Research Paper

Identify and discuss professional issues in education evident in a film or a piece of

young peoples literature in which a teacher plays a fairly cental role.
This essay will critically analyse the discourses, positions and relationships, as
well as certain individuals habitus (after Bourdieu and Wacquant, 1992, cited in Gale
& Densmore, 2000), which influence the classroom of Mark Thackeray (Sidney
Potier) in the film To Sir with Love (Clavell, 1966). Via this analysis, I argue that the
film portrays a simplistic, commercial palatable rather than a realistic image of the
challenges of teaching, leading the viewer to a distorted perception of the implications
of the various discourses employed.
In order to clarify this point, I compare several incidents depicted in the film,
with the same incidents as they are described in the autobiographical book by E.R.
Braithwaite(Braithwaite, 1959), upon which the film is based. In doing so, I will
evaluate the pedagogy of the films teacher (Thackeray) against the standards set for
graduates and teachers respectively by the Queensland Board of Teacher Registration
(hereafter BTR) and Education Queensland (hereafter EQ). Identifying the faulty
conclusions which an uncritical viewing of the film may lead to, with regard to the
availability of equal opportunity and social justice, I will make specific
recommendations for reconstructed teaching practice, drawing on literature on social
justice and democratic schooling.
The film To Sir, with Love (hereafter the film), centres around three
interlinked individualist assumptions: that social and economic advancement is sure if
one tries hard enough (meritocracy), that race and class are no barrier to social and
economic advancement (equal playing-field), and that innate talent rather than learnt
skill, plays the most crucial role in a persons success (giftedness). These will be
referred to in turn below.
In contrast to this individualist stance, E.R.Braithwaite describes early in his
book To Sir, With Love (hereafter the book) how his race had mitigated against his
acquiring an engineering position for several years, despite excellent qualifications.
He reacts to these difficulties by presenting his students with many examples of the
interdependency of humanity: the brotherhood of Man.

In the film, Mark Thackeray too, continues to apply for engineering positions
while teaching at North Quay Secondary.. Only at the end of the film is he finally
offered the lowly post of Third Assistant Engineer by a firm outside of London,
despite his astounding qualifications, but paradoxically it seems this event is meant
to emphasise the recurrent theme of the cinematic retelling of this story: that
Anything is possible with enough persistence and effort.
Commercial film- making is driven by economic interests, which aim to
reinforce certain dominant worldviews to ensure box office success. Perhaps for this
reason, this film emphasises the popular myth of meritocracy (Mills, 2004) at the
expense of taking up the more problematic framing of issues offered in Braithwaites
own account.
The character of the film schools Head, Mr Florian, for example, is cast in
almost direct opposition to that of the actual Alexander Florian, Head of Greenslade
Secondary School, who was in fact determinedly democratic. For reasons of dramatic
effect however, the film casts Mr Florian (of North Quay Secondary) as a well
meaning but confused man, lacking the courage of his conviction. During his initial
interview with Thackeray, he points out that
Most of our children are rejects from other schools. We have to help them as
best we can. We have to teach them what we can and as much as we can.
He does not seem to have any particular philosophy about how this might be achieved
as he continues:
From the moment you accept this appointment, youll be entirely on your own.
[] Success or failure will depend entirely on you.
It seems that this Head extends the idea of meritocracy to teachers success in the
classroom.
While Greenslades Head also uses these latter words, the context in which he
uses them makes his philosophical position unmistakably clear: rather than calling his
students rejects, he explains that the majority of our children could be generally
classified as difficult, and that this difficulty seems based on the many pressures and
tensions which they face daily and which tend to inhibit their spiritual, moral and
physical growth(p.30). His comment that success or failure depend entirely on you
needs to be interpreted in the light of his advice that by understanding those
pressures we will help them. In other words, success in the classroom according to

