Movie Talk

Actually, in terms of the structure of this documentary, I actually don't think it was the most effective, and I did not because that emotionally invested in this particular film. Sure, the interwoven narratives of the kids who do want to learn and recognize that has a definitive emotional quality and also reiterates that kids know when they're getting screwed (which adults tend to forget). Likewise, I commend the film's emphasis on reform starting in the early elementary years, which doesn't get enough attention in most local media outlets. However, the presentation of data felt off to me, and having a Newsweek correspondent being interviewed felt like a slap in the face. Why? Newsweek's switch from articles to strictly op-ed is an insult to anyone who received a good quality education that developed critical thinking, be it from a public or private institution. To give Newsweek correspondents any sort of credit as an even remotely reliable source of research makes me kind of sick when one considers how they dumped reporting techniques that at least tried to deliver facts in the most objective manner possible. I do think that with the amount of statistics displayed, there should have been a preceding statement such as, "According to data gathered by Example Institution in 2007...." prior to the animated graphs that, quite frankly, reminded me of mid-80s cel animation in terms of the mood it evoked. Some people did find it effective, but I found it too deliberately evocative. On top of all that, the majority of the information presented in this movie is not going to be news to much of the audience. Most of us already know the sway the teachers' unions have due to the tenure clause before going into this movie. The vast majority of new information (at least that I found) pertained to the charter/magnet schools that have found successful methods for educating children across various demographic factors (race, socioeconomic status, etc.). I would have liked to see an more in-depth look at the gaps in suburban public schools, because those institutions deserve the same level of scrutiny as urban schools in the court of public opinion. (In that particular case, the test scores of the high-achieving students skews not only achievement data but also achievement perception, a point mentioned in the film to some extent). Likewise, the transitions between various discussions of factors felt more like an essay outline that was cut into sections and shuffled around like the lottery cards and balls used in the selection processes depicted in the movie. I could certainly follow along, but the abrupt transitions made script research deficiencies much more prominent.

TL;DR? I think this film could have been a lot more but stumbled because the desire to rehash topics most audience members already knew trumped a willingness to examine much more wily aspects of the public education puzzle.