... to think that Shakespeare should be taught in schools?

[LorelaiVictoriaGilmore]

Just that really. I had a massive argument with my sister this afternoon about a number of things to do with the education system in the UK but this is one of the key points we disagreed on. I think it is good that Shakespeare is taught in schools because there lots of kids who do get something out of it and there are kids who may go on to university to study drama or English literature and it would be a shame if they got to 18 and had never been taught Shakespeare. My sister thinks it shouldn't be taught in schools because lots of kids will never 'get' it and never use it. She thinks that those kids who do want to go to uni to read English literature or drama will discover it on their own. I can sort of see what she's saying, especially given the number of kids who leave school without good literacy skills... but I still think I'm right! AIBU?

As pps have already said it's important to remember that Shakespeare wrote his plays to be watched not read. A large majority of the population at the time was illiterate. They were visual entertainment. It's not surprising that people struggle to interpret language and social concepts which are centuries old. It's far easier to grasp if you've got a visual as well. It's still not easy though (unless you're a mn sprog when you'll have been deconstructing sonnets since before you mastered grade 8 violin at 3 months old ).

There is a film version of Macbeth set on a council estate.

I studied several Shakespeare plays at school and I loved every bit of it. I remember being the only person with my hand up most of the time. I just got it but I appreciate others may find it difficult. Given the impact that Shakespeare had on the English language and storytelling I think it’s very important that we continue to teach children his plays. I think most teenagers can relate to Romeo and Juliet at the very least.

That Shakespeare should be taught in schools seems unarguable to me. But I always think it’s strange that this is often a child’s first introduction to any dramatic script. It would surely make more sense to begin with some contemporary plays (staged and read) and progress to Shakespeare.

DD's doing Shakespeare now in yr5.

I did

Hamlet
King Lear
A Midsummer Night’s Dream

I wasn’t/not keen on Shakespeare - I loved George Bernard Shaw, George Orwell, Seamus Heaney’s poetry, Jane Austen...all of which I studied at school.

This was in Scotland and in a good state school where the teaching was pretty good!

I'd rather learn things that you will use in real life. Like how to do your taxes. How to do interviews. How to sort your finances. They dont teach you anything useful. You have to learn it as you go. Except maths. Did you ever use Shakespeare after school? Unless you were becoming a teacher

Some people actually want to be educated about the arts and literature and things other than filling in tax forms 😆whyowhy

You should read Hard Times, Whyohwhy - you and Gradgrind would get on a treat...

“Now, what I want is Facts. Teach these boys and girls nothing but Facts. Facts alone are wanted in life. Plant nothing else, and root out everything else. You can only form the mind of reasoning animals upon Facts: nothing else will ever be of any service to them.”

Is shakespeare of any service to you?

Not sure why my message has a weird emoji!

Shakespeare is an enormous help to me actually.

Much Ado About Nothing is another set Shakespearian text this year. At DS school the top two sets do MAAN, the lower sets do Macbeth.

I'd rather learn things that you will use in real life. Like how to do your taxes. How to do interviews. How to sort your finances. They dont teach you anything useful. You have to learn it as you go. Except maths. Did you ever use Shakespeare after school? Unless you were becoming a teacher

So that was where our argument started. My sister started by arguing that more 'useful' things should be taught in schools - everything from cooking to sewing to balancing a budget. I argued that I wouldn't want to see some of the more traditional academic stuff abandoned... then she raised Shakespeare as something that should be dropped.

Have I 'used' Shakespeare since I left school? Well, I have 'used' it in a way... as has my sister. We've both been in lots of amateur productions of Shakespeare plays. And part of my argument was that we were in those productions with e.g. a builder, a chef, an accountant, a traffic warden, a doctor, a teacher, a nurse, a physio therapist, a hair dresser... all people who had done Shakespeare at school and who chose to spend several weeks rehearsing and performing a Shakespeare play for the sheer enjoyment of it. Other people will go on to study Shakespeare at university, more will go to see a Shakespeare play and enjoy it... it just seems to be worth teaching, to me.

I loved Shakespear at school but up to GCSE, it was bringing the scenes to life rather than just sitting and reading, and seeing productions either at the theatre or TV.

I recall studying Macbeth, Twelfth Night, Midsummer Nights Dream, Romeo and Juliet, Antony and Cleopatra, Merchant of Venice. Probably more but those are the ones that I still remember, 30 years on.

I also studied Chaucer and a metaphysical poet. Don't remember anything about those other than struggling to understand them.

Loved the Importance of Being Earnest, and Death of a Salesman. Less keen on Jane Austen - couldn't even finish Manfield Park and used the cliff notes to get me through!

I didn't realise it wasn't taught in schools! It was when I was in grammar school. It's part of the foundation of your education IMO
Yanbu

It is! See my post upthread.

Sorry, my title wasn't very clear... it should have read '...should continue to be taught in schools?'

ohyes, isn't that a myth?

The only reason kids don't get it is because their teachers are shit. Oblate a lot of it is lost to time a bit - a goose feather pen comes to mind. But the core is still there, the intensity with which he was able to capture human emotion was remarkable. As was much of his imagery-stars hide your fires gets me every time. What is a shame though is when it is taught as a read text rather than a play or dramatisation. It isn't meant as a written text and won't work as a stand alone. But then again most teachers probably dont have the time to get through multiple versions to find a sort of common ground to use. Ideally you would want to study the text under at least two directors in order to present different interpretive arguments rather than pulling arguments out of your arse which is what modern English teaching seems to be about. Five correctly it could easily teach greater intellectual integrity than studying a novel for instance.

theonly, that poster is an example of the myth - for a start, it thinks 'lord and master' happens first in Shakespeare, and 'flesh and blood'. The latter is certainly in Piers Plowman (as are many phrases supposedly originating with Shakespeare).

The reason people often think Shakespeare invented so many words and phrases is actually an accident of history. Shakespeare is readily available, so the first makers of dictionaries cited him, and the problem is compounded by the fact that lots of dictionary makers (eg., those of the OED) don't know how to cite medieval texts. So, most of their references begin after print culture - or, conveniently, more or less with Shakespeare!

I think it should be taught but not necessarily heavily analysed from the script. When schools go for the teach to the exam approach of focusing on key scenes and losing sight of the big picture, it can be a joyless experience. I studied 4 texts from y9 SATs through GCSE and A-Level Eng Lit and enjoyed them. Chaucer was a good romp (literally in the text ) although I struggled to get a deep analysis out of The Miller's Tale.

With contemporary adaptations, there is always the risk of distortion. Baz Luhman's use of guns in Romeo and Juliet has made many an examiner cringe when reading papers

For primary years, I agree with your sister. Other than maybe some of the sonnets, the amount it has be cleaned up or things glossed over...I really don't get the point of pushing it further and further down the years as is recommended from time to time. The Bard was rather bawdy, that was part of his popular appeal at the time and since. Making them into child friendly stories can be fine, but it's not really teaching Shakespeare, it's the stories that can be found elsewhere as already mentioned. I know some who do that very well with little ones but I don't get the idea that teaching it in primary should be important.

Secondary, particularly from GCSE levels, I lean more to your point. He's an important part of English language history and along with others authors there is a good argument for him to be included, particularly in seeing a live production and analysing the texts.

Lorelai don't understand your example re using Shakespeare. So you andyour sister went to am dram and performed Shakespeare that's cool. But that still doesn't make it relevant to all 15 year olds nor has it ever been relevant to me.

I have read a lot of books, including a number of classics, but really dislike Shakespeare. I don't believe anyone who says they enjoy it.