To want DD to actually read literature in literature lessons?

[buttonmoon78]

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 .

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?

It is difficult to find a play where it's played straight, so to speak. I remember going to see Richard III at the Young Vic (this must have been in 1980!). It was set in 1930s Germany - in modern dress - no props, no scenery. it confused me no end and added absolutely nothing to my understanding. I think a classic dvd is better than an "interpretation" of the play unless the pupils are really familiar with the text.

Thanks for the manga idea, clytaemnestra - ds lurrrrves his manga books (to the exclusion of all else at the moment) so I'll point these out to him.

I will also add that the following years it was a Shakespeare play per year - but year nine was geared towards SATs and there was a range of material we had to cover for that plus literature to prepare for GCSE - where we did classics and modern poetry and lit (Hardy, Dickens, Shakespeare, the chosen Anthology of poetry of that year, Of Mice and Men, The Crucible and a few others that I can't remember!!) And there is a media essay - where she will ONLY watch a DVD of something - we did "Marching up to Zion" (I think that was what it was called) and had to use critical analysis on 3 scenes from the DVD. we also watched the opening scene of JAWs for that module.

I would think it would be better to remove Shakespeare from the year 9 curriculum and give them an actual book to read instead of watching DVDs.

Whilst I agree that plays were written to be performed, I think it is more important that kids are doing actual reading of actual books in their English lessons. Not all the time, as there are other aspects to the curriculum.

Yanbu. As well as maybe, but not instead of.

Having seen recent threads where for younger children World Book Day has devolved in Dvd day I'm not surprised.

I am always concerned about postings that "I am worried about secondary state education when time comes" I know some people have troubles but for the most secondary state education is good especially with positive support from parents and a love of learning instilled there are some excellent teachers who try and make the curriculum accessible and fun

Of course she'll read most of the play in class. Goodness.

I'mnotmymun, why are you concerned?

As a secondary teacher myself, I'd agree with the statement that most secondary education is generally good. But that doesn't mean that all of it is good and all teachers are excellent and nothing happens that shouldn't.

Because it sends out negative vibes even before the child starts school there are a lot of good schools and sometimes making sacrifices your child can go to the best school in area that said even schools that are seen as "not the best" if the child has support they can achieve anywhere why do we have such a negative view of education even before in system that why I am concerned

On the 'most performances are edited' point - You should be able to do all of Macbeth in performance without editing - it's one of the shortest Shakespeare plays.

I would check on this to make sure that your daughter hasn't misunderstood. That way you also get to make the point that you are not that pleased with the DVD being given such prominence. In any case, I'd have thought it would make more sense to work through chunks of the DVD and the play at the same time, i.e. they watch a few scenes, then read them to check understanding of plot AND analyse language, character etc, then move on.

But the OPs child is already in the system! She is in year 9 so has presumably been in this school for two and a half years already. Your comments have little to do with the OP.
And perhaps you would be able to argue your point about education a little better if you were able to use some basic punctuation.

I was referring to Goldenbear and KitandKat did not know we had to be grammatically correct on a posting on mumsnet oh dear do you not just love the grammar police.

I know there are lots of 'excellent' schools but their excellence is based upon exam results. On reading the OP's post, my worry is concerned with what constitutes an 'education'. A subject like English Literature, if it is to benefit a child's education, IMO, needs to be taught with passion to inspire any interest in literature. The OP's DD's teacher appears to lack interest in the subject themselves, let alone inspiring any pupils to 'think' about the text. I think this is sad and worrying. Excellent school, poor school, the formulaic approach to learning seems to be considered the only way to teach at the moment. The university thread supports this view.

