Waiting for Superman (2010) User Reviews (107)

Waiting for Superman is simplistic and one-sided

[inmatom · 6/10 · 31 October 2010]

Waiting for Superman makes teachers the scapegoats for our ongoing educational problems in the U.S. To the lay person, the film is appealing, and seemingly makes a good case that poor teachers are the main reason why so many children are failing. It shows statistics that allegedly illustrate how far behind we are from the rest of the world in education. Again, to the uninformed viewer, it all seems credible. However, as an inner city teacher for 20 years, I can tell you that we are not falling behind most other countries as they would like us to believe. You can't compare Finland, a country of 5 million people, to the U.S. Countries similar to ours are experiencing the same problems we are due to the increasing divorce rate, single parent households, and the lack of respect for teachers and educational institutions. The test scores from other countries, particularly Asian countries, are skewed since they are used as tracking for academic and social class for life. Hence, they go to after school "cramming classes". There is no evidence that they actually learn the material better in the long run, however. For a detailed explanation, please read Tamin Ansary's article "The Myth of America's Failing Schools."

The biggest problem I have with the movie is that it is one-sided. It focuses on the unions allowing poor teachers to continue because of tenure, which I agree is wrong and must be rectified immediately. However, the film gives the viewer the impression that the majority of teachers, particularly in the inner-city are "poor" and are only there to collect a paycheck. Nothing could be further from the truth. In my experience, I estimate that there are 5-10% "poor" teachers on the average in any school, just as there are in any profession. The vast majority (90%) in most schools are dedicated and diligent professionals who do the very best they can with the circumstances they have. Poor teachers are only a very small part of the problem.

Waiting for Superman neglected two important factors that dramatically affect the success of schools and its students: parental involvement and student discipline within the school system. The parents shown in this movie were NOT the typical inner city parents. They were educated, lived in nice, clean, and well maintained apartments, and did homework with their children each night. If all parents were like them, there would be no "failing schools" discussion; this movie would never have been made. These parents were model parents -- definitely the exception and not the rule in the inner-city. Another issue ignored completely is the student discipline. Most inner -city teachers spend much more time on disciplining a few students every day than teaching the rest of the class. Only schools with strong principals and an effective system of discipline in place have a chance at any success in the inner-city. The very best schools remove habitually disruptive students sooner and place them in alternative schools. As long as there are 2-3 habitually disruptive students in a classroom, the time on task will never be that of suburban schools or any successful school. The KIPP school cited in the movie didn't simply just "extend the day" as some assume, they REQUIRED parental support and participation, much like Catholic schools do. The successful charter schools do the same. They cannot be compared to the inner-city schools that have to deal with habitually disruptive students and parents who refuse to provide the basics for their child -- clean clothes, a trip to the public library, a place at home to do their homework, limiting television and computer time, etc..

Incidentally, only the very best parents in the inner city would call the classroom teacher to REQUEST a parent-teacher conference, as shown in this documentary. I found that comical since in my 20 years of teaching not ONE parent has ever REQUESTED a parent conference. It's the other way around -- we have to try to track down parents, go to their homes, and beg them to come to conferences! The parents in this film were proactive in their child's education -- definitely not the norm in the inner city.

Even the very best teacher in the country cannot successfully teach all of his/her students without adequate parental support. Case in point: Jaime Escalante, the inspiration for the movie "Stand and Deliver" (1988), was very successful at teaching inner city students calculus. He did, however, have wonderful parental support. When he moved to Sacramento several years later and taught at risk kids there, he had no such success. Why? He stated that the kids and parents didn't care as much as his kids in East Los Angeles.

Education does NOT occur in a vacuum. The schools, teachers and parents must all work together. Any administrator who simply adopts the defeatist approach and states "parents can't be fixed" and refuses to make them accountable will never have a successful school. And remember this: A bad teacher only lasts 9 months, but a bad parent lasts a lifetime!

If you are concerned about how the US in falling behind in education, see this film!

[FilmRap · 7/10 · 26 August 2010]

If you are concerned about the educational system in the United States and how it is falling behind many countries in the world and may be letting down children whom you care about, you will want to see this documentary film. The same day that we saw this movie, Thomas Friedman suggested, in the N.Y. Times, that it raises awareness about problems of our education system as the movie An Inconvenient Truth ( the Al Gore film ) did about the environment. Both films were directed by Davis Guggenheim and produced by Lesley Chilcott, with the latter being a guest speaker at our screening. The storyline pulled no punches as it made the point over and over again that bad teachers must be eliminated from schools and replaced with good ones . The enemy here is depicted as the teacher's unions which oppose evaluation of teachers, merit pay and firing of poor teachers. It is interesting that also the day on which we saw this film, the first round of educational grants to states for Obama's Race to the Top program were announced . The NY Times article also stated that one important requirement for receiving this money were changes in the schools so teacher's performances could be evaluated and subsequent action taken based on this information Examples of successful charter schools, magnet schools and public schools were shown in this film. The efforts of Michelle Rhee in Washington, D.C. who is trying to reorganize that school system were highlighted as were interviews with Jeffrey Canada who has set up a successful charter school in New York City in Harlem where he turned around the dropout rate. Canada's childhood disappointment when he learned that there was no real Superman and therefore he thought there was no one to save him from the hardships of his own difficult childhood circumstances, inspired the title of this movie. It was pointed out in the film that so many kids who drop out end up in the prison system where the cost of keeping them there for an average of four years could pay for a full private school education plus money left over for college. We did think that this movie was somewhat redundant , repetitious and longer than it had to be. It also did not touch upon the role of class size in successful education which the producer did feel had been disproved as a factor, although not covered in the movie. It also failed to explain or analyze the qualities that make a good teacher or a bad one although the difference between the two does make all the difference in the world to a child's future. The most poignant, dramatic and heartbreaking part of the film was the close-up view of various lotteries which are held to determine which few students of the many sitting in the auditorium are chosen to be accepted to the schools known to successfully graduate it's students. You can see and feel the disappointment in the children as they realize that they have lost something very special that they dearly wanted. Filmrap.net

Our System is Broken

[ferguson-6 · 7/10 · 3 October 2010]

Greetings again from the darkness. The system is broken. I am neither a teacher, Union official or politician ... simply a U.S. citizen who sees a real problem with a public education system that seems to adequately serve very few.

