Should Shakespeare be scrapped from the curriculum

Ooh, it might be an idea to precis Ms Reid's *entire* point, people are just going to get very immediately reactionary and huffy about the idea of removing Shakespeare from the curriculum when actually they might agree with her wider points if they knew what they were (I agree with her that Shakespeare should be the purview of drama teachers rather than English teachers, for instance).

If there's plans afoot to scrap Shakey from English, by that logic, Pythagorus should go from Maths and Einstein from Science.

You could propose it, but it would be futile. For in a few generations time exponentials won't be taught, heaven forbid children should be able to think and calculate for themselves.

Have you looked at some of the tripe on offer for GCSE that isn’t Shakespeare? It is as if no one had read, seen or heard of any play between the first half of the seventeenth century and yesterday. I’m ashamed of the syllabus, not just the drama but also the prose offerings. Second division literature, mainly because of length. I mean, heaven forfend that a teacher, let alone a kid should have to read a full length novel. And as for the poems, well, some of them are good but they group them in categories already prescribed as if a poet actually decided one day, hey, I’ll write a poem that will fit into the conflict section of the GCSE syllabus. I’ve taught Shakespeare to kids who at best would be defined as 'middling' admittedly a while ago when it was still ok to educate children. No problem. When we expect so little of our children, is it any wonder that that they find it difficult to analyse, recognise false arguments or understand complex texts? Ok, I’ll go back into my cave now.

My GCSE English play texts just over a decade ago included An Inspector Calls as well as the Scottish play (in fact the latter was only for coursework).

At A Level we did Tennessee Williams, Arthur Miller and Sophocles as well as Lear, and we also read Chaucer...

And that isn't even considering the literature side of things, which included Harper Lee, Dickens and Edith Wharton plus a wide variety of poets (with only one Shakespeare sonnet!). So all in all pretty balanced as far as I was concerned!

Can I come with you? I'll bring vittles.

I've taught Shakespeare to 10 year olds who are less than, to quote from lynette , 'middling' and we've had a blast, with a prize at the end of each day for the little person who manages to use the most Shakey expressions in context.

So whilst he may not be the be all and the end all and it may be all Greek to some people, the naked truth is that he is part of our history and I think he should stay around forever and a day.

(And seeing as brevity is the soul of wit I'll melt into thin air before someone gets in a pickle and sends me packing.)

Agree that Shakespeare and other playwright’s should be covered by the Drama depts so that they can be played rather than just read in an English classroom.Many jobs on offer for Drama teachers now come as English teacher required with some Drama and there are now only a small number of training courses for PGCE Drama including ours in Birmingham at BCU.

Interesting, because despite it being in London, the school I started at hadn't taken the kids to the theatre. Being all keen and naive, I jumped in and took 'em all over the place, fully funded by the local authority.

I was lucky enough to get a good English teacher who brought the standard texts like Romeo & Juliet and Great Expectations to life. The stories aren't dull, or they wouldn't have lasted. The difficult part is taking kids who have had it drilled into them that all this stuff is boring and changing their minds.

The best we got was watching the film which did little for me except make me fancy Leo a little bit more.

Definitely agree with you about the approach you take with the teaching aspect Steve. The “chalk and talk” approach in the classroom really did drain any enjoyment in the plays for me. I remember back in the early 1990s when I did my GCSE’s the BBC did a animated series of the Bard’s plays ( I think it was only about 6 or so) which really brought the plays to life and helped get a better understanding of the text. The approach for me needs to be engaging and relevant to the kids it’s being taught to. Yes the text is challenging, but that is part of the education process in the learning and development at school. 

I was luckily enough to have a few school trips down to the RSC in Stratford as well as a few regional productions. This was definitely the start of my love for the theatre. 

Certainly, how many of his lines are quoted by people in everyday life without them even realising it. In my opinionThe Bard needs to be part of curriculum, without him the literary world (and ultimately the theatre) would be a poorer place without him. 

The issue with how Shakespeare is taught - not the plays themselves.

A good English department can make the plays come to life for their students, can help demystify the texts and show how Shakespeare has shaped world drama for over 400 years.

It does help if your first introduction to Shakespeare is by exposure to one of the more accessible plays. I wouldn't start with Othello - which it is a great play, it requires a deeper understanding of human nature than most GCSE students can be expected to appreciate.

I can't remember whether the first play I studied was Shrew or Merchant. I do remember the first Shakespeare I saw - and that was the RSC production of Comedy of Errors where the twins had brightly coloured faces. That was followed by Much Ado with Jacobi/Cusack at the Barbican.

Exposure to great productions really does help - and I appreciate that not everyone has access to live theatre. But with NT Live, there are more opportunities of getting a feel of the live theatre experience.

Reading the plays out line by line is the worst way to teach them. You need to engage students in a more appropriate way.

I am so glad I did get a love of Shakespeare from a relatively early age. I still have yet to see Henry VIII, Timon of Athens and Two Noble Kinsmen - but am otherwise fairly well versed in his plays. I have also mounted a reading of all the Sonnets - hearing them all in one afternoon was quite an experience.

Of course he shouldn’t be scrapped. It’s like saying algebra should be scrapped, because we don’t use it in day to day life - yet actually, we use the principles taught constantly.

I hated Shakespeare in school and 6th form - I believe I studied Macbeth, Romeo & Juliet, Othello and Measure for Measure and not once did we get to see a performance of it to really understand it. It wasn’t until I saw staged productions in town that I learned to fully appreciate how genius his plays were - and how relevant they can remain.

Romeo & Juliet for example, is all about gang culture, knife crime, hormones and teenage suicide. How can anyone say that isn’t relevant in 2019? Just because the language isn’t easy to understand doesn’t mean there isn’t value in taking the time to find your way into the story. We do occasionally have to work for something you know.

I had conversations with a few school kids last week and I couldn’t believe what they were saying. They had dropped all foreign languages, history and geography and were doing GCSEs in hair, beauty and art. Art I’ve nothing against... but I was shocked to hear they get to do their hair and make up in class and are scored on it. One girl was telling me about how she couldn’t get the hang of contouring and all I could think about was how I struggled to remember my verbs and tenses for 2 foreign languages at GCSE (which was only 16 years ago).

So frankly no, Shakespeare shouldn’t be dropped. The analytical skills taught are completely different to those taught in other subjects and are essential and completely transferable. There is of course the argument then as to whether Shakespeare is the best one to reach these skills, but absolutely there is - in many ways Shakespeare is the backbone and starting point of everything that came after him in English language and literature... including the foundation of modern English (his folios I believe were instrumental in establishing spelling for the first modern national dictionary etc). So why shouldn’t we study him?