Firstly the character Cary is shown regularly wearing ragged clothes, so basically Cary is giving a bad appearance about himself and therefore giving a bad appearance to the school by showing parents and visitors (who pay the school fees and inspect the school) that the school’s role models are teaching students to dress scruffily.
Secondly the character Cary is shown to be regularly “drinking” alcohol at the pub called “The Green Man” gives a bad impression, not only to the parents and the colleagues, but also to the locals, who live near Chantrey School that teachers at Chantrey School do not do their job properly, and just drink all the time. This also shows to locals, who also know the head very well that Chantrey School does not provide good role models and therefore the students will also “follow their teacher’s footsteps”. This will also create questions in the local’s minds, such as, “What do those boys at Chantrey School learn?”
- Thirdly, the character Cary is also very rude and impatient because at “The Green Man” Cary shouts out very loud and impatiently shouting “Fred” who is the barmen of “The Green Man”. Cary is very impatient and does not even use any “alerts” like coughing or saying, “uh-hum” to get the barman’s attention. Cary continuously shouts “Fred” giving an impression to the audience that Cary is a “heavy – drinker” and is very impatient.
Scene 3 is the longest and possibly the most important scene in the story. In scene 3, John meets his class Lower 5B for the first time. John Ebony wants to make a good impression to the head, so he tries to adapt to the traditional method of teaching by becoming more authoritarian. A battle between the teacher John Ebony and the students of Lower 5B ensues and the students use different tactics to outwit John. When John gives the students detention, the students reveal a secret, that the students had killed their former teacher Mr Pelham, because he had also punished the students by giving the students detention. At first John is not quite sure that this is true but there is a tiny bit of doubt in John that the students may have killed their former teacher. This threatens John because he is also giving a punishment similar to what they had received before from their dead teacher and now John could end up the same if he gives the students detention. The students show that they have literally gotten away with murder and because they have alibis and they know how the head runs the school. The head is more concerned on appearance than reality and he wants the school to look good and maintain its reputation.
This is the theme of appearance versus reality and is a dramatic device. The head is fighting for appearance whereas Cary is fighting for reality but “only behind the head’s back”. Cary does not talk about the reality of the school but the appearance of the school in front of the head, because the head has a higher status and might sack him if he does not follow the head’s system. Everyone follows the head’s system when the head is around, but when the head is away, then the truth of the school comes to life. An example of this is in scene 1 when the head introduces Cary to John, and Cary talks very professionally and respectfully in front of the head when the head asks “Then I wonder if you’d mind showing Mr Ebony his form-room at the end of the period.” Cary gracefully replies to this by replying “A pleasure.” However, when the head leaves John and Cary, the “real” conversation takes place.
There are not just ranks between the staff and the students. There are different ranks within the staff and the students along with the difference between the staff and the students. The hierarchy of the school staff is: -
- The head has the highest rank and talks to people with lower statuses as children, even the other members of the staff. The head addresses people with lower statuses by their last name. An example of this is at the beginning of the story in scene 1 when the head says, “An old foundation, of course, but I think you’ll find Chantrey very much up-to-date, Ebony…” The head addresses a teacher, who has a lower rank than him, by his last name “Ebony”.
- The heads of departments have a lower rank than the head, but a higher rank than the regular teachers. An example of a head of department is Winstanley, the head of the mathematics department and talks very professionally and does not have much respect for the teachers but a lot of respect for the head.
- The regular teachers have the lowest rank within the staff but they still have the respect from the students.
There are also ranks within the students. The hierarchy of the school students is: -
- The prefects have the highest rank because they have the most authority.
- The sports teams, for example, the cricket team have a lower rank, but are well respected by the students because they are like idols, except from the prefects who have the most authority and the most respect from the students.
- The bullies then have the highest rank after the sports teams, because the bullies are the students who are likely to be strong and physical which creates fear in the regular students.
- The regular students have a low rank but not as low as the bullied students.
- The bullied students like Wittering have the lowest rank because they are likely to be weaker and less physical than the regular students, which makes them an easy target for bullies.
The pattern shown here is that the more power or authority one has, then the more respect or a higher rank a person will get.
The writer criticises authoritarian teaching and uses the character John as an example. The writer shows John as a new, young, inexperienced, weak teacher but John is very keen to be accepted by the head. The writer shows how hard it is for John to take back his authority when the students of Lower 5B frequently interrupted him and threatened to kill him just like the students said they did to their former teacher Mr Pelham in the previous lesson. The writer shows what happens when John becomes more authoritarian. John tries to take back his authority by being more authoritarian, cooperating less with the students and not talking with the students about what had happened the previous lesson. An example of this is when the students are misbehaving and when the head walks into the classroom, the students pretend to be working and cooperating with the teacher. When talking about Mr Pelham’s death, Cuthban says “I mean to say, sir, we can prove it. There are at least two witnesses for every member of the form.” After this, the head enters room and then Cuthban pretends to be working by reading aloud from the history textbook in front of the class saying “The Battle of St. Albans, 1455, The Battle of Wakefield, 1461.”This is where the students pretend to be working in front of the head. Also, the head does not even bother to check in the students’ exercise books to see if and how much work the students have done. When talking Nevertheless, the students remind John of what they had talked about the previous lesson and show John evidence that they killed Mr Pelham by showing John, Mr Pelham’s wallet with a picture of his niece inside the wallet. The students take back the authority that was taken away from John to the students. The students are more experienced to the head’s way of running the school than John so the students can easily control John.
