frankly a bit angry) with these 2 videos.
ReplyDeleteWhat strikes me about this debate (which gets extremely heated at times) is that some minority folks advocate for charter schools and others do so for regular public schools. And as evident in the videos, they are strongly for or against charter schools. Why is there such a discrepancy? I wonder if having the what’s-best-for-my-kid mentality versus the what’s-best-for-our-community mentality plays a part in this discrepancy between minority folks. I strongly believe that those with the my-kid mentality fail to see what is best for the whole community.
There’s just something wrong with taking away from the poor (in all aspects) to make something else richer. This just doesn’t sit well with me. I empathize with the angry parents on the Inconvenient Truth and The Lottery that insist they will NOT let charter schools invade their families. In most of the videos, why are the regular public school advocates the ones who are angry? It is never the charter school folks the ones who are protesting. From Waiting for Superman to The Lottery the sentiment against charter schools is evident. I wonder if it’s actually what is best for all students, for the whole community.
Xilabel,
DeleteIn my opinion, the endings of Waiting for Superman and The Lottery were not hopeless, but motivational. In both films, at least one child featured was accepted during the lottery process and/or moved from wait list. However, I recognize that the majority of children were not as fortunate and were forced to return to their zoned schools. This type of bittersweet ending is more impactful because to me it says, “Charter schools are so beneficial that they cause children and their parents to become emotional when they are not accepted, so let’s expand the charter school movement so that every child has the opportunity to attend.” I think if the movie had ended in a more positive way, people would have been more likely to move on after watching the film versus take action or start a conversation about the problems with American education.
-Emily Enyedi
I don't completely agree or disagree with the very passionate parents who were against charter schools invading their communities. When I saw the films, I thought of how much pain it must be to see the parents' childhood memories being invaded on because I am assuming that they went to those schools, lived in those neighborhoods all of their lives, and have emotional ties to the schools. I don't think it is because they think everything is great with their neighborhood schools. It may also be a pride issue. "How dare outsiders come into MY community and fix something that should have been fixed by my grandmother when my mother went to the school that my child now goes to." I think that it is about it being MY kid and MY community. Nothing is viewed as OURS, which is why it is so easy for the minority groups to be divided. Also, there is no unified vision of where those in the community want their schools to go.
DeleteThe endings confuse me too. I’m thinking the makers hope that the audience will feel so bad that there isn’t enough room for all of the kids that more charter schools have to opened so that those kids can get in. They obviously are targeting an ignorant audience that would miss the whole point that the real issue is in the fact that hopes and dreams are pinned to balls, or reliant on an imaginary man in tights with a Party City cape on.
Chris Oh-
DeleteI personally am not a huge fan of sensationalism either, but I agree with what Emily is saying. I feel like the point is to capture the idea that there ARE good charter schools out there that parents are just DYING to get into, and we really need more of those schools.
In response to what you said about "taking away from the poor to make someone else richer": It would indeed be very wrong for things like that to happen, but I don't think that's what was happening in this movie at least. For example, when they were closing one of the zone school to and were fighting to create space for Harlem Success, the two opposing factions were fighting for their own self-interest. One for the success of the kids, and other to protect their community. You can't necessarily say that one was more poor than the other, they are all just fighting for what is valuable to them. With your reasoning, is it not just as valid to say that the community protecting faction was also trying to "take away from the poor?" I could argue that people who are trying to create educational space for their children are not necessarily disrespecting the community, but they simply see it as a way to create opportunity for themselves and others to provide the best education for their children. I think it's important to evaluate situations from both ends instead of taking on a victim mentality, and try to understand the underlying issues in a critical manner.
I agree with you about the confusion you are left feeling after watching the three documentaries. Like you brought up, if the titles are even confusing what makes the producers think that the movies themselves will give us a better understanding of the charter school movement. I also agree that the second strongest point of contention for me is watching these family’s extreme hopes crash before our eyes. When so much emotion and importance is put on the line, it is hard to agree or disagree completely with either of the sides. It seems that no one is looking out for each other in both scenarios. It is always what is best solely for my family. That is why at the public lotteries leave so many people are left in tears. The individual families had such hope to give their children the best they could and it is horrible that they are left so despaired. That being said, there are so many of the students getting saved.
Delete"They show the hopelessness these families feel when their names don’t get chosen. Is the point of this to call the nation to action to promote more charter schools? Or to show how much of a jerk the charter system is?"
DeleteXilebel, I really identified with the confusion you felt watching the end of these two documentaries. Are they portraying hopelessness as a means of encouraging action? Is the hopelessness supposed to make us feel guilty? Because all I feel like these conclusions do is perpetuate hopelessness. Thinking about it now, both of these movies portray America's education system in an honest light. Yes, the opinions in the films are heavily slanted. But, they both are honest in their portrayal of our current educational state. Everyone is out to prove they know what is best, that they are right, that our children are failing, etc. I think I am at the point where I am rejecting not only the charter school debate itself, but also the political and cultural context in which it is set. Are we really seeking what is best for our children? Or are we using them as just another political token to place on our agendas?
I thought The Lottery was probably the least compelling argument for charter schools thus far. The film came off as shallow and rehashed many of the usual, ideological pro-charter talking points without very much substance behind them or unique spin. The movie is also very blatantly one-sided. Almost every scene serves to either give Eva Moskowitz a pat on the back or characterize public school supporters as stubborn, misled bullies.
ReplyDeleteIt's actually quite difficult for me to conceptualize what my take-away from the movie would have been if the film served as my entry-way into the charter schools debate. This stems from the fact that neither position is well-explained. Waiting for "Superman" constructed a meta-narrative around the Superman figure in the title -- public schools are failing and unwilling to change but charters will swoop in to do the job. While I didn't agree with much of what Waiting for "Superman" says, it is very well-made. The Lottery, however, brings out the same figures (sub Michelle Rhee for Cory Booker) and gives us the Lite version of every argument.
Waiting for "Superman" recounts the history of multiple charter chains, describes their excellent performances, and details the exact doctrines that breed educational success. In The Lottery, on the other hand, there are only very brief references to the success of charter schools. The only image that comes to mind now is Eva Moskowitz referencing a grade-wide perfect score on state tests. The rest of the argument consists of different individuals talking about the importance of education and advocating for charters. Beyond our connection to the characters and the general population of "children" invoked throughout the film, we're not really given any reason to want charter schools. It even seems that almost everything The Lottery promotes is also advocated by The Inconvenient Truth Behind Waiting for "Superman" just because of how abstracted and idealized it is.
