I think that there are experts out there who have studied much more than any high school student and are much more qualified to know what the advantages of studying shakespeare in high school are. Some students have complained that Shakespeare is dull, but the reason for this is very likely that they have switched off to the text because it takes more time to understand. But where possible, it is preferable for curriculum guidelines to present Shakespeare simply as an option: a writer among many other writers. Secondly, to study Shakespeare is to acquire all kinds of knowledge, not just the knowledge of the plot of another play. I believe that shakespeare's work should continue to be studied at the high school level simply because this subject can further our education and could prepare us for post high school education. He was an intelligent man who knew what he was doing and he accomplished many things.
When I read Shakespeare I need glossaries and footnotes to help me understand unfamiliar words and historical references. Teaching Shakespeare is evil and a purposeful attempt to degrade the self-esteem of children. Just maybe not test them on his work as knowing how to comprehend a Shakespeare novel isn't going to help you in the real world! These students should have a basic understanding of the school system before they enter my classroom. But, to develop the story, Friar Lawrence had to have this sleeping potion in his possession. The history and Roman plays offer opportunities for developing different kinds of historical understanding. An obvious division could be made between Francophone and Anglophone countries, but even these categories falter.
. The issue with teaching Shakespeare is that it encourages people to think. What is it about a long-dead poet and playwright that makes him such an important element of contemporary culture? Many of the phrases featured in modern language originated from the famous writer. For example, Obama did pot as a teenager, now he's running for president. Is the curriculum in any school.
Why should we stop teaching Shakespeare? If students can successfully read and understand Shakespeare, they can handle almost anything else. For example, if a student went to college they would have a degree which would make them look better then someone with just a high school diploma. Of course we wil not be able to understand the work he writes and thats why we have people who do understand it translate his work into peices we should be able to understand. If and when someone does go to college, Shakespeare will be there waiting. It might be more appropriate to study English lit beginning at the present and journeying into the past, tracing thematic threads back into prehistory so that students understand that great works of literature are not monuments unto themselves, but draw upon the greatness of previous works of literature in many ages of our past.
The intricate meanings, extensive vocabulary, and powerful imagery contained within his works demonstrate the phenomenal story telling ability of the English playwright. For instance, they are more likely to relate to a book if a love-torn couple rams a yellow vehicle into a woman and kill her as occurs in the relatively modern The Great Gatsby , than if a love-torn woman just happens to fall into a river, drowns, and no one sees as occurs in Hamlet. Here a case may be made for translation as a vital aspect of teaching and learning Shakespeare. Because history is ment to be tought so that we present day people could knw how things developed and how they were. It might be an increased vocabulary, or an understanding of the Elizabethan stage. His 1158 Words 5 Pages There are many arguments as to why children should stay in school.
A quote from Frederick S. Of course, England is the real heart of Shakespearean love and lore. There are other writers, of course, who write about these things, but most of them are in conversation with Shakespeare in one way or another. He has created complex characters that show how certain circumstances can cause people to fall from grace. Visit our Teaching English site for. If we are to teach Shakespeare in Africa, we cannot teach the text alone. I have found that all the analysing texts in English at my school are incredibly easy and the symbolism etc.
His plays have violence which everyone is interested in, it teaches children about the language that is used back then and gives the a wider vocabulary. I think that Shakespeare's work should continue to be read at the high school level because his work is very well written and that makes students become better writers. Most English language teachers I speak to admit that they have never considered teaching Shakespeare, while some are openly appalled at the notion. Yes, I beleive that at this age students should be required to study shakespear's works. Mr Gove backed an initiative last year to introduce young children to Shakespeare, but the focus was on bringing the Bard into other areas of the curriculum, such as lessons in Elizabethan cooking or sewing Tudor money bags in design and technology classes. A tourist in London may be able to find three or four theaters simultaneously presenting different Shakespearean works, Craven noted. But it is also a clumsy question and it needs rephrasing — or, at least, the terms in which it is couched need further investigation if we are to attempt a nuanced, coherent answer.
Shakespeare's work inspires students so they can follow his footsteps and write like him. Shakespeare should absolutely continue to be taught in high schools. Yes, I think Shakespears work should be continued to be taught at a high school level. Shakespeare invites students to develop a deep acquaintance with those characters, to experience their extremes of emotion, to imaginatively inhabit their remote worlds, and to learn from those close encounters with otherness. Yes Shakespeare is one of the most influental poets of all time, but I believe that times change and with that Shakespeare is obsolete. In fact, their overwhelming response is that studying Shakespeare is a valuable and necessary experience. His stories are remarkable with complex story plots that show cause and effect.
They take time from you learning something important in English than just a play. I agree that Shakespeare's works makes you think at a higher level. Conversely, if we only teach white students, it is our imperative duty to open them up to a world of diversity through literature that they may never encounter anywhere else in their lives. Observation 1: The Affirmative must prove that teaching Shakespeare in school leads to an actual benefit to society, as Negative I must show that teaching Shakespeare either produces no benefit, or leads to detriment. Much of the text is dated or archaic and is initially unknown to the typical student. That's why many students don't want to continue it.
I mean the reason we have a history class is because we need to learn the past so that we wont repeat it today. It is what has kept his plays popular and taught for so long. Shakespeare is confusing, fiction, old, and honestly not useful. Then there is the Shakespeare associated with former president , who was seen as something of an intellectual elitist and was ultimately recalled by the governing African National Congress. I believe that Shakespeare's work should continue to be studied at the high school level because, it is very knowledgeable, and also teenagers can learn a thing or to from Shakespeare about love and real poetry and plays. Yes, because a lot of the grammar used in the old English is very interesting. In fact, my opponent actually conceded this.