I recommend seeing this documentary for the stories and indelible images (the lottery at the end will stay with you), but I encourage viewers to keep in mind a few facts that the documentary either overlooks or mentions only briefly. It is these omissions that will allow most viewers to leave with two spurious conclusions:
1) Public education everywhere is a failure, and 2) Charter schools are the answer.
First, the documentary conspicuously ignores the issue of inequality created by our current public school funding scheme. Instead, the viewer is told about the major sources of funding (federal, state, and local), but it's never mentioned that the vast majorority of funds come from state and local taxes, with property taxes being the principal determinant of how much is spent per pupil within a school district. The viewer is also told that, on average, we are spending twice as much per pupil than we were 30 or 40 years ago, after adjusting for inflation. What isn't explained is that while the average expenditure has gone up, the range from lowest to highest expenditures has also increased. In other words, the current average is inflated by the fact that some school districts have plenty to spend, so much so that students are given laptops and the schools have pristine facilities. In the movie, viewers get a glimpse of one such school, but it is never explained how such schools can afford all the wonderful amenities and how these schools skew the average per pupil figures; Viewers are just told that some students struggle in those environments too, which of course some do. But when you have huge financial discrepancies between school districts, you also have huge discrepancies in teacher pay, textbook allotments, facilities upkeep, etc., etc. And while people loath to discuss the impact of financial inequities (echoes of "class warfare"), resources DO influence educational outcomes. It's true that you can't just throw money at the problem and expect everything to be magically fixed, but it's also true that you can't allow resources to be so unequally distributed and expect it to have no impact at all. Read
Savage Inequalities: Children in America's Schools for the back story.
Second, the narrator only briefly mentions that 1 in 5 charter schools are exceptional. Well, guess what? That's about the same rate of exceptional public schools! The research on charter schools suggests that charters are about as likely to succeed or fail as public schools (see
Privatizing Education: Can The School Marketplace Deliver Freedom Of Choice, Efficiency, Equity, And Social Cohesion? for an overview of the research). What makes this so important is that in most cases, charters have a student selection process that almost guarantees high quality students, and once students enroll, most charters can expell problem students back to the regular public school. The documentary shows the lottery process by which many charter schools select their students. But which parents do you think enroll in the lottery? By and large, these are the proactive and involved parents who expect a lot from their children. So ask yourself: Who ISN'T in the lottery? Based on such selection and retention processes alone, we should expect charter schools to far outperform public schools, but they don't. Sure, there are exceptional charter schools -- some of which are spotlighted in the movie -- but these anecdotal cases are NOT representative of larger trends. In fact, many charter schools fail in their first one or two years of operation and lose their charters. The documentary does not spend a single moment telling that side of the story.
Having said all this, I largely agree with the documentary on the issue of teacher unions. Teacher unions represent a huge impediment to reform, and the unions protect the weakest teachers again and again. Any real effort to improve public education will have to include some shifting of power from the unions back to the school boards, but this shift will need to be done carefully. The documentary does a fantastic job showing the problem of tenure and how this has led to the artificially high rate of teacher retention. The unions have won tenure and pay raises based almost entirely on time in the classroom, rather than performance. Obviously this complicates reform, but there is additional context that the documentary ignores. For example, good teachers are often assigned the most difficult students. In such an environment, student test scores could actually make the best teachers appear incompetent, and the incompetent appear masterful. Again, this is just another instance where the documentary glosses over issues and allows the viewer to come away unfairly biased. We are led to believe that hamhanded "reformers" like Michelle Rhee are always right and the teacher unions are always wrong.
In short, this documentary is worth watching, but don't believe everything you see!!!