After viewing Davis Guggenheim's documentary, I find it fascinating to read some of the comments made. To my eye, the film does not blame any one group for the problems - though lousy teachers and a misguided union do take some serious criticism. Shouldn't they? The film makes the point that excellent teachers and principals can definitely make a difference. The specific subject families show caring, involved parents and eager to learn children. Of course, not every family or child fits this definition. But shouldn't the system work for the engaged parents and students?

There is no shortage of blame in this game - politicians, unions, teachers, administrators, parents and rowdy kids. Regardless of the situation, it's clear that the overall system is flawed, especially in lower income areas. Do neighborhoods drag the school down or is it vice versa? To me, it doesn't matter. The system should reward the teachers, parents and children who do want to teach and learn.

Regardless of your politics or personal involvement in education, I commend Mr. Guggenheim ("An Inconvenient Truth") and Mr. Gates and Ms. Rhee for rocking the boat ... for getting the questions asked in a public forum. This movie should inspire much debate and discussion - typically the beginning of real improvement and change. Let's hope this is the needed start to finding a better system.

Super

[karmajustice · 9/10 · 6 October 2010]

I may not be a teacher, but both my parents were, and I grew up going to public school and got many views of the educational system as a whole. I'm really surprised to see that some teachers went to this and were actually offended by what it offered.

This movie did not set out to blame the issues of this country's education on the teachers. It depicts the issues with the SYSTEM. It's a system that protects the teachers' needs over the students in some cases. We all are aware that teachers don't get paid very well, but there are many upsides to a career as a teacher, and some go into this field because they are gifted, but just as many aren't.

What this film attempted to say (in my opinion, successfully) is that we must put the child's needs above all. The system is BROKEN, and that's all the director wanted to say. 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!!!

This movie should be mandatory viewing for all Americans

[richard-1787 · 10/10 · 19 October 2010]

Yes, a 10. This movie is spectacular. I can't remember the last time I got so caught up in a documentary.

This movie seeks to do two things, 1) to show how bad bad public education in this country is and to suggest some of the reasons (the two teachers unions, the administrative bureaucracy, etc.); 2) to suggest a solution.

It does 1) in a devastatingly powerful fashion. There are other reasons for the poor quality of some American education that he does not broach, like the stupid training given by mediocre and bad schools of education, low teacher certification standards in some states, the danger of leaving it up to principals to hire teachers when some of them have no interest in or understanding of education, etc. But going into all of that would have made this movie hours and hours long. Still probably very interesting, but impractical as a commercial venture.

2) it does well also, but the viewer needs to sit back afterward and think through exactly what is being proposed as a solution. That solution is a certain sort of education now being offered in certain (not all, by any means) urban charter schools that function free of all the obstacles (bureaucracy, school boards, teachers unions, etc.) that block change in regular public schools. But the students in those charter schools are all there because their parents/guardians made the effort to get them there.

In other words, superlative teaching works with students who have support at home. This is wonderful, but it's not either a surprise or a miracle. It sounds like a magnificent way of educating the children of caring and concerned parents/guardians who can't flee the inner city to the better schools of the suburbs. But it does not address the problem of what is to be done with all the students who are children/wards of individuals who don't give a damn about their education.

That is probably the subject of another film.

This one, meanwhile, is magnificent, from first moment to last. The lottery scenes near the end are perhaps the most enthralling, but it is all very good.

I kid you not. Every American should have to see this movie.

P.S. I notice that there are some scathing reviews of this movie on here. Remember in reading them that WfS pulls no punches: it goes after the AFT and NEA with a vengeance, and those two organizations will no doubt do whatever they can to discredit this movie. Beware anything that comes from them, therefore. Bill Gates has long said that those two organizations are two of the biggest roadblocks to educational reform in this country. This movie documents that, and those unions won't take that lying down.

I'm still waiting for "Superman". Sadly, this movie isn't worth the save. It was a bit disappointing.

[ironhorse_iv · 7/10 · 30 September 2014]

