'Each morning, wanting to believe in our schools, we take a leap of faith," filmmaker Davis Guggenheim says in Waiting for Superman. His much-acclaimed documentary then gives us every reason to doubt. By framing this account of the public school system's failure in terms of trust, the film manages to do something far more subversive than merely record union-induced systemic dysfunction. The documentary does nothing less than cast doubt on this core belief of America's civil religion: our faith in the public school system as the mediator of our national ideals and the gateway to opportunity for all children.
From Guggenheim's own admission that he's "betraying the ideals" he thought he espoused (driving his children past three public schools to a private school he's chosen) to deplorable facts (for example, six in 10 students in East Los Angeles do not graduate from high school), the film breeds skepticism about a popular national myth.
This is a myth of long standing. It was called the "myth of the common school" by Boston University professor Charles Glenn in a book by that title originally published in 1988. The myth was spread by progressive reformers like Horace Mann in the 19th century amid anxiety over immigration and social unrest. By requiring all children to attend "common" schools, the reformers proposed to enlighten students with values that would transcend sectarian and cultural differences. The myth has dominated the American imagination for more than 150 years, even as it has failed to fulfill its founders' promises.
As Glenn writes: "We have expected that our schools would banish crime and social divisions, that they would make our children better than we have ever been. Horace Mann and others promised us that, and we believed them. It is no wonder that suggestions . . . that our society's secular church be disestablished arouse the deepest anxiety and confusion today."
True to form, education unions are seething about promotion of charter schools in Waiting for Superman and its proposals to end tenure and link pay to performance. "The film demonizes public education," said National Education Association President Dennis Van Roekel. Local unions organized demonstrations outside some theaters.
Such protests reinforce what viewers witness in the theater: stories of a failed status quo, protected by powerful interests, planted in the way of children such as fifth-grader Daisy in East L.A. Daisy's parents, Jose and Judith, dropped out of high school to help their own parents keep food on the table. But they've communicated the value of education to their daughter. Daisy wants to be either a veterinarian or a surgeon - an idea she got from a library book - and she already has written to the college she wants to attend. But first she'll have to navigate an assigned high school where only three in 100 students graduate with college-prep prerequisites. With her father out of work and her mother on a hospital cleaning staff, there is no buying their way out. Daisy's parents are forced to make the ritual "leap of faith." Her mother makes the sign of the cross over her before sending her to school. But they still enter a lottery for a seat at a high-performing charter school, crossing their fingers as 135 students vie for 10 spots.
If the common school works for anyone, it should work for Daisy. It doesn't. Guggenheim himself doesn't seem to appreciate the extent of what he has wrought. With stories like these, his inquiry has exposed flaws deeper than the film's modest remedies can fix.
The obvious solution is to demythologize the common school, setting parents and teachers free to pursue educational arrangements that work.
We can affirm that education is a common good deserving taxpayer support. But we should question the notion of government as sole provider of schooling, a relic of the common school agenda. Public education should describe a goal (an educated citizenry), not prescribe a means (a government monopoly school system dominated by unions). (next page »)
Thanks Jennifer, as found today in the list of most e-mailed articles here of five (5) so far.
Rose & Milton Freedman would have agreed with you of your: "parents should have the freedom to direct the funding for their children's education, customizing it to student needs from a variety of options. " as they did (past tense, now both deceased) with their best-selling book of: "Free to Choose" that became a hit on PBS-TV back in 1980.
Here in N.H. WHO to fund the children, but the parents already have this freedom but do not exercise such, or if they do of only those willing AND financially able to pay for BOTH of where they could have sent them to the government school AND of to where they be actually sent. This is double-bozo maniac madness.
Read the N.H. Constitution: to operate in a "frugal" manner (Art. 38), of what is "need"ed, not wanted by everybody in a TOTALitarianism regime. Who really "need"s our help? But those who are living UNDER the poverty line.
And WHO to "encourage" = support = pay for such, but the legislat-ors and magistrates by Article 83.
So when you get your next property tax bill with the lion's share of the slice of the tax pie going to the schools send it back to your tax collector to hand over to the magistrate = town administrator to pay after he writes up some grant proposal to one of those non-profit outfits they call a Trust with plenty of funds for this purpose.
* He or she is RSA Ch. 37:4 bonded and charged by their RSA 92:2 oath and RSA 37:6 powers and duties in paragraph VIII to administer ALL the poor relief of the town.
to vote
Who amongst us thinks that public education is doing a great job?
This is the EIGHTH - grade final exam from 1895 from Salina, Kansas:
Orthography (Time, one hour)
1. What is meant by the following: Alphabet, phonetic orthography, etymology, syllabication?
2. What are elementary sounds? How classified?
3. What are the following, and give examples of each: Trigraph, subvocals, diphthong, cognate letters, linguals?
4. Give four substitutes for caret 'u'.
5. Give two rules for spelling words with final 'e'. Name two exceptions under each rule.
6. Give two uses of silent letters in spelling. Illustrate each.
7. Define the following prefixes and use in connection with a word: Bi, dis, mis, pre, semi, post, non, inter, mono, super.
8. Mark diacritically and divide into syllables the following, and name the sign that indicates the sound: Card, ball, mercy, sir, odd, cell, rise, blood, fare, last.
9. Use the following correctly in sentences, Cite, site, sight, fane, fain, feign, vane, vain, vein, raze, raise, rays.
10.Write 10 words frequently mispronounced and indicate pronunciation by use of diacritical marks and by syllabication.
Grammar (Time, one hour)
1. Give nine rules for the use of Capital Letters.
2. Name the Parts of Speech and define those that have no modifications.
3. Define Verse, Stanza and Paragraph.
4. What are the Principal Parts of a verb? Give Principal Parts of do, lie, lay and run.
5. Define Case, Illustrate each Case.
6. What is Punctuation? Give rules for principal marks of Punctuation.
7-10. Write a composition of about 150 words and show therein that you understand the practical use of the rules of grammar.
Geography , math and history...not included here as they are too long to post
to vote
While Waiting for Superman is an engaging persuasive documentary that raises some relevant issues, it is clearly one-sided and purposely myopic in its view of charter schools and public education. If you are interested in reading a more balanced view than the one provided by the conservative Heritage Foundation writer, I suggest Education Historian Diane Ravitch's article in the New York Review of Books called the Myth of Charter Schools. The link is below. http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2010/nov/11/myth-charter-schools/
to vote