DM M Waiting for Superman begins with Geoffrey Canada telling a tale about how when he was in fourth grade he cried when his mother told him that superman did not exist. He was upset as a child, because he found out at that moment that no one could save his family from poverty. The narrator discusses how in order for children living in poverty to get a good education, they have to participate in a charter school lottery. Charter schools have less capacity for a lot of students in comparison to public schools so by law the students have to be picked by a lottery. The director Davis Guggenhiem follows children and their families in order to show that the location in which they reside in effects the type of school they go to. The documentary poses the argument that students living in poverty get the disadvantage of attending " drop out" public schools. The No Child Left Behind bill shows that students across the United States score below 40% in math even after increasing the cost spent on students to $9,000(Holden, Stephen. "Students Caught in the School Squeeze." The New York Times. The New York Times, 23 Sept. 2010. Web. 27 Oct. 2014.). The issue of public schools is that the education system is not up to par with schools like private and charter schools. Public schools in areas of poverty are over crowded and little is expected of the students from their educational leaders. Students see that they and their fellows are not succeeding in their studies so they give up. This results in low school scores and a higher drop out rate. The documentary illustrates how if more money from the government were issued to public schools and teachers, students would benefit and thrive. Reformer Bill Strickland is interviewed and talks about how he went to a drop out school and most of his old classmates are in prison. It costs the state $33,000 per prisoner and only $8,300 to send a child to private school ("Waiting for 'Superman'"). This point bring up the issue of the government not issuing sufficient funds to public schools. If students received proper education through schooling they would not drop out and possibly end up in jail. School rankings would increase and the level of drop out students would decrease if public schools were offered the same resources that private and charter schools have. Another issue that is addressed is that bad teachers are the problem. A clip from the documentary shows students sitting in a classroom talking and playing as their teacher reads a newspaper. Students cannot benefit from a teacher that does not teach. When a teacher does not teach it is obvious that his or her students will fail their exams. Another point that is brought up by a boy's mom in the film is that teachers do not care to help those in need. Since many of the students are struggling the standards teachers give their students are low. Students are not motivated or pressured to try when their teacher does not teach or does not help those who are struggling. Teacher union leaves the board at a disadvantage, because they can not fire bad teachers. After two years teaches can receive tenure, which means that they will always be able to teach at that school. This is not only an issue for the board who cannot fire teachers, but for students year after year whom they are teaching. The same bad teacher that teaches a class one year will teach the same way for years to come which means the same school ranking and same amount of drop outs. The documentary further discusses how those who live in richer areas have many different options of where to attend schools. Those who live in poverty have fewer schools and if those schools do bad the government shuts them down. Referring back to the beginning of the documentary the narrator discusses how when it comes to his kids he drives past three public schools until he drops his kids off at a private schools. Families who are not well off do not have the option of traveling outside of their neighborhood in order to send their kids to school. Even if they could drive to a different school many families who live in poor urban areas can not afford to send their kids to private schools. Where someone grows up and the state of their family financially determines what type of education they will get. The documentary Waiting for Superman argues that the government should take action in providing better education for it's students in order to benefit not only students who live in low income areas, but also the United States as a whole. After watching this documentary one can come to the conclusion that it is unfair that children who have no control of what financial state they are in are destined to fail. Urban poverty is an issue and because of it schools are lacking in teachers and resources required for a student to succeed. Government funding should focus more on providing those with less resources more money in order to fix their public schools and become like schools in higher income areas. Instead of rewarding the rich and having those that live in a poorer income participate in random lottery's that hold the answer if they can or cannot get a better education, the government should focus on public schools in areas of poverty. By increasing the resources and creating more schools in poorer urban areas this will increase the percentage of grades across the states and truly fulfill the No Child Left Behind bill.

