Waiting for Superman (Long post ahead)

Evan and I switched our Netflix account from unlimited streaming to one DVD out at a time.  We had been talking about this for a while, because we can stream some video.  And with one DVD out, we can average two a week- or more if we get in the mail right away. So I finally switched it.  One of the movies I put in the queue before Netflix did the big switchy switch in their prices was Waiting For Superman.  So we finally watched it.  I knew I was going to have some issues with it, but overall I think the message was ok.  From what I had heard, I thought the documentary was all about how teachers aren't good at their jobs and that is the plight of the school system.  This wasn't the focus, thank goodness.  While there are teachers out there that are bad (even horrible) at their jobs, there are many that are good (even excellent).  I would like to put myself in that category, if I ever get a job.  I don't say it to be prideful, I just believe I was given the talents necessary to be successful as a teacher.

The documentary focuses a lot on the evils of the Teacher's Union and tenure.  And I think they had a good point.  It is incredibly hard to fire a teacher once they reach tenure (if offered in the state- Arkansas doesn't have tenure I recently found out).  And to get tenure you just have to not be fired for the probation period (In Virginia it is three years).  The union also protects teachers with an insane amount of power.  There were two stories that really got me.

The first was in New York.  Apparently, if a teacher is facing disciplinary hearing (for consistently being late, or assaulting a student, or anything that would cause them to not be able to have their job anymore) they go to a room where they sit and read, play cards, chat, etc, until their hearing.  They can be in this room for UP TO THREE YEARS.  And while they sit here, they still receive a full salary with benefits.  Meanwhile, the district has replaced them with a new teacher who is also receiving a full salary with benefits.  This costs the district millions of dollars each year.  This was appalling to me.  No wonder so many schools are failing, when the majority of your budget goes to paying soon-to-be ex-teachers to sit in an office all day, you can't put it toward things that matter.  But they are protected by tenure and a union.  They can't be fired until after the hearing.

The second was in DC.  A new chancellor (superintendent) was hired and everyone was watching her.  She was young, she didn't go through being a principal or any other administration, but she came in with a plan to reform the schools.  Within a year she had closed 23 schools and fired a LOT of principals, and other personnel.  She also distributed the funding to the schools and took it out of central office (where she said everything got mucked up).  After this, she was able to say "For the first time in many years, every school in DC has a music teacher, art teacher, PE teacher and a nurse."  And test scores and performance began to improve.  She got results.  She wanted to further reform the schools.  She came up with an offer for the teachers to vote on.  They could keep tenure and receive a modest raise over time (it capped at like 73k I think), OR they could get rid of tenure and get raises based on performance, with the opportunity to earn up to 140K.  The union did not allow a vote to be held because the union says teachers cannot be compensated based on how well they do their jobs.  To me, this seems to be overprotecting the underperforming.  Who knows.

Now, another thing the documentary tells a lot about is charter schools.  Charter schools are painted to be the answer to the problems with public schools.  They give the statistic ONCE that only 1 in 5 charter schools are successful compared to the endless amount of talking about 'dropout factories' in the public school system.  They focus on one charter school in particular- KIPP.  These schools are in low income, low performing cities and were noted as 'bridging the achievement gap.'  What did they do differently?  Well, I'll tell you.

First, they lengthened the school day.  Then, they added Saturdays to the school week.  So everyone gets more time in school, which means more time to practice and study.  This to the film makers said, "Well, obviously the problem does not lie in the neighborhoods.  Because these schools are doing well."  Here's what I think about it.

Yes, dedicated teachers can make a difference in low income schools.  It is possible for some success.  It takes a lot of strength and determination, but it can be done.  One of the things about low income neighborhoods and schools that is different is the presence of parents.  Often, these kids have one parent at home, or live with grandparents.  In affluent neighborhoods there are two parents, and many times one of the parents only works part time or not at all.  So, in affluent neighborhoods, there is a stronger parent presence.  Parents come into the classroom, parents are at home to do homework to read to their children, to ask them about their day, to encourage them to be whatever they want to be and to help them achieve that goal.  On the other end of the spectrum, parents don't come to school, they are home later, often they didn't finish school so can't offer much help to their children.  They may not understand the purpose in school because they didn't finish and are getting by, so don't offer as much encouragement to their kids.  This is, in my opinion, a large part of why low performing schools remain low performing.  I think, in order to bridge the achievement gap, you gotta work on those families.  Getting parents involved will make a world of difference.  This is just my opinion though.

So, this charter school is painted as having found the answer.  People are stating to believe it is not just the neighborhoods these kids come from that produce failing results, but the schools themselves.  Here is where I am skeptical.  Let's look again at what this school does.  They lengthened the school day, so the students spend less time at home.  They don't necessarily need their parents to be at home to help with homework because they have already spent an extra hour in school.  They have less time at home, in the poor neighborhoods, less time in that negative environment.  Then, they go to school on Saturday.  So, they only have one day where they are at home all day.  That is one day to be influenced by all of the negativity that is in their neighborhood (or can be, I don't want to overgeneralize).  They have the students in school longer, but they also have them at home / in the neighborhoods less.  Which side of the equation is more causal?  I think those work together, but I think it is equally (or more) important to remember that they are less influenced by the nature of their at home lives, not just more influenced by good teachers.

In addition, these charter schools are not plentiful enough for everyone to go.  So, by law the school has to hold a public lottery for anyone that wants to go.  This means, parents apply for their students to be accepted, then go to a public drawing, and if they are chosen, the students get to go.  Why is this important to note?  Because, students who have parents that are involved enough to look into a better school and fill out an application and spend a night in a crowded gym waiting for their number to be called are already at an advantage academically.  Their parents care about them and how they do in school.  This is an advantage over parents that don't care at all.  So these students have a better chance at success in the failing schools, which would be increased in the charter (where they are surrounded by others with similar support), but is still significant.

Is it possible that this formula could work for everyone?  Yes.  But in order to test that out, public schools would have to go to the same schedule.  Longer days, and working on Saturdays.  Will that ever happen?  Probably not.  Unions won't allow it for one, and if we were able to get past that, a lot of teachers would say 'no way' and parents would complain as well.  It would cause a lot of riot in my opinion.

I think I am done with my rant.  Overall, the movie was good and brought a lot of valid points across.  If you haven't watched it, go check it out.  However, I think it is important for people to realize you can't just change the teachers.  There is a lot of accountability placed on teachers to make students be successful without the support of parents/families when the students get home.  It is a team effort people!  Let's work together.