Waiting for "Superman" is one of those documentaries, I truly wanted to see, when it came out. Now, that I saw the film, I wish, the film could had done better for itself. Don't get me wrong, it's not a bad movie. It's just misleading as hell and doesn't cover all the whole educational system of the United States. Directed by Davis Guggenheim, the film analyzes the failures of the American public education system by following several students as they strive to be accepted into a charter school. The movie often follow the teaching of Geoffrey Canada, an educator and activist for school reform, describing how the school system need to be fixed. Throughout the documentary, different aspects of the American public education system are examined. It was very interesting on what they pull out, like how bureaucracy is killing our public education system. I did have to agree with most of what the movie is saying. I agree that firing bad teachers is good, and firing tenure teachers does prove a problem. I'm pretty open to the idea of reforming corrupt unions and reducing overblown bureaucratic institutions. Still, the movie is so- one sided approach, that doesn't balance out. The movie nearly place all the blame for poor student performance on teachers and their unions. The movie act like no other groups are apportioned any responsibility for student performances. Does accountability extend only to teachers, and not to the parents or the student, themselves? Apparently, for Davis Guggenheim, it does. What the movie fails to take account is how much parental involvement, income level, educational level of the parents, the surrounding culture in which the children live, violence, drug addiction and dealing, unemployment, incarceration rates among the parents and relations of the students, sleep, nutrition, etc.. affect how a student does in school. They are not even given much time in the film to explain, or not even acknowledged as factors. The film would have you believe that if we just busted the teachers' unions, then all the "achievement gap" would disappear, all the kids in those tough urban districts would come back to school and complete their high school education and go on to college. This is only wishful thinking and not a solution. Putting all the blame on teachers is wrong. One thing that I really didn't agree with, the movie is how charter schools better than public schools. The movie makes it look like charter schools are the best out there, and the worst thing to happen to a poor family is having to go to a public school. Shockingly, as Stanford's in depth Credo study of charter schools shows, charters school actually underperform public schools. Only 15% outperform traditional schools, while 35% underperform traditional schools. The other 50% is about equal. This is pretty bad. The movie focus on how corrupt the public school, but fail to show how some charter schools could be dishonest as well. Some good examples are overworking teachers by paying them lower cost, being exploitation by for-profit entities, refusing to help special education students, co-location controversial, promoting racial segregation, or the lack of teaching second language learners. Even the film's main man, shouldn't be treated as a saint. Geoffrey Canada has been known to expel an entire class of low-performing children, before test day due to fears that it would throw off his good performance statistics at his own charter schools. Canada also has a lot of board members of wealthy philanthropists with large wallets to fund his schools. With assets of more than $200 million, his organization has no shortage of funds. Saying that public school are overfunded is an understatement when there is clear debate about charter schools being over-funded and underperforming. If all inner-city schools had the same resources as his, maybe they would have the same good results. It doesn't help the film when the statistics statement that the film are saying, are poorly researched. The movie claims for example that Woodside High School, only sends a third of its students to college and only graduates 62 percent of them, but what the film excluded, is the fact that some students went to out-of-state colleges. This means that their graduation rate is more like 92 percent. That's very distortion. Another big example is the statement that the film's claim that "70 percent of eighth-grade students cannot read at grade level,". It's clearly a misrepresentation of data from the National Assessment of Educational Progress. The film assumes that any student below proficient is "below grade level," but this claim is not supported by the NAEP data nor any major educational program. The film got so bad at researching their data that another film was create in 2011, 'The Inconvenient Truth behind Waiting for Superman' produced by the Grassroots Education Movement to couther what they were saying. One thing, I really wish the movie touch upon was upper education as well. There were little talk about college and university. Other things, they didn't talk about are Magnet schools and home schooling. It didn't even mention how military recruiters could access to 11th and 12th grade students' names, addresses, and telephone listings when requested. The movie has gross over simplification, drastic omission, direct and subtle misdirection and false causation false emphasis that cause this movie a lack of replay value for me. It lacks alternative proposals and solutions like having more dates for schooling by reschedule the school calendar. Another is offering wider range of cheaper but higher education. Last is eliminating Property taxes. All this proposals could had made this documentary even better. Like I said before, the documentary isn't the worst. It's pacing and entertaining value is pretty weak, but overall, it's still a solid film. Still, evaluating school communities solely on test scores leaves a lot to be desired.

This stirring documentary sends out shock-waves of injustice

[DoveFoundation · 9/10 · 24 September 2010]

This stirring documentary sends out shock-waves of injustice and even a bit of a sense of futility when it explores the state of America's public schools. Interviews with education specialists, school superintendents and even Bill Gates add up to an impressive assembly of informed adults who know what the problem is, but haven't figured out a way to fix it on a large scale.

Washington, D.C. schools superintendent Michelle Rhee says it well when she summarizes the basic problem: "Public schools fail when children's education becomes about the adults." The adults who fail these children are not limited to public officials and government bureaucrats, though; a large portion of the blame is reserved for ineffective teachers and the teachers' unions who ensure that those teachers receive tenure and cannot be removed from schools. The documentary focuses on five public school children who represent inner-city kids with broken families and day-to-day financial struggles (except for a student of middle-class parents in the Silicon Valley). With that one exception, all are enrolled in failing public elementary schools and have little chance of graduating high school if they move on to the assigned secondary schools in their districts. The tear-jerking climax sees each of the kids attending a lottery drawing for limited spaces at public charter schools and rare, effective public schools within or outside of their district. Witnessing the academic chances for these kids being decided by such a random, impersonal process is heart-breaking and calls into question the very nature of American values like "Protestant work ethic," "equality," "freedom" and "the ability to pull oneself up by one's bootstraps" and make the future brighter.

The language is limited to a few expletives. The film deals with a tangled web of adult issues that make a child's education more difficult, which probably puts it outside the spectrum of interest for most kids under age 12. However, when watched with parents, it could create some valuable family discussions on the importance of education and may even activate a family to become advocates for change. We award "Waiting for Superman" the Dove Family-Approved Seal for audiences over age 12 and praise the filmmakers for presenting many teachable moments.

personally engaging and sometimes factually slight document on the current state of education

[Quinoa1984 · 6/10 · 15 October 2010]

Waiting for Superman does one thing right above all else: it gets a conversation going. Then something else has to matter, which is how much the people who get to talking really know about the education system in America, which has been making students fall behind compared to others throughout the world (i.e. USA ranks 25th among students for math and reading, albeit we're #1 when it comes to confidence! yey we're #1!) David Guggenheim's documentary shifts between personal stories of (mostly) inner-city kids whose parents want their kids to do well but are doubtful for good reason about whether their kids will get the fair chance, and try ultimately to get them into charter-school systems that rely on a lottery system of picking who gets in and who doesn't.

