Concluding Post

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.