Thursday, September 20, 2012

Don't be fooled by "Won't Back Down"!



Credit: Center for Media and Democracy
Over the next few weeks, we will be running pieces describing real-life “Won’t Back Down” stories from parents and teachers.  If you’d like to share yours, please email us at info@classsizematters.org
Last night I attended a screening of the controversial new film, “Won’t Back Down” about a parent and a teacher who take over their “failing” public school.  I have written a FAQ about the movie which is posted here.  The film was produced by Walden Media, owned by right-wing billionaire Phillip Anschutz, who also co-produced “Waiting for ‘Superman.’” 
Advance screenings have been held around the country, organized by Michelle Rhee’s Students First and other pro-charter lobbying organizations, to promote the “Parent Trigger,” which allows a school to be turned over to a charter operator if 51% of the parents sign a petition calling for this. Here is a good analysis by the Center for Media and Democracy.  
The movie itself is badly written, poorly acted, and full of exaggerated characterizations and unconvincing plot twists. Its message, transmitted with sledgehammer subtlety, is that the only reason that schools in poor communities are failing is because of incompetent lazy teachers who are protected by the union.  The film also implies that in turning around a school, all that needs to happen in addition to getting rid of the union is to change the school “culture” which is done by scheduling more field trips and telling students that they can learn and go to college.  
The two main characters, played by Viola Davis and Maggie Gyllenhall, both have children who are struggling in school; one with dyslexia and the other [spoiler alert!] who towards the end of the film is revealed to be  possibly brain damaged.  Somehow getting rid of the union and converting to a charter school will magically help these kids learn; though in reality, many charters discourage parents from enrolling their children if they have disabilities, or are quick to push them out after they enroll.
The main villain in the film is the teacher of Gyllenhall’s daughter.  This teacher spends time playing with her cellphone during class, and prevents the little girl from going to the bathroom and then locks her in a closet when she wets herself.  The evil parents and teachers who oppose the takeover of the school carry signs saying “Public school advocate” andTaking over neighborhood schools destroys neighborhoods."
 If I hadn’t been on a panel to discuss the movie afterwards, I would probably have walked out. 
The panel also included  Christina Grant, formerly the deputy Director for the DOE Office of Charter Schools and now head of NYCAN, a charter lobbying organization, and Kate Hayes, a parent with a Kindergarten child who has been shut out from attending her neighborhood public school because of overcrowding.  Hayes is also on the founding board of a prospective charter school called Great Oaks, which has applied to the state to open in the fall of 2013.
I pointed out that though the movie claims repeatedly that the union prohibits public school teachers from staying after 3 PM to help struggling students, this is factually untrue.  Many teachers do indeed stay late helping students, and according to the recent Gates-funded Scholastic survey,  they work an average of 10 hours and 40 minutes a day  -- a 53-hour work week.  Also, according to international comparisons, our teachers spend more time actually teaching than in any other developed nation.
When Christina said that when she was a charter school teacher at KIPP she made herself available nights and weekends, I pointed out that most charter schools like KIPP have extremely high levels of teacher and principal attrition; this is not sustainable model nor one we should want to replicate if we want experienced teachers and school leaders in our schools. 
I also pointed out that every year in NYC, the top priority of parents is reducing class size, and the union is the only thing standing in the way of Bloomberg doubling the class size, as he has said he would like to do.  Michelle Rhee, on the other hand, as well as other members of the corporate reform crowd, would like to eliminate all limits on class size, as well as to bar teachers from being able to negotiate on this issue, and would limit them to arguing over wages and benefits. 
I also provided some historical background.  Here in New York State, we already have a form of the parent trigger.  With the assent of the district, a school can convert to a charter if 51% of the parents at the school vote to do so.  Despite the fact that under Bloomberg , the DOE has been extremely charter-friendly, they have never tried to put conversion to a vote of parents, probably because they know it would be roundly rejected. 
The last time such a conversion was attempted was in 2001, when then-Chancellor Harold Levy allowed Chris Whittle, the CEO of the chain of Edison for-profit chain of charters to try to convince parents at five public schools to let him operate their schools. Despite promises to parents of more funding, computers, etc., this attempt sparked big protests and opposition in communities all over the city, and Edison lost the vote at all five schools.  Now Edison operates only one charter school in New York City, the Harriet Tubman school, which gets very poor results, and Whittle has moved on to greener pastures by starting the much hyped private school Avenues, charging $40K per year in tuition.
 Christina Grant countered that the Parent Trigger legislation they are now lobbying for, which in its current form would just pertain to the city of Buffalo, is better than the existing charter conversion law, because it gives parents more options, such as closing the school, restructuring it, etc. 
I don’t think most parents want to close their neighborhood school – or to fire 50% of the teachers, another negative option that the bill provides.  Why a rigid quota that would require that half of all teachers at any school should be fired could be seen as a way to empower parents or to improve a school is beyond me, though it is one that the DOE and the Wall St. hedgefunders seem to favor.   
And these sorts of high-stakes decisions should never be made through the mere signing of a petition, without holding a real vote with proper oversight; this is an open invitation to manipulation and abuse.  In fact,  the two times the Parent Trigger has been tried in California, hundreds of parents asked to have their signatures rescinded.  A PTA election would never be allowed to occur in such a slipshod fashion, no less turning a public school over to a private corporation to run.
Now, I have spent over a decade as a parent activist in NYC, and I have yet to see any parents rise up on their own in an effort to privatize or close their neighborhood public schools.  I have seen thousands of parents – along with teachers – working together to protest school closings, fight budget cuts and rising class sizes, and/or to obtain the right to opt their children out of high stakes testing, and yet these efforts are usually met with scorn from the same people who are pushing this movie.  Don’t be fooled: the movie “Won’t Back Down” is not really about parent empowerment; it is instead a massively financed PR campaign, engineered by billionaires and hedgefunders who couldn’t care less about what parents actually want, but want to take down the teachers union and take over our public schools.
Over the next few weeks, we will be running pieces describing real-life “Won’t Back Down” stories from parents and teachers.  If you’d like to share yours, please email us as info@classsizematters.org