dkimur2 In "Waiting for Superman", director Davis Guggenheim seeks to illuminate on the failure of the American education system. Following the stories of students seeking to better their educational opportunities, the documentary emphasizes the flaws within the education system that make it so difficult for students to get a proper education. The documentary does not present a solution to the problems, but establishes that there are many problems, and which methods are currently working. The film primarily focuses on the issues regarding the obstacles presented by the teacher union, the progression of the education system in America, and emphasizes the capabilities of a charter school. Although the evidence in the film establishes a significant issue in the functionality of the teacher's union and effectiveness in charter schools, the film fails to retain objectivity and provide pros and cons to the methodologies mentioned in the movie. The film argues that the education system within America used to be competing with among the top countries in education, but gradually became worse as time progressed and became unable to keep up with the rest of the world. After World War II, America underwent an economic boom. Schools put students into a track system where some students were almost predetermined to go to college and get a "high- skill job", be a skilled worker such as an accountant, or a manual laborer. The track system functioned at a satisfactory rate because there were jobs for everyone, the pay relative to then was better, and education wasn't as essential for a decent paying job in America. According to statistics presented by the film, until 1970 the American education system was the best in the world. America also placed 25th in world education, but also was the most confident country in terms of the level of education. While these problems seem to play out as essentially true, many of the statistics in the film are either omitted or interpretations of others' research, so caution is necessary. The film argues that teacher unions are a large part of the problems within the American education system. The documentary focuses on the fact that the functionality of a school is largely affected by a teacher contract that stems from the union. With some teachers becoming less competent and beneficial to students following their acquirement of tenure, firing the ill-performing teachers can become difficult with the contract. The process of evaluating a teacher to fire them is extensive, difficult, and has a short time frame from which it can be proposed. The process makes a massive reform difficult to even begin. Furthermore, the contract limits that teachers cannot be paid based off their performance or how well they teach creating less of an incentive to become a teacher. While these points that the film mentions are all very significant to fixing the education system, the film selectively disregards certain aspects that would support a teachers union. For example, tenures are mostly seen as something to permit laziness among teachers, but it can also permit educational freedom and safety for teachers. Tenure can allow teachers to teach controversial topics such as evolutionary biology, or from classic texts that have been banned among certain schools. Teachers with tenure can also deviate from a curriculum solely meant for passing a standardized test, to make their lesson plans more interesting and inventive.Guggenheim also hints at modeling the school system based off of Finland, the country with the best education. However, the film fails to mention that the education system there has unionized teachers. The methods in which Finland attained its prestigious educational reputation were also not done in the manner suggested by the films, but in a much more gradual manner seeking and creating the best teachers.The film also encourages and focuses on the viability of charter schools and their uses as an alternative to the standard public school. Charter schools are another form of public education, but are operated often with donations and with very limited space requiring a lottery system for it. In the film, charter schools are praised because of the philosophies that are generally exercised such as always having kids catch up if they are behind on their education. Charter schools are also utilized to demonstrate that the low income children that often score lower, have the potential to not only meet the standards of higher income children but to surpass them as well. The charter schools within the films are praised with their amazing performance, but the failure of some charter schools across the nation are ignored. A study performed by a Stanford economist reveals that only seventeen percent of half the charter schools in America are performing better than public schools. The other eighty three percent are all performing on the same levels as the other schools are worst. Moreover, if there are that many charter schools performing worse or just as well as public schools, why should they be getting any funding when that money could be potentially used to reinvigorate schools? This documentary fails to touch on multiple key points, but is not a film to pass on. The film still touches on ideas and faults within the education system that are important to note. However, when watching this, it's important to keep in mind that this film has a strong bias for charter schools and against teacher unions. The largest success of this film is sensationalizing the necessity for education reform and making it an even larger issue than before. While the film doesn't provide clear, thought out solution, it does a fantastic job in establishing that there is a problem in need of a solution soon. Furthermore, this film implicitly demonstrates that solutions to problems as grand as education reform are not so black and white, and hopefully encourages viewers to investigate education reform, research, and formulate a personal opinion.

wmmorriss Those reviewers who say that charter schools are for profit are lying. Charter schools receive their charter from the State in which they are organized and are not-for-profit. Charter schools are public schools. They receive operational funds in the same way that other public school do. If public schools weren't failing students, then parents wouldn't want to take their children to Charter Schools. On the other hand private schools may be for profit, and do not usually receive public funds (tax dollars).Not all charter schools are successful either. This film showed charter schools that are successful. There are charter schools in every State that are just as bad as the "dropout factories" depicted in the film. Parents need to do their homework before enrolling their children in a school. The State's Department of Education keeps track of failing schools. That is a good place to call for a school's record.

mitzter69 The 'experts' seems to only consist of the discredited Geoffrey Canada, Michael Rhee and Bill Gates. Guggenheim should feel ashamed to have written this. He comes across as a complete lackey for corporate interests and a faux leftie (that pretends he has a conscience and cares but at the end of the day doesn't care about anyone but himself and family). Instead of looking at why teachers burn out, what has changed since the 70s, or even the great question of what effect inequity in wealth causes, Guggenheim takes the easy road of his corporate masters and attacks teachers and unions. Shameful and harmful!