Should high school students have to read Shakespeare?

[DixieGal]

People are afraid of Shakespeare. A kid mentions a homework assignment and parents groan and moan about it. Educated adults are familiar with the plays. Thinking about the plays does not fit into their mindless over-filled schedules.

Just completing a play does as much for their self esteems as a whole season of sports/music/math extracurricular activities.

[queentess]

Originally Posted by ShooterMcGee

Public school is prison without bars IMHO. I am currently researching curriculum so I can homechool my boys starting in the fall. My older son is allegedly receiving Special Ed services, and yet is still failing several classes. When he asks for help in math, he's told "you should have learned that last year" or "you just aren't paying attention, you know this."

fwiw, my little brother and I both went to a public school, and I lucked out and had some amazing math teachers, but by the time he came along, they had left. In his algebra II class he was completely lost (as were most of the other students), so I spent a few minutes with him at home explaining it, and he caught on with very little help from me. The teacher was just that incompetent. It's one thing to understand something (which the teacher did) and another entirely to explain it (which the teacher could not).

On the other hand, in my high school calculus class, the entire class failed two exams. Rather than take it out on us, the teacher would say, "Well, I obviously did a poor job explaining that. Let's go over that chapter again." And we would. In detail. He was more concerned that we understand everything than he was about speeding through the textbook. I was able to pass out of the first two math classes in college because of that man.

[ShooterMcGee]

Originally Posted by queentess

On the other hand, in my high school calculus class, the entire class failed two exams. Rather than take it out on us, the teacher would say, "Well, I obviously did a poor job explaining that. Let's go over that chapter again." And we would. In detail. He was more concerned that we understand everything than he was about speeding through the textbook. I was able to pass out of the first two math classes in college because of that man.

That kind of teacher is a rare breed. I have yet to find one like that around here. The homeschool curriculum I'm considering does just that...stays with a unit until the student grasps it, THEN moves on to the next. Most public school teachers will hand students an F because they don't get it, and move on regardless because the unit is over.

Public school works great for a certain type of person...my daughter is one of those. Honor student, excelled at everything, homework was a snap. My boys are square pegs, public school a round hole. I would rather change the shape of the hole than carve chunks out of my kids.

[guyanonymous]

One of the teachers I work with uses this series of books to teach Shakespeare to grades 3 and 4:

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_no...r+kids&x=0&y=0

(Shakespeare for Kids).

I've been floored at how involved and interested they get. The children enjoy acting out the plays, learning about the period (there are some good resources on how horrible it was to live then), and, of course, reading the plays themselves.

Just thought I'd mention this fine series of kids books.

EDIT: This is at an inner-city school, btw, where over 40% of the students are involved with government services of some time (e.g., social services, welfare programs, etc)

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by ShooterMcGee

Public school is prison without bars IMHO. I am currently researching curriculum so I can homechool my boys starting in the fall.

Public school is training for permanent underclasses.

Self-evaluation -- the staple of every major philosophical system that ever appeared on the planet -- is never a factor in these things. The lesson of report cards, grades, and tests is that children should not trust themselves or their parents, but must rely on the evaluation of certified officials. People need to be told what they are worth.

The purpose of public school isn't "to teach the academic basics." That can be covered by the age of 10, in just a couple years instead of five. Teaching kids to read, write, and do enough math to balance a simple budget doesn't take nearly the time and effort they imply. And while learning history and sciences can be a lifelong study, learning the basics and the skills for further study is easy--and kids who don't see learning as a chore will continue to use those skills.

That's why even erratic homeschooling usually gets results as good as or better than public schools, after the initial decompression period. It often takes new homeschoolers six months to adapt, as the kids adjust to the lack of ridiculous bell-driven schedules.

[RainingLemur]

Originally Posted by guyanonymous

I've been floored at how involved and interested they get. The children enjoy acting out the plays, learning about the period (there are some good resources on how horrible it was to live then), and, of course, reading the plays themselves.

That would have been something REALLY fun in grade school. I hope that some teacher does that with my demon-spawn when they get old enough.

I liked reading Shakespeare in high-school. I found it to be interesting, but it was way over the head of several of my classmates. The same teacher tried an experiment, using the DiCrapio movie as a supplement. We would watch a portion of the movie, and then read that same portion (including the stuff that wasn't in the movie) in the text. This really seemed to help some of the students wrap their noggins around what was going on in the story.

[queentess]

Originally Posted by guyanonymous

I've been floored at how involved and interested they get. The children enjoy acting out the plays, learning about the period (there are some good resources on how horrible it was to live then), and, of course, reading the plays themselves.

Now that you mention it, in the 4th grade we got to make puppets and put on a puppet play (I don't remember which one). I remember having a lot of fun. I also had a hell of a time pronouncing "influenza" in my dialog, as I had only ever heard it called "the flu" before then.

[abookreader]

Personally, I have nothing against Shakespeare. Yes, a 10th grader reading it in the original form will struggle with uncommon vocabulary and structure. They will be challenged to read over and over to interpret. There is educational value in that but many of them will fail. Many of them will walk away reinforced in their belief that they "Hate reading."

THAT is where I have a problem.

