The education method in America is working magnificently, says Bob Bowdon, however only for some -- and those few definitely aren't the students. In his documentary Bowdon, a New Jersey TV news newsman, turns the camera on the monumental corruption and misdirection that has led his state to expend more than any other on its students just with meager results. It's not troublesome for Bowdon to exemplify that something's atrociously incorrect with a state that pays $17,000 per student but can only wield a 39% reading proficiency rate -- that there's a crisis is undeniable, how to deal with it is separate question entirely.
On the one side is the massive Jersey teachers union and umbrageous school officials, who see to it that that, as Bowdon points out in his picture, 90 cents of every tax dollar go for other expenses, including six figure incomes for school administrators and, in a astonishing example, a school board secretary who makes $180,000. The other faction are the supporters of charter schools, the private schools that can evade the authority of the public school system and would aid inner-city kids if their taxpayer money could be more carefully used. One of Bowdon's principal criticisms is that a teacher, even a shoddy one, basically can't be fired -- which provides zero effort to do much genuine instruction.
"The documentary examines lots of out of the ordinary aspects of public education, tenure, backing, support drops, corruption --meaning theft -- vouchers and charter schools," says Bowdon. "And as such it kind of serves as a rapid-moving primer on all of the raging topics between the education-reform crusade."
"The film started making the round of the festivals in summer 2009, and made its theatrical debut just about a year later, in spring 2010. The movie has started a lot of talk, which ought no doubt carry on with the more-recent release of "An Inconvenient Truth" director Davis Guggenheim's own education expose, "Waiting for Superman." Bowdon says the documentaries can be seen as companion pieces: his focusing on public policy and Guggenheim's taking the human-interest slant. "The two films attain common conclusions," Bowdon says.
The left-brained position means arguments that watch the economics -- money misspent, opportunities wasted. But that isn't to say the film is without heart. Bowdon makes certain his eye is invariably on the people affected, in particular the inner-city students trapped in a damaged system. A girl's tears upon hearing that she wasn't selected to attend a charter school, that she's stuck in her public school, portray the failure of a system as well as Bowdon's charts and interviews.
And though it may be simple to accept the presence of corruption in a state so associated with organized crime, the uncomfortable fact of the subject is that this is a very familiar situation. Any watcher will acknowledge the failings of their own state's education system and the struggle for control. The one he seems to be most behind is the charter schools, which take the reins from the unions and give them back to the taxpayer. But "The Cartel" also shows us how laborious it's going to be to get that control back from those who've found it so profitable.
On the one side is the massive Jersey teachers union and umbrageous school officials, who see to it that that, as Bowdon points out in his picture, 90 cents of every tax dollar go for other expenses, including six figure incomes for school administrators and, in a astonishing example, a school board secretary who makes $180,000. The other faction are the supporters of charter schools, the private schools that can evade the authority of the public school system and would aid inner-city kids if their taxpayer money could be more carefully used. One of Bowdon's principal criticisms is that a teacher, even a shoddy one, basically can't be fired -- which provides zero effort to do much genuine instruction.
"The documentary examines lots of out of the ordinary aspects of public education, tenure, backing, support drops, corruption --meaning theft -- vouchers and charter schools," says Bowdon. "And as such it kind of serves as a rapid-moving primer on all of the raging topics between the education-reform crusade."
"The film started making the round of the festivals in summer 2009, and made its theatrical debut just about a year later, in spring 2010. The movie has started a lot of talk, which ought no doubt carry on with the more-recent release of "An Inconvenient Truth" director Davis Guggenheim's own education expose, "Waiting for Superman." Bowdon says the documentaries can be seen as companion pieces: his focusing on public policy and Guggenheim's taking the human-interest slant. "The two films attain common conclusions," Bowdon says.
The left-brained position means arguments that watch the economics -- money misspent, opportunities wasted. But that isn't to say the film is without heart. Bowdon makes certain his eye is invariably on the people affected, in particular the inner-city students trapped in a damaged system. A girl's tears upon hearing that she wasn't selected to attend a charter school, that she's stuck in her public school, portray the failure of a system as well as Bowdon's charts and interviews.
And though it may be simple to accept the presence of corruption in a state so associated with organized crime, the uncomfortable fact of the subject is that this is a very familiar situation. Any watcher will acknowledge the failings of their own state's education system and the struggle for control. The one he seems to be most behind is the charter schools, which take the reins from the unions and give them back to the taxpayer. But "The Cartel" also shows us how laborious it's going to be to get that control back from those who've found it so profitable.
0 nhận xét: