Letter from Randi on Waiting for Superman & my rebuttal

The unions are terrified about Waiting for Superman – as well they should be, as I believe it will do for this issue what An Inconvenient Truth did for global warming.  Randi, in particular, is smart enough to see the potential impact, so she sent out this email two days ago to "Members of the Media", which is totally misleading and disingenuous for the reasons I outline below:

 

From: Randi Weingarten, AFT President [mailto:mpowell@aft.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, September 08, 2010 11:53 AM
Subject: "Waiting for 'Superman'"

To:    Members of the Media

From: Randi Weingarten, AFT President

Date:  September 8, 2010

Re:     Response to "Waiting for Superman"

Is America ready to settle for a good education—for the few? That's the unfortunate takeaway from a soon-to-be released documentary film, "Waiting for 'Superman.'" The film, by Davis Guggenheim, shows how tragically far we are from the great American ideal of providing all children with the excellent education they need and deserve. Yet, despite Guggenheim's unquestionably good intentions, "Waiting for 'Superman'" is inaccurate, inconsistent and incomplete—and misses what could have been a unique opportunity to portray the full and accurate story of our public schools.

"Waiting for 'Superman'" has been screened by private audiences throughout the country and will be released for the general public on Sept. 24. In the event that you write about the film, I wanted to share my thoughts directly with you about it.

One can't help but be moved by the stories of the five children and their families Guggenheim follows as they encounter a lottery system for admission to the schools upon which they are pinning their hopes for a good education. Their stories, in a very real and emotional way, drive home the point that the opportunity for a great public education should come not by chance, but by right.

But the filmmaker's storytelling falters in other key areas. The film casts several outliers in starring roles—for example, "bad" teachers and teachers unions as the villains, and charter schools as heroes ready to save the day. The problem is that these caricatures are more fictional than factual.

There are more than 3 million teachers working in our 130,000 public schools. Are there bad teachers? Of course there are, just as there are bad accountants, and lawyers, and actors. I wish there were none. There also are countless good, great and exceptional teachers working in our public schools every day in neighborhoods across the country—although for this film, they apparently ended up on the cutting room floor. It is shameful to suggest, as the film does, that the deplorable behavior of one or two teachers (including an example more than two decades old) is representative of all public school teachers.

Guggenheim has found ways to make facts and data interesting, even entertaining. But, when certain facts don't advance his story line, he makes them disappear. The treatment of charter schools is one of the most glaring inconsistencies in "Waiting for 'Superman.'" Guggenheim makes only glancing reference to the poor achievement of most charter schools, despite the abundance of independent research showing that most charter schools perform worse than or only about as well as comparable regular public schools. Nevertheless, he illogically holds them up as the ticket to a good education for disadvantaged students.

I wish all schools had the wealth of resources enjoyed by the charter schools featured in the film, which are part of the Harlem Children's Zone (HCZ). The charter schools in the HCZ have what we should be fighting to have in every public school—services that help eradicate the barriers to academic success, and funding to ensure that students and teachers have the tools they need to succeed. HCZ schools receive two-thirds of their funding from private sources and one-third from the government. This private money funds staff and curriculum, as well as extensive medical, dental and tutorial services. We know kids' needs are met when these wraparound services are combined with high-quality instructional programs. In the end, funding these programs will make a fundamental difference for all children.

"Waiting for 'Superman'" misses two crucial points. First, we have to be committed to supporting a public school system that provides all our children with access to a great education. And second, we must focus our efforts on the most promising and proven approaches—those great neighborhood public schools that work. I've seen such success stories across the country in schools that reduce barriers to academic success, as is done in the HCZ schools; schools that offer great curriculum, extra help for students who start or fall behind, and supports for teachers. Where the system has failed is to not take these proven models and scale them up. The solutions aren't the stuff of action flicks, but they work.

Films like "Waiting for 'Superman'" are gripping for a reason: They connect us to real life struggles. They may even call much-needed attention to the challenges confronting many students and schools. But the attention will be misplaced, if it centers on off-base solutions and denigrating good teachers rather than on what works to improve our schools.

Imagine a sequel to "Waiting for 'Superman'" released a few years from now. Would we rather stick to the cinematic model of providing an escape hatch—sometimes superior, most often inferior—to a handful of students? Or would we offer a model in which we had summoned the will to do the hard but effective and far-reaching work required to make meaningful changes to entire school systems, providing all children with the best possible choice—a highly effective neighborhood school?

The most effective solutions didn't make it into the film. In other words, Guggenheim ignored what works: developing and supporting great teachers; implementing valid and comprehensive evaluation systems that inform teaching and learning; creating great curriculum and the conditions that promote learning for all kids; and insisting on shared responsibility and mutual accountability that hold everyone, not just teachers, responsible for ensuring that all our children receive a great education.

I would welcome the opportunity to discuss these issues further. To learn more about the AFT's work to improve teaching and learning, and about public schools that help students succeed despite great challenges, please contact Michael Powell, the assistant to the president for communications, at 202/879-4458, or go to AFT.org.

