Earl C. Rickman III is the president of the National School Boards Association and president of the Board of Education of Mount Clemens Community School District.
Everywhere I go these days, people ask if I have seen “Waiting for Superman,” the documentary that chronicles five families who have entered lotteries to seek admission to charter schools.
Whether it’s promoting any government policy or attacking one, we usually get just a few examples that are supposed to sway our opinion. This supports claims of American gullibility.
I have indeed seen the documentary and feel it is provoking conversations that are long overdue about public education.
As if there haven’t been enough conversations. What’s overdue?
However, the messaging associated with this project – “charters are good,” “traditional public schools are failing,” and “teachers unions are bad” – oversimplifies complicated issues and threatens to hinder thoughtful discussions about education reform.* The “us” versus “them” mentality promotes division rather than the collaboration necessary for our public schools to succeed.
I agree that most political discourse is oversimplified, but you’ve got to keep it simple; stupid, just like watching a football game or a sitcom.
Let’s not discuss our political divisions or choose right or wrong, let’s just get along and collaborate right into continuous discontent.
Instead of helping people understand the many challenges schools face and what it takes to address them, director and narrator Davis Guggenheim presents misleading information and simplistic solutions that benefit no one, especially those in classrooms who work so hard to help our children succeed.
For sure there are many good teachers and administrators, but what are the many challenges? Is there an official list, or maybe I can guess that they all can be cured with more rigor and money.
We shouldn’t use a handful of outliers to make sweeping claims about policy. While the stories highlighted in “Waiting for Superman” offer inspiring lessons about how strong principals and committed teachers can transform children’s lives and futures, research shows that only 17% of charters outperform their traditional counterparts.
The 17% number appears low, but remember that most states won’t grant a charter unless the school is targeting at-risk students. Do you think that states would part with their best and brightest from under their umbrella?
It’s also unfair and misleading to use the lowest-performing public schools as typical examples. While there are struggling public schools, there are also many successful public schools and teachers – here in Mount Clemens, across Michigan and around the country – that are helping children from all backgrounds reach great academic heights.
Yeah, those successful schools are in the more affluent areas of Michigan buddy-boy and you know that. Let’s take some of those teachers and place them in East L.A to see how well they fare. It’s a lot easier to be a “good” teacher when you have kids with aptitude and drive and those kids usually come from affluence.
We know all too well how urgently change is needed, but not from a corporate-modeled agenda of teacher bashing, union bashing, elected board governance bashing, test-based accountability, and highly selective charters run by private management companies.
Just get it out there: “I hate free enterprise!” Don’t beat around the bush!
Despite a lot of empty rhetoric about the importance of great teachers, the documentary does not contain a single positive image of a traditional public school or teacher. It never shows real teachers who are working in the trenches in traditional public schools every day and how they are offering hope for the students in their classrooms. The film simply disrespects and discredits traditional teachers. Not a single one of these dedicated teachers has a voice in the film.
There are plenty of good teachers, but what is the context of a traditional teacher? And what is the definition of a good, versus bad, versus master teacher? How many of each is there? Is every teacher a great teacher laying in wait to be let loose? Why do we use the success of great teachers to drive ideas when in reality most teachers are good or average? Or here we go again, not defining terms?
And there is no suggestion of how parents are working in collaboration with school leaders to improve the public schools their children attend, no suggestion of community engagement, no suggestion of how effective board leadership can improve public education.
How, how, how; but where, where, where is there credible research to show this improves schools?
There is no discussion of funding inequities, poverty, race, testing or the long dismal history of top-down bureaucratic educational reform failures.
It’s all about money when you are a socialist. Take from the above average and give to the below so everyone will be equal. I’m sure that he isn’t referring to the Bell Curve when it comes to race, poverty, and testing. I think that he’s referring to “social injustices.”
The film displays a heart tugging and undeniably powerful emotional impact. The stories of the children and families it highlights are truly compelling for all of us. But the film uses these stories to advance an agenda that continues to hurt public schools and the vast majority of communities that depend on them.
I feel the pain, the hurt, the emotional rollercoaster. Have a tissue?
Am I saying that we shouldn't criticize public education? No!
But only on your terms that advance your agenda.
If there were not the perceptions that the current system is not getting the job done and not addressing the needs of all students, there would be no need or outcry for change by those who depend on public school districts to provide a quality educational experience for their children.
What is the “job” and who defines it? It's government bureaucrats who will always throw in some capitalists who are never happy with their work force and want more of a good thing at a cheaper price.
For 26 years as a member of the Mount Clemens Board of Education I have fought, argued and advocated to bring social justice to our classrooms, our schools, our districts and our unions. I’ve learned that there is no such thing as a “Superman”; rather, ordinary men and women must do extraordinary things for our children.
Give me some of that “social justice.” Social justice =’s socialism. Just thought we should clear that up.
If children are our most essential investment, we must invest in their future and provide them with a quality public education. Instead, it is an annual ritual as we look at ways to cut education funding even when it will sacrifice student learning and achievement. We must make sure that we have the essential assets — great teachers, staff, curriculum, and key resources — to build an unwavering infrastructure for a solid education.
My child is my concern and I don’t appreciate you treating him like a derivative owned by the village. Good luck with all of those “great” teachers, whatever you define that to be. We don’t even have all “great” players in the NFL, but we just need to borrow some HOPE from all of those 2008 voters to get great teachers.
School leaders must nurture the ambition, creativity, curiosity and boldness of these young minds that come through our doors. These children will become lifelong learners and the leaders of tomorrow, and we must see that their dreams become reality through our work.
He says it as if nature doesn’t exist. Is Rickman actually in the education business or just well-schooled in eduspeak? Also, some of these children will be criminals, mentally ill, lazy, etc. It’s a shame but it’s reality. Rickman needs to find it.
You can find real heroes in every traditional public school, but “Waiting for Superman” fails to recognize this, and that is the movie’s fatal flaw. Instead of bashing our hard-working teachers, school leaders, parents and community leaders, we should look for realistic steps we can take to improve achievement and make opportunities available to all children.
So passé. Who isn’t a hero any more? We need to come up with a new term for people who are “of distinguished courage or ability, admired for brave deeds and noble qualities.”
By: EARL C. RICKMAN III
Dear Mr. Rickman,
You sound like more of the same.
P.S. This posting was found at: http://www.minidokaschools.org/article/2011-01-01/theres-no-superman-but-there-are-school-heroes/.
At the bottom of the page, I found the district’s motto: “We will increase INSTRUCTIONAL INTENSITY to significantly improve academic achievement for all students.” Sounds like nurtureering© to me, and instructional intensity sounds painful.
0 comments:
Post a Comment