To think that Shakespeare is a little intense for Yr 7 English?

[mids2019]

My daughter is studying Romeo and Juliet for Yr 7 English. Am I being unreasonable that this play may have more impact at A level when pupils have greater critical analysis techniques and possibly a greater appreciation for English literature?

I think Shakepeare is a genius of English literature but the language is so dense and tied to contemporary Elizabethian society that I think a Yr 7 pupil could struggle and in some cases actually put pupils off a more gradual approach to literature appreciation.

I also find it difficult explaining to a 12 year old daughter how Juliet (13) is capable of making so such life changing choices such as marriage and ultimately suicide and with the perspective of 21st century society the play does seem remote in experience.

Is the bard best taught at a slightly older age?

I was in year 7 when Baz Luhrmann’s Romeo and Juliet came out and absolutely adored it. We were doing the A Midsummer Night’s Dream in English at the same time and it really gave me a taste for Shakespeare in my teens.

Let me get this straight - OP lives within striking distance of the global centre of Shakespeare performance and scholarship, a place of pilgrimage for people from all over the world, and she is complaining about a lack of Shakespeare performances in the rest of Warks?

OP, does it occur to you that it might be completely understandable if Cov / Warwick / Rugby / Leamington never put on any Shakespeare at all, seeing as their cousin down the road pretty much has it covered with their world-class theatre company, and that is is pretty remarkable that there is in fact a lot of live Shakespeare in these towns, as pointed out by a pp?

yabu. My 6 year old loves the Shakespeare performed s on cbbebbies and having the stories read to her. (We read ones designed for her age).

I also find it difficult explaining to a 12 year old daughter how Juliet (13) is capable of making so such life changing choices such as marriage and ultimately suicide

Hi OP, perhaps start by pointing out that Juliet in the terms of her era is actually a young woman who is deemed old enough to be married, and this was because the life expectancy was shorter, so what we'd call children the 16c called adults or near adults. And point out that there's the conflict between what the 16c called an adult and the raging teenage hormones that she and Romeo actually have that guide them into making impetuous and ultimately deadly choices.

Also bear in mind that the audiences of R&J would have had a very different view of romantic love and disobeying your parents who they'd regard as much better equipped to make life choices for their children, rather than allowing those children free rein. Romantic reasons and sexual attraction as bases for marrying were frowned on in the 16c, regardless of what people enjoyed seeing on stage. I'll bet there's more than one parent who saw R&J, turned to a wayward child and said 'There! see why we make the choices and decisions for you??'

The point of R&J’s ages is that kind of all-or-nothing, “star-crossed”, die for you kind of love is specifically young love.

It’s like Edward and Bella from Twilight.

In MND he contrasts the shenanigans of the young lovers with the more mature, less volatile and dramatic love of Hippolyta and Theseus.

I don’t think OP’s DD will have as much trouble as she thinks understanding the play.

Romeo and juliet is fairly standard at that age as its one of the most accessible of Shakespeares plays. They study different Shakespeare plays at GCSE and A level.

I did Romeo and Juliet for O level back in the 70s when we werent allowed to take notes etc in with us

However a wealthy town, Stratford upon Avon, near me seems to put on quite a few Shakespeare plays. Coventry and north Warwickshire in general (more deprived) offer very little

Do you not think that, just maybe, that's because Stratford upon Avon is the Shakespeare's place of birth 😂

I read an interesting article suggesting that literacy shouldn't be sacrificed for cultural literacy. If there are pupils that are struggling with literacy at secondary school don't you think there should be ways to adopt the curriculum so that a specific focus on language needs to succeed in the workforce is prioritised over literature? I am not suggesting that classic literature is removed in any way but that there should be flexibility in our educational system to cater to a wide range of ability and give the education that in future years will give the most advantage.

I feel for the academic high acheiver a lot of the advice above is entirely appropriate but there are some that do struggle with English generally and in that case teachers as a whole may want to try less complex lterature as a bridge to some of the more complex dialogue.

The problem I have with Shakepeare at the moment is that there is no opt out from it academically. It is this academic force feed that causes the resentment to the plays in some; it is much easier to enjoy the rest and performance when there is not the academic pressure to rote learn text or immersed in critical analysis.