I think that teachers who trot out the movies and the graphic novels are trying to incite fiery interest from a stone cold pile of tinder. Maybe it will work, maybe not. I suspect they'd be much better off simply starting with a subject material that would be far more likely to appeal to the common teen. I suspect they would be for more likely to succeed if our kids were actually given some sort of choice in what they will read. I'm really not of the opinion that there are all that many documents out there that anybody should HAVE to read. With my children, I'm much more concerned that they just read.

As for those who enjoy Shakespeare - go for it.

[Pomtroll]

We read at least one Shakespeare play a year in high school . We also went to see at least one play a year (we lived near a small college that had a strong drama department) . This was back in the the 1960's. I think I got the most from actually seeing the plays, but second best was our teacher in 10th grade having us read it out loud. He also read many passages & explained them.

Do I think reading Shakespeare is necessary? Not really but it sure was an exercise in trying to understand the way the words were presented. Kind of like reading the King James version of the bible.

[ShooterMcGee]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Public school is training for permanent underclasses.

How funny, I am currently reading his book!

[ShooterMcGee]

Originally Posted by guyanonymous

One of the teachers I work with uses this series of books to teach Shakespeare to grades 3 and 4:

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_no...r+kids&x=0&y=0

(Shakespeare for Kids).

That's awesome! My youngest is entering 3rd grade next year. I think I will work some of those into his curriculum! I think he would love it. Thanks for the info!

[spellbanisher]

Originally Posted by DixieGal

I think the article was full of scat. It is absolutely not necessary to understand every nuance of each word for the casual non-scholar.

I lead newbies to the plays in a specific way. First, forget iambic pentameter, rhyme, poetry, and all, and just read it through as paragraphs, instead of lines of a poem. You can see the lightbulb go on in their faces when it becomes a regular play for them and is suddenly accessible to anyone.

I miss teaching. Sigh.

Well, I hope you didn't try teach them reading comprehension! The article does not say that have to understand "every nuance of each word."

In fact, here is what it does say:

"After I received my friend's letter, I serendipitously began reading The Selfish Gene, a popular book on genetics by the evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins. As I was grappling with some of the more technical passages that contained words like allele, nucleotide, cistron, and mitosis, I was sometimes tempted to close the book and give up. Yet with a little extra effort, I was able to push through the difficult passages and come away with at least a general understanding of what Dawkins was getting at. And, since I do not aspire to be an expert in the field of biology, a general understanding was all I was hoping to attain.

Then somewhere along the way, a thought struck me: This often frustrating feeling of wrestling with words to wrench out their meaning is what my friend might be experiencing when she picks up a play by William Shakespeare -- and ditto for my community college English students whom I have been known to annoy on occasion by assigning King Lear, Othello, or Twelfth Night. If you cannot understand Shakespeare, how can you enjoy him? But, as with me and biology, unless you are striving to be a Shakespearean scholar, a general understanding of a play is all that is needed."

He clearly says that unless you intend to be a Shakespearean scholar, you do not need to understand every nuance.

Later in the article he does suggest some reference books that might help you understand words Shakespeare used that have a different meaning today. That is only a suggestion for those who want a deeper understanding of the plays, just as somebody who wanted to be a biologist would get a technical dictionary to understand all the esoteric words in Dawkins' book.

But you are correct about one thing. Because the writer has some ideas that you disagree with, his article is "full of scat." I hope that your students had a more open and tolerant mind than you do when they approached Shakespeare or anything else that they potentially might have found disagreeable.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by abookreader

Personally, I have nothing against Shakespeare. Yes, a 10th grader reading it in the original form will struggle with uncommon vocabulary and structure. They will be challenged to read over and over to interpret. There is educational value in that but many of them will fail. Many of them will walk away reinforced in their belief that they "Hate reading."

THAT is where I have a problem.

By the tenth grade, if kids hate reading or can't read, the problem started long before they encountered Shakespeare!

I think that teachers who trot out the movies and the graphic novels are trying to incite fiery interest from a stone cold pile of tinder. Maybe it will work, maybe not. I suspect they'd be much better off simply starting with a subject material that would be far more likely to appeal to the common teen. I suspect they would be for more likely to succeed if our kids were actually given some sort of choice in what they will read. I'm really not of the opinion that there are all that many documents out there that anybody should HAVE to read. With my children, I'm much more concerned that they just read.

As for those who enjoy Shakespeare - go for it.

Shared culture is important.

[Freeshadow]

Originally Posted by queentess

It's one thing to understand something (which the teacher did) and another entirely to explain it (which the teacher could not).

That's golden truth, and sadly to confirm that it happens over and over again - at schools, unis... you name it.

I don't get how it comes, that (some) people being obviously smart enough to achieve higher academic degrees, can still be stupid enough not to get the fact that they are awfully lousy in teaching.
That's no shame - teaching is a separate skill, being proficient at the matter to be taught is another.

Why don't they simply admit "I have no skill in transfering knowledge." and go into research, development, whatever.

[HarryT]

For anyone interested in gaining a deeper understanding of Shakespearean English, by the way, I'd strongly recommend David Crystal's book "Think On My Words: Exploring Shakespeare's Language". It is available as an eBook .