Should Shakespeare be scrapped from the curriculum

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?

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.

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.

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.

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). 

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.

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".

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. 

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.

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. 

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.