Who travels faster than a speeding bullet?  Who jumps buildings in a single bound?  No, its not superman, its probably your 7th grade science teacher!  I’ve written about a movie which was just released titled Waiting for Superman.  Here is the official movie trailer.  After watching the trailer, you may or may not agree with what I say.

In the movie, public school teachers are depicted as the evil ones, and charter school teachers are seen as the good guys. Harold Meyerson, in a Washington Post Op-Ed column says it a lot better:

In the world of “Waiting for Superman,” every public school is a disaster, every charter school is a rigorous (but nurturing) little Harvard or Oxford, and the blame for the plight of public schools and the paucity of charter schools can be laid entirely on the unions’ doorsteps. You’d never know from the film that charter schools produce test results that aren’t any better than those of public schools, or that the teachers at a number of charter schools — including charter schools that do produce high test results — are, horror of horrors, unionized.

In the current political environment, schools, teachers and principals have been blamed all of the deficiencies of American education.  To depersonalize this attack, the critics of schooling put the blame on teacher unions, in particular the AFT and NEA.  It’s a lot easier to launch negative ads against a union, rather than teachers in our local schools.  And so, with a continued barrage of rhetoric, many are convinced that teachers should be punished for the conception that the schools are failures.

Thus, the reform of education, as currently conceived, is to standardize curriculum (The Common Standards movement), hold students responsible by administering high-stakes tests yearly, and hold teachers accountable by using student gains on the high-stakes tests.  Some are convinced that teacher’s pay should be determined by student achievement gains.

But teaching and learning are not as simple as some would have the public believe.  To think that the only factor that influences student achievement is what the teacher does with a group of students in a classroom is to deny factors that may be as important: the socio-economic level of the student’s families, social relationships, family relationships, housing, technology, television, peers to name a few.  In the current school environment, a didactic model of teaching and learning is implied in that it is the teacher who is responsible for student learning.  Yet, this flies in the face of learning research which shows that learning is constructed by the students through social interaction, and experience.  Much of learning takes place indirectly, not the direct result of a teacher lecture, a slide show, or worksheet.  These methods can be important, but only in so far as they are related to the students interest, and need for the information in these approaches.  Teaching is artistry, and more of a craft.  It’s not the simple teach-test model that current reformers advocate.

Artistry in science teaching isn’t something that one acquires in professional training programs, but developed over time through real experiences with colleagues and students. Rooted in professional artistry is the idea that science teachers (any teacher for that matter) constructs knowledge about teaching and learning rather than adopting the knowledge claims of others. Teaching is a tough endeavor, as is learning, and it takes an attitude of commitment with ones willingness to experiment, tinker, explore, ask questions, collaborate with peers to become a successful science teacher.

Teacher assessment is important.  But it is not simply a matter of “measuring” student learning.  Meyerson puts it this way:

The intensity of the local battle might blind them to the experience of cities where the school district and the union have jointly embraced a reform agenda, even including a version of merit pay. And yet, such an agreement — an impossibility, if we are to believe the conventional narrative — was reached just two weeks ago in the faraway city of Baltimore.

The Baltimore contract, on which teachers will vote Oct. 14, bases pay on acombination of professional development training, joint management-teacher evaluation and measured student achievement. As Shanker, who headed the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) from the 1960s through the 1990s, long advocated, this system establishes a career ladder for teachers — a four-step progression from “standard teacher” to “lead teacher” — that rewards excellence while still recognizing seniority. The criteria by which teachers will be judged will be aligned with state standards that Maryland is developing in which 50 percent of a teacher’s score will reflect student achievement.

Teachers are the heros that work with students to help them create a future.  To blame teachers for any dysfunction in school or society misses the mark, and as Meyerson says:

Blaming teachers for the dysfunction of inner cities and the decline of American industry lets a lot of other, more culpable, parties off the hook. But if our goal is to improve education, and not just exculpate ourselves for our social and economic decline, we should be applauding the Baltimore contract and the reformers, in think tanks, district offices, classrooms and, yes, unions, who seek to better our schools and our country.

The movie, Waiting for Superman, is a simplistic attack on teachers and schools, and denies the realities of public schools.  Superman is already here—just look to any local school, K – 12.  As an antidote for the superman movie, I recommend that you see the Race to NoWhere, a film which challenges a system and culture obsessed with the illusion of achievement, competition and the pressure to perform.