This makes up the emotional core of the picture, and it's a good one. Where things get both interesting and tricky is when Guggenheim gets into the main issue at hand: what's wrong with our countries schools, especially in inner-city/urban ones like in Harlem and DC where there are "Drop-Out Factories" created in part by students in bad neighborhoods but more-so by teachers who just don't give a good-damn about teaching. Guggenheim rails against the teacher union's seemingly monolithic nature when it comes to sacking bad teachers (we learn about the "Lemon Dance" system done with teachers who are tenured who are just bad period). Meanwhile he paints a very rosy picture of the Charter/private schools, and why not? They show how the teachers do give a damn about the students, and the better attention paid - and as we see teaching is a kind of art form that one can master - the better the students.

But doing a little research before or after the film shows that Guggenheim, for all of his good (and they are good) intentions, omits or shallowly covers certain things, such as the Kipp charter schools (it's mentioned only briefly in the doc but 1 out of 5 Charter schools really work best at what they do, and not mentioned is how kids that don't keep up in the first couple of years just get kicked out, period), and about the nature of public school teachers. The call for reform is not unwarranted, and I became saddened by the DC Chancellor's idea of giving double to teachers who don't take tenure being shot down, not even addressed, by the NEA. At the same time that Guggenheim gives some strong attention to the flailing public school/public-school-union system, and to how good though competitive Kipp and schools like it are, little attention is paid to what the urban/inner-city neighborhoods are really like that kids like this are in. I question the statement a person interviewed makes about the school system negatively affecting the neighborhoods more than the other way around. To me it would appear to be a vicious cycle where both sides need reform for true change.

But Waiting for Superman, a film meant to rile up the audience into attention like Guggenheim's previous doc An Inconvenient Truth, is useful as a way to get people who have no idea what's going on what is going on, at least the cliff-notes version of it. It isn't the digging-deepest look at the subject, yet I did feel moved by how the people trying to get by with their kids are good people wanting the best for their kids. Probably the big irony that Guggenheim does, after giving so much positive hype for how charter schools work (i.e. 96% of students go on to college who attend), is showing the lottery system as the climax, and how very few spots there are in the schools. The doc could go even further with being an activist-style position trying to affect change, or give clearer facts; there's a lot of cute-quirky animation to bring along the information, though the interviewees selected are kind of cherry-picked for its ultimate effect.

It is, in short, a good documentary but not quite a great one, and will be a big upper or a big downer depending on who you are in the audience, if you have kids, if you're a teacher, or if you're in the "rubber room" in one of the NYC schools.

Not perfect, but it's informative and emotionally-resonating

[napierslogs · 8/10 · 19 October 2010]

Director Davis Guggenheim waited for Superman as a child, because children like the hope that somebody will come and rescue them and the world. I knocked the U.S. Education system documentary "Waiting for Superman" down two stars for two reasons. One is that they just didn't give me enough hope.

The other main failing of this film, as other reviewers have pointed out, is that he didn't cover all of the many, many reasons for an under-performing education system. Well, he kind of did, but not very clearly. He spent more time on poor teachers and the unions, and many people seem to have come out of thinking that's all he talked about. Contrary to popular reviews, he did make other points. They were just too subtle. I will agree though that he was too heavy-handed with the American Federation of Teachers.

The primary focus of the film is five children each from different parts of the country and each desperate to get into a better school. I think he padded the documentary a bit too much with their situations, and a few too many tear-jerking moments. But when Guggenheim presented me with facts, knowledge and history, "Waiting for Superman" became both informative and emotionally-resonating. And yes, that's what a good documentary is, and that's why it gets 8 stars.

Perhaps "Waiting for Superman" should have been more well-rounded, but I don't think you can present more sides in just a two-hour film. And most important, the sides he did present are accurate, informative, entertaining and well presented. I wish I saw Superman at the end instead of just tears, but I still recommend it.

Way, Way Too Simple

[boltons-1 · 7/10 · 27 February 2011]

I enjoyed watching the DVD with my wife and daughter. It is a very nice story but really oversimplifies the issue. Don't take my word for it though--watch the deleted scenes on the DVD's special features and see how the filmmakers really took their own point of view to the extreme by funneling the story down to one issue.

Little Anthony's Grandmother says it all. School was not important to her because she didn't have anyone to push her, to talk to her about stuff. Her son, who died of a drug overdose, did not think school was important either. There my friends is one key answer: motivation--NOT mostly teacher unions. Anthony's Grandmother gets it so she motivates Anthony.

I have seen misplaced motivation in my own home with Hispanic families who praise a strong work ethic in their children but not a strong learning ethic. Their young children, in turn, say they would rather go to work than go to school.

I am kinda of angry that the Director drives by three public schools to take his child to private school. This reminds me of the State School Board in Texas--at one time every member had their own children in private school. Isn't this hypocrisy or is it just me?

I asked my daughter's principal about her experiences and she confirmed it is difficult to fire a teacher (and we are in Texas with no teacher unions just associations). The documentation required takes about a year and HQ says to only plan on firing, at most, one teacher a year. So she is very careful in hiring. Universities should also be more careful in who they graduate. Sounds like a better plan.

My advice is to go to RedBox and rent the DVD for a buck and watch it with a group and have a discussion. This film is better than 90% of what RedBox has to offer anyway and, with the Wisconsin teacher union busting Governor, there is no better time.

No Answers Folks - That is for You to Figure Out

[georgew6 · 10/10 · 23 October 2010]

Checking a few reviews, I noticed that the point of this documentary film was not understood by some people. I hope that is not true of all viewers. Of course, not many of us in the USA are ever going to see this movie. In my area, 20 miles outside Washington DC, where a good part of the movie takes place, in their school system, the movie was showing in only two theaters. One a large, excellent multiplex and another small theater that seems to pick up movies usually not shown by the big theaters. I guess there were SIX of us in the big theater last Friday, October 22, 2010. Check out the box office statistics here and you will see the trend is UP from very few patrons to start with, although my guess is that the movie will go to DVD soon, never to be seen by many people.

