Viola Davis and Maggie Gyllenhaal in Won't Back Down
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 an FAQ about the movie
which is posted here. The film was produced by Walden Media, owned by right-wing billionaire Philip 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 "parent trigger" laws, which allow a school to
be turned over to a charter operator if 51 percent 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 Gyllenhaal,
both have children who are struggling in school--one with dyslexia and
the other [spoiler alert!] who toward the end of the film is revealed to
have possible brain damage. 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 Gyllenhaal's daughter.
This teacher spends time playing with her cell phone during class,
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" and "Taking 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,
former deputy director for the New York City Department of Education's
Office of Charter Schools and now head of New York Children's Action
Network, 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 fall 2013.
I pointed out that though the movie claims repeatedly that the union
prohibits public school teachers from staying after 3 p.m. 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
workweek. 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 [Knowledge Is Power Program], 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 isn't a 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 New York City, 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 percent of the parents
at the school vote to do so. Despite the fact that under Bloomberg, the
Department of Education (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 percent 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 Street hedge-funders 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 New York
City, 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 hedge-funders who couldn't care less
about what parents actually want, but want to take down the teachers
union and take over our public schools.