In some circles, this could be viewed as some kind of admirable attempt to extoll the virtues of teaching, especially something aimed at showing how 'dedicated' some teachers might have to be. Without seeing it, how does it rate and how much does it say by only the phrase "I won't let you fail" quote from the trailer?
In one word: volumes! I suppose we should give 'Swank' a break for being an actress and not a teacher. After all, how much can an actress know about teaching? It turns out that a GOOD actor or actress will RESEARCH a role extensively, and not just accept a script, or do a story based on one's perception or what 'feels good.' Based solely on the trailer cutscene, Swank has done no significant research whatsoever into what it means to truly care for students, nor truly teach them--two major factors that immediately disqualify this movie as any kind of 'million dollar' viewing; it would even be criminal to call it any kind of 'contender' as any kind of representative teaching film. Why is this so? I'll explain by giving examples of what a truly qualified teacher NEVER does.
First of all, a teacher NEVER 'fails' a student--only a student fails by not meeting the requirements. This usually occurs by the student not putting sufficient effort into learning and not turning in required assignments, then coupled with poor preparation and performance on tests. Secondly, a teacher makes himself available at the normal 'expected school times': before school and some time after school. A teacher should NEVER go to a student's home, as this violates the traditional paradigm of understanding that school matters should be done on SCHOOL TIME, so the proper respect for the institution of teaching and the school are maintained. Some advocate that teachers should 'make themselves available' by email and/or cellphone. However, this is WRONG, as this is seriously detrimental to the teachers, as it further eats into what little time they have left after the required lesson plans and material preparation for each day. Besides, how did the 'poor students' and parents manage in years gone by, where there were no cell phones and email? Or what about before the advent of phones? Both students and parents understood that they had to GO TO THE TEACHER, not for the teacher to 'come' to them, or to do on the student's/parent's time, or otherwise at their 'convenience.' I personally never had my teacher's home phone numbers, nor could I ever email them questions--and I learned just fine--as well as every other student! This is why teachers have always had some kind of conference period, so they could have 'time off' for lesson planning or (gasp!) arranging to meet with parents at that time. Both my parents worked, and worked long hours during the week. Oddly enough, my parents managed to call my teachers or arrange to visit with them DURING SCHOOL HOURS. Finally, a truly excellent teacher NEVER allows any excuses from parents or students on low performance. Any student's job by definition is to learn and to put forth one's best effort. Race nor socio-economic background should ever play a role in 'excusing' intellectual laziness and low performance. Why can I say this? Because I came from next door to the POOREST school district in Texas, from a Hispanic barrio in which there were known gangs and drug activity. I also had many Hispanic friends that lived in the same area. What happened? WE LEARNED! While there was some cause for concern because of the settings, the parents all made sure they stressed education, and we as students learned! We may not have become Nobel prize winners or geniuses, but we learned and we were certainly sufficiently educated. We were expected to do our best and turn assignments in on time, or we earned a zero--and late work was NEVER allowed.
So why is a movie like Swank's so damaging and insulting to true teaching? Because it shows that the teacher is the servant of the students, a slave to their bad behavior, tied to the 'ball and chain' of their 'circumstances.' This should NEVER happen! The student is there to learn, and while the teacher is there to 'serve' the student in the sense of making the subject as accessible and easy-to-understand as possible, the teacher should NEVER do anything the student and parent can do for themselves! True teaching means learning responsibility, as well as learning as much as one can to better one's circumstances, as in the movie "Stand and Deliver," regarding the groundbreaking, no-holds-barred teaching of Jaime Escalante in one of the poorest and worst areas of Los Angeles. By never accepting excuses from any student or parent, by holding firm, by showing students how to reach the lofty goals he set before them, both he and the students achieved something remarkable--and something never achieved now in the days of "holding the student's and parent's hand" every step of the way. Not only did all the students learn (written off by others as 'too dumb' or 'not motivated enough'), but they grew intellectually because they had high standards expected of them. What happened when students wanted to quit? Did Escalante beg and plead with them? No! He told them about REALITY, that if they quit, they only condemned themselves and ensured no improvement for their futures. He was so honest with them--to the point of being brutal! But it got their attention and kept them focused, which is exactly what helped them not only to learn so much, but to grow intellectually and emotionally as well. "Stand and Deliver" is a perfect encapsulation of all the reasons why a teacher "doing it all" for students is so damaging, since real life and experience shows us all that rarely (if ever) will anyone "bend over backwards" to help us; it also shows us it is far more healthy emotionally to accept the reality that probably no one will ever help us, and it is up to us to do what we can, and to do all we can for ourselves. Swank's movie promotes 'entitlement' to such a degree that it reflects an unreal picture of what teachers should do for students. This entitlement mentality is what cripples people by making them think everyone is supposed to 'help them out,' even when the same people could help themselves to some degree--or even when said individuals give up and do little or even nothing at all! One may ask "if a truly good teacher should not do what Swank portrays, what should be done"? What should be done is an extension of the real teaching "Stand and Deliver" painted so powerfully.
Real teaching is about insisting on standards for your students to meet. These are standards they should have to work for, but they are attainable with a fair amount of work. This means NO excuses--regardless of your socio-economic background, regardless of your neighborhood, without respect to your race or your family. What else does a truly qualified teacher do? The teacher clearly defines what the teacher expects from the students, as well as what the students should expect from the teacher. Once both relationships are defined, then the instructor defines the subject, gives each student a concrete plan of the subjects to be covered (I refer to the the junior high level up to university--my range of experience) in a syllabus. The teacher then gives examples of cues for students to know when the teacher considers something important, such as "if I write something on the overhead or the board, this is important to have in your notes." It is also acceptable to tell students when a concept is being explained, but taking notes is not necessary. So, familiarizing students with how to recognize what you consider important is necessary. A teacher also makes clear that any kind of question related to anything on the topic is never considered "stupid"--only the unasked question is "stupid." Furthermore, there should be serious consequences for those who make fun of "slower learners" or those who other students feel ask "too many questions," i.e., because they feel the subject is clear. It must be made plain to students that everyone learns in different ways and absorbs material at different rates. Not only this, but policies on accepting work in a timely manner and all areas related to grading are clearly laid down, with late work NEVER being accepted. (Any teacher who accepts late work is not only not truly qualified, but gives the student the impression being 'late' is not only acceptable, but that it is also fine to procrastinate--which can set unacceptable precedents for students later in life, where they erroneously believe being 'late' to work is not only acceptable, but excusable--when it NEVER is!) The teacher makes it clear that grades are ASSIGNED and NEVER 'given.' This means the grade is what the student EARNS by turning in required homework and taking tests. The points earned are accumulated, then divided according to percentages, leading to the calculation of the student's grade--which any student should easily be able to calculate and see for himself. As much as is possible, the teacher presents information in slightly different ways, and at least in short enough segments (no more than 2o minutes in length) so the students can absorb that segment (by way of 5-10 minutes of review) before moving on to another. Of course, these are just some of many things a real teacher that truly understands how to educate students will do, since the goal of teaching is to not only to produce some degree of responsibility, but to also cultivate some degree of intellectual curiosity--as well as to help show students how to think for themselves.
Swank's movie gets a big "F" for such a small statement that paints entire landscapes of current 'teaching' practice, practices that don't emphasize responsible student behavior--ones that emphasize 'feeling good' and 'having it done for them'--rather than showing a student how to think and to do for HIMSELF.
