MovieChat Forums > Waiting for 'Superman' (2010) Discussion > Lottery system is psychologically damagi...

Lottery system is psychologically damaging to kids


The end of the film bothered me when I saw all of the kids and parents who didn't get accepted, absolutely crushed when their number wasn't called. I'm of the opinion that kids like Daisy, for example, are obviously smart and motivated and will overcome whatever hurdles are thrown at them to get to college. The lottery system makes students feel like they are screwed for life now because they don't get to go to the nifty charter school. Ya know what, I bet Daisy will become the validvictorian of her high school, and her parents can start saving now for good SAT tutoring when she gets to high school. Then she can get accepted to any of those great schools Cali has to offer, and ultimately realize her dream of going to med school.

reply

Wow! I don't even know how to respond to that. Of all the things in the movie, it was the lottery system that you have decided is bothersome to you and "psychologically damaging" to the kids?!!! It was not the fact that in many inner-city neighborhood public schools, less than half of the students end up graduating from high school and well under 5% successfully graduate from a four year college? It was not the fact that so many inner-city neighborhoods have such a severe cycle of dysfunction that it traps a huge portion of those who grow up there into needing to overcome enormous hurdles just to prevent their future from becoming hopeless? It was not the fact that there is no political will to even try to implement modest reforms in the inner-city education systems if this threatens or causes uncertainty to any of the adults in the system? It was not even the fact that there are people who fight against the opening of more potentially successful charter schools that would reduce the number of children left behind?

No. Instead you have decided that you were bothered by the lottery system. Apparently not the fact that there are only a limited amount of slots and that most kids don't end up being able to get out of poor neighborhood schools or that the charter schools served by this lottery system, even when very good, is only a very small piece of what would need to happen if inner-city education can be meaningfully improved. You are bothered by the lottery itself and the fact that people are crushed when they don't get lucky enough to be chosen. You make what I find to be an unbelievably astonishing statement when you say that the lottery "makes students feel like they are screwed for life now because they don't get to go to the nifty charter school". That is just so f----ng ignorant. I have news for you. The kids in inner-city neighborhoods ALREADY ARE AWARE that they may be screwed for life simply by looking around them at their surroundings. They see that only a very small portion of the people who grow up around them end up being really successful. And they know that quite a lot of them end up in jail at some point in their lives. It is just so incredibly naive for you to think that not being lucky in a lottery system like this would be the first thing to tell them they are against tough odds.

But you ignore these odds and simply decide that kids that are good enough must be "smart and motivated" so therefore they can overcome everything they are up against in these neighborhoods and will have no problem achieving their dream. Never-mind that this falls completely in the face of the statistics. As the movie mentioned, in most inner-city neighborhood schools half or less of the students end up even graduating. Normally less than 10% go on to four year colleges and quite a few of those, well above those fortunate enough to be brought up in better neighborhoods, end up dropping out. But you apparently think all that should just be ignored and that the fact that students are "crushed" when they don't get accepted to a charter school is just too "psychologically damaging" for there to even be charter schools such as those affiliated with the Harlem Children's Zone.

reply

i think the OP's point was that there's no need to go through with all the theatrics of an in-person lottery, where everyone who didn't "win" feels like they've lost out on the chance for a better life. some who were not admitted will succeed on their own anyway. some who were admitted will end up washing out of the school due to academics or behavior. in either case, the same results could be achieved by those who are admitted without making a public spectacle of those who aren't.

"Because you're an idiot. No, no, don't look like that, practically everyone is."
~Sherlock

reply

Well, most people lose in any type of lottery system. That is just how it works. However, those kids who lost that day will win in the end regardless of what school they attend. Why? Their parents are clearly 100% behind their education efforts. No school has a 100% drop out rate and no school has absolutely no students who will one day attend college. Those kids will be the select few who make it despite their unfortunate circumstances.

The biggest problem children face in public school is not bad teachers, bad administration, or bad resources. It is being surrounded by students who simply do not want or see the need for education.

reply

ylrd45, I was disturbed by that part too, so what's your problem?