Beyond this, consider the difference between The Lottery and Waiting for "Superman" in their rebuttal to public school defenders. Waiting for "Superman" included an extended exposition of public schools and the evils of the tenure system complete with clever animations and data. The Lottery includes one scene of a union defender meant to tell us that 10 tenured teachers were fired in one year. Outside of this, there are references to the teacher's union being an authoritarian political force and really nothing else.
Upon reflection, I realized I was unintentionally filling in a lot of the gaps this movie had because I knew the arguments the filmmaker was referencing. If I did not have this requisite knowledge, it would have been very difficult to parse out a reason to support charters from the information presented. Imagine knowing nothing about education reform and watching the debate in the chamber. How would you understand anything Eva Moskowitz is referencing? Why are class sizes coming up? Why is it important if she lives in Harlem? These sorts of holes litter the entirety of the movie.
I think there are two more aspects of the movie that are important to note in that they seem to actually verify some anti-charter arguments. Charter schools claim to serve similar demographics to public schools but public education advocates, like those in Inconvenient Truth, question if this means charters serve the "same" kids. The sample of children and parents in The Lottery is very unique and it seems difficult to generalize their experience to the whole of parents trapped with a supposedly sub-standard public school. One mother has a masters from Columbia (as well as a car, to note). In another family, both parents hold union jobs. Another mother has severe hearing problems. The last parent, a father, is filmed spending extended amounts of time tutoring his son with little reference to his occupation. This last point is important -- each parent is shown to have a schedule and the resources that allow them to invest large amounts of time insuring their child is educated. Whether these resources exist in every instance (they don't) and how charters address this is the real debate. In this regard, the movie feels vaguely racist, as if our first instinct should be to associate black families with poverty and struggle, rather than recognize and appreciate the efforts these parents are able to put into education.
DeleteAnother important moment occurs at the actual lottery for Harlem Success Academy. Moskowitz references off-hand that many names are called off the wait list. This would seem to indicate that many children are accepted into Harlem Success Academy, but for whatever reason rescind soon after. Why is this so? My first recollection is a scene from Inconvenient Truth in which a mother of a child with special needs describes winning a charter lottery but needing to rescind after being told her daughter cannot be accommodated. I also assume that some parents realize the work load charters carry, both for parents and students, is something unmanageable within their own schedule. This seems to be a direct proof of claims made by the educators in Inconvenient Truth that charters function by only accepting students tailored for the charter experience.
Just as one last thought, I'd like to point out that Eva Moskowitz makes approximately $470k a year. Two of her children attend Success Academy. Where does her eldest child go? Private school.
Griffin,
DeleteYou bring up a very interesting point about the type of kids charter schools and public schools actually serve. There is definitely something to be said about the knowledge, time, and resources it takes to apply for charter schools. The parents of the Harlem Success hopefuls showcased in the film were definitely invested in their children’s education. However, the parents who rallied outside the public school building and who showed their opposition to Harlem Success in the debate chamber were also very clearly invested in their children’s education and had time and resources to attend these public events. I am not yet sure what my personal thoughts are on this issue but I want to believe that the success of charter schools is due to more than just the contextual effects of the students they serve.
-Emily Enyedi
Griffin,
DeleteThanks for bringing up the content quality of Waiting for Superman and The Lottery. You are totally right in saying that Waiting for Superman had more background foundational information that is important for newbies (lol), whereas The Lottery did not seem to have enough substance. I want to bring up the quality (sound and other filmy stuff) of The Inconvenient Truth. I totally laughed when I first started watching this film! The quality was horrible! It seems like the used a home video camera to film this. But at the end all I could do was applaud and smile as the #realreform tenets were revealed in its entirety. Before being more invested in this crazy charter school vs. public school debate, I advocated for each and every one of the tenets of #realreform. All 3 films had great arguments full of logic and even those that appeal to our ethos. But the #realreform did it for me. Claiming that these are not all answers that will solve all of our problems, they listed the tenets that make reform real.
1. small class size
2. excellent community public schools for all children
3. more teaching, less testing
4. parent and teacher empowerment and leadership
5. equitable funding for all
6. anti-racist education
7. culturally relevant education
8. pre-kindergarten and early intervention programs for all children
9. qualified educators to educate our children and run our schools system
10. democratic and social justice unionism
Griffin, I completely agree. I thought waiting for superman was masterfully done and the Lottery was fairly weak. I will say the Lottery was very theoretical. They had very few statistics or data to back up their claims only theoretical arguments that work anecdotally but not on a wide spread scale. I also watched the movie with a friend and he was constantly asking me what the arguments were. The Lottery did a poor job and as you said if I did not have knowledge before hand the movie would have not provided me with the best arguments from either side.
DeleteChris Oh - The very first thing that comes to my mind for this movie is that it is very similar to "Waiting for Superman." The arguments that are stated regarding issues such as unions, charter schools, and the cruelty of the lottery system seem to essentially deliver the same message.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I am definitely leaning more favored towards school choice and charter schools because they have shown evidence that children can excel given that they are provided the correct environment and motivation. I can admit that poverty is an issue that is present in our society, and it is something that needs to be addressed. However, I feel that the effect of poverty is overstated by the charter school opponents, as it is something that could be overcome with effort. If anything, the state of poverty should drive the children in these conditions to excel more and escape their hardships.
I understand that charter schools are not silver bullets and do not solve all of the problems that are present in the current system. I also understand that it could potentially get out of hand under the hands of wrong people. But I believe that the system is bound to stabilize on its own given right amount of time. If a charter school is performing poorly, then it is destined to close and fail for more competitive schools to rise. This Capitalism principles are what brought many countries such as the Asian Tigers/Western Europe/America to rise as world's greatest economic powerhouses, and I do believe that with discreet regulations to make sure that things don't get out of hand, this system could and will work in American's education system.
The second paragraph of your response troubles me a bit, particularly your last sentence. If poverty acted as a motivator, why haven't we seen poverty disappear as children motivate themselves to success? I think there's a conflation here between the escape from poverty and the standards of success that charters excel within. Charter schools offer an alternative when public schools do not perform well on state exams. The promise of charters is in their ability to raise test scores. As the evaluation of modern schools is very narrow, so is the relative impact we should ascribe schools in their high marks. While children and schools alike put months of dedicated effort into these scores, they cannot come close to speaking towards any sort of infrastructure that can transform these test scores into further opportunities. Those who defend public education are interested in reformulating the paradigm through which we understand success and schooling all together. Focusing solely on individual effort obfuscates the terrain of inequality that students are embedded in. Public education defenders are further interested in policies aimed at producing a more equitable society.
DeleteThere's one question I have for you -- is a difference in test scores ("achievement gap") the problem with education, or rather an outcome of other, deeper problems?
