Can one discuss the content of a movie with political implications without being political? I don't know if I will do that or not, and maybe it doesn't matter. Though I will say that if one looks honestly at this movie, whatever one's background or political philosophy, I think it does make its case well, and it is a terribly absorbing piece of work.
For the sake of clarity and honesty, I will provide a bit of background. I am a person with a relatively libertarian philosophy. As such, I tend to view the public sector with suspicion. While some spend time eschewing the greed of corporate America (a clear reality, I might add), I tend to fret more about the excesses of government. Maybe I do this because I believe that while corporations exist for profit and not to serve, the government exists to serve its citizens, and the bigger government becomes, the harder it seems that it is for it to serve its citizens well. Like any other entity, if someone or something can focus on what it does well and succeed at that, one thrives. The moment there is overreach (despite good motives), things fall apart.
While this may not be the view that Davis Guggenheim brings to his emotional film about the public schools in the United States, he does want to show what he sees as a problem with the public schools. He admits to being a leftist who simply cannot send his own child to his local public school. This is his decision in spite of his deep belief in the fairness and opportunity of public education. While he holds that ideal, he sees the quality of education his children would receive at the local public school, and he chooses to send his child to a private school, because he can afford it. This sounds like a happy ending. The problem is that many people don't have the same option as Mr. Guggenheim (including myself). Then, the gloves come off. Guggenheim indicts the system mainly by critiquing a system that doesn't hold teachers accountable. This is the most controversial part of the film, since it hits so many nerves. Many teachers feel under attack in our country right now, and the views in this movie could contribute to that. The question the movie poses is this: is the system that has been constructed more in the interest of the teachers and their union, or is it in the interest of the students? To many that is a false dichotomy. Many would argue that the better off the teachers are, the better off the students will be. However, as one sees some of the students who are praying to win a lottery to get out of their dead end school, it is hard to figure out why so much of the establishment (that is, the teachers unions) view any change that might help students with so much suspicion.
The film is confident that the future of these children comes down to the teachers. The great question is, how does it change? The film has received critique because it seems to glorify the charter school as the answer, even though critics show that charter schools' success rates are no different than public schools. This is an important point, but it sort of misses the point that the film is trying to make. Guggenheim wishes to show some specific instances of ideas and systems that are proven to work. The idea is, if we know what works, let's encourage it. No one should believe that a charter school is the answer. The film doesn't really make that claim. What the film does show is systems that do work, and how reticent the unions are to think outside the box. The fine Americans who do the hard work of teaching are part of a system that most people agree is failing our children. This film provokes thought. It points out the urgency of the situation. What are we going to do about the rampant inequity in a system whose whole point is to provide equal opportunity? There are hundreds of answers to that question. We can disagree about those answers. But one thing is certain, this film is honest with the fact that we have a big problem.