this Head will depend upon how involved the teacher is prepared to become with his
students.
Several of the other members of staff are also portrayed in simplistic terms by
the film: Art teacher Vivienne Clintridge gives Thackeray some early advice, stating
that because there is no corporal punishment at the school they (the students) have us
at a great disadvantage. She comments that while the staff basically agree with the
Old Man; he is safe in his office.
Dont take any nonsense form these little tykes. [] If you dont solve them,
theyll break you and damned quickly.
Another male teacher, Weston, comments later that: What they (the students) need is
a bloody good hiding. By contrast, the book describes how teacher Mrs Dale-Evans
achieves near perfection without recourse to beatings in her classes, (p.26) as well
as the immediate hush in assembly as the Head rises to speak(p.27), and the
attentive manner in which the assembly listened to selected music played for them.
This seems to attest to quite a respectful and orderly atmosphere in the school on the
whole.
As in other films of this genre (Gale & Densmore, 2000), social and economic
advancement are presented as a matter of choice, determination and hard work, and
not as determined by structural arrangements in society designed to ensure that
groups of individuals have differential access to social and material goods on the basis
of their social and physical differences (Gale & Densmore, 2000). This is despite
Thackerays lack of success in securing a proper job. In fact the film downplays the
actual reasons for Thackerays long-term unemployment, which are analysed critically
in Braithwaites book as being the result of racism. Having grown up British in every
way, Braithwaite had believed in the ideal of the British Way of Life (p.40/41).
The treatment he received at a number of interviews for promising positions, initially
offered in flowering letters, prompted him to re-assess his liberal view of British
society:
I am a Negro, and what had happened to me at that interview constituted, to
my mind, a betrayal of faith. I had believed in freedom, in the freedom to live
in the kind of dwelling I wanted, provided I was able and willing to pay the
price; and in the freedom to work at the kind of profession for which I was
qualified, without reference to my racial or religious origins. All the big talk
of Democracy and Human Rights seemed as spurious as the glib guarantees

with which some manufactures underwrite their products in the confident hope
that they will never be challenged. (p.43)
Braithwaite, as a well- educated middle-class Black man who not only has a
university education but also has been an officer in the RAF, has to come to terms
with the failure of meritocracy in his life. The persona of Thackeray, on the other
hand, is designed to give credibility to the idea. Thackeray, cast as poor boy makes
good, reveals in conversation with his students that he used to be very very poor but
that there was something in [him] wanting an education. He describes his previous
menial jobs commenting that becoming posh (as one student puts it) wasnt easy.
Caricaturing his native accent, Thackeray continues
When I was your age, I used a patois, a kind of simple English (provides
example). The point is: if youre prepared to work hard you can do almost
anything. You can get any job you want. You can even change your speech if
you want to.
This binary contrast (poor, uneducated boy from marginalised social group vs.
posh school teacher) is a repeated theme of the film and articulated throughout by
Thackerays students in examples such as: I dont understand you sir, I mean youre a
toffand you aint or Blimeywell, youre like us but youre not.
The films emphasises giftedness not only by glossing over Braithwaites
struggles as a Black man in a racist environment, it also presents the challenges at
North Quay as greater and the current teaching staff as less able than was actually the
case. In comparison to long-time and trained staff, Thackeray is presented as more
innovative (as compared to the Head, who comments at one stage: The adult
approach has failed it seems.), fairer (compared to Weston who relies on coercive
behaviour management), more resilient (as compared to Hackman, Thackerays
predecessor), more courageous (as compared to Gillian Blanchet who confesses to
being scared of the pupils), and finally more successful than his colleagues. This is
not due to his extensive experience or superior training and skill, but simply to his
talent.
Having put all his energies into getting an education, Thackeray begins
teaching at North Quay Secondary. He finds his senior class rude, defiant and

disinterested. Despite his best attempts to communicate with the class, the students
leave him in no doubt that they want none of what he can offer.

Thackerays Pedagogy
According to Education Queenslands Professional Standards for Teachers,
teaching and learning should be student centred (Introduction, 2002). While
Thackerays pedagogy seems to become student centred at a surface level, his actions
both initially and later are actually aimed at solving the problems he is experiencing
with his class, rather than those his students are experiencing. The very first lesson, in
which Thackeray attempts to assess his students proficiency in reading and arithmetic
with widely varying results, ends in a bout of sarcasm (It is encouraging that you
have a sense of humour: it seems you know so little and are so easily amused that I
can look forward to a very happy time.) and a resigned instruction to now copy
down the following tables. This is clearly anything but a flexible and innovative
learning experience as required by EQ (para.1). The instruction is however followed
willingly by the students, who show a preference to being left alone, rather than
intellectually challenged.
In his second lesson, Thackeray attempts to link arithmetic with what he
presumes is real life for these students: Now most of you girls help your mothers
with the shopping This obvious exclusion of the male members of the class (and
one of numerous instances of sexist scripting) did not have an engaging effect on the
girls either. While the subject matter may connect to the world beyond the school
EQ para.4), the strategy is far from inclusive (EQ para.5.2). As a result perhaps, he is
interrupted with a variety of purposeful attempts to disrupt, mainly from the male
members of the class: from slamming doors to unsteady desks and the accompanying
commentary. Again, the lesson ends in: Do exercises 4,5, and 6. very quietly,
and again the students comply. Over the following days, as Thackeray persists with
these methods, the pupils raise the stakes as their misbehaviour increases to include
sawing a leg off his desk, water bombing him on arrival and deliberately swearing in
response to questions. The script seems designed to paint an initial picture of
Thackeray as a traditional chalk- and -talk- teacher, failing with challenging but
intelligent students.

