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?

Definitely a good thing. Really really shit that some shools don't read the whole text though.

@sissy
@Sirzy

I wonder if there is a difference between maths and English in that regard in that it is easier to differentiate between 'hard' maths and 'easy' maths than hard and easy English.

I think it is an interesting debate whether you are infantalising children by not teaching challenging texts. It may be the case that the pace of teaching or the point of introduction of certain texts may be guided by academic ability but I will allow teachers (I am not one) to answer that question.

what I find fascinating about literature is the debate about what makes good literature and what makes poor literature. I have read best sellers that in my opinion are very poorly written with limited vocabulary and poor grammar but could be described as 'exciting' and conversely I have read books (often classics) where the use of language is breathtakingly and strikes deep emotional chords.

however is this intellectual snobbery in my part?

@mids2019 DS is dyslexic - reading Shakepeare on the page was great for him. I agree going to see an acted play is fabulous do I agree meant to be acted . But even reading the plays is very good I think - I think encouraging him to read something which may be more challenging was great for him.

Oh and one more point - Ds 's class read "The boy with the striped pyjamas " Even I at advanced middle age cannot read that without a tear .

I think if a book / play is on the curriculum and well taught it will have merit.

I dont like labelling literature as good or bad at all. I think often snobbery can limit what we read as adults and what we allow our children to read. The key is what they enjoy not if it’s a classic or critically exclaimed.

i can’t stand David Walliams books personally but for DS they took him from being indifferent about reading to loving it. That’s what matters. He is 13 now and by choice reads a wide range of both fiction and non fiction which I love but at 7 it took that book to change his views.

I wonder if there is a difference between maths and English in that regard in that it is easier to differentiate between 'hard' maths and 'easy' maths than hard and easy English.

Of course there's a difference. In maths, you have to understand the basics before going on to the harder stuff, but in English, a lot of it is down to what you enjoy rather than your intelligence or age.

I never found Dickens interesting so never read many of his books, but I love fantasy and have devoured hundreds of novels from that genre over the years.

@OhBeAFineGuyKissMe

Apologies maybe not the best mathematical analogy.

I think you are right in that view does seem patronising but it is a view that has been put to me. The argument that was out to me was that children from poorly performing schools would benefit more from lessons on life skills and numeracy rather than analysing the character of Lady Macbeth. I disagree with this view but I guess an argument has to be out forward to counteract this view point (which unfortunately does reside in some places).

@thelobsterquadrille

You will get examined in Sickens but not necessarily Tolkien? Possibly wrong but true?

I studied all sorts of novels in school and was examined on them too - from plays, to classics, to the odd fantasy, to comedies etc.

I don't really see the relevance of school exams to any of this, though. Nobody enjoys everything they learn in school.

@Sissy

@Sirzy

But there's the rub (no pun intended) aren't we saying Shakepeare is 'good' literature because it is generally agreed the use of language is transcendent in its form and therefore has been taught to school children for centuries i.e. there is academic consensus on what constitutes good literature. Is this snobbishness?

@thelobsterquadrille

Which fantasies were you examined for?

Personally I think it’s good for schools in the sense of it’s important to introduce them to a wide range of texts because if you don’t experience them you can’t decide if you like them.

there are also obviously a lot of lessons around development of language and the societal changes at the time which can be learnt from them.

for educational purposes schools are always going to select books with a good academic value, but they can also encourage reading for pleasure and for that it doesn’t matter what it is as long as your enjoying it.

www.shakespeareschools.org/about_us/about_us_index

for anyone who is interested

I teach secondary English in Alternative Provision, often working with students who are not usually expected to achieve a grade 4 pass at GCSE.

Every single young person I’ve taught Shakespeare to has ended up loving it. I start by contextualising it, telling them about the theatres of the time; how Shakespeare didn’t intend his plays to be anything but enjoyed.

I throw in a few anecdotes about how the actors had to be heard above sausage sellers and groundlings making their feelings heard. How Shakespeare often was modifying his scripts while the play was on.

That gives a bit of context, so when we get to, for example, the Porter’s speech in Macbeth, the students can spot that the actor playing Macbeth can go and get cleaned up while the Porter throws in a few nob jokes for light relief. It brings the whole thing to life.

The kids feel so proud of themselves when they start getting it. It gives them cultural capital which they have every right to have. Their heads go up. Frankly, that means more to me than any GCSE pass.

One lad loved it so much, I ended up accompanying him to a production of Henry V at a pop-up Rose Theatre. He was utterly rapt. That was one of the highlights of my career.

@Sirzy

I agree but time is limited and therefore choices need to be made for the curriculum. I suppose a judgment needs to be made about which books are taught at school. There are obviously millions of books out there so how do we make the decision what to teach? We might not teach the latest Jack Reache r novel despite it being a best seller as it would be regarded by some as limited intellectual value but we would tech Beowulf despite not a huge number of people taking this text to bed with a cup of hot chocolate for a bit of escapism.

This is amazing!

shoes what the right teacher can do

Well, I was a private school and we read the Hobbit in maybe year 7-8 and did some internal exams on it.

A quick google also shows me it featured in GCSE's in 2018.

www.tes.com/teaching-resource/new-aqa-gcse-english-language-paper-1-section-a-the-hobbit-1937-11287508

In the depths of 80s, at my school O level sets did Shakespeare, CSE sets did The Crucible. I didn't look at Shakespeare until I did an Access course in my 40s.

It certainly didn't get taught at middle school.

Those planning the curriculum will look at which texts best fit the intended outcome for that time, or what is needed by the exam board for ks4.

ds school publishes the curriculum for each subject and alongside the text for each it states the desired outcome from that unit.

I suppose you are introducing high art to a child just out of primary school (a bit like discussing old masters in art classes as opposed to drawing techniques) and it does seem quite a step educationally

But surely in the end looking at Old Masters is simply looking at pictures. Same as looking at contemporary art and talking about it. And all of it, as discussed, would be at age appropriate level. Why is it either / or? How is a child to engage in learning drawing technique without relating it to art they have seen? Very young children (mine - scientists by academic leaning, too) can appreciate that Turner painted light, appreciate Rothko or Anish Kapoor 's use of colour and pigment for different effect, Look at how Caravaggio painted Still Life and use that as a model for their own early drawings, etc etc.

These things are to be enjoyed, not approached cautiously and from a distance and only when a framework of skills and experience has been judged to enable the spectator to enjoy it at some agreed level of sophistication.

It's completely normal surely. We all did it.

One of the beauties of Shakespeare, and other classics, is that if one reads them at a young age then again later there's more to get from them.

And FWIW I would rather young people be introduced to all art forms and develop their own confidence and relationship with seeing, hearing, thinking, imagining well before The Curriculum is imposed with its score of marks for exam grades. Doesn't matter if it is Shakespeare or Benjamin Zephaniah, all can suffer under the National Curriculum.

All hail the magnificent teachers who manage to spark the imagination as well as teach to the test.

One of the books my year 10 is studying for GCSE in Romero and Juliet. They started learning it in year 7 among other things. Personally I'm great full they started it early.

A lot of older Primary pupils will have watched Eastenders etc., there's really not much difference except the quality of the writing. They also play some pretty gruesome computer games!