DeleteChris,
I agree with your last paragraph in that even though charter school is not perfect in any way, but it has more upside than traditional public schools and could be refined to fix some of the prominent problems. I like your analogy of relating educational system with capitalism. Competition is definitely good and creates a healthy environment. The problem that I see with currently failing public schools is that they are hard to change because of many factors and they stay that way. However, charters can implement the changes very rapidly, which gives them an edge over public schools. But again, charters have problems and some elements should be enforced to stand long term.
I agree with your point that capitalistic principles has brought many countries to economic success on the world stage. Indeed, your point about discreet regulations is a fair assessment. In addition, I believe intention plays a huge part in opening and starting charters because I stand firm on the idea that corporate reformers should open/start charters in relation to the ideology that all students in the United States is entitled to a quality education; it should not be based on monetary reasons or selfish gain. Despite good intentions, sometimes the results could turn out for the worse and does not match up with the intention. However, sometimes the results could turn out to be better than expected, and the charter school could flourish and thrive. The United States is a democracy, and every citizen should strive to embody the democratic principles that the country is founded upon.
DeleteChris,
DeleteThe question that came up for me as I read your post is the following:
If charter schools have found a tid bit of what works to help minority students, why don't we try to implement this in public schools? Is it the longer hours? Is it the rules and expectations? Is it the teacher experience? Is it the outside funding? If these are the things that are helping our students out (in the midst of the detrimental systemic issues they are affected by) then is it not only a matter of changing school policy? I don't see why the same things that happen at a charter school cannot happen in a public school. Why does a whole other entity have to take over the school system?
DeleteI agree with Chris that “The Lottery” is very similar to “Waiting for Superman” but I do not agree that poverty is something that anyone can overcome with effort. The idea of meritocracy, or “pulling yourself up from your bootstraps” is a myth. People from marginalized identities in the United States do not have equal or sometimes any opportunity to “get out” of poverty. The public school education supporters are stating that creating a new system based on chance, or luck is not the solution to a failed and oppressive system of schooling that is a reflection of our society. Some great performing charter schools are able to help individual students get a better education, but they do not help address the greater, institutional problem of public school education perpetuating systems of oppression.
I am confused by what you mean in your second paragraph. Especially your sentence about poverty being overstated by charter school opponents. I am glad more people are conversing about poverty because it is a HUGE factor in students' educational careers. In fact, more awareness should occur. Why? Because there are hundreds of thousands of low-income schools receiving terrible educations and it is not something that can just be overcome with some effort. Although I agree that some students see their hardships as motivators to excel in school, there are so many obstacles these students have to face that they could have all the motivation in the world, but something the system works against them or their hardships do not permit them to excel. I am not saying that can't because these students are capable of doing amazing things, but sometimes "life happens" and thus these students may not perform well.
DeleteI really liked when you said poverty is something that could be overcome with effort. I really do agree. Compared to Korea, where I grew up, in the United States, there are numerous opportunities for poor children to get a good quality education since there are lots of scholarship programs. In fact, most of my classmates from my private high school were able to attend because of scholarships and financial aids. Most of my friends did not come from a wealthy background. To be specific, one of my best friends was very poor that he sometimes could not afford to buy textbooks for his class, so he often borrowed mine to study. Furthermore, because his mother had trouble paying rents, he supported her financially by getting a part time job. Though he had to go through many hardships, he never gave up on studying. He would always push himself further to excel in school. As a result, he was able to get a four year scholarship to Syracuse University in New York. Even more impressive is that he doesn’t have to pay for his housing now since he was appointed as a RA (Resident Advisor) for a school dormitory. Therefore, looking at my friend’s experience, I definitely believe that poverty can act as a driving force for children to excel. As a result, I certainly agree with you in saying that the effect of poverty is, indeed, overstated by lots of charter school opponents.
Delete-Jack Kang (Dong Yeob Kang)-
After watching these three videos on charter schools in districts with failing public schools, these videos made me accept the charter schools more and slightly lean towards supporting charter schools. Both "The Lottery" and "Waiting for the Superman" show real cases in which parents and the children who belong to a failing school district eagerly want to send their children to charter schools. Both documentaries were very emotional because we were able to hear from the parents who want their children to get the best education as possible and watch them whether they got accepted or not. It was sad to see how one of the children from “Waiting for the Superman” knows that he is destined to fail if he doesn’t get into the boarding charter school and to hear his mom interview that she has mixed feelings about sending him off to a boarding school. Because he is still a child who needs parental care, he would benefit educationally by attending the boarding school but also not get sufficient care that he deserves. This made me feel that the initial issue is the system of these public schools and that something has to be done to change the public system. The video “The Lottery” presented us with a lot of numbers, such as the cost to fire one incompetent tenured teacher in the New York City is about $250,000 and that only 10 out of 55,000 tenured teachers were fired in 2008. With these numbers, I could understand the extent of power the unions hold in New York City and that this excess power than the unions need make teachers in NYC become incompetent. According to one of the advocates of Harlem Success Academy, “unions limit teachers’ abilities” because the rules set by the union make it hard for teachers to work effectively and efficiently. Because these teachers are limited and that they are very unlikely to get fired, they cannot and do not word as they as they can. Also, this reminded me of what a teacher in “The Inconvenient Truth Behind Waiting for Superman” described how most teachers “start out with the pure joy of teaching but leave because of the policies.” After watching these videos, I realized that the charter schools in such districts have good intentions for the children and that they provide selected children with opportunities that they cannot get in their zoned public school. I would like to keep in mind that there are limited seats within the charter school and that they can only benefit the selected children, I’m not too sure if they are really beneficial overall.
ReplyDelete"I would like to keep in mind that there are limited seats within the charter school and that they can only benefit the selected children, I'm not too sure if they are really beneficial overall."
DeleteChelsea, I think this is an awesome, critical statement. It is important to acknowledge the charter school's strength. For the students that are able to attend, charter schools are generally beneficial, offering them the small class sizes and high expectations they need to succeed. But I think the question you are alluding to is, "What about all of the other kids?" Sure, charter schools are great for a selected few, but they do not provide the greatest good for the greatest number. Rather than pouring our resources into charter schools--and in some cases, into fighting charter schools--we should focus our attention instead on public schools and reshaping--without privatizing--the way we teach.
“start out with the pure joy of teaching but leave because of the policies.”, this line in “The Lottery” also stood out for me because one of the main issues that all three of these documentaries are addressing is the quality of teachers. The teacher that was being interviewed also added that they felt like the policy makers are actually launching policy missiles and they drop these bombs on teachers who just want to teach their children. I thought it was very ironic that all of these educational reforms to make teachers better are actually driving teachers away – even the ones with the passion to teach. I think it is one big cycle that we need to get away from.