As the film script is painting the students as out of control, devils (script)
and punks (video sleeve), the teachers as surviving, but ineffectual, and the Head
(Florian) as well-meaning but slightly directionless and safe in his office, the scene
is set for the hero-teacher (Thackeray) to discover the magic bullet: It is Day six for
Thackeray, and it begins with a water bomb dropped from a high window into the
courtyard, destined for, but narrowly missing him on arrival. On his way to the
classroom he encounters Mr Florian who asks a none- too- inquisitive How goes it?
and moves quickly on. As Thackeray opens his door, he is greeted with an
overwhelming stench resulting from a used sanitary napkin, which one of the students
has tried to incinerate on the hearth.
For the first time in the film, the quiet acoustic allusions to Lulus hit song
To Sir, with Love change to dramatic orchestral music punctuated by insistent
percussion. Taking one look at the offending object, Thackeray tears around and
shouts at the congregated boys: Out! He lends further emphasis to his instruction
by physically and quickly moving towards Denham who is brash enough to ask
Whats the matter Mr Thackeray?. This is the first of a number of instances in the
film in which Thackeray uses physical movement, voice and proximity to control his
students. Further examples include slamming a desk lid so that it only narrowly and
by good fortune misses the hands of Denham, adopting a black stick-like object as a
daily prop, continually slapping it into his hands, as well as repeatedly physically
taking sunglasses off a particular students face. The above behaviour does not create
a safe and supportive learning environment (EQ para.9). In fact it is an important
reason why Thackerays answer, (i.e. treating his students like adults), does not work
for him the way it did for Braithwaite, whose commitment to mutual respect was
more than cosmetic and extended to implementing classroom management strategies
which enable [d] students to take responsibility for their [own] behaviour. (EQ
para.9.3) The BTRs document further points out the importance of the need for
teacher-student relationships to have an ethical character (Board of
TeacherRegistration, 2002), which implies the lack of coercive control.
In the first of the above instances, Denham correctly interprets Thackerays
closing- in as a threat and the boys leave the classroom in a hurry. Now the teacher
lets go of a tirade of abuse directed at the girls of the class, most of which has very
little to do with the incident at hand:

I am sick of your foul language, your crude behaviour and sluttish manner
(drum roll). There are certain things a decent woman keeps private. Only a
filthy slut would have done this. And those who stood around and allowed it
are just as bad. I dont care whos responsible, you are all to blame.
When I return I expect the room to be aired and this filthy object to have been
removed. If you must play these filthy games, do them in your homes and not
in my classroom. (glares music swells exits with a door slam).
Thackeray retreats to the staffroom again leaving his class unsupervised, and (to
quieter music) confides in colleague Gillian Blanchet that he has lost his temper:
Those kids are devils incarnate, Ive tried everything(drum roll and silence)
Thackeray suddenly realises he has been thinking of his students as kids. He repeats
the word several times, each time accompanied by another drum roll. The films
script, (more than a little influenced by 1960s social revolution themes), has arrived
at its simplistic conclusion it seems: The problem with schools these days is that they
treat young adults like kids. Afford them the respect they are due and everything else
will work out eventually. As the music changes again to a relaxed backbeat, and Miss
Blanchet looks at him in puzzled confusion, Thackeray moves back into his
classroom. He has found the answer. According to the video sleeve, he meets the
challenge by treating the students as young adults who will soon enter a world where
they must stand or fall on their own. In fact, his aim is to normalize (Gale &
Densmore, 2000)them by setting and requiring certain adult standards, the
legitimacy of which is not questioned in the film, despite its superficial overtures to
social revolution.
Back in his classroom Thackerays first action is to collect a, presumably
representative, stack of textbooks from his desk and drop them demonstratively into
the waste paper basket. The background music stops as the books hit with a thud. He
announces to the students that: Those are out. Those are useless to you. You are not
children. You will be treated as adults from now on. Thackeray is perhaps trying to
align the class cultural habits of his students to the demands of the education
system, which is, according to Bourdieu and Passeron (1979:22, cited in Mills, 2004)
the root of scholastic success. In doing so, I feel that he is sending a number of
unhelpful messages to the class. Firstly, he seems to assume that adults do not need
books, that learning is just for kids. This attitude is unlikely to inspire a
commitment to lifelong learning, a commitment to which is seen as a desirable
outcome for students in EQs Standards Document (Introduction). Secondly, while