Furthermore, John is trying to impress the head by following his system of running the school. John shows that he is in full control and is a good teacher because he identifies and corrects Cuthban’s mistake in front of the head. This is John’s first job as a teacher and these are hard times for John because he is inexperienced has just settled in his new flat with his wife Nadia near Chantrey School. John corrects Cuthban by saying “Fourteen sixty, Cuthban.” The cooperation and respect has earned John and the students a good reputation.
In scene 3, John tries to take authority by becoming more authoritarian and using “warnings” to tell the students to not “mess about” with John. An example of this in scene 3 is when the students are messing about and John warns the students by saying “And I don’t want any more fooling about or there’ll be trouble.” John says this to Cuthban and what this really means is that Cuthban is taking away John’s authority and if he does not stop, then Cuthban will be punished. The students do not like to be “a pack of sheep” who all follow one person” and they would instead like to be individuals. The students want to do what they want to do in the lessons and in return they will behave for John and make sure John gets a good impression from the head. This is the modus vivendi, which is introduced by Cuthban in scene 8.
The writer also uses quotes from the history textbooks because the history textbook reflects on what happens in the classroom. The history textbook is about a lot of battles and the educational system of the 1950’s was based on the system of the army so this would be a dramatic device. A lot of battle metaphors from the history textbooks are used. An example of a battle metaphor used in the classroom is when Wittering struggles to read the word “Condescension.” John then explains the definition of the word “condescension” which involves the keyword “anarchy” which means “a state where law and order has broken down.” This reflects on what goes on in the classroom because the “state” in this case is the classroom and “law and order” in this case means John’s authority and rules and “broken down” simply means, “taken away”. “All the pieces of the puzzle” add up to John’s authority and rules have been taken away in the classroom. These battle metaphors are very clever dramatic devices by the writer.
When John tries to take full control to take back his authority, then the students make it look so easy of how easy it is to take away authority. The students use the death of their former teacher, Mr Pelham, as a threat to kill John if he does not cooperate with the students. The students also “work as a pack” so it is very hard for John to take back authority. John cannot identify the leader of the group so tackling a team is harder than tackling one leader. An example of this is when students talk about Mr Pelham’s death and how they murdered him. Cloistermouth starts off by saying “It’s not a good idea, sir.” This is when John is about to give the students detention and then John asks with curiosity “No. Cloistermouth? Tell me why not.” Cloistermouth then replies “Well, sir, Mr Pelham did it once.” After this, Cuthban “joins in” again by saying “The week before last, sir.” Cloistermouth then “comes in” again by saying emotionlessly, “And that was why we killed him.” The class work as “a pack” on most occasions because “it is harder to take out a pack than a single student.”
However, when the students threaten John by threatening to kill his wife if he refused to accept the modus vivendi, the students do not kill or harm Nadia. This is because the writer makes Nadia as a non-authoritarian, fair person. Nadia treats the students fairly and does not even question them about any suspicious items such as the knife. Nadia also offers the students cigarettes, which anybody else with that authority should not and would not offer them cigarettes. The point the writer is trying to show is that authoritarian teaching has motivated the students to abolish it by killing it for example, the killing of their former authoritarian teacher, Mr Pelham.
The theme of murder is also used and is a dramatic device. Murder is used, as a threat against John and this is a serious matter because the students have claimed that they murdered their former teacher, Mr Pelham by Cloistermouth expressionlessly saying “And that was why we killed him.” This makes John lose his authority and puts him under a lot of pressure, for example, accepting the modus vivendi.
Another dramatic device is “black humour”. “Black humour” is things that make the audience laugh at something not funny. Black humour is a reason why the students get away with murder. An example of “black humour” is in scene 3, when Bungabine is talking about how they hit their former teacher, Mr Pelham, with a stone. Bungabine says, “So we hit him on the head with a stone.” Orris makes a pitiless remark by saying, “K.O.” and Lipstrob also remarks unsympathetically by saying, “Gedoing.” As though it is funny. This makes the audience laugh at how someone had died which is not funny.
The head also believes that this is just black humour and the boys are just trying to tease John showing that John cannot control his class. John’s claim had just backfired at himself. This is when John is talking about Mr Pelham’s death with the head.
