To Sir, With Love
Movie Review by: Debbie Bryson-Blatchford, American University

The story is timeless. This film is an excellent reflection of the sixties but don't let that stand in the way of using it as an example of good teaching! What Thackery (Sidney Poitier) faces in his classroom crosses decades and could be taking place in any inner city school today. The “we” (students) versus “them” (teachers) scenario still wages on and “Sir” finds a way to break through the barrier to reach his kids.

Although the story takes place in a working class neighborhood of London, the school’s environment could be in any large city in the U.S. Due to the “class” system in Great Britain, we know that these kids will probably not have a chance for higher education or great careers. They’re “dead-enders” and the school’s administration treats them as such. This scenario is common to our side of the Atlantic as well—bad behavior not being addressed but tolerated instead.

From the film you get the sense that kids are being passed on through the system—graduated and sent to the docks—or whatever job their parents have held for generations. Whether due to lack of teacher involvement or the system just giving up on them, we know the cost to society is un-measurable in terms of the loss of bright people contributing to its benefit—and this is a universal problem.

The familiar battle between a teacher’s creative ideas versus the school administration’s rules is also ongoing here. Poitier wants to take his class on a field trip to a museum but his principal doesn’t believe the kids will be able to handle themselves on such an adventure. Thackery (Poitier) makes the statement, “…expect bad and you get bad…” He takes a chance on the kids (and they know it), and wins over the principal and faculty when the trip turns out to be a positive experience for all.

What I observed was a teacher evolving from a “traditional” approach of teaching to an adaptation of a looser style with good classroom management. Thackery begins teaching his class in a conventional way—he dictates and they listen. No hook, no connection with the kids, no expectations verbalized and he uses sarcasm for motivation. It doesn’t work—the kids still test him with their misbehavior.

Finally, reaching his breaking point after a crude incident in the classroom, he verbalizes his classroom management rules. He comes alive and takes control but not in an autocratic way. He grabs their attention by throwing textbooks into a trashcan. He communicates his rules and sets the decorum for the class, also explaining to them that he is setting himself up as a good example and holding them to the same standards. He circulates, allows himself proximity to his problem students and demonstrates “withitness.” He will now discuss what interests them—preparation for adulthood. He has hooked them—shown belief and respect—while teaching them how to become better adults. In other words, he has won them over and the “we” versus “them” battle is diminished.

Thackery’s formal style of teaching demonstrates the autocratic approach of holding center stage in a classroom, while all pairs of eyes are fixed on the speaker, which was quite common during my education years. Having entered the first grade in 1957 and graduating from high school in 1970, I feel at liberty here to speak as a professional when it comes to describing the “good ole days!”

Good teachers enable kids to learn, no matter what the year, however some of the styles and methods used back then were pretty rough. Intimidation, sarcasm and strong-handed discipline, (short of striking), would be acted out by even the most favorite of teachers. It wasn’t unfamiliar to have to grade other kids’ quizzes and call out the grades to the teacher as she read names off the roll (number one on my favorite dislikes list!) These characteristics reflected effective teachers of the time. They were teaching children that were expected to act the same—to fit into the norm, even after childhood. I can’t recall any of my elementary school teachers breaking with traditions and having “break-outs” for different activities or shoving desks around to change the learning environment. My teachers knew their subjects well, just as teachers today should know their subjects well. It’s the communication, the classroom management, the awareness of differences and intelligences, and tolerance for others that have blossomed from an earlier Draconian time—thank goodness!

There are some pros and cons to teaching at North Quay Secondary School in London. Yes, it would be a challenge to teach in a working class neighborhood school. The feeling of satisfaction I would receive from changing the pre-destined path of my working class students would be a “professional high.”

The school is also characterized by having small faculty and classes. It gave the impression of being a neighborhood school with students having grown up together. My feeling is this would be a strength since the school would be an important and active part of the community.

North Quay appears to be manageable, with regard to incorporating new methods and disciplines due to its size, which is a significant characteristic I would like. My influence with brainstorming and instigating creative ideas in teaching methods with these kids would be more affective because of the limited enrollment—and that would be a professional perk. A drawback would of course, be a principal who was not willing to go along with new ideas (like field trips) or accepted the fact that the children were hopelessly out of control. Constantly having to be a cheerleader for the whole faculty would be draining.

I hope that I would experience the same sense of satisfaction that Mr. Thackery felt, which moved him to give up a future in engineering. As one of the faculty members remarked to Poitier, “anyone can be an engineer but teaching this mob…”