seemingly emancipating his students from a prescribed curriculum, it is still the

teacher here who decides what is appropriate and what is not.
When the students ask what we will talk about, Thackeray lists Love, life,
survival, death, sex, rebellion, giving a clear direction to the discussion, and then
adding: anything you want. Anything a student wants, it seems as long as it is not
found in a book. Given the fact that at least one student in his class (Pamela Dare) was
seen earlier in the film to enjoy both poetry and prose reading, I believe that far from
emancipating the students, Thackerays approach to curriculum is stereotyping them.
Earlier in the film, Thackeray had remarked to his colleagues that he felt
sorry for his class as most of them can barely read. There is nothing in his
pedagogy that suggests he is aware of the importance of literacy for a person who is
interested in a number of the above topics, particularly (economic) survival and
(social) rebellion. Both the BTR (standard 2) and EQ (para 2) recognise the important
place literacies-strategies should occupy in a teachers pedagogy.
Centring around a simplistic notion of survival, the curriculum now includes
make-up lessons for the girls (to be provided by Miss Blanchet), presumably
because, according to Thackeray, the competition for men on the outside is rough,
and salad preparation, despite the fact that a relevant form of Domestic Science is
already available at the school. While these inclusions may have been attempts to
construct relevant learning experiences that connect with the world beyond the
school, as required by Education Queenslands Professional Standards for Teachers,
they do in fact not build on students prior knowledge, so much as replicate them. It is
ridiculous to assume that students growing up in the colourful multi-cultural, multiethnic bustle that is Londons East End would not have ample opportunity to learn
about make-up and cooking through real-life example.
By contrast, the above watershed incident formed E.R. Braithwaites resolve
to take firm action to set [his] class in order, even at the risk of contravening the
Heads views (p.72). For Braithwaite, this is the place where he first really commits
to his job, where his attitude changes from this will not be a labour of love (p.32) to
his owning the classroom as his. He also appeals to his students as young adults, but
links this with the statement that as such certain higher standards are expected of us.
(p.72) To elicit the kind of courtesy he would like to see in his classroom, Braithwaite

challenges his students by setting a strong example and providing intellectual

challenge (as recommended in EQ para.3/ BTR standard 3):
Iapplied myself enthusiastically to each subject, blending informality with a
correctness of expression, which I hoped would in turn help them to improve
their own speech. I never spoke down to them; if they did not quite
understand every word I used, the meaning was sufficiently clear in context
and I encouraged them to ask for an explanation any time they felt unsure.
(p.76)
He seemed to realise that literacy for his senior class needed to be not only knowing
about language but also knowing through language.(Lankshear, 1997)
Braithwaite encourages their self-esteem (EQ para.8) by focusing on what
they can do (I believe you have it in you to be a fine class, the best this school has
ever known! p.76), rather than on what they are lacking as Thackeray does on the
film. Attempting to motivate the girls to improve their deportment, he insults them:
No man likes a slut for long and only the worst type will marry one. while the boys
do not fare much better: Ive seen garbage collectors who are cleaner.
Braithwaites approach to curriculum and pedagogy is more balanced. He does
not prescribe, nor does he simply let the students chose what they want to do. As
Carmen Mills has observed (2004),
often, students and community members are not in possession of the
cultural capital of the dominant and therefore do not know the kind of
knowledges that are needed to succeed in broader society.
Having had extensive experience as a member of a marginalised gorup in broader
society, Braithwaite uses the narrative of his life to engage students interest and
open possibilities of thought for them. These learning experiences connect to the
world beyond school (EQ para.4), in a significant and important way, rather than on
the superficial and rather primary level of going shopping. Moira Joseph testifies to
this cross-curricular and carefully integrated approach during the half-yearly Students
Council report, saying that their lessons had all had a particular bias towards the
brotherhood of Mankind, and that they had been learning through each subject how all
mankind was interdependent in spite of geographical location and differences in
colour, race and creeds. Braithwaite was thus able to integrate ideas and concepts
across curriculum areas.