Surely one of the ways of developing literacy is to engage your audience in a story so that they want to find out more and so find the ways and means to do so, ie, reading and listening? Also, what is it exactly that they are learning? Poetry and the rhythm of language, yes; the power of performance and spectacle, yes; the beauty of the English language, yes; but also, how to ask questions: who are these people, why do they feel and act this way, can I understand it, is it important? And why? One of the main features of Shakespeare is the universality of many of the themes he explores which cross different languages, different cultures and different time. Why would anyone want their child to be limited to a utilitarian ‘workforce’ vocabulary when they are perfectly capable of so much more?

And if your concern is about learning the text and about critical analysis, this doesn’t just apply to Shakespeare but to any text your DC will study.

Sorry about the poor grammar and typos, I’m typing on my phone!

Not at all, I did Shakespeare from age eleven and some Greek mythology (also did some of the latter at my previous school. A bit later on Chaucer was added. I loved it all! Still do.

@BlessMyCottonSocks

Really good points and I don't disagree to a large extent.

However inevitability there will be a wide range of academic ability in the class room and if you have child that has basically given up reading in year 5 (at least as a pleasure) then introducing pure Shakespearean text may not be in that instance the best way to address this.

If a child really does not like reading wouldn't it be better to get the child reading anything that engages them simply to avoid facing future poor academic pefformance. OK the literature quite literally won't be Shakepeare but it maintains literacy skills?

I absolutely loathed and dreaded English Literature at school.

Shakespeares Midsomer Nights Dream was the first one we did at age 11. We also did George Orwell’s Animal Farm at that age.

I would loved to have learnt Latin, and now everyone is computer literate, I think they should teach proper typing again.

@ScroogeMcDuckling

I have had similar opinions from colleagues (many highly educated in sciences). I think what is important that a turn off from Shakepseare is not somehow regarded as a lack of general intellectual ability (and I think that is a fear for some). Some will love it and some will loathe it. What I think is incorrect is that there is no real opt out from study and being examined in an author you do not relate to or enjoy must be a particular form of torture.

What I think is incorrect is that there is no real opt out from study and being examined in an author you do not relate to or enjoy must be a particular form of torture

Erm... couldn't you say the same thing about simultaneous equations? Anaerobic respiration? The blast furnace?...

@surreygirl1987

The curriculum for any subject is up for debate. If we don't reach relativity or quantum mechanics at A level does this means our physics undergraduates are at a disadvange?.

I think you have a point but it could be argued simultaneous equations and knowledge of respiration may have use in engineering and medical careers. I think the point is that simultaneous equations were never designed to be enjoyed (maybe by some?) but Shakepeare was written to be entertaining. I think it is ironic people are essentially forced to try and enjoy classic literature when the act of forcing drives out the enjoyment that surely was the whole point of the work.

@mids2019

I'm not sure I'm qualified to answer any of your questions .... howe ever on this one I do have an opinion

How do you feel social class, parental interest and academic ability feature in a pupils desire to read (and enjoy) classic literature? I think they do have an impact.

Of course, it's going to be easier to have an interest in literature, or art, or music if you grow up in an environment where you are read to, taken to museums, listen to music. But I don't think that it is the end all and I'm not sure how much parental academic ability plays a role.

I don't know if you've heard about a sociologist called Pierre Bourdieu but he wrote extensively about the role of social and cultural capital in social reproduction and some of his work makes interesting and enlightening reading.

Chantal Jaquet a French philosopher ( My cultural bias is showing ;-)) has written a lot about what is being called "transfuge de classe" - class defectors and how cultural capital plays a big role in this.

To quote another book I studied at school Jacques the Fatalist “A happy man is one whose happiness is written up there; and therefore he whose misfortune is written above, is an unhappy man.”

Everything has an impact, be that your parents, where you live, the friends you make, the school you go to, the teachers you have etc etc But that cannot be everything.

This is an interesting article

borgenproject.org/authors-who-dealt-with-poverty/

I observed a brllliant teacher teaching poetry to a very tough low abiliity class of Y10 boys with complete control and composure...and engagement. It was genius level.

And this is a magical thing when it happens.

I did Romeo and Juliet in y8, back in 1992 😅

It was humbling to observe. I scribbled for 55 minutes and am still none the wiser. Literally, I have pages of notes from that one class.

She was using Carol Ann Duffy's series of poems about childbirth as the text, so perhaps not the natural fodder for Y10 boys.. Yet they engaged, and read their responses out loud and well. I did not believe before seeing that, that it was possible. I know that teacher was a genius.

You are underestimating the abilities of an 11-12 year old. Why not teach them to analyse complex texts early? The children who struggle will be given help and those who don't will flourish. I was perfectly capable of Shakespeare at that age.