Who Are the Heroes? Waiting for “Superman,” The Inconvenient Truth Behind “Waiting for Superman,” and Taking Sides in Debates About Public Schools

• In Event: Roundtable Session 23
  In Roundtable Session: Reel Education: Exploring Issues of Learning, Teaching, and Schooling in and Through Film

Abstract

When it debuted in 2010, Waiting for Superman became a flashpoint for the ongoing national conversation about the successes and failures of American public schools. As the film drew high praise from education “reformers” and their supporters as well as laypeople and some film critics, it also drew criticism from many scholars, teachers, and activists. How people viewed the film became a sort of litmus test for which side of the educational debate they aligned themselves: with those who advocate an expansion of charter schools, vouchers, and the de-unionization of teachers (e.g., Teach for America, the Business Roundtable, and the Education Trust) or with those who stand by community schools, anti-privatization policies, and strong professional teacher organizations. In sum, the movie paints an overly simplistic picture of what ails American public schools and suggests equally naïve solutions for what should fix them. While it focuses intently on the achievement gap between White, wealthy students and their peers from low income families and communities of color, the roots of the gap, the movement toward privatization and marketization of increasing parts of our public life and institutions, the demonization and defunding of the public sector, the racializing dynamics of the larger society, the structural inequalities in the economy, the fundamentally unfair systems of taxation—all of these are elided.

In response to its inaccuracies and accusations, a group of educator-activists known as The Grassroots Education Movement produced The Inconvenient Truth Behind “Waiting for Superman” (2011) in response. This film and the subsequent actions taken by defenders of public schools nationwide (e.g., the Save Our Schools march on Washington, the Wisconsin anti-Budget Repair Bill protests, and the Chicago Teachers strike) represent an important counterargument to the common belief that schools are failing and (unionized) teachers are to blame. Though supporters of both films may cast each other as villains, we examine whose policy solutions are best for schoolchildren, communities, and the teachers who serve them. And though both films intended to inspire social action, we explore the differences between how the filmmakers conceptualize activism, whom it is that they want to get involved, and the strategies they employ to inspire audiences. This paper sets the stage for a deeper understanding of the recent burst of protests and demonstrations in response to neoliberal educational policies enacted by both Democratic and Republican state and local governments. Ultimately, an analysis of these two films and an examination of the political context into which they were projected provides insight into understanding the fault lines of current and powerful debates about American public schools: What should children learn? Who should teach children? How should teachers be prepared? How should they be evaluated? Who is to blame when public schools fall short of our expectations? And, perhaps most importantly, how should we go about trying to make them better?

Authors

• Michael W. Apple, University of Wisconsin - Madison

• Katy Swalwell, Iowa State University