Rather than do away with books and narrowing the curriculum, he extends it,
using the interest an old skeleton receives as an opportunity to introduce physiology
for example. Textbooks continued to be part of Braithwaites pedagogy, but they were
now subjected to critical readings:
Our lessons were very informal, each one a kind of discussion in which I gave
them a lead and encouraged them to express their views against the general
background of textbook information (p.99)
In discussion, he both encouraged his students to support their arguments with
quotations from these school textbooks, as well as to question and perhaps disagree
with what they had read (p.101), in doing so he fulfils the BTRs standard 3.4:
promoting higher-order thinking and critical enquiry.
Far from ignoring the cultural capital of the dominant, perhaps bourgeois
England beyond the East End, he opened cognitive and literal doors for his students,
taking them not only to the Victoria and Albert Museum (an event also depicted in the
film), but also to Saddlers Wells to see the ballet, the theatre to see Hamlet and
Wembley stadium to see the Harlem Globetrotters. The outings were organised and
financed by the students themselves, having worked out the cost and ways to spread
the collection of monies to disadvantage no one (a good example perhaps of an
inclusive and participatory learning experience, EQs paragraph 5). Braithwaite
writes that:
On the way back, they [the students] would give full rein to their critical
intelligence, and often presented new and interesting points of view on old and
familiar things. They were quick to appreciate and recognise the various art
forms as part of their national heritage, equally available to themselves as to
all others. (p.125)
Dismissing this cultural capital and teaching only that which is considered
appropriate to non-dominant groups has been described as a form of domination
(Mills, 2004). While a student like Denham may not need more than a basic ability to
read in the course of his job as a barrow man, he will nevertheless be much better
prepared to fulfil the duty to change the world which film teacher Thackeray lays
on his students, if he becomes as literate as possible.
Cultural critic Richard Hoggart once wrote in a Guardian Education article
(2nd December 1997)
The founding principal of critical literacymust be to develop understanding
of the nature of democracy itself, of the duties it lays on us and the rights we
may the claim; the two are inseparable. (cited in Meighan, 1999)
10

The shallow and blatant sentimentality of Thackerays exhortation to his students is

clearly apparent when it is help up against a standard such as this. Far from making
social justice issues central and helping students learn about the histories of the
oppressed (Gale & Densmore, 2000), Thackeray cites The Beatles as a good role
model for social activism: They started a huge social revolution: The dress and
hairstyles they introduced are now accepted all over the world!
Thackeray betrays his own lack of trust in his teaching methods (or the screen
writers lack of ability to appreciate that good teaching should produce students who
have acquired the skills and knowledge that enable them to participate in community
and social decision making as well as the motivation to use them) by offering
Denham a job as a boxing instructor at North Quay. He bases this offer on natural
talent (for boxing not for teaching, in this instance) rather than on his faith that
Denham has learnt enough in class, to engage with and hold his own in the society to
which he belongs. You have talent., he notes after defeating Denham in a boxing
challenge during Physical Education with a punch to the solar plexus.
Denham, who is not sure he is ready to give up on his dream of having his
own business, hesitates, and Thackeray leaves him with Good luck with your
barrowDenham., his voice dripping with derision.
The discourse of innate talent is also played out with regard to Thackerays
teaching ability. He is presented as an extraordinary teacher, yet has no previous
experience or formal training as a teacher. The position, in which Thackeray is
placed, particularly towards the end of the film, is almost Messianic. He has no reason
to stay after his class graduates. A new engineering job, far away from East London,
is beckoning: he has even been sent the fare to go. During the scenes of the
graduation celebration however, his colleagues appeal to him to stay. Even Weston,
who had originally objected to Thackerays introduction of suburban formalities into
his classroom, now appears in much improved dress, appearing to have been won
over to Sirs standards. Youve done wonders, he exclaims. I wish I had your
gift. Miss Clintridge (who is the Deputy Head in the film school), also exhorts: If
you must leave Mark.go to another school. You cant waste a marvellous talent on
rotten electronics.
In summary, the film school is dominated by discourses of meritocracy, innate
talent, and individualism (as opposed to interdependency). The teachers habitus is
depicted as a shining example of individualist philosophy: by his own hard work and
11

determination, he gained an education, a changed accent, and a position as teacher.

