What this film attempted to say in my opinion, successfully is that we must put the child's needs above all. Through the establishment of the abuses of the unions, the communication of the compelling stats, and the following of just a few examples of a larger populace of suffering students and their families, the director did a BEAUTIFUL job of bringing issues to the surface.
Teachers who are talented, work very hard, and are committed to pushing students and not cruising through should not take offense to this film.
However, there are plenty of teachers out there who should find this film threatening, just as many departments of education should, because on the whole, American schools are failing, and we have a lot of work to do. Because there are educators who are threatened by the message of this film, I say that is what makes it a success.
What effective documentary doesn't shake up the system and strike fear in those whose system it threatens? I'm ready for more!!! Details Edit. Release date October 29, United States. United States. English Spanish. Waiting for 'Superman'. Box office Edit. Technical specs Edit. Runtime 1 hour 51 minutes. Related news. May 11 Gold Derby.
Jun 11 Gold Derby. Contribute to this page Suggest an edit or add missing content. One kid says he wants in, but "my feelings are bittersweet. One problem with most schools, Guggenheim says, is that after teachers gain tenure in two years, it is almost impossible to fire them. In Illinois, for example, one out of 57 doctors loses his medical license, but only one in 2, teachers is fired.
Some teachers flatly inform their students they have no intention of teaching. Guggenheim blames the powerful American Federation of Teachers, which is the top donor to national Democratic campaigns and state Republican campaigns.
Any move to discipline incompetent teachers is met with fierce resistance. A union teacher is a teacher for life. That teachers themselves accept this is depressing. The film demonstrates 1 that quality education is possible for even the most disadvantaged students; 2 the cost is low, considering that high school dropouts often turn to crime when they can't find good jobs.
In 10 years, the film claims, there will be twice as many skilled, well-paid jobs in America as Americans qualified to fill them. What struck me most of all was Geoffrey Canada's confidence that a charter school run on his model can make virtually any first-grader a high school graduate who's accepted to college. A good education, therefore, is not ruled out by poverty, uneducated parents or crime- and drug-infested neighborhoods.
In fact, those are the very areas where he has success. Consider this: Those lotteries are truly random, as by law they must be. Yet most of the winners will succeed, and half the losers from the same human pool will fail. From the host of problems presented, he subtly guides the viewer toward what he perceives as the real problem of education: bad teachers and the unions that protect them.
His solution, what the film presents as hope for salvation for all five children and their families: charter schools. Perhaps to seem unbiased, Guggenheim concedes that only one in five charter schools produces exceptional results. Focusing on a few exceptional schools as if they are typical, Guggenheim has found his superheroes and touts their successes with unrestrained zeal and an uncritical lens.
Getting Started Contributor Zone ». Edit page. Top Gap. See more gaps ». Create a list ». Great Memorable Docs.
0コメント