Rhetorical Analysis Of Waiting For Superman

Davis Guggenheim, director of the controversial documentary Waiting for “Superman”, brings to light the flaws of the American education system, and more eagerly the practice of tenure. Guggenheim’s purpose is to inform of these flaws and instigate a reform. He creates a pitiful tone in order to denounce tenure and spread this opinion to the viewers of his documentary. These rhetorical appeals work to create a compelling argument on the issue of tenure. Guggenheim exemplifies his persuasion to the audience by using many examples of ethos. To support his argument, he includes interviews from numerous education experts throughout the whole documentary, who give a credible perspective on the issue of tenure. Eric Hanushek, an education economist

The ill-heartedness of “lemon dances” is shown to light in the documentary when speaking of how tenure protects low-performance teachers, even when they’re aware of their misconduct, stating “they know it, the other teachers know it, the school knows it, but the union contract says you can’t fire them” (43:44). Guggenheim explains how inadequate teachers are given a benefit in the teacher union contract, which ultimately affects students’ performance in school. As shocking as “lemon dances” are, “rubber rooms” in New York also become an unsettling factor that the viewer watches unfold in Waiting for “Superman”. Guggenheim includes footage from several of these reassignment centers, quoting that the teachers “collect their full salaries and accumulate benefits for spending seven hours a day reading and playing cards” (45:13). Guggenheim includes these controversial topics in order to create a shock or trauma with his audience. This provokes an intense tone that surprises viewers and forms a want for change. These two malpractices affect students’ progress and show the not-so-beneficial side of