I don't want to know how many hours I've spent writing this rebuttal, but I've done so because I think it's important to get the truth out there and expose the union talking points for the self-serving and misleading nonsense that they are:

 

·        "Is America ready to settle for a good education—for the few?"  Answer: No, we're not, but why are you, Randi?  Your union (and the NEA) have waged a vicious, tireless campaign all over the country to kill every innovative school, even (or perhaps especially) those that are achieving nothing short of educational miracles with the most disadvantaged kids, whenever such schools AREN'T UNIONIZED!  This is the key: you've been quite open to innovation and embraced success when it's happening at a school with unionized teachers, but the reality is that the great majority of the schools – probably no more than a few hundred – that are achieving six-standard-deviation outcomes, literally changing the life trajectories of the most disadvantaged children, aren't staffed by unionized teachers.  Why?  Because the union contract in most cities has morphed into a monster that makes it virtually impossible to run an effective school by making sure that teachers can't put in the extra hours that students need, prohibiting principals from rewarding the best teachers and, worst of all, protecting horrible teachers.  Please Randi, could you at least be honest and say something like this: "My job is to look out for the interests of the members of my union, who after all pay my salary.  I am in favor of certain kinds of limited reforms undertaken by unionized schools (as long as my union has veto power over everything), but am opposed to any and all reforms that involve non-union schools, regardless of what's best for kids.  To quote my hero, Al Shanker, 'When school children start paying union dues, that's when I'll start representing the interests of school children.'"  Of course Randi would never say this, but a lot of folks have figured this out and I have no doubt that Waiting for Superman will make it clear to millions more people.

·        "Are there bad teachers? Of course there are, just as there are bad accountants, and lawyers, and actors. I wish there were none."  It's a big step for Randi to even acknowledge the existence of bad teachers, but she of course misses the real point: bad accountants, lawyers and actors lose their jobs, but bad teachers, with almost no exceptions, don't.  Randi, if you really wish there were no bad teachers, then why is Job #1 at the unions to protect them?!

·        "It is shameful to suggest, as the film does, that the deplorable behavior of one or two teachers (including an example more than two decades old) is representative of all public school teachers."  I've seen the film three times and it doesn't suggest this.  This is just what the unions always do whenever anyone says a word about bad teachers: distorts it into an attack on ALL teachers.  Ditto for anyone who questions any actions by the unions that are clearly horrible for kids (for example, insisting on layoffs purely by seniority).

·        "Guggenheim makes only glancing reference to the poor achievement of most charter schools, despite the abundance of independent research showing that most charter schools perform worse than or only about as well as comparable regular public schools. Nevertheless, he illogically holds them up as the ticket to a good education for disadvantaged students."  We could have a spirited debate about whether charter schools, as a whole, are better than comparable public schools – the short answer is that in states with strong charter laws like NY, they are; in states with lousy charter laws, they're not – but that's not the issue.  Waiting for Superman is focused on schools that PROVE, beyond any doubt, that demography is NOT destiny and that schools CAN change the life trajectories of kids, even the most disadvantaged ones.  This is really, really hard and, as I noted earlier, there are probably only a few hundred schools in the country that are achieving such outcomes – and guess what, the vast majority of these schools are charter schools so it's hardly surprising that the movie focuses on these schools.

·        "I wish all schools had the wealth of resources enjoyed by the charter schools featured in the film, which are part of the Harlem Children's Zone (HCZ)."  This is just flat out wrong on multiple dimensions.  The film focuses on FOUR charter schools (including KIPP LA Prep, which I visited last fall – see pics at:http://picasaweb.google.com/WTilson/KIPPLAPrep), not just HCZ.  So why does Randi only mention one, inquiring minds want to know?  It's because the three Promise Academy charter schools are part of HCZ, which does raise a lot of private money and which provides a range of social services, so Randi only talks about them so she can create the false and misleading impression that highly successful charter schools are only that way because of extra funding and providing social services.  Regarding the former, despite being public schools, every state funds charter schools at LOWER per pupil levels (generally 20-50% less) than regular public schools, plus in most states charter schools have to build, lease or rent a building, which makes the disparity even greater.  Thus, every charter school has to raise money to fill the gap – some raise a lot of money and spend more per pupil, but most don't. 

·        Regarding Randi's second point about the need for social services, she elaborates: "The charter schools in the HCZ have what we should be fighting to have in every public school—services that help eradicate the barriers to academic success, and funding to ensure that students and teachers have the tools they need to succeed. HCZ schools receive two-thirds of their funding from private sources and one-third from the government. This private money funds staff and curriculum, as well as extensive medical, dental and tutorial services. We know kids' needs are met when these wraparound services are combined with high-quality instructional programs. In the end, funding these programs will make a fundamental difference for all children."  This is the old union tripe that until poverty and all of its manifestations are eradicated, schools can't be expected to educate poor children.  I have visited well over 100 high-performing charter schools and HCZ's comprehensive services are the extremely rare exception.  Turning our schools into social service agencies is NOT the answer and even if it were possible, in the absence of actually FIXING THE SCHOOLS (what a concept!), would do nothing to close the achievement gap.