5 comments:

My Child is NOT a Test Score said...

Bravo! this is so accurate that I hope it is taken very seriously. Well done.

Anonymous said...

I was also at a screening and was shocked when many clapped at the end. "Coincidentally," most of the audience invited were teachers from charter and private schools.

The film was riddled with thinly veiled anti-union plugs. Quite ironic that the "teacher-savior" was a young TFA-er.

Agreed the plot made no sense and the acting left much to be desired. No clarity in the ambiguous plotlines made it obvious this was "Waiting for Superman" in dramatized form.

Thanks for this review which confirmed my many doubts.

Anonymous said...

The film is a piece of garbage as anyone who knows anything about the school system will tell you. It is not possible for parents who have no training in education to open and successfully run a school. Children with severe physical problems are not admitted to charter schools.
This is nothing more then another attept to unfairly attack publis school teachers and the UFT. The problem is it is aimed at parents who really don't know the truth and would believe what they see.

Anonymous said...

As the authior of the book, WHY AMERICA'S PUBLIC SCHOOLS ARE THE BEST PLACE FOR KIDS I can tell anyone rerading htis or choosing to see this movie that charter schools are NOT better than local public schools ANYWHERE! I collected facts and data that support the daily successes of our public schools. If you seek facts and not the fantasy of this film, then see the book--WHY AMERICA'S PUBLIC SCHOOLS ARE THE BEST PLACE FOR KIDS available in all formats at www.rowman.com
Dave F. Brown, Ed. D. Educational Researcher--not a movie maker!

Melissa Westbrook said...

Just to keep you up-to-date, Washington State, which has NEVER had charters because we have said no to them THREE times at the ballot box, now finds yet another initiative on our ballot.

This one contains a trigger law that is the WORST in the country.

It can be used for ANY school, failing or not.

And, the petition can be signed by either parents or teachers.

If you have 18 teachers in an elementary school, 10 teachers could sign a petition to upend an entire school community.

Sheer nonsense. No on 1240, www.no1240.org