16 min read – like, share, comment!

First published in Polish by Piotr Maczuga

I've been thinking lately about the teachers in my life who have had the biggest impact on me, and I've come to the inescapable conclusion that they are the ones I have seen in films. But I ask myself: Is that really a pity? After all, cinema is more glamorous than life. It always has been. Whatever one may think, however, the encounter with these teachers has, to a certain extent, influenced me as an educator. Are characters as real as the pages of a film script worthy of inspiration? Or does a veneer of well-written dialogue and exceptional acting hide disqualifying teaching shortcomings?

John Keating (Dead Poets Society)

„O captain, my captain!” - don't you remember this line? I highly recommend Peter Weir's film to anyone who doesn't recall it. The main character, John Keating, played by Robin Williams, is controversial. He is a teacher with an unusual approach, going beyond traditional teaching methods. But did his endeavours truly help his students?

The film is set in the 1950s at Welton Academy, a conservative preparatory boarding school for boys. John Keating, a new English literature teacher, joins the school. His teaching methods are unusual and differ from the academy's strict standards. Instead of lecturing and making students memorise facts, Keating inspires his students to "make your lives extraordinary" and encourages independent thinking. He introduces the motto Carpe Diem (seize the day) into his classes and inspires students to look at the world differently.

Under Keating's influence, a group of students discover the 'Dead Poets Society', a secret club founded by Keating when he was a student at Welton Academy. The students meet at night in a nearby grotto for poetry and self-expression. And of course, as you can easily guess, it can't end well. But I won't spoil the story for you. I have decided to write down Keating's work's positive and negative aspects. Let's start with the positives:

1. Keating is a literature teacher and an instructor of critical thinking, independence, and self-reliance. In other words, he is an inspiration in the truest sense of the word! The Horatian carpe diem can't be ignored here, and watching the students change is one of the best parts of the story. 
2. Rather than focusing on dry facts and theory, Keating gets students actively involved, allowing them to understand the message better and, I dare say, apply it to their everyday lives. I'd be hard pressed to say that 19th-century English literature can be directly applied to everyday life, but it's certainly true that his approach is unconventional.
3. Keating forms a deep bond with his students. He becomes not only their teacher, but also their mentor and friend.

When you read about the positive aspects, the negative ones will come up on their own: 

1. While the bond and trust between student and teacher are undoubtedly important (and certainly original), Keating sometimes crosses some boundaries, which can be a source of misunderstanding and conflict. He is, after all, a teacher of literature. I don't know if there was a compulsory curriculum in a private high school in the US at the time, but it probably didn't cover many aspects of Keating's teaching methods.
2. Keating encourages his students to follow their dreams and to make sacrifices in the name of their passions. However, he does not necessarily draw attention to the consequences of such choices. This is particularly poignant in the context of one student's tragedy. It is important to remember that most of these boys have influential parents who have already mapped out their careers, and Welton Academy is only one stop in a longer journey. Hardly romantic, perhaps, but true. And it has probably never been more true than in Vermont in 1959.
3. His teaching methods contradicted the school's traditional values, leading to conflicts with the administration and other teachers. In a sense, his teaching was rebellious. It was even subversive of the established order. It's hard to succeed in the long term in such a situation. Are you a teacher with a mission? Then try to see it through to the end. Keating has to part with his students. He leaves his superiors with no other option.  

John Keating is a protagonist who arouses mixed feelings in me. I'll be honest with you, he has lost some ground in my eyes as I have dissected the above. His teaching style, though inspirational, was not without shortcomings, and those failings, which we like to highlight, do not go unnoticed in the overall assessment. However, it does show the importance of balancing traditional and innovative approaches to teaching. 

Dr Sean Maguire (Good Will Hunting)

Robin Williams also played the second teacher on my list, but some eight years later. The 1997 film Good Will Hunting, directed by Gus Van Sant, tells the story of a young maths genius, Will Hunting (Matt Damon). Struggling with past traumas and a rebellious nature, he meets a therapist, Sean Maguire (Robin Williams). Sean is not a traditional academic teacher, but neither are most of us here at EPALE. So he has every right to be included on the list. He is a mentor and guide to Will. The relationship between student and mentor is at the heart of the film, just as it was the case in Dead Poets Society.

