|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2019 11:17:24 GMT
It is often reported that the strains on the curriculum where subjects aren’t taught because of time pressures, thankfully this argument isn’t been applied to Shakespeare, but what gets me, time is always found for religious studies/education. I would argue (as a firm agnostic and former English/Drama teacher) that teaching religious studies is very important in our current world. Not only to allow children to understand the different faiths and cultures their peers come from but also to educate young people that religious practice is not just extremists that the news and the far right want to tell them it is. Besides which religion forms an integral part of history, which informs culture and politics and many other things. I'd hardly say that an hour a week learning that is a waste of time in (theoretically) helping to form well rounded young people. RE lessons are also quite often lumped in (or at least they used to be) with PSHE (or again whatever it's called now) social education and general education on how the world works. Is any of it perfect? no, but it's not any kind of evil religious indoctrination.
|
|
1,089 posts
|
Post by tonyloco on Apr 28, 2019 11:18:31 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. I must have been very fortunate with my education back in Sydney in the early 1950s to have had a brilliant English teacher who instilled in me a love of Shakespeare, and also taught grammar that has stood me in good stead over the years, especially in editing and writing notes for the hundreds of classical CD booklets that I produced for EMI Classics. But back to Shakespeare: over three years, my English teacher brought out the humour in A Midsummer Night's Dream and the drama in Macbeth as well as taking us through The Merchant of Venice and Julius Caesar in detail, and to this day I remain hugely grateful to him for his teaching skills that opened a wonderful door that enabled me to understand and appreciate all the works of Shakespeare, not only in their pure form as plays but in the way they have inspired operas, ballets, musicals and films, and in the way so many of the words and phrases he used are in common every-day usage by people who have no idea where they come from. So my answer is not to drop Shakespeare from the curriculum but to concentrate on finding the best way for teachers to awaken the interest of children in these essential treasures of English theatre and literature.
|
|
2,302 posts
|
Post by Tibidabo on Apr 28, 2019 11:36:27 GMT
So my answer is not to drop Shakespeare from the curriculum but to concentrate on finding the best way for teachers to awaken the interest of children in these essential treasures of English theatre and literature. Round of applause for Sir Tony, who has managed to say exactly what I'm thinking but write it far more eloquently than wot I could ever hope to. Like many here, I wasn't keen on Shakespeare at school and when I discovered I was to spend the second year of my training solely on him, I wasn't happy. However, thanks to the wonderful late John Wilson, I and my co-students spent a fantastic year awakening our senses as we magically brought The Bard to life under Mr Wilson's expert and patiently nurturing guidance. Even more of a learning curve is watching ten and eleven year olds giggling helplessly as they 'kiss the wall's hole, not your lips at all' in Dream or creeping down to Dunsinane - yes BE A TREE would you believe, of all things?!
|
|
2,389 posts
|
Post by peggs on Apr 28, 2019 11:53:05 GMT
The year I did GCSE everyone's predicted eng lit grades dropped hugely to actual results, I wonder now if markers were bored stiff with hundreds of identical answers and were hungering for a bit of individuality.
What did people think of the kids Shakespeare books, my nieces had them from primary school, little books that just seemed to do very basic plot. I'm not sure of the point, you know the story but no language or drama and that means they'll be no surprises if you actually get to watch them and know how they all end.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2019 12:22:15 GMT
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). ..... you're aware that hairdressing and make-up artistry and beauty therapy are valid career choices, and actually quite sensible ones due to being reasonably recession-proof and potentially quite lucrative?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2019 12:35:17 GMT
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). ..... you're aware that hairdressing and make-up artistry and beauty therapy are valid career choices, and actually quite sensible ones due to being reasonably recession-proof and potentially quite lucrative? also many schools (including a very 'academic' one in an affluent area that I taught in) will work in collaboration with local colleges for vocational qualifications. It's almost like some people have realised that offering training and qualifications in things like being a mechanic, hairdresser or plumber means that we'll have, dunno qualified people to do things like that. And that, shock horror some people are far better suited to pursuing vocational qualifications (in which they also use things like English, Maths and Science skills).
|
|
4,799 posts
|
Post by The Matthew on Apr 28, 2019 13:47:57 GMT
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). ..... you're aware that hairdressing and make-up artistry and beauty therapy are valid career choices, and actually quite sensible ones due to being reasonably recession-proof and potentially quite lucrative? Loads of things are valid career choices, but does that mean they should be taught in schools? I was taught woodworking at school and carpentry is a legitimate job, but nothing I learnt in woodworking has had any application outside of woodworking. (I suppose "Don't put your head in the band saw" is a useful lesson but I'd hope most people wouldn't need a school to teach them that.) School lessons ought to be a bit more general-purpose than training people for a specific career.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2019 16:07:51 GMT
I mean I might be a bit thick but surely School is exactly where we should be teaching kids things that are valid career choices? And also allowing them options that are better suited to their strengths.
