999 posts
|
Post by Backdrifter on Apr 26, 2019 18:15:24 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2019 18:20:13 GMT
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).
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2019 18:27:09 GMT
Whack old Bill in the drama department where the cool drama teacher can stage a production relevant to the locality/age/demographic of the kids. If possible take them out to see some good Shakespeare. And Bill's you're uncle he's taught in the best possible way.
Meanwhile scrap plodding through Merchant of Venice by reading aloud in English class, and shove a mix of contemporary dramatists in (and do that in Drama as well)
Excellent there's a nice little curriculum shake-up.
Chucking something out in its entirety hardly ever an answer (unless it's say, compulsory religion or Fascism in schools) otherwise shaking up things a bit...crack on.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2019 18:39:08 GMT
If there's plans afoot to scrap Shakey from English, by that logic, Pythagorus should go from Maths and Einstein from Science.
|
|
2,302 posts
|
Post by Tibidabo on Apr 26, 2019 18:39:53 GMT
how many state schools HAVE a drama department these days? Well, quite. Can we ask Proboards for a 'like to the power of 10' button please? (For the above Monkey post. ETA and the above @remark post.)
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2019 19:06:29 GMT
how many state schools HAVE a drama department these days? Well, quite. Can we ask Proboards for a 'like to the power of 10' button please? (For the above Monkey post. ETA and the above @remark post.) 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.
|
|
|
Post by learfan on Apr 26, 2019 21:17:23 GMT
Whack old Bill in the drama department where the cool drama teacher can stage a production relevant to the locality/age/demographic of the kids. If possible take them out to see some good Shakespeare. And Bill's you're uncle he's taught in the best possible way. Meanwhile scrap plodding through Merchant of Venice by reading aloud in English class, and shove a mix of contemporary dramatists in (and do that in Drama as well) Excellent there's a nice little curriculum shake-up. Chucking something out in its entirety hardly ever an answer (unless it's say, compulsory religion or Fascism in schools) otherwise shaking up things a bit...crack on. Drama department? Anyhow the English curriculum is more than balanced, my two both did it for GCSE and A level recently and the range seemed fine to me. Attention grabbing nonsense from whoever this person is.
|
|
5,593 posts
|
Post by lynette on Apr 26, 2019 22:39:39 GMT
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.
|
|
3,927 posts
|
Post by Dawnstar on Apr 26, 2019 22:42:42 GMT
I would hope that most theatregoers will have found some school-derived knowledge of Shakespeare useful to them in their theatregoing. Even if you don't see lots of Shakespeare per say there's so much based on him. I reckon I've seen considerably more opera/musical/ballet adaptations of Shakespeare than I have "pure" Shakespeare & some idea of the original is very useful. (Writing this on the train home from an evening spent seeing the Royal Ballet doing Romeo & Juliet.)
|
|
4,458 posts
|
Post by poster J on Apr 26, 2019 22:45:51 GMT
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!
|
|
1,179 posts
|
Post by joem on Apr 26, 2019 23:21:43 GMT
No.
|
|
2,302 posts
|
Post by Tibidabo on Apr 27, 2019 6:55:59 GMT
I’ll go back into my cave now. 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.)
|
|
5,593 posts
|
Post by lynette on Apr 27, 2019 11:34:07 GMT
Spacious cave, all welcome! Wonderful Tibidabo. 😘
|
|
|
Post by xanady on Apr 27, 2019 12:50:14 GMT
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.
|
|
1,115 posts
|
Post by Stephen on Apr 27, 2019 13:03:08 GMT
I think it's more an issue of how they're taught. My love and understanding of the Bard didn't come from school. Studying Romeo and Juliet in English was boring. There was no excitement in the memorising of quotations and we didn't get to see a production. It really put me off that play. (this was in Scotland)
We did see Mr Daldry's An Inspector Calls on tour though. I enjoyed it and quote it to this day!
|
|
5,593 posts
|
Post by lynette on Apr 27, 2019 13:12:19 GMT
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.
|
|
1,511 posts
|
Post by anita on Apr 27, 2019 13:16:08 GMT
No - it's part of an all round education. We did Shakespeare , Dickens etc as well as more up to date writers. My love of "The Lord of the Rings" began with "The Hobbit" being one of the first set books at school. Later I read all of Gerald Durrell's books after "My Family & Other Animals" was the set book one year.
