I just finished watching a new film called “Race to Nowhere.” On one level it is yet another documentary about an education system that has run off the rails. But this one differs from “Waiting for Superman,” “The Lottery” and “The Cartel” – the reform triumvirate – in some important ways.
Although “Race to Nowhere” has been framed by some as the anti-“Superman,” it is in fact such a thematically distinct movie that such comparisons are meaningless. Sure, the 90-minute film takes brief swipes at No Child Left Behind and a testing-obsessed culture that sucks joy out of learning and renders schooling all but meaningless. It advocates for pumping more money into public education, barely mentions charter schools and leaves teachers’ unions completely out of the discussion.
But unlike the other three films, “Race to Nowhere” isn’t about how the education system is failing low-income kids. It’s about how as a society we have put so much pressure on our children – especially middle- and upper-income high-achievers – that we are driving them to despair and even suicide in pursuit of our dreams for them, which are little more than shallow fantasies.
In other words, to the extent that we view our children as extensions of our own egos, we are doing them tremendous harm.
The film is co-directed by Vicki Abeles and Jessica Congdon and produced by Abeles. Though not in wide release, it is being screened in conjunction with “community conversations” at various sites around the country. You can see it at the Boulder theater tonight at 7 p.m. or in other venues across the state over the next several weeks. You can find a list of screenings here.
One needn’t choose sides here. I saw a lot to admire – and criticize – in “Waiting for Superman.” I loved “The Lottery.” I found “The Cartel” to be shallow and annoying.
“Race to Nowhere” hit me in a different place and on a different level. The first thing I did after watching the film – which a publicist sent me on DVD – was walk into my daughter Marian’s room and give her a hug.
She’s 21 and left her private, East Coast liberal arts college last year, half-way through her junior year. In some ways she is a lot like the kids depicted in the film.
This film will be tough for a lot of my peers to watch because it hits so close to home. None of us wants to be like the parents in the film. Many of them struck me as suburban automatons, who, driven by internal and external forces they couldn’t control, pressured and over-scheduled their kids with lessons and teams and tutoring sessions, mostly because that’s what everyone else was doing. The ultimate in keeping up with the Joneses. Heaven forbid a child should have unstructured, worry-free time.
Because she is indirectly a subject of the film, I asked Marian to watch “Race to Nowhere” and give me a review. She made it through about half of it before she decided she got the gist. Here is some of what she had to say about the movie and its message.
“What struck me was how parents are overly anxious and the degree to which they are overly involved in their children’s lives. The pressure within the school system was actually created by parents and now it has spread.
“The movie seemed very accurate in showing the pressure. But the kids also seemed like fairly weak individuals because they weren’t doing jack to stand up to it. It’s ironic. These kids probably won’t succeed in the end if they’re letting their parents and teachers boss them around that much.
“Working really hard and doing everything right only gets you to middle management. If you say screw everyone and do things your own way you’re going to be happier and in a lot of cases you are going to be successful, if you’re smart. The whole cookie-cutter thing just fills in the gaps around the people who really matter in society.” (Interestingly, the movie in its final minutes, which Marian didn’t watch, makes almost this exact point. Bill Gates, Steve Jobs and other legendary entrepreneurs never finished college, and most CEOs were C students, the movie says).
What advice would she give to a 14- or 15-year old feeling squeezed in the pressure vice?
“Drink a lot of caffeine, get at least six hours of sleep a night, tell your parents to back off when they’re being jerks, and if your homework seems really stupid don’t do it and read a book instead.”
My sense is that the creators of “Race to Nowhere” would agree with every word of that advice, minus the caffeine. I’m not sure I agree to the same extent. But what do I know?
Popularity: 5% [?]
I’m looking forward to seeing the film and I’m glad to hear that someone has made a film about the mindless chase by many middle and upper middle class parents for building their kids resume for a selective college. Alan is right to point out how this should not be confused with the injustice that most low-income kids face in urban public schools. Most low-income kids are not in a position to be stressed out over whether they should add AP European or World History when they have enrolled in two other APs while being captain of the basketball team and continuing to be active member of the school’s jazz band. Most low-income kids do not have access or often the basic academic skills to access these opportunities.
Not quite so. The film mostly features affluent kids, but they’re not the only ones in the film, nor are they the only ones struggling in this climate.
1. The pressure on the kids at the “top” creates pressure for all kids in the system, because they’re all compared to and competing with one other. The pace of the race (what constitutes “grade level,” etc.) is influenced by the extra steps achievement-oriented parents take to ensure that their children have a competitive advantage over others. Expectations keep getting skewed upwards as some kids show up at school more ready to perform (note I didn’t say learn) than others, which makes the gap between the academic haves and have nots seem even wider, which creates ever greater urgency to do more, faster, and better among teachers and schools where kids are “behind,” even if it’s more than the kids can cope with at that particular time.
Kids today, in all kinds of communities and schools, are being asked to do an awful lot– though the low-income kids are being asked to do it with less time and support than their middle- and upper-class counterparts. That’s intensely stressful, and I saw the effects in kids– tons of headaches, stomach aches, absenteeism around testing times, spikes in conflict, etc. I had a Peace Corner in my classroom where kids could go to calm down if they were struggling, and there were certain days (especially leading up to CSAP) where I had to create extra spaces around the room to accommodate extra stressed kids.