Well, that might be an indication of how much we really care about children in this country. Especially about their education that is so lousy in much of the United States, not just in the giant urban centers, often surrounded by nice suburbs with nice schools we think are doing their job. Maybe most people just do not give a darn.

If nothing else, the film makes the point that it is a systematic failure of public education that we are seeing. Not a failure of individual teachers or poor neighborhoods, unfit parents, rebellious students, drugs or lack of funds. Further, the failures rest on the heads of ADULTS. That is all of us, folks.

The film maker wants you to see that, even with the best of intentions and plenty of money, plus the highest level backing (every President since Ike), we still have not found the courage and stamina to bring our students up to the very highest standard of education, be it in math or music, science or soldering.

We need to be sure every student in public schools graduates from high school prepared for life in this world. We are not doing this now and the future of the country really does depend on this one variable.

In this day and age education can prepare everyone for a job of one sort or another, be it mother or father or President of the USA. However, without that education it will be mighty hard to live a decent life and all the problems we see now in our civilization are going to be that much harder to deal with.

Please go see the movie and talk to all your friends and family about it. This movie should be shown in every little town and every city neighborhood in the USA.

Biased but Important to Watch

[dkimur2 · 6/10 · 27 October 2014]

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.

A pathetic piece of propaganda

[nickyou · 1/10 · 13 October 2011]

One of the few things Guggenheim got right was that there is something wrong with the system. Unfortunately, Guggenheim pointed his finger at teachers and teacher unions but not at the real problem.

I want to discuss a study before I discuss the real problem. I cannot remember who did the study but I can tell you the major conclusions. The researchers estimated that the performance of a student is affected only 13-17% by the teacher in the classroom. Why? Answer: Students are human and they have human problems that have nothing to do with the teacher.

For instance, many students in low performing schools arrive to school starving. If you think this doesn't matter then I challenge you to go home tonight and fill up your dinner plate like you normally do, then put half of the food back (which will likely still be more than some students get at night), then go to bed (which you might have trouble doing if you still feel a little hungry), then do not eat any breakfast the next day nor compensate by drinking extra coffee. See how well you do at work when you are starving and have likely gotten less than adequate sleep. Then imagine having to do that everyday of your life but on a worst scale since the little food you do get will probably be out of a can.

As you can see, teachers have such little effect on how well their students do because students have human problems that teachers do not have the time, resources, or training to deal with. The hunger some students face is just one of the problems students have and it is actually not as big as some of the other problems students have, such as getting to school alive.

Overall, teachers have such a small effect on student performance but they have been blamed as the one of the few reasons education in the U.S. is so poor. Now you see why teacher unions are valued by teachers. Without those unions, teachers would be fired left and right for something they have little control over.

So, if teachers and teacher unions aren't what is really wrong with the system, what is? The answer is corporations. Guggenheim actually pointed this out by noting how education started declining in the 1970s. However, he chose to point the finger at educators as the reason for this. In reality, the 1970s is also when wages started to stagnate while corporations and the upper crust of America started to absorb all the profits of our hard work.

To see how income equality affects education, let us look at Finland. Guggenheim used Finland as an example of a country with high test scores that we should try to shoot for. What Guggenheim didn't mention is that Finland only tests their students once every five years. Most likely because there is NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that high test scores equals better education. Anyway, something else Guggenheim didn't mention is that Finland is much more equitable than America.

I don't recall the exact numbers but a study done in the 2000s showed how the income gap in America was in the thousands of percents (I believe 3,400+%)while that in Finland was under 100 (I think 50-60%). So, in Finland, the students are still human but the problems these students have are much more manageable because their parents have the resources needed to manage them. The reason students in Finland have better test scores is that the students in Finland arrive to school having eaten enough, have universal health care, etc.

A more direct example of how corporations are the problem are the standardized tests. Recall that there is no evidence supporting higher scores equating to better education. Instead, what standardized tests show is that you are better at following directions and conforming which means you are better suited for a job in the service industry. This is why corporations, including corporate media like this movie, constantly talk about improving test scores; better scores equals better workers for the service jobs that are quickly becoming the only jobs available to most Americans.

I can go on about the misinformation in this movie since there seemed to be a misleading fact or quote every five seconds. However, I am limited to 1,000 words so I can't go on showing how corporations and income inequality are the real culprits of the poor state of education in this country. Now that you know though, you can look up literature about income inequality to further education yourself. Since I cannot go on about income inequality, I feel I should use the few words I have left to address the most misleading of facts the movie presented; the facts about KIPP schools.

Guggenheim made it seem like KIPP schools dramatically improved test scores but what the move didn't tell you is that KIPP students are in school 62% longer than students in public schools (which means many KIPP students spend more time in school than their parents do in work). Also, KIPP schools only allow students to take electives if they have high grades in their core(tested on standardized tests)classes. Thus, KIPP students spend more than 62% extra time on the subjects tested on. Lastly, just as KIPP schools accept public money without having to follow public rules (Guggenheim points out this means no tenure or teacher unions), another public rule KIPP schools don't have to follow (which Guggenheim conveniently ignored) is that KIPP schools can expel students who are doing poorly. Thus, KIPP schools can artificially increase their test scores by expelling students who will lower the average right before they take the test. Overall, the test score gains don't look particularly impressive when all of the facts are laid bare. Especially when you realize that all KIPP schools don't have impressive test scores (also conveniently left out by Guggenheim).

I'm a Good Teacher and I Don't Want More Money

[joyinlagunahills · 10/10 · 30 September 2010]

Just get rid of the unions and make the schools competitive. And have vouchers so these poor inner city moms have a chance to get their kids into Catholic Schools that do a much better job for much less money per child, not because of religion (I have never had the gift of faith myself), but because of parent support and a wonderful lack of political correctness.