But first things first. Will Hunting is a young boy from a poor Boston neighbourhood who works as a janitor at the prestigious Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Despite a difficult childhood and adolescence spent in a series of foster homes, Will has an extraordinary talent for mathematics. One day, he solves a complex mathematical problem and attracts the attention of a mathematics professor. The professor tries to help Will put his gift to good use, but the young prodigy struggles to adapt to his new world and to come to terms with the demons of his past. Will gets into serious trouble. The maths professor stands up for him in court when Will faces jail for assault. Instead of jail, he suggests a slightly different approach, including meetings with a therapist. This is where Robin Williams or Dr Sean Maguire comes in. I've trivialised it, of course, but let's focus on the positives and negatives again. Well, on the positive side:

1. Dr. Maguire understands Will's troubled past and establishes a deep emotional connection, which is key to transforming the young genius. It could be argued that this is all expected of a therapist, but unfortunately, in real life, it is not always the case. 
2. Dr Maguire helps Will understand that despite his intellectual prowess, the real challenges in life lie in managing his emotions and building deep relationships with others. Although Will Hunting is a math genius who can absorb and analyse complex information quickly, he hasn't ‘got it’ that it's not just about intelligence, but also about empathy, understanding yourself and others, and overcoming your fears and trauma. 
3. Dr Maguire adapts to Will's needs, often going beyond conventional approaches, rather than relying on typical therapeutic methods. Therapy is usually based on established techniques and - although I have no experience in these matters - I don't know if I'd have faith in someone who does it 'his way'. Yet, though confident and assertive, Dr Maguire does not cross an invisible line. Or maybe it's just an obvious line that's invisible to me.

Now let us focus on negatives: 

1. Dr Maguire makes several risky choices in his work with Will, such as engaging in physical confrontations and making provocative comments. These could have been damaging in other circumstances, but this being a film, it all works out in the end. Moreover, these most confrontational and challenging moments also prove to be breakthroughs, yet they didn't have to be that way. So close to a therapeutic disaster, and yet a success.
2. Dr Maguire often brings his personal experiences and traumas into Will's therapy, which can complicate the therapist-patient relationship. For example, he talks about his late wife in an attempt to build trust and empathy through the sharing of his traumas. However, in reality, such boundary crossing can cause complications. In the real world, therapy is based on keeping a certain distance and respecting professional boundaries.
3. Despite his best intentions, Dr Maguire sometimes projects his unfulfilled dreams and expectations onto Will. Sean may unconsciously try to make up for his mistakes and disappointments by encouraging Will to use his talent.

In Good Will Hunting, Dr Maguire's relationship with Will illustrates the complexities that can arise between mentor and student. Despite his unconventional approach, Sean Maguire plays a key role in Will's life. He helps him understand himself and find his place in the world. This is a success. The film ends on a positive note. Will leaves Boston and moves to California with his girlfriend, but he seems more ready to make such a journey and change his life. However, Dr Maguire's success is difficult to extrapolate to other cases. He may be a genius and a charlatan with incredible luck, but his methods can hardly be considered standard. And because they are not standard, the sample size is too small to make a reliable assessment.

LouAnne Johnson (Dangerous Minds)

John N. Smith's 1995 film, starring Michelle Pfeiffer, is based on former soldier and teacher LouAnne Johnson's autobiographical book My Posse Don't Do Homework. 

The protagonist works as an English teacher at a high school in one of the city's most troubled neighbourhoods. Her students come mainly from families with a difficult socio-economic situation and are often involved in crime, especially drugs and violence. They are also frustrated and discouraged to learn. They believe that the education system has failed them.

Rather than be discouraged by the difficulties, LouAnne decides to approach teaching in a nontraditional way—how could she not? She uses a variety of pedagogical methods to engage her students, impart knowledge to them, and instil in them values such as respect, responsibility, and a good sense of self-worth. One of her approaches is the use of rewards for good behaviour and academic achievement, which motivates students to have higher aspirations for themselves.