2. A couple of the students in the film (the young Asian-American woman who remarks about not eating or taking care of herself while applying to colleges, and the young Black man who talks about the extra pressure he feels to succeed because, as a low-income student, education is his only hope) are “urban” kids in charter academies. Some of the opportunities being opened up for kids like them end up creating the same high-pressure environments for their students as the uber-competitive private schools do for their students. So kids like them have that stress in *addition* to the stress that comes from living with poverty.
Yes and then there is Shanghai which is hard to ignore. I think it is a difficult balance that schools and parents have to understand. There is also the sad fact that too many teens rich and poor spend way too much time in front of a TV or Video game with markedly less time with other adults whether they be family or community members.
And what do you propose for the kids at Palo Alto high where I once the the Dean of Students?
As a parent of three now young adults, all East High graduates, my observation is that it is not just the lower ends of the economic spectrum that are at risk, but also the upper ends, for all the reasons that this film seems to point out. When my kids were applying for college and I would state that it was my feeling that college was the first decision that was fully my kids choice to make, that was usually the end of the conversation. Whomever I had the courage to suggest that to would quickly take off to find another parent who chose, like they did, to be in full panic mode, hiring coaches, and counselors to force their own children to panic as they did. This is not only nutty, it is abusive. Our children are not objects that we can do with as we choose. Certainly we fail as parents unless we help them, as they grow up, to learn to make choices indpendent of what we might believe they should do. They are free and separate human beings.
Check out “It’s Kind of A Funny Story” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_pq7HKc9z8
It’s a dope slap to the head of overbearing parents like me but funny and well done.
The premise is a young man is in one of the BEST New York magnet high schools and the pressure is killing him.
This is why I am against the business model constantly being pursued in education. The gap btwn the “haves” and “have nots” is growing wider. Marian echoes in her statement, ” The pressure within the school system was actually created by parents and now it has spread” what my own son has stated in high school and now in college. Our society has lost its way and we need to center on our students’ needs via sound educational models, not from a business model. We need to bring back a well-rounded public education system, not some business prototype that continues to harm our children.
Good on you, Alan.
Ditto what Andrea said and this additional comment: kids who are compelled to “choose a career” too early are compromised emotionally, academically and intellectually. It seems the impetus in high school is for them to have already selected and be ready to work toward their “college major.” When it turns out the “major” is not as interesting or advantageous as earlier perceived, there’s a letdown that should never have been set up to begin with.
I actually strongly disagree with Kathy about choosing majors…it is only a problem if they are dead end majors in high school or college. The value of having a major like that of having a good job is that you get to know a particular field well. One of the major problems with American secondary education is that it is often a mile wide and an inch deep. Kids are not taught much about a particular subject and have little opportunity to think and write about the subject. Most other countries have kids do much more focus which not surprisingly builds a variety of skills as well as a deeper understanding of content knowledge in that field. The problem with majors is when they track a kid into a low wage or skill job.
“But what do I know?” Well Alan, not much. Glad that you saw fit to review this film with a semi-open mind. You are an educational reform theologian who will always question heretics who disagree with you. As a born-again believer in destroying public education, please visit more of our public schools. Many are working better than you think and NCLB is not and never will be a productive law. “If you insist on measuring everything you value, you will end up valuing only what can be measured.” Bill Schechter from Brookline,MA. NY Times 12/05/2010. Think about it Alan, why do you value the test scores that are worthless and destructive. Teachers work with Human Beings, not test scores.
Thanks for the kind words and constructive criticism, Jim. It really elevates the dialogue. And thanks for putting words in my mouth so that you have a straw man to tear down.
On the “Major” issue: Both our daughters are in graduate school. One chose audiology and it seems a good fit, the other is headed for CPA certification.
While we feel the direction worked out OK for them, their friends did not fare as well and are indeed headed for “dead end” positions. In any event — whatever happened to a broad-scope general education as an introduction to various potentials, instead of in furtherance of a predestined course?
A “major” is just that not a substitute for a broad liberal arts education that supports students to write, speak and think creatively and critically. Any quality secondary and college education should include this regardless of whether the major is piano, public accounting, firefighting, engineering, math or education.
Back in the 1980′s, when computer science and engineering were “THE” majors, colleges of arts and sciences were wondering if they were still relevant. The University of Virginia College of A&S surveyed graduates from the last 15 years, asking: 1) what they majored in; 2) If it was directly related to their current career; 3) If and how that major led them to their current career; 4) Would they pursue that same major if doing it over again.
Other than math and science majors, most graduates were not in a field directly related to their major, but could trace the path from their major to their current career, and would pursue the same major again (Not surprisingly, math and science majors were typically still in a STEM field)
The clear message was that by five years after graduation, no one cares what your major was. Employers cared about good speaking and writing skills, critical thinking and analytical skills, and a solid, well-rounded knowledge of the world and how it works. That’s what a good liberal arts university should be teaching, regardless of major. Unfortunately, many schools, including some of the top name schools, do a poor job of that.
The message to me as a parent was to let my children major in whatever their passion was at the time. So when my oldest daughter wanted to major in film studies, I could say “Go for it!”
Agreed!