I am a public school teacher, my students rock the house (we beat our school and all of the other schools in our district) with their STAR scores (California's across the board testing system that the Unions of course, hate), which makes me a "good" teacher, I guess. And I say, thank you Mr. Guggenhiem, thank you! And please, parents, do not think that your child's teacher necessarily likes their union. I am not the only teacher who takes the union's "voting guide" to the polls to know exactly what and whom to vote against.

Repetitious and not that shocking at points, but the build up of the film's five case studies is powerful.

[Ryan_MYeah · 8/10 · 6 February 2011]

Waiting for 'Superman' is a documentary from Davis Guggenheim, the director of 2006's An Inconvenient Truth, that examines the faults and labyrinthine bureaucratics of America's educational government, a government more interested in protecting the jobs and pay salaries of lazy educators in public schools, rather than properly educating the average child.

The film isn't all that shocking. I admire the format, and the presentation of the film, but problems with the education of American children have been a highly publicized matter, especially a few of the points of which Guggenheim presents. At times it even feels like he's stating the obvious, and even repetitious in regards to sub-par school houses he points fingers at.

But the film's strongest impact comes from the case studies of five children, who show strong potential, but their parents struggle to set them up with the necessary education, placing them at the mercy of lotteries that determines the lucky few who get to attend successful charter schools. Their build-up is near impeccable, leading up to the film's emotionally powerful third act. A third act that, afterwards, is complimented perfectly by "Shine", a beautiful end credits song by John Legend, and overall one of the film year's very best original songs.

It isn't perfect, but I'm gonna give Waiting for 'Superman' *** out of ****

If you want to know what's wrong with education, avoid this film

[dvazp · 28 August 2011]

This documentary attempts to explain why public schools in the US are failing. It blames some of the usual suspects (lousy teachers, unions) without getting their side of the story. It acts as if mediocre politicians who want to act as if they're "bringing change" as they further their political careers are doing their best. And "superteachers" are of course the heroes even though they spend most of the documentary telling us how wonderful they are and how it's the other teachers who are to blame for all the problems. And seriously, since when is Bill Gates an expert on education?

Political and social contexts, economic causes and other factors not related to "bad teachers" are totally ignored, which makes the documentary pointless and superficial. Instead, the solutions are empty rhetoric, meaningless business jargon and ridiculous psycho-babble.

So if you want a more comprehensive and serious analysis of the why schools are failing you should watch The Wire season 4. Sad, isn't it?

PS. It's worth listening to the closing song. I think it's John Legend.

Somewhat Informative, Not Groundbreaking

[Cypherdude · 7/10 · 22 November 2011]

There was a lot of media hype regarding this documentary. After viewing it, I was disappointed. I was expecting more. I already knew most of its content. There was only one item I did not know. It was the percentage of students in the past who went to trade schools vs. the ones who went to college. If you can't find anything else to do and have 2 spare hours, go ahead and rent this film. I don't recommend you buy it. You're not going to return to it again. Still, it's better than renting or, even worse, buying a movie about vampires having babies (???). At least here you'll spend your 2 hours learning something worthwhile.

My father was a teacher. He taught for over 50 years. He had a master's degree and numerous teaching-related credentials. He was a dedicated, hard-working educator. His final school, before retiring, was a Southern California city high school with a large Hispanic population some of which only spoke Spanish. Because he spoke fluent Spanish and had Spanish-related teaching credentials, he was better able to teach his students. However, he often had classroom discipline problems as is often the case with this age group. When he sent the misbehaving students to the principal's office, they often did nothing. Discipline is a big problem in USA's classrooms. Guggenheim conveniently never mentions this.

Finally and most importantly, there are today many different distractions for the modern student. Today you have the Internet, gaming consoles such as XBox, DVD's, Blu-Ray, cable television, etc... All these things detract from the study time the student has. This is the true reason why students do not get good grades. If parents were to remove all these distractions, you would see grades skyrocket. Guggenheim conveniently never mentions this either. In fact, in one of the scenes you see a young student playing on a game console.

Most teachers do a competent job. People love to blame teachers because they are an easy target. You really don't need much to be a good student. You need a used textbook, a 25¢ 70 page spiral notebook, a pen, a $15 scientific calculator, a place to study free from distractions and someone to occasionally help you. That's it. Whenever people talk about the USA's educational problems, I often think about those poor southern black students in the early 20th century. Working in a small single dilapidated schoolhouse, they studied and were able to pass their classes. They didn't have calculators, let alone computers, they didn't have new textbooks, desks or chalkboards. What they had was the interest and the drive to do well.

The way to reform America's educational system is actually very simple: enforce discipline in the classroom, parent's must be involved and remove distractions, both parents and teachers must help the student generate interest in school. You don't need to make radical changes in the present system. You don't need to increase the school system's budget either.

7 out 10 stars

Waiting for Reason!

[Hellmant · 8/10 · 14 February 2011]

'WAITING FOR 'SUPERMAN'': Four Stars (Out of Five)

Director Davis Guggenheim (director of such acclaimed documentaries as 'AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH' and 'IT MIGHT GET LOUD') directs this examination of American public education and it's major problems. It's written by Guggenheim and Billy Kimball. The film garnered a 2010 Sundance Film Festival Audience Award but failed to receive an Oscar nomination, which I think is a crime. It was a great year for documentaries, making it a tough category, but I know it's better than at least some of the other nominated films this year but then again all of my favorites are (with the exceptions of 'EXIT THROUGH THE GIFT SHOP' and 'AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH').

The film focuses on a select group of kids and follows them through their experiences in school. It cuts between interviews with the children and people in school positions wanting to make a difference as well as those presenting an opposition to improvement in the education system. It presents a lot of statistics as well as undeniable video evidence of many of the blatant failures in the system that can not be corrected due to the tenure program and the teacher's union. This is where the film points almost all of it's blame for most of the education problems in America, proving that it's not the students that can't be educated but the teachers (at least some), and the system that protects them, who are unwilling to educate them. It shows how many kids and families place all their dreams on charter schools, which have been proved to work miracles, but their dreams are left up to chance (the schools' lotto systems).