Having an innate talent for teaching, he is presented as having solved them (to use
Vivienne Clintridges term), and blazed a trail, which others (such as Weston in the
final scenes) will be able to follow.
Professional Standards for Graduates
Thackerays pedagogy does not compare well to the Standards for Graduates
published by the BTR. Given that times were new in the 1960s in different but
similar ways in which they are new presently, Thackeray makes only superficial
allusions to social revolution, while his pedagogy and curriculum choices betray his
belief that his students will need to reactively survive, rather than learn how to
proactively change their world. His emphasis on individualism precludes any in-depth
treatment of issues of citizenship or diversity of cultures.
An example of the effect of individualism here is the way his class responds to
the death of the White mother of a student of mixed race. When earlier this student
expressed to Thackeray, his anger towards his father for having married his mother
and this having caused her to be discriminated against, the scene is left unresolved.
When the mother dies, no one in the class wants to attend the funeral for fear of what
people might say. Thackeray himself feels he needs to take flowers and when he
arrives at the house, he finds his class, assembled to the last person, is already there.
What had changed the students minds? The film leads us to believe that they did it
for Sir, rather than because they understood more about the injustice of racism than
they did previously.
Thackeray, as an untrained and inexperienced teacher, does not possess any
deep understanding of teaching and learning and as such does not pass the BTRs first
standard. While Thackeray displays a fairly high level of proficiency of oral language
(and we assume written language and numeracy), he does not display an
understanding of theories of language pedagogy, thus not passing standard 2.
The learning opportunities created in Thackerays classroom only superficially engage
all learners. Denham for one is only engaged after he is beaten up in the gym.
Thackerays script is often sexist and non-inclusive as well as prescriptive and
dumbed-down in an attempt to be relevant (as for example basic salad
preparation). He does not exhibit the skills to create supportive and intellectually
challenging environments to engage all learners (standard 3). The film provides a
12

range of examples where Thackeray relationships are not characterised by ethical

professional practice, while Pamela Dares crush in her teacher (to which he does
react responsibly and ethically), acts almost like a smoke screen. Unethical behaviour
includes including striking Denham, insulting students and using his physical
characteristics to coerce compliance.
Professional Standards for Teachers
To reach the above standards, teachers should employ student centred approaches to
teaching and assessment. Thackerays approach is mostly self-centred. There is little if
any evidence of students directed, or collaborative learning in his classroom, as
indeed there can not be if the teacher is to be exalted as the storys hero.
While there is some evidence of informal assessment of literacy and numeracy skills,
no planning based on official policy, accumulated data or feedback is in evidence. If
thought had been given to students with special learning needs, perhaps an accident,
which was sustained by student Buckley when vaulting during Physical Education,
might have been prevented. While it is the subject teachers responsibility to make this
adjustment, it also would have impinged on Thackerays pastoral care duty to be
cognoscent of the need and assure himself it was provided for (paras.1 & 7)
As discussed above, Thackeray failed to contribute significantly to the
language, literacy and numeracy development of his students (para. 2). His choice of
curriculum, shallow approach to discussion and failure to critically analyse significant
issues means that he was unable to construct intellectually challenging learning
experiences for his students (para. 3), and that the students learning was not as
relevant and valuable in terms of adding cultural capital as it could have bee if it had
connected more significantly with the world beyond the school (para.4).
Thackerays language was often non-inclusive and sometimes sexist. Rather
than celebrate difference, using the multi-culturalism of his classroom as a stimulus
for critical discussion about social justice issues, he de-emphasised the issue, citing
personal effort as being of supreme importance for advancement. In this way learning
experiences were not inclusive and participatory (para. 5).
Thackerays pastoral care was hampered by his belief that he knew
exactly what his students needed. Measuring every incident by his perception of what
life would be like for them on the outside, he is only able to give conflicting advice:
The teacher who lets himself get carried away to the point of punching his student (as
13

