Concluding Post: A Teacher’s
Analysis of Dead Poet’s Society
Though I have seen the film Dead Poet’s Society many times, I
watched it again this summer bearing in mind our course readings and paying
special attention to the role of Robin William’s character, Mr. Keating. While
analyzing Mr. Keating’s unconventional instructional style, his ability to
influence his students, and his self-proclaimed goal of developing students who
think for themselves, it becomes clear that his teaching philosophy stands in
contrast with Welton Academy’s values. There are a few layers of irony to this,
first being that Mr. Keating’s instructional methodology aligns with
characteristics of quality teaching and when implemented properly, teaching
practices like Mr. Keating’s have the potential to lead students to success in
their personal and academic lives. Secondly, it is arguable that Welton’s
pillars of education—honor, tradition, excellence and discipline—are valid
qualities that have a place in the education of children. It is my hope to
unpack here how the collision of Mr. Keating’s teaching practices and the
school’s value system catch one student in the middle, resulting in a tragic ending
to this film.
Let us begin by looking at Mr. Keating’s
pedagogical strategies. With every lesson he delivers we notice elements of
non-conformity and rebellion, whether it be in the curricular content itself or
in the style with which the lessons are structured and implemented. We hear Mr.
Keating describe his unconventional ways as his attempt to create free-thinkers.
This sounds wonderful, especially because we know how much free thinking is
valued here in the United States and has shaped educational programs like
play-based preschool or Montessori curriculum. However, after some
consideration, I am left wondering if Keating’s students are equipped with the
tools to properly think independently or, further yet, if they are truly
provided the opportunity to do so. In an early seen in the movie, for example,
Mr. Keating not only disagrees with a scholar’s use of an equation to determine
the value of a poem, but he chooses to expose his students to this structured
way of thinking before requiring them to destroy it, tear it out of their
textbooks and discard it. So here, a few important things took place. First. Mr.
Keating expressed his personal opinion about an aspect of English education to
his students and then he thrusts that way of thinking on them. The physical act
of tearing the pages out demonstrates to his students that thinking as a
traditionalist, or as the text book’s author, is not valued in his classroom. As
a result, this lesson ironically teaches students to conform to non-conformity
in the presence of Mr. Keating. Additionally, this lesson provides the students
their first glimpse at the divide between the values of Keating and Welton
Academy.
I would like to also mention that if Mr.
Keating’s classroom was not situated in Welton Academy, this lesson is still
flawed because providing students a democratic education means exposing them to
multiple ideas and ways of thinking and allowing them to choose their own
beliefs. So while I agree that the development of free thinkers is essential
for learning, innovation, and society, I am not sure that Mr. Keating’s
personal reaction to an element of education has a place in a democratic
classroom nor if his lessons truly allow students to think for themselves.
This conjures up a new question of whether
or not secondary school-aged children are mature enough to think for themselves,
even when given the opportunity. Impressionable young people require parameters
for what it means to think freely and independently, and I think some version
of the Welton’s pillars can help set those parameters. Keating, however, does
not make an effort to align his class content with the greater community of
Welton. It is interesting to consider what drew Keating to accept employment at
Welton, knowing his teaching philosophy does not correlate well with the school’s
four main pillars of education. Additionally, if Keating felt so strongly about
his unconventional lessons and the production of free thinkers, why doesn’t he
communicate the benefits of his style of instruction to parents or fellow
teachers? Is he not interested in exposing all students to what he considers to
be quality educational practices? It is possible that he assumes that his ideas
would not be received well. However, it is also entirely possible that it was
Mr. Keating’s desire to be alone in his endeavors in order establish and maintain
a rebellious air. I believe it is this go-it-alone demeanor that attracts his
students to his class and ultimately calls them to reboot the dead poet’s
society. It also led his students to make poor choices such as sneaking off
campus, getting intoxicated at parties and receiving the phone call “from God”
at an all school assembly. Interestingly enough, then, we find that when
Keating pushed his students to think independently, it resulted in his students
thinking and acting much like a rebellious Mr. Keating himself.
Within the context of the film, it is
important to consider a school’s and its educator’s potential to influence
their students. Because Welton Academy is a boarding school, its teachers and
administrators serve as an extension of the young students’ parents. This
concept reminds me of both the preschools around the globe that Tobin studied,
especially those in China, and the most basic principles of Montessori
education, where schools serve as an extension of the students’ families. In
the case of Welton, we can assume parents choose to send their young sons to
the academy because their beliefs and value systems align with the schools
standards and pillars of education. The parents drop their young sons off each
fall expecting they will learn and develop in a way congruent with the school’s
heavily advertised pillars. This is not unreasonable. The problem, however, is
that Mr. Keating did not demonstrate to his students how his values and the
school’s can (and should) coincide. This means one of Welton’s own drove a
wedge between its students and its greater academic community. By extension, it
also drove a wedge between the students and their parents.
When a student is influenced by a teacher
whose values do not coincide with the school nor his parents, serious issues
transpire. The epitome of this, of course, is the relationship between Neil,
his father, and Mr. Keating, which ultimately led to Neil’s suicide. When
considering the plight of Neil’s character, I am drawn to a comparison to
Richard Rodriguez. Much of Rodriguez’s biography detailed his straddling of public
and private worlds. This caused a lot of strife and created a distance between
his heritage and the person he became. Likewise, Neil is battling pursuing his
own passions and pursuing those that his father and the school prefer. When Neil
lies to Mr. Keating about discussing his role in the play with his father, we
know he is deeply conflicted and unable to successfully navigate the two worlds
of passions and academic pursuits.
Both Neil and Mr. Keating resisted the
automaton mindset that seemed very present at Welton. This is to say, many
students have a future prescribed to them and seem to be putting in their time
before taking their predetermined place in society. The Welton curriculum does
not seem to have a place for students’ vocational passions to flourish and be
considered academic in nature. The reminds me of a passage from The SchoolHome (1992) where Martin
writes, “Activities of living are, in fact, to be found in the American
schoolhouse, but the ones admitted into the “curriculum proper” […] are almost
as divorced from thought as spectatorship is from action” (p. 93). Martin then
describes an apparent dichotomy in education between academic and vocational
studies. So even if Neil excelled in theater, his school and his parents viewed
this as an extracurricular, getting in the way of his studies to become a
doctor or lawyer. Most viewers favor Keating’s character because he encourages
Neil to follow his passions, which is a message to students that many educators,
including myself, condone. Problematically, though Neil remained unequipped to
handle the divide between vocation and passion and between his personal passions
and those his father prefers, ultimately deciding that if he cannot follow his
passion, if he cannot seize the day as Mr. Keating urges him to do, he cannot
find a reason to live.
Watching this film again has encouraged me
to think more carefully about the power of educators, and the importance of a
shared vision for a school’s youth. While I have long valued Keating’s engaging
lessons, rapport with his students and courage to be different, I now realize
these qualities need to be contained within the values of the greater learning
community. Likewise, learning communities must encourage students to embrace
their talents and follow their dreams. Perhaps if Keating and the school met
somewhere in the middle, Neil’s life would have been preserved.