The movie is extremely depressing and at times difficult to watch. It has moments of beautiful inspiration as well but we see how many fight to reform public education and always lose out to a tired and abused system. It does highly promote a website and a phone number to text at the end of the film so viewers can get involved and make a difference though. The directing is a little ineffective at times, with too many cartoons and poorly chosen music but it builds to a pretty strong conclusion. For the most part it's very educational and involving but due to some poorly constructed scenes it does drag from time to time, especially in the beginning. There are some genuinely touching moments, truly hilarious ones (a few) and heart breaking scenes as well. It's one everyone should see.

Watch our review show 'MOVIE TALK' at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYO6EVQKyVs

Failing Schools is failing society!

[Sylviastel · 7/10 · 23 February 2011]

When I watched this documentary, I couldn't help but take sides. How do you fix a broken system with another broken system? While Geoffrey Canada is successful at his charter school, not all charter schools survive much less thrive to produce excellent students. Yes, the film touches on the politics of getting a good education. But even with college degrees, you're not guaranteed a job in life especially now. I could tell you what it's like to be in the classroom as a substitute or teacher's aide or in-class support teacher but there's not enough room here. I would have to write a book about it first. When you cut money to schools, you cut support staff and not administration. Schools rely heavily on it's support staff to keep it functioning. The principal and teachers have one job to educate the students and to assure an education. This film documentary will raise a lot of questions about improving the broken school system in our country. There are some successful schools and failing schools as well as teachers. Not all teachers strive to fail. Sometimes, the teachers are burned out, tired, and exhausted from the bureaucracy themselves. I could go on and on about the system but it's not worth it. Everybody has a story and an opinion.

After watching this great movie I just had to post something

[phoenix_slayer2001 · 10/10 · 17 February 2011]

I pretty much never write reviews and I rarely ever watch documentaries but this was well worth it. The ending could not have been better and will leave any viewer who has a heart in a state of strong mixed emotions.

This movie was presented very unbiased and I should know because I consider myself a conservative independent and there was no liberal or democrat bashing in the movie. The movie does well at presenting both schools with high achievements and scores and those on the opposite end.

Anyone who has a child struggling in school yet desires the best education they can find for them will be touched by this movie and realize that they are not alone.

The Vidiot Reviews...

[capone666 · 7/10 · 17 February 2011]

Waiting for "Superman"

To avoid waiting for Superman, simply destroy train tracks spanning a ravine minutes before a trainload of school kids are scheduled to cross it.

And while the school children in this documentary are not on a doomed locomotive, they are headed for disaster.

By following five fledgling students (Daisy, Bianca, Emily, Francisco and Anthony) as they attempt to win admittance into an innovative school headed by a new breed of educator, Geoffrey Canada, filmmaker Davis Guggenheim puts the dysfunctional American school system under the microscope, exposing its pitfalls, prejudices and apathetic faculty that does little to inspire, let alone, educate.

While it takes direct aim at the teacher's union, this sad, shocking snapshot of inner-city schools is not against instructors, but the ineptitude of an antiquated system.

In fact, if it isn't fixed soon, the only career open to these lazy, uneducated students will be that of public school teacher. (Green Light)

Loved it but bemoan the oversimplification

[nyccents · 10/10 · 23 October 2010]

A very interesting documentary with a soul. However, it didn't really touch upon the challenges that face the teachers who do give their time, their creativity, their energy and their hearts. What about class size, disruptive students--ADHD, or just undisciplined, the disparity in skill level (hence some tracking), the lack of materials and facilities, etc.? What about teacher burnout? The message is clear that our system is broken, but fixing it is more complex than the movie implies. Was glad to see some successes. And I presume all the children featured will get outside assistance just by being highlighted in the film. A very interesting documentary.

other point of view

[wakey72 · 6/10 · 15 February 2011]

Taken from wikipedia:

"The film dismisses with a side comment the inconvenient truth that our schools are criminally underfunded. Money's not the answer, it glibly declares. Nor does it suggest that students would have better outcomes if their communities had jobs, health care, decent housing, and a living wage. Particularly dishonest is the fact that Guggenheim never mentions the tens of millions of dollars of private money that has poured into the Harlem Children's Zone, the model and superman we are relentlessly instructed to aspire to." — Rick Ayers, Adjunct Professor in Education at the University of San Francisco[23]

Author and academic Rick Ayers lambasted the accuracy of the film, describing it as "a slick marketing piece full of half-truths and distortions."[23] In Ayers' view, the "corporate powerhouses and the ideological opponents of all things public" have employed the film to "break the teacher's unions and to privatize education", while driving teachers' wages even lower and running "schools like little corporations."[23] The film does, however, note that since 1971, inflation-adjusted per-student spending has more than doubled, "from $4,300 to more than $9,000 per student," but that over the same period, test scores have "flatlined." Ayers also critiqued the film's promotion of a greater focus on "top-down instruction driven by test scores", positing that extensive research has demonstrated that standardized testing "dumbs down the curriculum" and "reproduces inequities", while marginalizing "English language learners and those who do not grow up speaking a middle class vernacular."[23] Lastly, Ayers contends that "schools are more segregated today than before Brown v. Board of Education in 1954", and thus criticized the film for not mentioning that in his view, "black and brown students are being suspended, expelled, searched, and criminalized."[23]

Diane Ravitch, Research Professor of Education at New York University and a nonresident senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, similarly criticizes the accuracy of the film.[24] Ravitch notes that a study by Stanford University economist Margaret Raymond of 5000 charter schools found that only 17% are superior in math test performance to a matched public school, casting doubt on the film's claim that privately managed charter schools are the solution to bad public schools.[24] The film does note however that most charter schools do not outperform and that it focuses on those that do. Ravitch writes that many charter schools also perform badly, are involved in "unsavory real estate deals" and expel low-performing students before testing days to ensure high test scores.[24] The most substantial distortion in the film, according to Ravitch, is the film's claim that "70 percent of eighth-grade students cannot read at grade level", a misrepresentation of data from the National Assessment of Educational Progress.[24] Ravitch served as a board member with the NAEP and notes that "the NAEP doesn't measure performance in terms of grade-level achievement", as claimed in the film, but only as "advanced", "proficient", and "basic". The film assumes that any student below proficient is "below grade level", but this claim is not supported by the NAEP data.