during the boxing match), tells student Potter (who almost attacked another teacher
with a piece of wood): in a few weeks you are going to be out there. Are you
going to use a weapon every time somebody makes you angry? You are supposed to
be learning self-discipline here! and then follows this reprimand a few days later
with: I believe one should fight for what one believes, provided one is absolutely
sure one is absolutely right. The notion of absolutely right here also clashes with
Thackerays appeal to a situational right when he answers Denhams challenges:
You was wrong about Potts From his point of view, at his age, I was. The
girls was right about the gossip n all. Yes, from their point of view.
If there are a number of points of view (versions of right), which is the point
Denham is supposed to learn here, how can there be an absolutely right cause to hit
someone? Thackeray does not effectively support the social development and
participation of young people (para.8).
Creating a safe and supportive learning environment (para.9), is however
one standard which Thackeray achieves to some degree. He also seems to be prepared
to establish relationships with the wider community (para.10), although not to the
degree that Braithwaite did in the book.
Head Alex Florian is described in the book as consider[ing] himself merely
one of a team; he was spokesman and official representative of the team, but sought
no personal aggrandisement because of that. (p.13), with an example like that
contributing to professional teams (para.11) and committing to professional
practice perhaps by participation in school governance, should have been easily
achievable goals. They were at Greenslade it seems, but were given no consideration
in the film school North Quay. The absence of the themes of collaborative and
reflective practice, being hallmarks of professional behaviour, may lie in the films
conception of teaching as based on talent rather than skill, and its intention to
glorify a popular conception of what it means to be a good teacher:
one who can control the classroom, balancing affection with respect while
getting a lot of work out of students is a self-made person, a unique
individual with a style all his or her own rather than a professional who has
assimilated a technical culture built up and codified by those who have gone
before.(Huberman, Thompson, & Weiland, 1997)

14

In my opinion Mark Thackeray could learn a lot from E.R. Braithwaite, the
teacher whose account provided the inspiration for the film. While Braithwaites story
is still that of an untrained teacher encountering challenging East London students, its
themes are personal and communal growth rather than individual conquest.
While Gale and Densmore feel that an academic educational approach is often aligned
with didactic pedagogies (2000):78), this is not illustrated here. Thackeray, who
certainly used the more didactic pedagogies and is often seen lecturing, is also the
one watering down the curriculum to the point of declaring that textbooks are of no
use to his students. If an academic emphasis in the curriculum is integrated with
teaching on citizenship and social justice, this type of curriculum does not have to be
aimed solely at the individuals personal benefit (op.cit.:82), but might open doors of
understanding and access to academic discourse to people who would otherwise be
powerless to participate in these (Graff, 2000).
Rather than viewing school as a preparation for outside, Thackeray could
have allowed the possibility that some of his students might like to further their
education, now or at a later date. If Titchs desire to attend night school while working
as a bell boy in a London Hotel is to bear fruit for him, he would have benefited more
from the intellectually challenging curriculum provided by Braithwaite.
Rather than more or less deciding by himself what his students needed to
learn, Thackeray could have worked harder at giving each of them a voice. He seemed
to expect that his whole class was destined for the same future (namely survival out
there), rather than allow for their individual aspirations. As has been noted by
(Lingard, Hayes, Mills, & Christie, 2003): in schools servicing disadvantaged
communities, low expectations and aspirations for student achievements are often
endemic features of school cultures.
In a situation such as that of North Quay Secondary, I feel that not to make
dominant knowledges easily available to these students from a minority social group
constitutes their sacrifice on the altar of ideology:
One of the historic problems of many progressive curriculum ideas (and one
reason why they have often lacked support in non-privileged communities) is
that they appear to de-emphasize the kind of official knowledge and skills that
young people need to negotiate their way past the gatekeepers of socioeconomic access. (Delpit, 1988)

