Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

To want DD to actually read literature in literature lessons?

318 replies

buttonmoon78 · 05/03/2012 10:30

DD1 is in year 9. In English they are just starting Macbeth. Last Thursday she missed a lesson as she had a hospital appointment and this morning informed me that she'd missed some of the dvd they'd been watching. When I said it didn't matter as they'd be surely reading it she said no, they were just watching the dvd. I was a little bit Shock.

I did Macbeth in year 7 - and we read it all. And this was in 1989/90 so not millenia ago.

What makes it worse is that her teacher said that they wouldn't read it because they wouldn't understand it. I mean, what? How to put a student off Shakespeare in one easy step!

AIBU or is this why the Daily Fail goes on about slipping standards in education?

OP posts:
TheFallenMadonna · 08/03/2012 23:40

You are hearing the teachers say that they teach whole texts to the children who can read them, right? I'm not sure you realise what teaching a functionally illiterate 11 year old is like. It's hard to imagine actually, unless you are faced with 20 of them.

IHeartKingThistle · 08/03/2012 23:42

Oh FFS. Do you actually think every child is CAPABLE of entering the professional classes and is just being held back by evil teachers making them read extracts? REALLY?

And you are disgusted by inequality but send your DC to independent schools?

IHeartKingThistle · 08/03/2012 23:43

Sorry x-posted.

Quattrocento · 08/03/2012 23:47

No, I don't think that every child is capable of entering the professional classes

But I do think that every child should have an education that does not disqualify them from doing just that

You seem to be assuming that every child should be educated to be a nail technician. I believe that every child should have an opportunity to be a doctor or a lecturer or a lawyer. I believe that by dumbing their education down (in this instance to a perfectly ridiculous extent) you are prejudicing their life chances.

And yes, I send my children to independent schools. The wisdom of which action has only become apparent on this thread.

handbagCrab · 08/03/2012 23:50

I loathe this attitude that somehow shit teachers are stopping social mobility for millions of people because we don't want to teach Shakespeare to them as we can't be arsed.

Where I teach we get £5500 a year for each pupil. What kind of private school education can you buy with that? If we want all children to have an independent school style education, then it needs to be funded at the same level. But it won't be. So we'll blame the teachers for being shit and the kids for being lazy and thick instead. Lovely.

IHeartKingThistle · 08/03/2012 23:52

WHAT?

Are you listening to ANYTHING?

IHeartKingThistle · 08/03/2012 23:52

Damn x-posted again!

TheFallenMadonna · 08/03/2012 23:54

Honestly, you don't understand the range that we teach. And why would you, given your recent experience?

Giving every child the same experience in school regardless of ability is not the way to ensure a good education. You teach them appropriate to ability regardless of background. Trying to teach everyone to be a lawyer is as unlikely to be successful for the majority as trying to teach everyone to be a nail technician. You just fail a different set of children. Neither is right.

IHeartKingThistle · 08/03/2012 23:56

The idea that I am educating all my students to be nail technicians is simultaneously the most offensive and most hilarious thing that I have ever been accused of in my career.

Quattrocento · 08/03/2012 23:57

I'm sure you'll have read down the thread that there are state schools which allow, and in fact encourage, the children to read Shakespeare.

If you've given up, then I'm calling you cynical and defeatist and a disgrace to teaching.

IHeartKingThistle · 09/03/2012 00:00

I've typed twice that I read whole texts with my classes.

Or are you only reading the posts which agree with you?

TheFallenMadonna · 09/03/2012 00:03

You are assuming that state schools are either all or nothing. Lawyer or nail technician. You don't understand the range. I teach A* students, and I teach students who are on P scales (that is below level 1). So, yes, I would argue that they require different strategies.

Amaxapax · 09/03/2012 00:04

I never post, but this thread is really bothering me. Quattrocento, I agree that simply watching a DVD is insufficient. However, it is a valuable tool in encouraging pupils to consider elements of stagecraft. I teach two bottom set Y8 groups. We have been reading substantial portions of Macbeth and closely analysing language and the development of characters over the course of the play. Today we watched the banquet scene from the DVD of the RSC production. We used it as a prompt to consider how the director had used elements of stagecraft to create tension and suspense. Pupils then worked in groups to decide how they would direct their own version of that scene and how they would use stagecraft to create similar effects. They were able to think about Macbeth the way it was intended - as a performance.

I teach six hours of English over the course of a fortnight to each of my KS3 and KS4 groups. In order to cover the key skills identified by the National Curriculum, we are instructed to spend approximately half of each half term on a particular text or topic. That works out to roughly 9-12 hours available to study a Shakespeare text. I'm not saying this is right or wrong. I'm simply saying that it's the reality. In order to read the entire text and include 'translations' and discussions, we would not be able to do any of the other activities I typically include, such as soundscapes, close language analysis, or the aforementioned study of stagecraft. Furthermore, should I be visited by OFSTED during one of these lessons, I would almost certainly be given an 'inadequate' judgement, as it is unlikely that all pupils would be engaged and I would not be able to demonstrate significant progress in learning over the course of the lesson. Again, I'm not saying this is right, but it's reality.