DeleteI had personally seen “Waiting for Superman” more than once, but it had always been in the context of pretty much full support of charter schools and the accountability public schools are lacking in the United States. After watching it in class, I had a much more analytical perspective of the messages being sent and the intentional one-sided view of the documentary. When watching “The Inconvenient Truth Behind Waiting for Superman,” I finally felt like I had more of the wholistic ideas and issues around school reform and charter school education. It did reinforce the fact that charter schools are not the solution to our public education system. In class, and in the video they brought up the valuable point that children should not have to leave it to chance to attend a decent school with great teachers and values. This idea was definitely reinforced in “The Lottery,” but I believe the issue is that these groups are looking at the same point in very different ways. Charter school supporters believe in school choice and parents being able to choose, “from a menu of options” of schools. While others believe that they are promoting something that does more damage than good. By replacing failing public schools with charters, students are having to enter lotteries and abandon their right to a good public education.
ReplyDeleteI personally support charter schools and what they are trying to do. The good ones are trying to close the achievement gap by acknowledging the systemic issues of racism, classism and other forms of oppression. But what I do not support is the fact that most public schools in high poverty communities are perpetuating these systemic issues as opposed to actively working against them. It feels as if the public school system has had so many obstacles along the way towards improvement, such as dealing with tenured teachers, unions, governmental policy, etc. that those working towards changing the system decided instead to bypass or create another competing entity. I do not know exactly where I stand with the notion that science, technology and businesses are always improving, competing and innovating their business models. I see how that functions in those particular domains, but I do not think charter schools should be our innovative approach.
Similarly, I have been shifted in my perspectives about charter schools. Though I was completely anti-charter school and anti-choice from the start, and though I still retain some of these ideas, I do see the value in the innovative purpose that charter schools were originally purposed for. However, capitalist greed entered the picture and deviated this goal from its original and potentially truly beneficial roots. My main concern is and will always be that systemic issues must be addressed rigorously with systematic change; however, I think that charter schools can be an important tool for temporary relief for the few that we can help until we can restructure the entire system as needed.
DeleteMelissa,
DeleteWhat exactly do we define as a good charter school? If you don't mean measuring its goodness by the scores its students are producing (which I don't think you are), how can we measure this goodness? What can we practically do to discern good from evil in regards to charter schools? I would think that all charter schools boast about and have as its mission to close the achievement gap by acknowledging the systemic issue of racism, classism and other forms of oppression, as you stated. So would this make all charter schools good? I wonder if there are outsiders, and maybe even people opposed to charter schools, that keep charters accountable. We know that there is the system in place that takes away the charter of a school if it is not living to its expectation.
I agree with your point of charter schools not being the sole solution to public education. Charter schools were created as experimental schools that would work hand in hand with public schools to improve the education students receive. However, that collaboration has turned into competition between the "adults." It makes me very angry to see that educational leaders are more concerned about who has more power and who is right, rather than concentrating on working to together to improve education. I'm not sure what your meant in the last sentence of your first paragraph about how students have to enter lotteries and abandoning their right to a good public education? Charter schools are public and many are very high performing.
DeleteMelissa,
DeleteI could not agree more when you say that you have a more analytical view of the film "waiting for superman" because of this class. I have also watched waiting for superman a couple times not but never thought anything beyond how good charter schools are and the sympathy I felt for the students in the documentary. I also love that you mention how “the issue is that these groups are looking at the same point in very different ways”, because essentially, everyone is working towards the same goal here – quality education for all students and the closing of the achievement gap. However, I do not think all this debate and fighting over this topic is bad. By arguing and listening to different perspectives and ideas we will be able to fix what is wrong and maintain what is working. After all there is no such thing as a perfectly functioning society or organization.
I personally believe that charter schools themselves and the programs that they offer is amazing in that they (exceptions do exist) turnaround failing schools and really give poor families “hope” that their children can have better education and furthermore better lives. It is shown in the videos “The Lottery” and “Waiting for Superman” that these families in the failing school district desperately wanting their children to go into the charter schools. Both of the videos were very emotional and changed some of the things that I was uncertain of; the families in the poor socioeconomic status don’t care as much as the people in the affluent and higher socioeconomic status. I know now that this isn’t true because they care just as much, if not more, because they don’t want their children to suffer what they have been through. On the other hand “The Inconvenient Truth Behind Waiting for Superman” argues for the side of teachers’ unions and the fact that charter schools being better than public schools are flawed. They argue against the facts and data used in “Waiting for Superman” by giving their opinions and relating it to Finland’s educational system.
ReplyDeleteI think all three videos are very one sided documentary that argues for and against the charter schools. Both sides has their arguments and no wonder why these debates get heated. But through what I have gathered so far watching these videos and learning in class is that charter school movement will change American education system in a positive way. As depicted in the “Waiting for Superman” and “The Lottery” that some public schools in poor neighborhoods are doing bad as it is and dropout rate and literacy level are concerning problem. The charter schools get their charter for 5 years and gets renewal based on their performance, which is a way for charters to be ‘awake’ and try their best. Of course there are certain things that I am against the charter schools in that they could be selecting the ‘high performing’ students and having the power to send any child back to public school when they not perform. I am hoping that this part would be refined in the future.
After skimming over majority of the responses here, one word thats stood out in particular is "one-sided". I agree that all 3 films consciously highlight certain aspects of the charter system while omitting others, but describing them as one-sided seems just a tad bit extreme to me. When it comes to the education system, in particular the charter school system, there are so many different formulas and strategies being employed by numerous institutions. So in my opinion the argument on the effectiveness of charter schools does not simply have two sides. The question of charter schools and their effectiveness is usually generalized to their test scores or impact on low-income neighborhoods. These 3 films simply give different perspectives on a system that is still (comparatively speaking) young and still undergoing a lot of reform, but at the end of the day all of the groups from each film want the same thing - equity and unbiased opportunity for the future generations.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAll three movies delineate problems and advantages of charter schools and public schools. From “The Lottery”, and "Waiting for Superman", we learn about advantages of charter schools and problems of public schools. Charter schools provide choices for parents. Therefore, parents can choose what is best for their children. Charter schools provide an environment that supports students to graduate from college instead of just getting good scores on standardized tests. In fact, both films mention about how charter schools have helped to improve the literacy rates in urban areas. Then, these movies go on and talk about problems of the public school system. To be specific, they both mention about the complications that arise from teachers union. We learn from the "Waiting for Superman" that there is a tenure program that allows unmotivated, unskilled teachers to stay in public school just because they have been around for a long period of time. From “The Lottery”, we saw that there is a 600 page contract for public school teachers which delineate about what teachers can do and cannot do. One of the interesting facts about this contract is that, “it limits prep time [of a teacher] to one 50 minute period per day”. In fact, I agree with Eva Moskowitz in that to be a successful teacher, we need more than 1 prep time a day. Even when I am teaching one session of EPASS (Emory tutoring program), I always prepare going through my notes for several hours before tutoring my peers. Therefore, the fact that if the teacher decides to spend more time to prep to teach kids is considered as a violation of the contract is completely outrageous. Furthermore, I disagree with the teachers union contract, which do not allow the open door policy. Moskowitz claim that, sometimes, a teacher or a principal in charter schools goes into a classroom unannounced to assess the teacher’s performance. In fact, I think this is the best method to judge a teacher’s performance. If the principal were to tell the teachers ahead of time, the teachers will prepare their best just for that one class. This won’t really reflect teacher’s true performance. Therefore, the principal should be allowed to come unannounced. After looking at these two films, I began to question whether having the teachers union is beneficial or not because after watching these, I got the sense that teachers union exists for the sake of making life easier for teachers than for the sake of helping children. (So I really wanted to ask you guys, should we keep the teachers union? Do you think this organization is beneficial or detrimental?)