It should be pointed out that the book on which the film is based is more balanced in some respects: The students are less stereotypical, there are fewer dramatic events, and the teaching methods are more balanced. Unfortunately, the screenwriters often have to change the reality on the screen a lot and simplify it at the same time in order to make it more appealing to the audience. However, I rate the film because Michelle Pfeiffer's portrayal of LouAnne made it into pop culture. As always, let's start with the positive aspects:

1. Johnson is truly determined and does not allow a difficult environment and a lack of support from other teachers to stop her from trying to teach her students in the most effective way possible. Her determination is inspiring, and she manages to engage many of them in learning. Faced with negative student attitudes, lack of support from other teachers and bureaucratic school restrictions, Johnson refuses to give up when most people would be discouraged. It's hard to get past that. I think everyone would like to have a teacher who is that committed.
2. Instead of sticking to a rigid curriculum, Johnson adapts the material to her students' interests and needs, using things like song lyrics or special rewards to motivate them to learn. She focuses on practicality, making the lessons relevant to how they live and work. This makes them more likely to want to learn.
3. One of Johnson's most outstanding qualities is her sense of empathy. While many of the adults around the students focus on their mistakes, their problems and their past, she tries to see their potential and their talents. Instead of labelling them as 'problematic', she digs deeper. She tries to understand the reasons behind their behaviour and emotions. Her ability to build deep, authentic relationships with her students is based on empathising with them, and this allows her to convince them that someone really cares about them. 

What works against LouAnne Johnson:

1. In the early stages of her career in a challenging school, LouAnne Johnson is not fully aware of the reality. Or perhaps she is simply naive. She could be seen as gullible in her optimism and belief that simple passion and commitment will be enough to change the attitudes of her students. In a complex environment such as a school in a troubled neighbourhood, it takes more than passion to succeed. It takes strategy, an understanding of the student subculture and external support. Her lack of experience in such an environment could lead to mistakes and misunderstandings that could damage her relationships with the students and undermine her credibility in the eyes of her colleagues. It's Hollywood, so it went down well, but teachers who actually work with difficult young people will probably have mixed feelings about it. My own impression is that Johnson’s success is more by luck than judgment. 
2. While Johnson's empathy is one of her greatest strengths, it can sometimes lead her to cross certain professional boundaries. Unfortunately, this is the case with each of our three protagonists. A character in a feature film must be unconventional, and that's understandable, but getting too involved in students' personal problems, though driven by concern, can lead to complications. Her willingness to help may be a source of conflict with the school administration or other teachers, who may see her actions as unprofessional or inappropriate. And in principle, you can't say they're wrong. 
3. Johnson's innovative teaching methods are often effective. But their impact is not always predictable. This is not necessarily desirable in a school environment that values consistency and structure, and with a curriculum and assessment of outcomes. It is also important to bear in mind that not all of their methods may be equally effective with all of the students, which can lead to inconsistencies in the learning outcomes. Johnson mainly bases her work on a reward system, which is all the more naive as the golden solution to all the problems. 

The lesson we can learn from LouAnne Johnson as an educator is that flexibility and innovation in methods are key, especially in challenging environments. Engagement and empathy can be powerful tools in education. However, overstepping boundaries and a lack of consistency in one's actions are the nightmares of any professional trainer, mentor or coach.

Do you think they would have a chance as teachers in the real world?

In summary, John Keating in Dead Poets Society, Sean Maguire in Good Will Hunting and LouAnne Johnson in Dangerous Minds share many characteristics that make them exceptional teachers and mentors. They have a passion for teaching, a deep sense of empathy and a willingness to challenge the status quo. They have unconventional and genuine personalities. Although they are fictional characters, they are proof of the difference that truly committed educators can make. But if they were to be taken out of the world of film, would they stand a chance in real life? 

There is no clear answer to this question, because a teacher's success depends on many factors: individual skills, working environment, education system, support from school management, students and their parents. On top of that, there is also a bit of luck or contacts. Nevertheless, our protagonists really do have an uphill struggle in some respects. They don't fit in with the education system, and that's probably a good thing, but it would just be difficult for them and create constant conflict. Then there is the pressure to deliver results. In the first and third cases, we are dealing with literature teachers. Their task is simple: to prepare students for exams, to teach the curriculum and to make students learn.

