Did 'Superman' defeat the BTU contract?
I joined a group of Baltimore City teachers and educators from around the region Monday at the Landmark Theatre to view the controversial new documentary, "Waiting for Superman," a film whose exposure of longstanding failures in public education has recently spurred a negative discourse in the district.
Last week, Marietta English, president of the Baltimore Teachers Union, cited the documentary, in part, for the defeat of a radical, reform-centric contract that teachers voted to reject. She said the contract was proposed at a time when "fear, frustration and distrust are at an all-time high," adding that "the situation has not been helped by the movie 'Waiting for Superman' and the teacher bashing that has occurred since its release."
In his first public statements about the movie since its release, city schools CEO Andres Alonso said the movie's "fundamental truth is effectively right" in that poor, black and Hispanic children should not be prisoners of their ZIP codes when it comes to access to education. He said that fundamental truth "transcends any other aspect of the movie I might have revisited."
Of the movie's effect on the contract vote, Alonso said: "We should try very hard not to scapegoat anyone. Given how the voter turnout was, we should respect that it was an extraordinary difficult decision to make."
The viewing Monday was hosted by the Johns Hopkins University School of Education, which also engaged viewers in a discussion after the movie. Teachers I spoke with did not overwhelmingly think that the movie affected the contract, but many said that while the film raised great points about the state of the teaching profession, they hoped director Davis Guggenheim is planning a sequel.
About a week before Baltimore's union contract vote, Guggenheim, the Oscar-winning director of "An Inconvenient Truth," released the movie nationwide, taking viewers on an evocative journey of five students whose access to quality education was determined by a charter school lottery.
The struggles for those students and their families were undeniably unjust, but how they got to the point of placing their lives in the luck of the draw is not so clear cut.
The film featured education experts, including Johns Hopkins reseach scientist Robert Balfanz, who sounded off about everything from whether public education has failed because of unfulfilled promises from politicians or unrelenting teacher unions, or whether failing neighborhoods are responsible for failing schools or vice-versa.
Emphasis was placed on teachers--particularly in the notion that "if you continue to breathe for two years, you get tenure," and the bad teachers who are so hard to fire, they are simply traded off by principals in a "lemon dance."
Former Washington D.C. Schools Chancellor Michelle Rhee, who recently resigned after an embattled tenure, was arguably the "superwoman" of the movie. You couldn't help but think that those who opposed her tactics--teachers unions and D.C. teachers primarily--were the villains.
Rhee's most humanistic moment in the movie was when the usually unwavering personality sinks in the corner of her car after attending a D.C. teacher union meeting, when officials didn't even allow the membership to vote on a new contract that attempted to do away with tenure. A defeated Rhee mumbles: "Now, I see in a more coherent way, why things are the way they are."
But city teachers who attended the viewing said the movie didn't coherently explain the complexities of public education, namely, the variables of socio-economic conditions and instablility that infiltrate the classroom.
"I really expected a more balanced presentation in terms of options for public schools," said Candice Abd'al-Rahim, a city school teacher. "According to this movie, the most viable options are charter schools."
Chris Kosmides, a city charter school teacher, told the crowd that the movie highlighted "how frustrated we feel about the [public school] kids we left behind because we know what we left them with." Still, he compared the movie's premise to standardized tests in that there is always a search for the right answer.
An Anne Arundel County librarian encouraged city teachers to stand up for themselves in the wake of the contract vote: "I have worked with supermen and women everyday, and this striked at the core of everything I've done my entire life. It's imperative for public school teachers to speak up."
Helen Atkinson, a director of a city charter school, compared the documentary to a 1950s propaganda movie. She said the movie "posed the problem as if it were very simple, and the solutions as if it were equally as simply."
As the movie garners the attention of the public in the coming weeks, many will be watching Baltimore as it moves forward in attempting to revolutionize the teaching profession. The timing may be unfortunate, but the dialogue more poignant.
Has anybody seen the movie? Do you think it affected the BTU vote? How do you think the movie will affect the perception of city teachers if the new contract ultimately fails?
Baltimoresun.com's 
Comments
Must be a rhetorical question since the vote was taken before the movie was released and teachers work so hard they don't have time to watch Oprah.
And once again you challenge the intelligence of teachers. Why must one think that they need someone to tell them what to think? If they are swayed by this irrelevant piece of propaganda then maybe Guggenheim is right.
The comment "prisoners of their ZIP codes" should also be evaluated. There are no chains or fences keeping anybody anywhere. What Baltimore's poor are prisoners of is their own indifference to education and the future of their children.
Posted by: OverTheTop | October 19, 2010 4:21 PM
I have not seen it (yet)-- I'll wait until it is released on demand so I can hide my reactions (perhaps vomiting) in the privacy of my living room.
It is truly hard to teach in this system-- or probably youth in general. For every one student who I reach, inspire, or lead, I have several who won't come with me on the same journey.
Has anyone else seen the article in the New York Times this week about the revival of the "culture of poverty" debate. It is a cycle. I see it everyday. It will take Herculean will of this culture to reverse it and it may not happen.
It's not money, but-- if money is a measure of our self interest, we're not valuing the goals or outcomes of public education.
I could not get over to Poly the other day for the vote, but if I had, I'd vote NO. My experience is that this system is not ready for reform not because of the teachers, but because of the poor quality of the administrative leadership.
One other thing: teaching is not an exact science, but also an art. So let us not assume that lightning can be captured in a bottle and replicated through standardization.
Posted by: jschool | October 19, 2010 6:00 PM
I wasn't swayed by Guggenheim's laughably bad documentary, but I was swayed by Diane Ravitch's The Death and Life of the Great American School System. Read her Waiting for Superman critique here: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2010/nov/11/myth-charter-schools/?pagination=false
Posted by: Bmore Teacher | October 19, 2010 6:39 PM
@OTT-
I don't understand your comment about "prisoners of your zip code". Are you saying that any kid who goes to a poorly performing school has parents who suck? What about people who cannot sell a house or people who refuse to abandon their neighborhood, but are interested in working to improve their neighborhood school? Are you really urging people to move out of Baltimore City and abandon the schools? How about those who can't afford or have objections to private/parochial schools?
I think the point of the comment is clear. Once you make it possible for parents and young adults to make choices about the school that they are going to, people will make choices and be happier and more involved because of that choice. What's heartbreaking is when choices that are perceived as "good" are so limited in quantity that parents and students are left crushed.
Posted by: a parent | October 20, 2010 12:25 PM
@ AP - Any parent that knowingly sends their children to a poorly performing school and does nothing about it does suck. The problem is too many parents do not know and do not care to know how their child's school is doing.
NCLB, as debatable as it is, did create a pathway for parents to remove their children from failing schools. Last time I saw a report, very few BCPSS parents and students took advantage of this opportunity. So the statement if nothing else is outdated and in this city irrelevant.
So IMO, it is not so much geography, as it once was, that bounds a family more so than the inability or unwillingness to do something to improve the situation. I would like nothing better than to see parents and neighborhoods fight for and support their community schools but as long as those you can make a difference are offered the so many opportunities to opt-out it will never happen.
Posted by: OverTheTop | October 21, 2010 6:29 AM
Oh please. I am so tired of hearing Marietta English's ridiculous little sound bites. I wish she would stop blaming the contract failure on everything but the real reasons. Marietta, listen to the BTU members who elected you....the contract failed because it was incomplete, unclear and rushed. PERIOD.
Posted by: cityteacher | October 21, 2010 11:55 AM