|
|
4,799 posts
|
Post by The Matthew on Apr 27, 2019 15:19:06 GMT
I think it's more an issue of how they're taught. My love and understanding of the Bard didn't come from school. Studying Romeo and Juliet in English was boring. 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.
|
|
999 posts
|
Post by Backdrifter on Apr 27, 2019 15:46:13 GMT
So far we've had:
Bill Old Bill Bill the Quill Shakey The Bard
No 'Billy Shakes' yet (til just then)
|
|
1,115 posts
|
Post by Stephen on Apr 27, 2019 16:13:49 GMT
I think it's more an issue of how they're taught. My love and understanding of the Bard didn't come from school. Studying Romeo and Juliet in English was boring. 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.
|
|
|
Post by talkingheads on Apr 27, 2019 19:14:01 GMT
I'd say the question shouldn't be 'should Shakespeare be abolished' but instead 'What more contemporary dramatists can we expand the curriculum with'? Tony Kushner for example. Alan Bennett. Phoebe Waller Bridge!
|
|
3,085 posts
|
Post by david on Apr 27, 2019 19:18:38 GMT
I think it's more an issue of how they're taught. My love and understanding of the Bard didn't come from school. Studying Romeo and Juliet in English was boring. There was no excitement in the memorising of quotations and we didn't get to see a production. It really put me off that play. (this was in Scotland) We did see Mr Daldry's An Inspector Calls on tour though. I enjoyed it and quote it to this day! 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.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 27, 2019 19:49:22 GMT
Yes, they should ditch it. I'm so over Shakespeare.
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Apr 27, 2019 20:12:24 GMT
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.
|
|
4,631 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Apr 27, 2019 23:14:33 GMT
I was the first year to do GCSE and we were graded both on English Language and English Literature, both were judged on 100% coursework, I imagine this has changed now? However the issue for me isn’t with Shakespeare which is tedious and boring, yes I said it and this is with the wrong teacher, but get a great teacher and they’ve you up the high street mugging some poor old ...... for their copy of Othello.
On a side note I heard on the radio the other a week a student who achieved a BA in English Lit from the university of Sussex, so would be hopefully aware of Shakespeare, but this person was blissfully unaware you had different types on nouns, go figure.
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Apr 27, 2019 23:28:06 GMT
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.
|
|
2,389 posts
|
Post by peggs on Apr 28, 2019 8:50:49 GMT
My instinctive response is a very strong no although in truth I don't think I got much from doing it st school. I had on the whole decent teachers I think but everything seemed to be reduced down to one single meaning and learning a quote to shove in an essay. It didn't instill any excitment or love for it but then on the whole I think I ended up disliking most of the novels we studied too, I resented the 'this means that and nothing else' approach, there was no room for debate, felt like box ticking. Oh and I did English lit up to degree and no one taught me any grammar.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2019 10:24:22 GMT
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?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2019 10:30:26 GMT
My instinctive response is a very strong no although in truth I don't think I got much from doing it st school. I had on the whole decent teachers I think but everything seemed to be reduced down to one single meaning and learning a quote to shove in an essay. It didn't instill any excitment or love for it but then on the whole I think I ended up disliking most of the novels we studied too, I resented the 'this means that and nothing else' approach, there was no room for debate, felt like box ticking. Oh and I did English lit up to degree and no one taught me any grammar. That used to annoy the life out of me. I remember we had an a level exam based on a play extract at 6th form (I forget which), but I remember asking the teacher who was PM at the time it was first performed, as clearly there was political aspects to the text... and she basically told me off in front of the class for focusing on the wrong things. Then would you believe it, the entire class failed the exam except me who managed a B. I also remember trying to debate the end of 1984 in class as the text states Winston imagines what happens at the end, but the teacher was resolute it wasn’t all in his head and did happen.
|
|
4,631 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Apr 28, 2019 11:09:38 GMT
It is often reported that the strains on the curriculum where subjects aren’t taught because of time, thankfully this argument isn’t been applied to Shakespeare, but what gets me, as this time it is just Rebecca Reid headline grabbing. However with all the pressures on the curriculum, time is always found for religious studies/education.
|
|