To go back to the orginal point, we recognise that things like music and drama have 'transferable skills' that are applicable in all walks of life. Similarly, the skills of carpentry or the artistry in makeup or hair design can be used to teach all manner of different things. Nobody is suggesting an across the board shift to a GCSE in contouring but for some kids, that could in fact be the perfect fit.
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Apr 28, 2019 16:47:40 GMT
There is a vital role for vocational education as part of the mix available to young people. But that should not come at the expense of core subjects and, indeed, should probably primarily be available as post-16 options when it is more reasonable to have a clearer idea of which direction you would like to explore.
It seems wrong, to me, to ask a 13 year old to limit their possibilities by choosing options that don't offer a broad educational background. Keeping your options open always struck me as the best way forward.
But none of this takes away from the fact that Shakespeare should still be part of our English curriculum!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2019 18:02:40 GMT
Whether GCSEs *should* be purely academic or cover a range of vocational subjects too, I don't think it's necessary to be sneery about the value offered by a vocational course, particularly one that is (for better or worse) so clearly going to be female-dominated. It's not always going to sound like you are concerned about whether a vocational course is a wise option for a 15 year old when your phrasing can so easily be interpreted as negativity towards the idea of "teenage vanity".
|
|
3,085 posts
|
Post by david on Apr 28, 2019 18:17:39 GMT
Having a read through the various posts on the subject it appears that a general issue seems to be in how Shakespeare is delivered in the classroom. So out of curiosity and this is really aimed at the academic board members, what approaches have you taken in teaching the subject or as the pupil, what teaching style helped in getting to grips with the text?
|
|
5,593 posts
|
Post by lynette on Apr 28, 2019 18:38:29 GMT
..... you're aware that hairdressing and make-up artistry and beauty therapy are valid career choices, and actually quite sensible ones due to being reasonably recession-proof and potentially quite lucrative? Loads of things are valid career choices, but does that mean they should be taught in schools? I was taught woodworking at school and carpentry is a legitimate job, but nothing I learnt in woodworking has had any application outside of woodworking. (I suppose "Don't put your head in the band saw" is a useful lesson but I'd hope most people wouldn't need a school to teach them that.) School lessons ought to be a bit more general-purpose than training people for a specific career. Back in the day the thick girls, so considered, were taught typing. Of course, they got good jobs. No idea what the boys did. I was sat with the girls to supervise.
|
|
2,389 posts
|
Post by peggs on Apr 28, 2019 21:21:12 GMT
I asked the 12 year old is she thought Shakespeare should be taught in schools still as some people thought it shouldn't, she looked at me as if I were mad. Interestingly at this point she hasn't studied it as a play yet at school (well they did do it for her first school play when she was 5 and a very ambitious head had them learn the whole of midsummer's night's dream, how I have no idea still, but I don't think she remembers being a lineless fairy) but has looked at the language in comparison to modern language usage and with Wordsworth and for that reason thought it ought to be.
|
|
540 posts
|
Post by freckles on Apr 29, 2019 7:21:55 GMT
There’s so much taught in schools that is considered not “directly useful” in today’s instant-gratification focused society. That doesn’t mean it isn’t broadly useful in, for example, teaching critical thinking, providing life experiences or enriching cultural knowledge. Perhaps studying Shakespeare falls into this category? I don't believe it should be dropped; it’s been reduced considerably already from the level studied in my schooldays to what my daughters have covered. It certainly isn’t always well taught. As with most of the current curriculum, what pupils get out of it is completely dependent on the skill and enthusiasm of the teacher. It isn’t even always well presented on stage. But I believe The Bard has a lot to offer. I think streamlining educational options is already in dangerous waters. Vocational skills can be taught quite quickly in the latter stages of education but a solid grounding in broad learning is important and should not be diminished for the sake of efficiency.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 29, 2019 10:24:03 GMT
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). ..... you're aware that hairdressing and make-up artistry and beauty therapy are valid career choices, and actually quite sensible ones due to being reasonably recession-proof and potentially quite lucrative? Absolutely zero issue with hairdressing and make-up artist as a career choice. Nor do I have any issues with vocational qualifications. But should they really be taught from the age of 14, in lieu of history, geography, a foreign language etc? To teach hair and beauty at GCSE level feels wrong. I might not apply my geography skills to my everyday life, but I can read a map when needed and I understand how the world I live in formed, evolves and works. I might not need to know about WWII, the Tudors or the Roman Empire for my actual job, but understanding the history of your country and how it informs and created modern society is far more important to me than knowing how to dip dye someone’s hair. Knowledge is power and education is precious. If you really want to do hair and beauty, I see no reason why vocational qualifications can’t begin after GCSEs. I also feel picking such subjects at 14 is very limiting and if you change your mind after the GCSE, you have very little to fall back on when it comes to picking your A Levels.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 29, 2019 10:27:03 GMT