·        "'Waiting for 'Superman' misses two crucial points. First, we have to be committed to supporting a public school system that provides all our children with access to a great education."  I responded to this in my first point, but let me elaborate.  Of the roughly 50 million schoolchildren in this country, my best guess is that 10% – 5 MILLION CHILDREN! – are being criminally mis-educated, in schools where large numbers of the adults are ineffective at their jobs, have given up on the kids, and set low expectations, with the end result that little or no learning is going on – in short, schools that no knowledgeable, caring parent would EVER send their child to, but which many are forced to because they don't have the money to buy school choice by moving to a different neighborhood or opting out of the system.  It pains me to say this, but we're never going to be able to save most of those kids – our educational system is much too big and much too broken to fix quickly – but LET'S START BY SAVING AS MANY AS WE CAN RIGHT NOW!!!  Then next year, let's save even more, and then even more the following year, and so forth.  KIPP is saving 26,000 kids at 99 schools in 20 states and DC right now.  Ditto for the many other KIPP-like charter organizations.  And ditto, I expect, for Central Falls High School in Rhode Island, thanks to State Ed Superintendent Deb Gist refusing to accept another horrific year of failure (and to Obama and Duncan for backing her) (here's a recent article about the big changes:www.boston.com/news/education/k_12/articles/2010/09/04/fired_rehired_teachers_back_at_troubled_ri_school).  I could go on – the point is that we KNOW what needs to be done, but much of it threatens the jobs of lousy teachers, the 6-hour work days, the long vacations, etc. so the teachers unions fight reforms that could, someday, provide "all our children with access to a great education."

·        "And second, we must focus our efforts on the most promising and proven approaches—those great neighborhood public schools that work. I've seen such success stories across the country in schools that reduce barriers to academic success, as is done in the HCZ schools; schools that offer great curriculum, extra help for students who start or fall behind, and supports for teachers. Where the system has failed is to not take these proven models and scale them up. The solutions aren't the stuff of action flicks, but they work."  My head is spinning.  In her opening sentence, Randi asks "Is America ready to settle for a good education—for the few?", thereby dismissing the highly successful schools featured in Waiting for Superman because they're only saving a small percentage of the students who desperately need them, yet here she says we must take "proven models and scale them up."  So why, Randi, are you trying to kill so many of these models?!  To understand what Randi's really saying, let me add to one of her sentences: "we must focus our efforts on the most promising and proven approaches—those great neighborhood public schools that work—as long as they are union schools (if not, my union will do everything in its power to destroy them, even if they're really great for kids."  Finally, notice what's left out  this sentence: "schools that offer great curriculum, extra help for students who start or fall behind, and supports for teachers."  There's NOTHING about any accountability for anyone.  I'm all for the right "supports" for teachers, but what happens if, after receiving "supports", they still suck?!  (Ditto for principals.)

·        "Films like "Waiting for 'Superman'" are gripping for a reason: They connect us to real life struggles. They may even call much-needed attention to the challenges confronting many students and schools."  This is Randi's feeble attempt to show sympathy for the parents shown in the film (who represent millions of similarly situated parents) who are DESPERATE to get their kids out of schools they know are utterly failing, due in large part to being filled with the least effective members of Randi's union.  As a parent, I can't imagine having to deal with the knowledge that if my child's number is pulled out of a barrel in a lottery, my child has an 70-80% chance of getting a 4-year college degree (and having a chance to make it in life) – but in the far more likely event that my child's number isn't pulled, the odds drop to 5-10% because I can't afford to move or opt out of the failing system.

·        "Or would we offer a model in which we had summoned the will to do the hard but effective and far-reaching work required to make meaningful changes to entire school systems, providing all children with the best possible choice—a highly effective neighborhood school?"  Yet more irony, given that the unions are the primary obstacles to the "meaningful changes to entire school systems" that are sorely needed!

·        "The most effective solutions didn't make it into the film. In other words, Guggenheim ignored what works: developing and supporting great teachers; implementing valid and comprehensive evaluation systems that inform teaching and learning; creating great curriculum and the conditions that promote learning for all kids; and insisting on shared responsibility and mutual accountability that hold everyone, not just teachers, responsible for ensuring that all our children receive a great education."  I would actually largely agree with Randi here (though she's missing the critical elements of setting high expectations and building culture/character), except she has the first sentence exactly backward.  It should read: "The most effective solutions made it into the film."  In other words, the successful schools the film highlights are doing EXACTLY what Randi calls for: they're developing and supporting great teachers (and getting rid of ineffective ones); they've developed rigorous and fair evaluation systems so that every teacher AND every student knows exactly how they're doing and what they need to do to improve; and they hold EVERYONE accountable, from teachers, to principals/administrators, and yes, to parents and students as well.