What’s more is that the students claim they each all have alibis with each person having two witnesses, therefore, the students seem the most innocent and have planned this out very carefully. It would be very hard for John to prove this to the authorities and the police. Not only do the students have alibis, the police would not think it would be very serious enough that “schoolboys” would kill or even be capable of killing their own teacher. The students all work as “a pack” when talking so when John says, “The police would find you out. They’d get you one by one and question you.” Terhew then gives a simple reply by saying “We’ve all got alibis, sir.” Cloistermouth, Cuthban, Lipstrob, Bungabine and Wittering all then tell John about the alibis of the students and what their alibis are. Cuthban then explains, saying, “I mean to say, sir, we can prove it. There are at least two witnesses for every member of the form.”
The head wants to show that the school is running smoothly. The head did not even carry out an investigation to see if the students of Lower 5B had really killed Mr Pelham or whether it really was an accident. The head sees this as a bad thing, as it would lose the staff, the parents’ fees, the students, the reputation of the school and finally the school being closed itself. If anyone asked about Mr Pelham’s death, then the head would quickly change the subject like in scene 1, when John asks the head, “Was he my predecessor?” and the head gives a sharp reply of “Er, yes.” Then the head changes subject by saying, “That brick building over there is the master’s block.” The head knew John was going to ask more about Mr Pelham, until he would ask about his death, so the head quickly changed subject so that John could not ask the question.
The head does not fully check the class when observing the class. The head does not check the student’s exercise books to see if the if and how much work the students have done. The class seem to be working but the students are actually being a nuisance to John when the head is not around. The students know about how the head runs the school and therefore show that everything is running smoothly.
A very important dramatic device used in this story is the modus vivendi. The modus vivendi is a Latin phrase meaning “A way of life” which was suggested by Cuthban. The students threaten John to accept to accept the modus vivendi in scenes 8 and 9, or else the students will kill John and Nadia. John’s inner monologue was very confusing for the character John. John is under a lot of pressure and has no option but to accept the modus vivendi. The modus vivendi involves betting, cheating exams for students and a lot of risks. The modus vivendi is also a threat because the students threaten to kill John and his wife Nadia if he does not accept the modus vivendi. The students attempted to kill Nadia, but eventually did not kill her due to her not being authoritarian. The modus vivendi is an agreement between the students and John. The modus vivendi has some advantages and some disadvantages of accepting but it’s the morale that will be wrong. The students will behave for John and give him “tips” for betting and he has to cheat exam results and go to the bookmakers, which is restricted for teachers. The students will also get a good reputation for John from the head because it will look like the students are working. Basically the students want “free lessons” in which they can do what they want and help the teacher at the same time.
In scene 8, John asks help from the head. John tells the head what the students had told him. The head does not help John so therefore; John has to take the class on his own. The head refuses to help John because he sees John as a threat that will destroy the reputation he has built up over the years. The head then has no option, but to sack John. The students are more experienced and know how the head operates the school and knew the head would not believe John.
The head does not care about how targets are met and only cares about the final result. The head does not check the work in exercise books. The head only cares if the students look like they are working.
John is also very ignorant because he does not help Wittering with bullying and instead accuses him of interrupting. An example of this is of the compass incident where John wrongly accuses Wittering of making interruptions when he is “jabbed with a compass”. This bullying results in Wittering’s death at the end of the story and is mentioned in the letter. John, will now feel the guilt of how he ignored Wittering to the extent that it lead to his death.
The writer Giles Cooper refers to Chantrey School as a criticism of the educational system of the 1950’s. The writer makes the other students act like sheep, however, the students in Lower 5B are individuals and think for themselves. All the other students in the other classes are not allowed to think for themselves. The schools of the 1950’s are training students for the army.
At the end of the play, the audience realise that the “morale” or the “lesson” of the story is that the writer Giles Cooper is trying to criticise authoritarianism. The audience also learn that the students who murdered their former teacher are in fact victims themselves because they have relied on the rule of authority in school, which has demanded blind obedience to the rule of law of teachers. This is also supported by Cary Farthingale as he also states, “Authority, my old Ebony, is a necessary evil, and every bit as evil as it is necessary.”
The unanswered question for the audience at the end of the story is that, “How can there be a balance in school between the need for pupils to think more independently and act more morally?
The relevance of the educational system of the 1950’s and the 21st century is that authority still exists but there is a lower level of authoritarian teaching. In the 21st century, more people use psychological means of discipline and less people use physical means f punishment. Although, the hidden curriculum and labelling still exists in the 21st century. There are stricter laws on physical punishment in the 21st century. However, authoritarian teaching still exists in the 21st century. Yet, nowadays, more people are known to mess about in schools than in the 1950’s according to exclusions and experience from an ex-student who was taught in the educational system of the 1950’s is now a teacher and says “more people nowadays mess-around. If it was us lot, then we would have got the cane up our backsides.”
Mohammed Ebrahim Badat 10L