The UK education system at the moment does not value learning for learning's sake, and that is how many view spending several lessons reading a single text. For me, it's important that my pupils enjoy English lessons, particularly at KS3. If they have a good taste of Shakespeare in Years 7, 8 and 9, then perhaps they will feel less intimidated and more enthusiastic about studying the texts at GCSE and A-level, when they can really sink their teeth into it. If not, then hopefully they haven't been put off English entirely because the varied curriculum has opened their eyes to another aspect of English that they're keen to pursue. That's what happened to me. I didn't enjoy Shakespeare much in school, but I loved writing and modern and contemporary literature. A couple of degrees later and I'm trying to help my pupils see that English is a vast subject, at least one part of which will almost certainly capture their imagination.

LeQueen, sometimes it is too much to expect a pupil to do something if they find it hard. I have a pupil who said that the sheer mention of Shakespeare caused a red mist to descend. He could not control his anger because he felt completely alienated by the texts. He had to write a controlled assessment about Romeo and Juliet, so we had to find another way to engage with the text. Forcing him to simply sit down and read was not productive for him, nor for anyone else who had to sit in a lesson with him.

On a final, practical note (and I am sorry this is so long), my school is no longer able to set reading as homework. We do not have enough money to issue each pupil with a copy of the text and we are not able to rely on pupils to return them. I asked that each of my top set Y10 pupils purchase their own very inexpensive copy of a set text and had one parent tell me that they should be provided by the school. If they weren't then her daughter would not be completing any homework that required the text, and I was out of order for setting it.

Quattrocento · 09/03/2012 00:08

This whole thread has been about children not reading Shakespeare

I have no issue with teachers who are enabling their pupils to access Shakespeare and who are encouraging them to read

I do have an issue with teachers who teach in excerpts, show DVD's in preference to reading the text. They are dumbing down literature to such an extent that the whole exercise is meaningless and disadvantaging their pupils.

I also have an issue with English teachers thinking that Shakespeare is Middle English, but that's got lost in a haze of DVDs

handbagCrab · 09/03/2012 00:09

Too true FallenMadonna Differentiation is a wide and varied task. I imagine lots of folk don't realised the differences in ability in a school if they didn't go to a comprehensive with a wide range of abilities or if they were mainly in sets for lessons.

At my comp we weren't in sets for English we were in forms. That's why it took a year of lessons to read out loud one Shakespeare play taking it in turns. Because some of the people in my form could barely read. I found it tedious and I've always had a high reading age. God knows what the others who were less fortunate than me thought.

Quattrocento · 09/03/2012 00:13

Amaxapax, I am sorry that I cross-posted with your thoughtful and illuminating post

I do understand the pressures of money, and engaging children. My issue really is with those for whom showing a DVD is enough. Plenty enough, and somehow a substitute for the text.

You'll understand that :)

QuickLookBusy · 09/03/2012 00:19

It's ironic Quattro that up thread you were calling children "thick" and "dim" yet you don't seem to understand simple posts from people saying they DO read the text.

Anyway, I'm awake at this late hour as I have to go and collect my DD from school at 1am. Yes, my state educated DD has been taken to Stratford On Avon to see a bit of Shakespeare. And their teacher is driving them

But then the teacher's a right cow, doesn't give a damn about their education, only about having a quite life Hmm Bloody state school teachers eh!

My DD had READ the whole text btw several times

IHeartKingThistle · 09/03/2012 00:19

I'm going to bed. That Shakespeare's not going to teach itself tomorrow.

QuickLookBusy · 09/03/2012 00:20

2 1/2 hours drive each way

QuickLookBusy · 09/03/2012 00:24

Sorry quattro x posted.

Sorry for the typos also, I'm keeping my eyes open with match sticks.

But am very cross with the assumptions being made on this thread, that all state education is crap. It really isn't, there are some great schools and teachers out there.

Quattrocento · 09/03/2012 00:24

You're all getting defensive

Which is probably a jolly good thing. Especially if it stops just one cynical teacher from sticking a DVD on as a substitute for reading a text.

None of you were talking about differentiation down the thread. When I was plaintively asking if the dim ones could just watch a DVD and the bright ones just to be allowed to read Shakespeare ... Oh no, that wasn't possible then. You all, apparently, had to teach to the levels of the functionally illiterate.

That gal who taught English and thought Shakespeare was Middle English has not returned, has she? I hope you lot know better :)

Good night all

TartyMcFarty · 09/03/2012 07:08

Erm, I'm reading Romeo and Juliet with a group including statemented and EAL kids. Yesterday, a statemented child, performing the part if Romeo via text on the interactive whiteboard asked, 'Miss, shouldn't I be kneeling on the floor with Mercutio while he's dying?'

I often think that weaker readers are sold short. The script I'm using isn't simplified in any way, and they are understanding ity. I'm sure they will remember the play into their adult lives, which they wouldn't if I'd approached it with death by extract - compare Juliet with Lady Macbeth, anyone?!

vezzie · 09/03/2012 07:28

Lequeen, btw, "perusal" is the wrong word for your 2247 (?) post last night and goes against your very point, because peruse means to read (closely) or closely examine something in the hand - I think you mean "entertainment" (bit of a mis-hit if you were using that apparently posher word to show your wonderful literary education, then Wink )

(I think "peruse" has been used sarcastically often by people who are being wry about the fact that they are flicking through something light rather than reading Beowulf, so that tone has become a trope, which now means some people actually think it means "engage in light entertainment" - or so I hypothesise - I keep hearing it being used like this now - anyone have any thoughts?)

LeQueen · 09/03/2012 08:36

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

LeQueen · 09/03/2012 08:41

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.