ReplyDelete“The Inconvenient Truth Behind Waiting for Superman,” and “The Lottery” present drawbacks of charter schools and why it is crucial to believe in public schools. From “The Inconvenient Truth Behind Waiting for Superman,” we saw lots of students, parents, teachers and education leaders supporting public schools instead of the charter schools. One of the reasons was because in charter schools, parents and teachers do not have lots of power because of the involvement of private corporations. Moreover, we saw the organization called Acorn from “The Lottery” arguing against Harlem Success Academy moving into ps194, a public school being closed for poor performance because this would lead children, who were attending ps194, to lose their school and make them nowhere to go. Furthermore, some argued that determining children’s future by lottery picks is wrong considering that all children should be granted get the same level of education.
-Jack Kang (Dong Yeob Kang)-
Sorry, I have to split my post again because I cannot exceed 4,096 characters.
After looking at both sides of the arguments, I became unsure about how I feel about the charter schools. It is true that, statically speaking, charter schools have improved the literacy rates and test scores in students living in poverty. Furthermore, they have contributed to a higher graduation rate from college. However, I do not believe that charter schools are the solution to educational problems that we face today. There are lots of burdens that come to children and parents who get accepted to charter schools. Some parents cannot balance extra workload, leading them to withdraw their children from charter schools. As a result, charter schools work for certain children and parents who have time and resources to deal with the demands from these schools.
DeleteFurthermore, I thought it was very ironic to see charter school leaders and education leaders at each other’s throats. Though they are trying to reach toward a common goal of providing the best quality education to all kids in the America, they just could not reach a consensus and tried to make the other side look bad. To be specific, it was very saddening to see from the “The Lottery” when a council member was trying to make Moskowitz look bad by calling her arrogant and saying that Moskowitz lied about living in Harlem. Ultimately, from my perspective, because charter schools and public schools know each other’s strengths and weaknesses, they should cooperate and work together utilizing each other’s strong points to make significant improvements in the education system in America.
(Another question that I had after watching all three films was if you are the teacher, where do you find yourself teaching? In public schools or charter schools?)
-Jack Kang (Dong Yeob Kang)-
I agree with your point about the teacher's union. I also wondered if the teacher's union is even interested in benefitting the children, because it really seems like that exist so that teachers can keep their jobs. The example rules (limiting resting period to one per day and giving teachers time to prepare before the administrators come to sit in) set by the union shown in the videos were harmful for the education system; these rules lowers the quality of the education overall and limits the abilities of public school teachers. I do think unions are necessary to some extent to ensure stability of the jobs, but the current union holds onto too much power and sets rules that only seek for their benefit, not the students. I believe there should be a drastic change in the union so that they can allow teachers to be more free and to teach with their best ability.
DeleteI do not believe that teachers should be held around ninety percent accountable for student achievement. Teachers indeed have an instrumental role in their students' education, but I do not think it is fair to put almost all of the responsibility on the teachers. Even though everyone can think back to a teacher or a couple of teachers who did not teach well nor care about their students, I do feel that there are a handful of teachers who are very invested in education and do care immensely about the performance of their students. Everyday, there are some teachers who are trying their best to teach well and effectively. Furthermore, the student should shoulder responsibility and dedicate time and effort in independent study combined with parental involvement. I think teachers should be held seventy-five percent accountable while individual student drive and parental enforcement and involvement make up the other twenty-five percent.
DeleteJack,
DeleteI really like your overall criticism on teachers union. I agree with your point that teachers need more time to teach better. For your question, I think we should ban teachers union. I believe there are several problems to fix. First is granting tenure to all teachers. There should be more rules on getting tenure such as teaching experience of 10 years. Others are the long process on banning one teacher, and the long contract that the public school face when there is a problem. Moreover, they should get away from the politics. The union leaders should focus more on how to teach students efficiently than helping elections. Overall, I think the organization is detrimental.
"The Lottery" reminded me of "Waiting for Superman" in that it was slanted in support of charter schools as the saving grace for education. Both films had similar elements--highlighting tenure and teacher performance as culprits in the decline of education. Additionally, it presented heroes for charter schools as well as the aggressive opposition from anti-charter activists. "The Lottery" provided is different in that it provided more opposing perspectives than "Waiting for Superman.” I have consistently heard about the marvels of Harlem Success Academy as an exemplary model for schooling. I even thought that it was a jewel for many Harlem residents. However, it was important to see how many parents organized against the creation of Harlem Success Academy in their community. Their ideology of no child's access to a quality education being tied to chance through a lottery is one that I am in agreement with. For me "An Inconvenient Truth..." and ideas from "The Assault on Kids" and Ravitch are much more aligned with what I think need to happen in the education system. Radical reform that restructures the entire system, redistributes resources for equitable allocation, the eradication of corporate interests and power in education, and the abolition of Eurocentric, colonial curriculums, are some solutions that I believe should be invested in for the true success of an equal education system. I’m wondering if anyone in a position of power in education has attempted to enact such radical reform. What were justifications for not implementing them? They seem like common sense reforms that seek to fix this perpetually broken education system. “Inconvenient Truth” and anti-charter authors are more invested in breaking down the systemic aspect of education that is the overarching issue, so I want to continue to delve into that work but also be able to figure out ways to apply such arguments to practical and on-the-ground solutions.
