The final presentation of the 2012 National Title I conference was a screening of Waiting for Superman by director Davis Guggenheim. This movie has been sitting in my Netflix queue for months but I never got around to watching it. I hate to admit this but I hadn’t seen the movie because I disagreed with the message of the film. After all, who wants their opinions challenged?
But I admired Davis Guggenheim’s chutzpa. He was showing an “anti-public school”, “pro-charter”, and “anti-union” film to thousands of public school employees. Many of those in attendance were teachers from high performing Title I schools.
I settled into my seat in the auditorium. The lights dimmed.
The movie began with young Anthony solving a math problem. Anthony’s eyes lit up and his face shined as he proudly gave the answer. I know that look. I expect all teachers do. Seeing that expression is one of the intangible rewards of being a teacher. I knew this movie would speak to me.
The film was gripping. By the end of the movie my tears were running down my cheeks like credits running across a screen.
Next Davis Guggenheim walked onto the stage for a question and answer session. He was greeted with a polite round of applause and a long line of educators at the microphones.
He began with an introduction. His purpose in this film was to broaden the national dialogue on education. With No Child Left Behind’s focus on data, his film intended to give face to the students behind the data. He wanted to illuminate what it was like for students stuck in America’s worst schools. And he asked the question- What options to they have? I believe his film fulfilled his purpose.
He also noted that once a film is made, once it is released, it no longer belongs to the director. It is available to be used, judged, cited, and critiqued by anybody with an agenda. But that is the case with any film. It was certainly the case with this one. Even so, a director must make the movie as he sees it.
When asked by an audience member, “Why didn’t you film any public schools?” Davis replied, “Because no public school would allow a film crew inside. I tried. I asked some of the best public schools around the country but they said no.”
Davis was also asked to expand on his portrayal of teachers’ unions in his film. He mentioned that he is a part of a union (Directors Guild of America). He said, “I think I can say I got the balance wrong.” He thought unions would have to be a part of the solution.
Davis holds teachers in high regard. It is said in the movie that “Teachers are a national treasure.” But Waiting for Superman isn’t a movie about teachers. He already made a movie about them: The First Year. That too is a film worth watching.
If you are like me and you’ve been avoiding this film I encourage you to watch it. It is one perspective on a complex issue. But the perspective is worth noting and the film is worth watching.
Kate, these are very valid points. I tend to agree much of it. Regarding his view of teachers, as I said, watch The First Year. That is his perspective too, it is inspiring. Superman and The First Year, two perspectives on education. One praises teachers, the other is more critical. I think there is room for both perspectives. Thanks for your thoughtful and well reasoned response.
Mark, golf frustrates me greatly. But each time I go out I manage to hit one shot that surprises myself. There is one moment of hope that I can take away from an afternoon of frustration. Maybe you’ll find one in the movie too. But I expect, on the whole, you’ll leave frustrated. That’s okay.
I’d be willing to watch it again, but I cried for many different reasons when I watched this film. I watched it among teacher friends and every one of us felt the same way when we were finished. We felt it was an apple to orange comparison. Finland, as such a major focus of that film, has an entirely different structure to its tax system, its public/vs/private regard to schools, the 5 year internships its teachers work (paid) at the beginning of their career, the 4% child poverty rate (ours is 22%) and the investment that they make into their system (a much higher rate of their GDP than us, but I don’t know the statistic). Were we to invest in our own kids, I wonder what we could do? In addition, they didn’t profile the way a family gets into a charter school: involvement by families. That’s not available to all kids, sadly. I would argue that what happens in the home dramatically outweighs the influence inside the school building, both for better and for worse.
Rob, you say: “Davis holds teachers in high regard.” I disagree wholeheartedly. I understand that you had a chance to hear him speak, but the bias on this film and the lack of background information on issues that the general public doesn’t understand added up to a huge misrepresentation of our profession.
If/when I ever watch it again, though, I promise that I will keep an open mind and think of your post! Thanks for the food for thought.
What happened after your viewing sounds like an experience that is sorely, sadly missing from our lives right now: reasoned and respectful discourse where people ask questions and actually listen to an absorb the answers.
I bet the majority of our dischord could be solved if people in the “debate” actually “led with a question” instead of an assumption and actually respectfully listened to one another. I admire you for watching that film. I have avoided it myself because it is like golf: why would I intentionally engage in something that I know is going to do nothing but infuriate me for hours on end? Now, I’ll rethink that. I really ought to watch it and listen to that side.
I still hate golf, though.