This idea that a child's intelligence, hopes for a better future, are determined by a random draw? There are parents working their asses off to see their childre are on the right path, so for all that word to be reduced to a ballot is stomach-churning.

I'm so glad I watched this film.

reply

This idea that a child's intelligence, hopes for a better future, are determined by a random draw? There are parents working their asses off to see their childre are on the right path, so for all that word to be reduced to a ballot is stomach-churning.
Absolutely. That was one of the major points of the film. The inner-city education systems offer so little hope that dedicated parents who push for their children to succeed (but can't afford private school) are basically reduced to prayer that they will luck out and get one of the few random slots at strong charter school programs. The OP, however, was not complaining about this but instead simply about the process by which students are picked. I can't figure out if you are attempting to express agreement with the film or with the OP. Your first sentence doesn't make a whole lot of sense so it doesn't really give me much of a clue. Your last sentence suggests it is the former. But if it is the latter, what solution would you suggest? There is no doubt that being picked randomly is not the most pleasant situation in the world. But I think the alternatives are at least as bad.

reply

"what solution would you suggest?"

Maybe they should allow more charter schools to open. Maybe they should allow interested teachers at the existing schools to vote on whether or not they want to convert to charter schools. One strength that charter schools have is that they are often free from stifling bureaucracy, and teachers are able to innovate and try new things. This means that they can be more responsive to the specific needs of their students (the "small and agile" organizational model).

I spent the last year working at a K-8 charter school that is set up to educate 200 students, The school can admit approximately 20 new students each year, and over 800 students are on the waiting list. We have a lottery because that is the system deemed most fair by the state.

The local school district is spending tens of thousands of dollars )probably well over a hundred thousand at this point, since they have now apparently hired an administrator whose sole purpose is to try to keep the charter from ever opening) fighting to keep another charter school from being formed in the city. The simple fact is that many charters operate with lower administrative costs - meaning fewer non-teaching staff, and that scare administrators who have no teaching ability.

Since we are a public charter school, the district claims us when it's convenient (we have higher test scores than other schools int he district), but they do not like us.

reply

In my ten years teaching, I have worked at both a traditional public school and a charter. The public school was both higher-performing and less stifling, which is not to say that there's anything wrong with the charter. My point is simply that the narrative of charters supposedly being better in various ways doesn't necessarily stand up to scrutiny. In my view the conditions that make a school good or bad rarely have any relationship whatsoever to the economic model under which it is organized. Administrators will use whatever rhetorical tools they have to secure space and funding (including slamming competitors for said space and funding), but the quality of a school mainly revolves around its leadership and its connection to the community.

"Because you're an idiot. No, no, don't look like that, practically everyone is."
~Sherlock

reply

"The biggest problem children face in public school is not bad teachers, bad administration, or bad resources. It is being surrounded by students who simply do not want or see the need for education. "

When the critical mass of students want to learn, a classroom or school will have a much greater chance of successfully teaching all students. When a critical mass of students do not value education, and choose to be disruptive, chances for anyone to learn fall off dramatically, since teachers will have to spend all of their time and effort on "classroom management", rather than teaching.

The simple fact is that when all (or almost all) of the students and families value education, schools can be schools, and not jails.

reply

VanHammersly42 did not say that the lottery system was the ONLY damaging thing presented in this movie. Just that it is ONE of the damaging things shown to us.

reply

I think if you look at the last two sentences of his or her post it is rather clear that VanHammersly is minimizing the significance of everything else. He or she apparently has this romantic idea that everybody can easily overcome very problematic environmental circumstances to achieve great success. Maybe VanHammersly has seen these types of heroic overcoming of obstacles in several movies (fictional movies, not documentaries) so therefore he or she is convinced it is not difficult for anybody to accomplish. Such an attitude is very destructive when it is used to excuse society from not attempting in any significant manner to fix a very severe social problem.

reply