# Waiting for the Superman Who Will Never Arrive [Education Reform Doc]



## ChristianTrader (Oct 26, 2010)

Trailer for _Waiting for Superman_:

YouTube - Waiting for Superman Official Trailer

Analysis:

American Thinker: Waiting for the Superman Who Will Never Arrive


----------



## Zenas (Oct 26, 2010)

It's the argument I've been having with my liberal friend for a while; an argument he's yet to come up with an answer against: throwing more money at schools will not make children smarter or more educated. The only reply I receive is an appeal to emotion and a general allusion toward the uncommon, studious, and over-achieving yet underprivileged child who's subjected to a horrible education. As the article implies, and as I point out so often, the endearing, underprivileged over-achiever is the exception to the rule. The typical school-aged child is not a failure in training, they are a failure. A direct result of their parents' unwillingness to properly discipline or raise the child; a parenting style itself a product of the society the parent has come to look to for guidance; a society styled after elitist, left-wing ideology that promotes public schooling. Thus, like any good snake-oil salesman, the cause of the problem wants to also be the solution. 

As I've said ad nauseum, you cannot make someone want to be educated. The anti-intellectual will continue to be so, no matter how awesome the computers are that you buy for their school. They will use them to just about anything except use the Rosetta Stone subscription you bought for them. There is no mass of impoverished American children, waiting to be taught how to read Dr. Suess. Rather, there are masses of hoodlums, waiting to be let out of the State prison that is the public school so that they can subject the rest of us to their abberant behavior. Sadly, the truly inquisitive and knowledge-hungry child is lost in that sea of stupidity and dunces, not because there isn't enough money, but because their peers are idiots. (Not to be taken as an insult, but as a measure of intelligence.)


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Oct 26, 2010)

Dennis Miller says that the first 30 seconds is all you need to know about the movie. The movie starts out talking about the public education system and how many public schools the narrator passes each day on the way to drop his kids off at a private school.


----------



## jjraby (Oct 26, 2010)

Zenas said:


> It's the argument I've been having with my liberal friend for a while; an argument he's yet to come up with an answer against: throwing more money at schools will not make children smarter or more educated. The only reply I receive is an appeal to emotion and a general allusion toward the uncommon, studious, and over-achieving yet underprivileged child who's subjected to a horrible education. As the article implies, and as I point out so often, the endearing, underprivileged over-achiever is the exception to the rule. The typical school-aged child is not a failure in training, they are a failure. A direct result of their parents' unwillingness to properly discipline or raise the child; a parenting style itself a product of the society the parent has come to look to for guidance; a society styled after elitist, left-wing ideology that promotes public schooling. Thus, like any good snake-oil salesman, the cause of the problem wants to also be the solution.
> 
> As I've said ad nauseum, you cannot make someone want to be educated. The anti-intellectual will continue to be so, no matter how awesome the computers are that you buy for their school. They will use them to just about anything except use the Rosetta Stone subscription you bought for them. There is no mass of impoverished American children, waiting to be taught how to read Dr. Suess. Rather, there are masses of hoodlums, waiting to be let out of the State prison that is the public school so that they can subject the rest of us to their abberant behavior. Sadly, the truly inquisitive and knowledge-hungry child is lost in that sea of stupidity and dunces, not because there isn't enough money, but because their peers are idiots. (Not to be taken as an insult, but as a measure of intelligence.)



awesome, i agree completely Andrew.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Oct 26, 2010)

Zenas said:


> It's the argument I've been having with my liberal friend for a while; an argument he's yet to come up with an answer against: throwing more money at schools will not make children smarter or more educated. The only reply I receive is an appeal to emotion and a general allusion toward the uncommon, studious, and over-achieving yet underprivileged child who's subjected to a horrible education. As the article implies, and as I point out so often, the endearing, underprivileged over-achiever is the exception to the rule. The typical school-aged child is not a failure in training, they are a failure. A direct result of their parents' unwillingness to properly discipline or raise the child; a parenting style itself a product of the society the parent has come to look to for guidance; a society styled after elitist, left-wing ideology that promotes public schooling. Thus, like any good snake-oil salesman, the cause of the problem wants to also be the solution.
> 
> As I've said ad nauseum, you cannot make someone want to be educated. The anti-intellectual will continue to be so, no matter how awesome the computers are that you buy for their school. They will use them to just about anything except use the Rosetta Stone subscription you bought for them. There is no mass of impoverished American children, waiting to be taught how to read Dr. Suess. Rather, there are masses of hoodlums, waiting to be let out of the State prison that is the public school so that they can subject the rest of us to their abberant behavior. Sadly, the truly inquisitive and knowledge-hungry child is lost in that sea of stupidity and dunces, not because there isn't enough money, but because their peers are idiots. (Not to be taken as an insult, but as a measure of intelligence.)


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Oct 26, 2010)

That trailer breaks my heart.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Oct 26, 2010)

Crud has been taught to my kids for years. I educated my sons. They refute the system. They are smart and intelligent and will make it. They have truth which overcomes. They have Jesus. And I have a household at my house ever week to prove it. And my school system is pressured by truth. We don't let it die just like the REFORMERS refused. I love being involved.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Oct 26, 2010)

BTW, this is how the world looks at life. I agree with Rich. I am so saddened. But I know of kids who came from nothing to be something. I also know of kids who didn't want to be nothing but dancers and druggies. They still become something. Just not what truth and eternity holds for them.


----------



## Brother John (Oct 27, 2010)

Great quotes from the article.

"This is the Great Inconvenient Truth of American education: students, their abilities, and their motivations define a quality school, not the school legal authority or source of funding. Perhaps Mr. Guggenheim will film a sequel -- Students Gone Wild."

"Not only will a bad student remain academically troubled when relocating to a "good school," but this fantasy imposes huge opportunity costs by obscuring the underlying tribulations. Now, rather than exhort lagging students to study harder, listen to their teachers, and complete homework assignments, advocates of Superman will instead misinform students by suggesting that a first-class education will mysteriously materialize if students can somehow manage to attend a "good school." This mentality was illustrated in 2008, when Chicago civil rights leader James Meeks brought thousands of inner-city black students to Winnetka, IL and tried to enroll them in New Trier HS, one of the state's premier academic (and largely white) institutions. Meeks seemed oblivious to the awkward reality that nearly all these unprepared students would derive little from New Trier's tough academics.* *

Lastly, and most critically, Superman helps reinforce a jumbled blend of Marxist environmental determinism with a healthy dollop of airhead Rousseau that currently subverts American education. The film portrays youngsters as naturally inclined toward schooling and, per Marxism, as malleable clay in enlightened state hands. That millions steadfastly refuse to learn and jump ship as early as possible is thus society's fault, to be remediated by government intervention. In fact, the "Superman" reference comes from one charter school operator's quip about Superman rescuing troubled students.

This is a toxic vision, celebrating personal irresponsibility, and it profoundly misreads human nature. Its current pervasiveness undoubtedly explains more of our educational travails than teacher unions, "bad schools," and all else that Guggenheim finds deplorable. Perhaps the film should have been called Who will please, please put knowledge in my head?"


----------