15

As Beane& Apple (1999) have pointed out: our task is to reconstruct dominant
knowledge and employ it to help, not hinder, those who are least privileged in this
society.(p.19) Teachers can make a difference to socially disadvantaged students by
making explicit the rules and workings of the dominant culture by examples,
illustrations and narratives, in the way Braithwaite did, as well as by facilitating the
acquisition of school knowledge (Delpit, 1997). According to Bernstein (1990) the
use of such pedagogies weakens the relationship between social class and academic
achievement
Thackerays vocational view of education, emphasising habits of regularity,
self-discipline, obedience (Williams 1961:162, cited in Gale & Densmore, 2000) and
outward conformity to socially acceptable standards, rather than the acquisition of
school knowledge. Viewing schooling simply as preparation for work creates one
major problem however: the connection between education, work and earnings are
neither as direct nor as certain as assumed(Gale & Densmore, 2000). While this
argument has been used to discredit a purely academic curriculum, in a future that will
increasingly feature contract work, and portfolio careers, Andy Hargreaves sees the
danger of
work environments and social structures that are elitist and divisive with
autonomy, discretion and more meaningful work being reserved for small
elites while the remaining workforce is relegated to work that is low-grade,
part-time, temporary, unpensioned and assigned in erratic ways. (Hargreaves,
1994)
The elites here will be people who have what has often been called an
education, or put another way, enough knowledge of the interrelationships of issues,
knowledges and social patterns operational in our global society and enough practice
in how to think about, inter-relate and draw conclusions from and about these
knowledges and issues. Part of this education, this ability to discern and understand
the relevance of patterns, will have to be a historical perspective, a philosophical
perspective and a cultural perspective. This necessitates the critical study of history,
literature, sociology, economics, and philosophies.
The BTR Standards document recognises an emphasis on human and social
capital as a feature of New Times, and charges teachers with providing a foundation
for life in these new, complexenvironments. (p.3). As such, teachers should be
aware of the trend that

16

The needs of business and industry are suddenly the pre-eminent goals of our
education system. Education in morality and ethics is reduced to a litany of
behaviour traits. (Beane & Apple, 1999)
and strive to counteract this by balancing the trend towards vocational education with
aspects of an academic curriculum. To quote Gale and Densmore again:
narrow thinking about what [our] economy requires or myopic job preparation
has the tendency to stifle creative personal growth and socio-economic
change. (2000:84).
Thackerays curriculum and pedagogy, should have given students the opportunity to
think beyond themselves and their own situation. He could have made use of his
experiences as a member of a marginalized group in using them as discussion and
investigation starters, leading his students to draw larger scale conclusions about the
inter-dependency of human beings, to challenge the familiar and embrace the
foreign, that is, to develop respect for the other(Gale & Densmore, 2000).
This type of education is not about skills and competencies or economic survival
so much as it is about a critical understanding of the world we live in, and the ability
to use that understanding to affect this world in a meaningful way. Socially just
education is one that opens doors into the halls of power. Socially just education does
not try to prepare or shape students for the world as much as it aims to equip
students to shape the world for themselves.

References

17

Beane, J. A., & Apple, M. W. (1999). The case for democratic schools. In M. W.
Apple & J. A. Beane (Eds.), Democratic schools: Lessons from the chalk face.
Buckingham: Open University Press.
Bernstein, B. (1990). The structuring of pedagogic discourse. London: Routledge.
Braithwaite, E. R. (1959). To Sir, WITH LOVE. London: The Bodley Head.
Clavell, J. (1966). To Sir, with Love (J. Clavell, Director). In J. Clavell (Producer).
London: Columbia Pictures International.
Delpit, L. (1988). The silenced dialogue: Power and pedagogy in educating other
people's children. Harvard Educational Review, 58, 280-298.
Delpit, L. (1997). The silenced dialogue: Power and pedagogy in educating other
people's Children. In A. Halsey & H. Lauder & P. Brown & A. S. Wells (Eds.),
Education: Culture, Economy and Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gale, T., & Densmore, K. (2000). Just Schooling: explorations in the cultural politics
of teaching. Buckingham & Philadelphia: Open University Press.
Graff, G. (2000). Clueless in academe: How schooling obscures the life of the mind.
New York: New York University Press.
Hargreaves, A. (1994). Chapter 4: Postmodern paradoxes: The context of change,
Changing teachers, changing times: Teachers' work and culture in the
postmodern age. (pp. 47-92). London: Cassell.
Huberman, M., Thompson, C. L., & Weiland, S. (1997). Paradigmatic Accounts of
Teaching Careers. In M. Huberman & C. L. Thompson & S. Weiland (Eds.),
International Handbook of Teachers and Teaching (pp. 64-77). Dordrecht:
Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Lankshear, C. (1997). Changing Literacies (Vol. Open University Press).
Buckingham.
Lingard, B., Hayes, D., Mills, M., & Christie, P. (2003). Leading learning: Making
hope practical in schools. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Meighan, R. (1999). The writing 's on the wall. Natural Parent, Sept/Oct.
Mills, C. (2004). Teachers as Agents of Transformation: Socially Just Curricula for
Studetns with Cultural Capital in the 'wrong' Currency. submitted to 'Teachers
and Teaching'.
Queensland, E. (2002). Professional Standards for Teachers.
Registration, B. o. T. (2002). Professional Standards for Graduates.

18