ReplyDeleteThe first time I ever saw “Waiting for Superman” was two weeks ago when we watched it in class. I remember telling myself to take it with a grain of salt; it’s just a bunch of propaganda, don’t buy into it. Needless to say, I was bawling my eyes out by the time that movie was over. I quickly wiped my tears and put on my glasses before someone turned on the lights. It was heartbreaking. I left class that day confused. Someone—or something—had told these parents and their children that they were doomed. That the failure of their child was inescapable. That they had to ascribe to some idea of a higher power, to believing in chance, to get the best education for their kid. Fast-forward. I’m watching “The Lottery.” Eva Markowitz and her crew are bearing the brunt of insults from angry parents. Canada’s professing his great discovery and accomplishment as president and CEO of Harlem Success. But then the movie ends with the lottery—just like “Waiting for Superman.” Both were released in 2010. Both are in favor of charter schools. Both end in the same way. And both left me feeling fairly disgusted. In what realm are the conclusions of these documentaries hopeful? How do people watch these movies feeling resolved? I struggle with the idea that people watched these same videos that I did, and yet came to completely different conclusions about charter schools. We see this same inconsistency amongst charter school and public school parents. In the community hearing for possible co-location of Harlem Success and a local public school, some parents vehemently criticized Markowitz. Others praised her. And even with the teachers and parents shown in “The Inconvenient Truth Behind Waiting for Superman” and “Waiting for Superman” we see this total disconnect. Someone felt so wounded by America’s public schools that they made a critically-acclaimed documentary condemning public education. And then two public educators felt strongly enough about that documentary that they replied to it with another documentary condemning the privatization of education.
ReplyDeleteI think this polarization arises because of this country’s obsession with individuality and consumerism. My child should have the right to choose. My child will have access to all the best opportunities. My child will do better than I did. We all want what is best for our own households, sometimes forgetting about our larger social context. Why do the phrases “what is best for my kid” and “what is best for my community” have to be in conflict? It should follow that one necessarily improves upon the other. Our kids succeed when our relatives’ kids, our neighbors’ kids, and our coworkers’ kids succeed. Maybe that’s in a charter school. Maybe it’s in a public school. Maybe we all homeschool our kids. This debate is not over whether charter schools are best or whether public schools are best. It is over whether we can acknowledge our differences and subjugate our pride in favor of our kids and our communities. The issues of how and in what kind of school are not as pertinent as the issue of why we as a nation struggle so deeply to decide on a definition of what we think our kids need to succeed.
DeleteI love that you mention your emotional distress when watching these documentaries. Although watching “Waiting for Superman” was not my first during class, I still got emotional as well. I agree that the structure of the “Wafting for Superman” and “The Lottery” were similar. Both had several families who wanted to get into charter schools and ended in the same way. However, I thought that “The Lottery” did a pretty decent job of presenting both sides to the story compared to the other two documentaries. Also, I got the feeling that “The Lottery” promotes parental choice and a focus on children more as well. But then again, I guess all of these films are subject to different perspectives!
I also left class after watching "Waiting For Superman" very confused and dissatisfied with the inequality in educational opportunities. I really like your connection to the issue of schooling with individuality and consumerism. If we are striving for the same goal to improve education for our kids, does it really matter what school is teaching them? Thus, there may be some self-interest within the educational bureaucracy that is hurting our students. I also like how you point a reoccurring theme with this charter school debate about the dilemma between charter schools and public school supporters. This conflict between the two seems ironic because both institutions should have the same goal to help students learn. It is odd though that these institutions do not get along!
DeleteI loved your response Harmonie; I think you hit on some really critical thoughts and emotions. Education has become really polarized and political as the country and grown and now there are more needs to account for. That seems to be one of the sticking points with how education is often approached from a policy standpoint. The demographics of the US are so much different than what they were when public education was first being created. Yet it feels like despite that reality, the policies being made as we go on don't reflect that. And that feels like due to a lack of proper representation in those policy making sessions. Unfortunately that issue will take time to fix and these kids don't have time so that leaves us stuck.
DeleteI liked the variety of perspectives on charter schools from the three videos as they provided a more nuanced view. The Lottery highlights both the pros and cons of charter schools and the opposition they face, and The Inconvenient Truth Behind Waiting for Superman is one-sided on charter school opposition. Waiting for Superman mostly promotes advocacy and supporters for charter schools. After watching these three videos, I am even more torn about my stance on charter schools.
ReplyDeleteAs a result of watching The Inconvenient Truth Behind Waiting for Superman, I became dubious on the privatization of the schooling system. While I do not mean to undermine the reformers who believe in equality for every child, I also feel apprehensive about their intentions. Even the best intentions can lead to bad results. Likewise, people with good intentions need to fully access factors such as neighborhood environment and understand the parents and students in order to make a good judgment. Although I believe that intention does not automatically correlate with expected results, I do believe that charter school legislators should be expanding charters for the right reason (based on democratic principles) and because they actually stand firm on the ideology that every child in the United States deserves a quality education. In addition, parents vocalized their strong objections to charters opening in their neighborhood because they believe that it is an infringement on the community. I also want to know more about whether charter parents lose their voice in their children’s education.
From The Lottery, I see the active role that parents play in their children’s lives. Parents are shown to be trying their best to put their children into the best schools and are invested in home learning. This debunks the idea that poor parents are not invested nor are active participants in their children’s education.
I wholeheartedly agree with the ending points made from The Inconvenient Truth Behind Waiting for Superman of what real reform looks like. Educational leaders should improve schools by pushing for smaller class sizes, have equitable funding for all schools, implement anti-racist education policies, execute culturally-relevant pedagogy, provide excellent community public schools of ALL children, promote more teaching and less testing, establish prekindergarten and early childhood programs, and uphold social justice.
Yao,
DeleteI agree with your point on the charter school legislator should expanding charter for right reason. From your comment, I could recall Diane Ravitch's comment "Ban for-profit charters and charter chains and ensure that charter schools collaborate with public schools to support better education for all children." Also, I could see in the film that poor parents want their kid to get better education. I think it is because the parents believe that the better education and college degrees will make their family situation better. I also agree with your last paragraph which is kind of similar to Reign of Error. However, I believe it is almost impossible to provide excellent community public schools to all children.
DeleteYao,
The points you have made seem very spot on. I also liked the ending of “The inconvenient Truth behind Waiting for Superman” because “Waiting for Superman” and “The Lottery” leave the audience hanging with poor children who did not get their shot at quality education because our society did not offer them an opportunity in public schools. On the other hand, “The Lottery” actually proposes what reforms should actually look like. In the video one teacher even mentions that the law makers and those who push for these reforms sit back and push buttons and great teachers leave because of the frustration that comes from those laws. We should listen to the teachers, parents, and more importantly the student’s voices in making drastic changes in education.