I'm not surprised by this. We "studied" Romeo and Juliet when I was doing my 'O' levels (yes, that long ago) and we watched a film and did some extracts in class. Some of us read the play and/or went to see it at the theatre, but that was arranged off our own bat, not a school organized thing. I was very disappointed as I loved theatre but found reading plays really difficult and hoped to learn how when we did this. Found English Literature (and English Language come to that) at my school to be really lacking. I know schools and teaching have improved a lot in the last 25 odd years, but I'm not surprised this in particular goes on. Our teachers did it because they didn't want to spend so much time trying to engage the class in something that would be outside the experience and aspirations of most students - I doubt that's changed much.

On the other hand I think school English ought to do a lot more studying of film and TV. Our children do a lot of watching - they ought to be learning how to fully understand video media and create similar (better!). But doing it with Shakespeare just misses the whole point of either.

When will people realise that grammar is as inportant as the words themselves? Wrong punctuation or no punctuation will change the meaning of the words you write, as I've found to my cost before.

Meanwhile, I took the O-Level English Literature exam in 1985 (our school did two English O-levels, Language AND Literature). We had four books to read, though we did see some plays/films. We had to read Macbeth, As You Like It, All Quiet On The Western Front and Oliver Twist. The exam asked some very perceptive questions and we had to write answers almost in essay form, as the questions were designed to push us into really thinking about the text.

It's not just about being able to rattle off a few quotes, but we were taught the value ofbeing able to look at any writing with a critical eye (and the how to do it), a useful skill not just reserved for school.

In the early 80s I studied Macbeth and Othello, and we used videos along with doing the full text. Maybe not so much for Macbeth, but for Othello, it made the play so much easier to understand

so is spelling DartsAgain and we are on mumsnet not writing a dissertation

Shakespeare can be a bit heavy for 13/14 year olds and his poetic language could leave them feeling a bit confused. A film adaptation could help them get their heads around the characters and the story line to help them understand the text better??

When I was at school (late 80's early 90's) we did Macbeth and to kill a mocking bird. We read both books and watched both films. I was under the impression that it was to see different interpretations of the story, no we didn't understand macbeth but we talked about it in class and learned what it meant.

My 9 year old DD, in year 5, is currently "doing" MacBeth. They are reading the actual text, with language explained alongside - and they are also going to be doing their own production of the play in the summer term. DD has found the text tricky in places but with the teacher's explainations and the class discussions this has been overcome rather easily. We have also read an edited children's version - written in more normal modern English, so the story behind it is also clear.

There is no reason why a year 9 pupil shouldn't be studying the real text, and imo no way should they study a play without the actual text alongside it, and most definitely not just relying on a DVD.

Well when my son discovered he had to study MacBeth for GCSE he groaned, as he had already studied it for 6 consecutive years. But certainly at GCSE they have to read the texts, and in one of his assignments contrast MacBeth with A Christmas Carol.
DVD s are often a good starting place, but then they build on it with the text, at least at DCs school.

You are definitely not being unreasonable to want her to actually read the text. Check your facts before you go in all guns blazing just in case you end up looking a tit.

The teaching of English literature at my school was superb - truly excellent. I only realised how good when I got to Bristol university where I studied English. Many of my fellow students found the depth and breadth of the work a big stretch from a level, but my teachers had prepared me well for it.

If you are never taught something that you didn't previously understand, your understanding will never get better! Education is supposed to make you understand more things.

I have no objection to watching the film. It can be a valuable educational opportunity. Students can evaluate decisions that the director has made and it is also interesting to see how a play can come to life. But I really do think reading the book too is vital.

I do hope this is just a wrong end of the stick thing and the DVD was just used as an introduction.

Disagree that Shakespeare is a bit heavy for 13/14yos - the plays are all love and hate, sex and violence, right up a teenager's street. The whole point of learning is to find out how to do new things - interpreting an unfamiliar text is a pretty core skill.

Watching the film is fine if they are also reading the book. I read Mcbeth in year 7 or 8. We read the whole thing, discussed it, analysed it and at the end watched a film of a production of it, which did help the characters come to life. I'm really shocked that some people have only studied extracts.