Realities have also changed. The modern world, with its technology, social media and  new challenges in education, would require these protagonists to adapt and to innovate their methods.

Or perhaps we underestimate them?

This is what I thought when I heard about Ron Clark. He is a contemporary teacher who has become famous thanks to his book The Essential 55 and the film The Ron Clark Story. The film did not seem to have been released in Poland, so it went unnoticed (although the distributor translated the title as ...Dangerous Minds). It tells the story of a young teacher who uses unconventional teaching methods to motivate his difficult students to learn. Ring any bells? 

Clark is a real-life character. He has become renowned for his innovative teaching methods and his extraordinary commitment to working with students from troubled urban backgrounds. His approach to education is reminiscent of that of film characters such as Keating, Maguire and Johnson. Very passionate about teaching, Clark is fiercely determined to make a difference in the lives of those he teaches. He is the author of The Essential 55, a set of classroom behaviour principles that emphasise responsibility, respect and refinement. If he were a contestant in the Miss America pageant, you could hear about him: "Although he moved to New York from a small town in North Carolina to teach in a challenging urban environment, he has remained immune to criticism and scepticism about his methods". Like the characters in the films, he forms deep bonds with his students. He encourages them to believe in themselves. He also does not hesitate to question traditional teaching methods in search of new ones that better meet the needs of his students.

Ron Clark is not one to shy away from criticism. While The Essential 55 has been hailed by many as a practical set of rules for the classroom, the book has also received its share of criticism. If one were to summarise the pros and cons:

1. The rules are too strict. And a set of rules does not allow for flexibility and an individual approach to each student. Yet, it is the individual approach that is one of the most important issues with which modern pedagogy is concerned. 
2. Some of the rules, such as those on appropriate behaviour and dress code, promote conservative social norms that may not reflect the cultural and social diversity in many classrooms. Today, we are moving away from such practices. 
3. His style of teaching is show-based, where long-term educational benefits are questionable. Again, we have desk-walking and focus on expression, but there is essentially no meaningful research to confirm the effectiveness of such methods.
4. Ron Clark has become not only a teacher but also a media personality and celebrity, leading some to conclude that he and his methods may be more of a marketing product than a genuine educational tool.
5. Finally, Clark could easily be accused of following the ‘white saviour’ model, where a white teacher goes into a poor, ethnic minority school and ‘rescues’ the students. Such a narrative may inadvertently diminish the skills and potential of the communities he works with. Although, of course, in a world where we at least pretend to be equal, his background or skin colour should not be an issue. 

Ron Clark, as a real and still active person, seems to have built his career on the foundation of the film characters of Keating, Maguire and Johnson. Not only on them, of course, but perhaps on a certain archetype of the rebellious teacher who inspires people in the cinema and life. This same Clark, however, faces critics who, in our film examples, would, if anything, act as antagonists. None of them have ever pointed out the flaws in this unconventional, empathetic, yet rebellious approach to education, because they haven't had the screen time to say so bluntly. As a living, breathing character, Clark can't help but confront those who criticise him. 

The teachers portrayed in the films and discussed above were captured on camera between 1989 and 1997, a period in which I was at school, or to be more precise, between the second year of my primary school and the second year of secondary school. I watched these films as a teenager, so I was part of the group targeted to be captivated by the role models, which is probably why the characters have stayed with me in a certain way. However, there is no denying the fact that they are out of date today. Or maybe I missed something important in my modest list of only three entries? I have deliberately left out Damien Chazelle's Whiplash from 2014. This film is about a teacher, who is actually a psychopath, who uses sadism, verbal and physical abuse, manipulation and constant criticism to get the best out of his student. Does he succeed? Of course he does. But that is a different story.

And which film teachers would you name?

Piotr Maczuga writes, records, trains, and makes public appearances introducing new technologies in adult education. By day, he produces educational content and digital events and builds and upgrades multimedia studios. He is a co-founder of the Digital Creators Foundation and an ambassador of EPALE.