All these three films address the issues of charter school and public school. “Waiting for Superman” is definitely praising charter school while “The Inconvenient Truth Behind Waiting for Superman” is opposing the charter school. In this documentary film, “The Lottery”, the movie highlights the teacher union’s opposition and the parents’ wish to get in to Harlem Success Academy. From watching these three films, I can see what is happening.
ReplyDeleteThe parents want better education to make sure their kid become successful. However, the public school is not doing their work because there are some teachers who are not motivated to teach their students. Then, public school president try to get rid of the teacher but the teacher union stop the schools because of the tenure system which was originally built for college professor. Parents lost hope in public education so they start to join charter school. Soon, charter school is full of students. They need new building and the government decide to make public schools to share their building with charter school. This led public school parents to be angry and start protesting the charter school.
From my perspective, this is a chain reaction. What is the main problem that make this whole thing to happen? Well, I believe the not skilled and not motivated teachers are the first problem. To fix this issue, I think the teacher union should not give tenure to all teachers. Moreover, the cutting down the teachers from the school should be easier. One whole year process to cut down one bad teacher? It is too much waste of resource to deal with a problem.
For the charter school debate, I would still stand with yes side with charter school. Of course, sharing buildings and other aspects may be the bad side of the charter school. However, in order to have better education, I believe the schools are required to get away from the teachers’ union’s policies. Moreover, building different curriculum for different type of student is important too. I can see successful students from the charter schools around the campus. The last thing is that I cannot ignore those parents and students’ wishes to avoid failing public schools and get in to charter school.
I undoubtedly agree with you when you say unmotivated teachers are a part of the chain reaction of problems in the education system. However, I think the metaphorical pillar that fell and started this domino effect of problems does not lie in any aspect of the actual institution of school. In my opinion systematic and institutionalized oppression lies at the root of the problem. Its become so engrained in our societies culture and infrastructure that even the propositions, which are meant to obliterate that inequities, are only good for masking the problem rather than eradicating it. With that being said, however, I still agree that your stance on charter schools. I believe they are the lesser of all evils when it comes to public schooling, and hold the potential to chip away at some of the problems our education system through propagation culturally/racially relevant pedagogy, which is imperative to bridging the gap between urban and private education.
DeleteAs the name suggests, “The Lottery” is another great film that addresses the issues of charter schools and their ways of enrolling students based on a lottery system. Although these lotteries are mandated by law when demands exceed supply, the lottery is very controversial. This is because many claim it is unfair to make a student’s chance at great education in fate and chance while all students should be subject to quality education.
ReplyDeleteWhat I liked about “The Lottery” the most was that it was the first to address both sides to the charter school vs. Zoned school debate while promoting parental choice. “Waiting for superman” is biased heavily towards supporting charter schools while “The Inconvenient Truth Behind Waiting for Superman” is biased heavily against the charter schools. “The Lottery” also shows four African American families who are in the lottery for a spot at The Harlem Success Academy. While “Waiting for Superman” argues that public schools are failing and “Inconvenient Truth Behind Waiting for Superman” claims that charter schools are failing, the “Lottery” seems to add another spin to the debate that parents just want the best for their children. It was disheartening when parents interviewed in “The Lottery” did not seem to care about the politics or the drama behind the big debate. They simply wanted to sent their kids to the Harlem Success Academy” because it’s been known to be the best. The parents thought that was the best for their children, so nothing else mattered.
The common theme of all three of these films is that we have to focus on our children. All of the focus on the political nonsense need to be stripped away and educational reform must be for the children. All films would also agree that it is extremely hard to give equal education to students in all race and socioeconomic status – but we have to keep trying.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAt the end of this semester we are expected to have a solid stance on whether we support or detest the charter system. Until last week, the majority of the material we've gone over in class has only strengthened my support for charter schools. However, I'm noticing my perspective on charter schools and their impact in "urban" communities is evolving from one of insurmountable reverence to optimistic skepticism. Being a student, rather a critic, of a charter school system gave me an extremely biased perspective, but the perspectives of the students and teachers in The Inconvenient Truth Behind Waiting for Superman compelled me to reflect and reevaluate my outlook. The Lottery and Waiting for Superman unquestionably pull on your heartstrings, and leave you on the edge of your seat hoping that these children are chosen by the lottery so they can to can have hope at a better path than “the system” has subjected them to. But the hope and optimism I felt after watching Waiting for Superman was obliterated after watching its counterpart, The Inconvenient Truth Behind Waiting For Superman. The Inconvenient Truth shined a revealing on the power struggles teachers (and parents) undergo when dealing with private corporations as well as the struggles that some parents have within the charter system. Essentially, everything that may seem to glitter is not always gold.
ReplyDeleteThe Lottery unquestionably resembled Waiting For Superman in that they both expounded on similar elements on the decline and remedy for education. However, it was Geoffrey Canada’s words in particular that resonated with me. He states, “we have created a system sometime between World War 1 and World War 2 and that system has not changed. Its like we have created the perfect thing and we haven’t touched on it since”. So how and where does change come and when will reformation truly become a reality? According to the inconvenient truth, the remedy lies in the hands of educational leaders; it is up to them to improve the class size and structure, fix the discrepancies of funding, promote social and racial related education policies, and last but certainty not least – to actually teach instead of test. Naturally, I agree with all of those points, and feel as if they are still necessary ingredients for reforming the inequities of our education system. But, like Geoffrey Canada, I believe of the issue when it comes to equity and opportunity in education is rooted in a much deeper historical context; however, in my opinion the framework for this inequity and segregation was in place long before the World Wars.
Great post Trey! I also agree with you that "The Inconvenient Truth Behind Waiting for Superman" also made me reconsider my views about charter schools. I liked how you phrased it as the "glitter is not always gold." Some points in "The Incovenient Truth" that stood out to me is how Canada's schools dropped many students and how some special education students were not allowed to charter schools. With these factors, the question of whether charter schools are successful for all types of students is interesting. I also like how you mention that educational reform is something that needs to be looked much into historical context.
DeleteOne scene that really struck me in “The Lottery” was when Eva Moskowitz was speaking in front of the New York Education Board. I was very appalled when the film displayed some education leaders being disrespectful to Miss Moskowitz during her questioning. Instead of focusing on the main issue of providing quality education to all students, I was stunned that an educational leader in the New York Education Board was upset about the validity of Miss Moskowitz actually living in Harlem. This presentation of the meeting suggests a contrasting focus between Miss Moskowitz’s intention to provide more high quality education and the logistics of educational bureaucracy.