Princeton professor Cornel West said "I have great love and respect for brother Geoffrey Canada. But I had a deep critique of the film, in which he was central. Waiting for "Superman" scapegoats teachers' unions. Yet those countries with the best education systems in the world, like Finland, have over 90% of their teachers unionized, and their students take few, if any standardized tests. In Finland there are 2 teachers in classrooms of 14. Teachers receive the salaries of many of our businesspeople. 15% of their college graduates teach in schools rather than make their way to Wall Street to be millionaires. They reflect a fundamentally different set of priorities in America. And if we don't adapt to those priorities, we will continue to scapegoat, demonize & thereby undercut the morale of our teachers."

Waiting for Substance

[dlfagan · 3/10 · 25 April 2011]

I had been waiting to rent Waiting for Superman for quite some time, had read a lot of reviews and definitely went in as a skeptic. The children interviewed were adorable, and thirsting for knowledge. The parents interviewed were devoted to the education of their children. The teachers interviewed ... well, there were no teachers interviewed. They interviewed Randi Weingarten of the American Federation of Teachers, but no ordinary classroom teachers, good or bad. There were brief video snippets of very engaged-looking teachers, and other snippets of teachers reading newspapers instead of teaching, and languorous shots of teachers that (we were told) were so bad that they were paid to do nothing.

They did interview Geoffrey Canada, a former teacher that founded a charter school, Harlem's Children Zone, in New York City. Canada is also on the board of The After-School Corporation, a non-profit advocating changes in education. They also interviewed Michelle Rhee, founder of the New Teacher Project, and former Chancellor of Washington DC public schools. Rhee departed when DC Mayor Adrian Fenty failed to be renominated, and is now promoting a non-profit called Students First. They interviewed Bill Strickland, founder and CEO of the Manchester Craftsmen's Guild, a non-profit that focuses on art and music education. They also interviewed education guru Eric Hanushek and Microsoft founder and major donor Bill Gates. But the teachers didn't get to speak.

They talked a lot about teaching, and while Canada and Rhee talked about the bad system, what they called the "Blob," it seemed clear they blamed the teacher's union for keeping bad teachers on the job for most of the bad outcomes - which they called the "dropout factories." While it would seem reasonable to entertain other potential causes, like inattentive parents, broken homes, drugs, etc., Waiting for Superman keeps it simple.

There was one chart presented indicating that overall spending on education was increasing while overall test scores remained stagnant. Neither the spending nor the test scores were broken down to see if the same relationship held at the bad schools. What if most of the spending is at the better schools? I was chatting with my sister-in-law, a teacher's aide, today. They just took their daughter out of public school, where she was in a class of 32, and put her in a private school where class size is 12. Now she feels like a rock star. Although the public school classrooms shown looked much more crowded than the charter school classrooms, there was no discussion about relative class sizes - a real political football. You can scan the internet and find all sorts of stats such as those at American Progress, The False Promise of Class-Size Reduction, and rebuttals such as at Class Size Matters. Anecdotally, I hear a lot about classroom sizes of thirty or more, while the charter schools that I have worked on were to have perhaps 15 students per classroom.

In short, even though it has gotten good reviews and awards, Waiting For Superman was mostly an emotional appeal with little to substantiate its point-of-view. I don't feel that I know much more about the problem from watching this documentary.

Hard to watch without a box of Kleenex

[planktonrules · 10/10 · 23 June 2011]

Wow. I glanced through the reviews and notice many really looked as if they didn't watch the film but simply were making political statements. This is sad, as I really don't think "Waiting for Superman" is a film advocating conservatism or liberalism, the Democrats or the Republicans. No, instead it questions if there are things that can be done to improve the extremely poor results American kids achieve on standardized testing compared to other developed nations. This is NOT an opinion--but a fact. Questioning this is not exactly rational--it just IS. Now it is possible that the answers in this film are wrong...but people getting angry because it questions the status quo (which is broken) is just inexplicable.

This documentary is effective because it takes on one aspect of the problems with the system and illustrates it by showing poor families that want better. In other words, by making it personal and showing kids being turned down on lotteries to go to exceptional schools really tugs at your heart--and any documentary that does this is brilliant. It's hard to look at the parents who want better for their kids being turned down because there just isn't enough space in the best schools. This emotional connection usually differentiates the average or below average documentary from the best--and this is among the best. The style, the focus and the writing are tops. And, I appreciated it because it did NOT blame the right or left but proposed a few changes--such as paying the best teachers more (and who would argue with this?!).

It's a darn shame that this film has been politicized so much--because then people just dismiss it because it makes them feel uncomfortable. I also noticed that this film (I assume for political reasons) was not even nominated for an Oscar, as it probably had more impact than any other documentary in recent years. Yet, another very impactful documentary ("An Inconvenient Truth") was not only nominated but won the Oscar....and it was made by the same film maker! Frankly, whether or not you agree with a documentary isn't why a film should be nominated but whether or not it is well made and presents its case well--and "Waiting for Superman" certainly does.