I mean I might be a bit thick but surely School is exactly where we should be teaching kids things that are valid career choices Can't comment on the first, but a total yes on the second. I know for 100% certain that if I had children, I'd encourage them like crazy to do plumbing, bricklaying, electrical or some other practical skill, if they didn't wish to be a doctor, nurse, vet, scientist or engineer. Stuff that will have practical value and command great wages in an increasingly computerised world. As for school woodwork - I got a stinking report from a DT teacher because I'd spent the term commenting that rather than make some useless "key holder" we should be learning how to put up a shelf etc. Lucky for me, my uncle is a builder and a family friend a plumber, so I learned basics from them. Most kids, though, are totally helpless with tools for no good reason other than paper is cheap, balsa is cheap, everything else is expensive. I made some lovely blocks of wood that I'm sure were meant to be other things.... But I agree, we teach kids sports they'll never play again (thank the lord) in the interests of generally fostering an interest in staying fit and healthy (even though PE is the opposite of that in most people's experience) and bar the handful of professional athletes and PE teachers nobody REALLY needs to know the rules of field hockey THAT well. So there's no reason we shouldn't also teach generically useful skills or things that are just a bit 'interesting' I'm sure you could incorporate some maths and science into all kinds of 'practical' lessons like bricklaying as well...interestingly the Primary school sector is far better at that sort of thing learning 'core skills' while doing something practical.
|
|
2,389 posts
|
Post by peggs on Apr 29, 2019 11:22:55 GMT
I don't teach but currently work in education and most of our courses are vocational and lots of these young people know very well that they really don't want to study subjects like history, languages any more especially where they have struggled with them. Quite a lot are enthused by something practical they can see the point of. They have to do maths and eng Lang until they have it at a certain GCSE level.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 29, 2019 11:33:29 GMT
Being taught something 'vocational' sounds rather fun and could very well have saved me a whole lot of heartache when I discovered that 'Musketeer' wasn't a real career option for the future. I had the outfit and everything.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 29, 2019 12:02:56 GMT
Being taught something 'vocational' sounds rather fun and could very well have saved me a whole lot of heartache when I discovered that 'Musketeer' wasn't a real career option for the future. I had the outfit and everything. Same, same. I mean I looked GREAT in that hat, I don't know why they wouldn't let me? Wait, also, America ISN'T next to China?! (side note would be SUPER helpful if Americans learned a bit more geography occasionally so they didn't think I was Irish/Scottish when describe where I live)
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 29, 2019 12:15:53 GMT
Same, same. I mean I looked GREAT in that hat, I don't know why they wouldn't let me? I'm serious, I blame my father for being a great storyteller when I was a child and for indulgent parents who had an outfit made for me and everything. I swished about like I was in 18th Century France without a care in the world. My parents did later admit that they should have realised what the future held right there and then. There's so much I'd like Americans to learn really. It's really no wonder we shoved all the religious crazies with a love of a big collar on a boat, cut the rope and pointed it west. Can't understand for the life of me why George III spent so much time and effort into wanting to keep it when he could have been spending the time with Alan Bennett.
|
|
5,593 posts
|
Post by lynette on Apr 29, 2019 12:21:45 GMT
I can’t think of a single reason why the school day is divided into 40-60 minute segments, many minutes lost while mind adjusts and you search for your pen. Kids move around between classes, a total nightmare. Whoever thought it up? Morning, sums, grammar and making sure they can read and add up. Afternoons, sport, music and drama. Then introduce skills such as sewing, cooking and diy. Then more advanced physics etc for them as like it and more advanced building a house for them as like that. Somewhere amid all that a kid will find a place. Assessments as to which courses to follow next will be embedded in the activities. And exams or such can be taken as you go along.
|
|
4,966 posts
|
Post by TallPaul on Apr 29, 2019 12:25:24 GMT
When I become Prime Minister, which will probably be in just a few weeks, lynette is going to be my Secretary of State for Education, with tonyloco as Minister without Portfolio.
|
|
5,593 posts
|
Post by lynette on Apr 29, 2019 16:49:06 GMT
When I become Prime Minister, which will probably be in just a few weeks, lynette is going to be my Secretary of State for Education, with tonyloco as Minister without Portfolio. Thank you! Yes, def my job. And the way things are going all bets are off for future governments. So I will prepare.
|
|