ReplyDeleteIn that same meeting, Eva Moskowitz presented a thorough and heartfelt speech about the consequences of keeping failing public schools alive and the importance of parents having school choice. She mentions that a major consequence of keeping these failing public schools is their continuation of developing mores students to fail because they are behind. This idea was emotionally portrayed in “Waiting for Superman” where audiences follow the journey of families wanting the best education for their child. “Waiting for Superman” is a tear jerker when it ends with some students not being able to attend the high quality charter school and are only left with the option to attend a failing public school. “Waiting for Superman” displays these public schools so negatively that it seems like a hopeless situation for a student to be successful at a public school.
After watching “Waiting for Superman” initially, I thought failing public schools and educational bureaucracy were the major problems with American education today. However, I started to reconsider charter school success after watching “The Inconvenient Truth Behind Waiting for Superman.” This film was interesting because it was from the perspective of two teachers who work in public schools. Although they were against charter schools, I found it interesting how they wanted to reform American education in a different way. By incorporating smaller class sizes and providing equal resources to all schools, these reformers believe that change can happen within public schools without outside interference.
After watching these films, I am saddened by the reality of the inequality in educational opportunities for all students and the complexity of bureaucracy in American education. It is hard to accept and watch families who truly care about their children’s education be turned down those opportunities from charter schools. I honestly think that in order to improve education, high quality education needs to be provided everywhere for everyone. How to make this possible is the only question.
Kevin, thank you for bringing that scene up it had escaped my memory until I read your response. I also thought that the scene was very powerful and describes one of the fundamental misunderstandings of the reform movement. The leaders at the top are genuine good people who want to help kids. Luckily that scene exposed the local school board leaders. Their questioning was small minded and ineffective. Ms. Moskowitz was composed which allowed her to frankly make the school board leaders look unintelligent. Furthermore, I was actually surprised that Ms. Moskowitz lived in Harlem. One failure of the charter movement is it is very top down not community based, which is why they see so much resistance. People want change to come from their own neighbors, which, interestingly, is exactly what Eva is doing.
DeleteThe Lottery, on the whole, was very similar to Waiting for Superman. I thought it hit all of the key points of the Charter School movement in New York. The New York focus was an interesting choice given the fact that the teachers unions are strongest in the North East and especially in New York City. Watching the Inconvenient Truth gave me more perspective on unions. Unions are fundamentally important for many professions including public education but the teachers unions in New York have much more extensive powers than collective bargaining for salaries and conditions. They have fundamentally taken over the system and shaped it to their needs not student’s needs. The Lottery was most powerful in describing the deep integration between the union and the system itself. They dictate nearly every move schools make in New York City. Their political clout in the city particularly within the Democratic establishment allows them to dominate public education, the teachers unions are the largest campaign contributors to Democrats in the state and they spent the most time lobbying in Albany.
ReplyDeleteIn one of the more powerful interviews of the film Eva Moskowitz, one of the main characters in the film stated there is a “myth” that some parents don’t care about education and specific children in circumstances beyond their control cannot succeed. In Assault on Kids Sue Books references the Thernstom’s paper which states “Something about the lives of African American children is limiting their intellectual development” (37). His point was there is something fundamental about African American families, which prohibits them from the same intellectual achievement as white or Asian children, a claim Eva denies. George Canada in the Lottery argues poor and minority neighborhoods are not doomed by something inherent in their upbringing they have the ability to succeed. Many of the interviews in The inconvenient Truth Behind Waiting for Superman referenced these “extraordinary circumstances” the public schools face. It is as if they are trying to say there is an underlying culture in their neighborhoods and that parents and communities aren’t invested in education and that is why schools fail, a claim which can be compared to the words of the Thernstom paper. Schools are failing because they cannot evolve or improve in any substantial way because of the bureaucracy, which is imposed on every district in the country. In order for innovation and improvement we must let go of a system that served us well forty years ago and embrace the proven practices of charters into public schools. The goal is not to take over public education it is to inspire it to realign and provide longer school days, more engaged teachers, longer years, smaller classes, at will employment, everything that KIPP and other charter schools have proven can make a difference with at risk youths.
Dropout factory or science lab? Charter school supporters say that they are giving parents choices, but what are the parents really choosing between? In Waiting for Superman, “dropout factories” was a term used to refer to a school where over 40% of the children don't graduate. There are way too many of those in America, but some genius thought that Michelle Rhee, someone with no PhD, experience as a principal or superintendent would be a solution in the nation's capital of all places. Yet, people wonder why parents are hopeless and don't trust the education system anymore.
ReplyDelete“I am a person. My mom is a person, too.” An innocent, curly-haired cute little boy in the The Lottery stood in front of his classroom and read that from his paper. He seems to understand something that the high profile adults in the films that we watched completely ignored. OUR children are not predictors of how many prison cells we’ll “need” in the future or numbers on a ball, they are the image of the American Dream. They are also the victims of a system that protects academic failure, instead of protecting them from all of the systemic demons that sit on their shoulders telling them that the odds against them will be a load that not even a great education can lift.
The inconvenient truth is that for many of the leaders of charter schools who want to be Superman, they can fly back home. The inconvenient truth is that they are the only ones with a real choice. The inconvenient truth is that for these families this is their life. Until we realize that OUR communities will have to be their own Superman. Until we realize that the names of all of OUR kids that deserve and are entitled to a great education can’t fit into a lottery wheel. Until we realize that OUR kids need to become the sole focus of education again, we will always be waiting.
Watching films like “The Lottery” has become such a frustrating and emotional distressing experience that I don’t enjoy watching them anymore. Before I could look at these films, think critically about whatever corner of education the film was focusing on, and go forward thinking about that little corner and what it meant in a bigger context. I was content with separating out the bigger and smaller pictures and discussing them as such. I’m past that point. It feels mostly like a waste of time to be talking about things like pedagogy, achievement gaps, school choice, charter schools, etc when films like “The Lottery” show us how bleak we have let our educational system become. We gotten to a point where people are happy with poor minority children having their futures tied to a lottery, where even if they “win” the result is often being ripped away from their home, support systems, and culture. Because all these poor black kids need is a nice shiny school right? That’s allllll they need right? And if they go to this nice shiny school and pass a couple tests they’re succeeding right?
ReplyDeleteI’m over discussing seemingly trivial matters when it comes to education. If we look at the larger historical, political, and social context of this country it seems very clear to me that there is a lack of investment and care for the lives of poor (and often black/brown) student. As a future educator my stance is don’t even step to my door to talk about how these kids are learning unless we can first talk about that bigger context. Why should I be willing to invest the rest of my life into these children when the systems that are suppose to support them, and support me supporting them refuse to invest? “ Waiting for Superman” and “The Inconvenient Truth Behind Waiting for Superman” are films that once again only serve to show me how ridiculous all of this is. We’re asking the wrong questions and focusing on the wrong things. Both of those films exemplify empty political rhetoric that misses the mark. Meanwhile the children suffer. Great.