Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2021 0:07:57 GMT
Piano lessons! They'd have been more useful if the teacher had just told us to find something by banging about using our fingers, hands, whatever, wherever on the keys. I had to learn scales mechanically and got my hand slapped if I didn't curl my my thumb under to play the rest of the octave. Idiot 'formalised' education You're lucky to have had lessons on an instrument, I'd have loved that.
|
|
~ / % ? *
god
disambiguating goat herder
Posts: 5,532
|
Post by ~ / % ? * on Dec 14, 2021 1:41:45 GMT
We had to build the piano first... before lessons...each time
(one of my older brothers and a cousin got into 'prepared and amplified piano', so we had soundboards, pedals, gutted pianos around, for a while we had to fuse two uprights together to get a working piano.)
|
|
|
Post by tory on Dec 14, 2021 7:29:25 GMT
Shakespeare is part of the syllabus so it has to be taught and at GCSE level knowledge of context is fundamental. From a distance, not teaching arguably the premier source of literature in this country would be like Germans not learning Goethe or the French Balzac etc.
Yes, it's difficult but that's the point. I totally understand what might seem like futility in teaching barely literate kids Iambic Pentameter, but again we are on the utility vs cultural capital argument and at that end of the spectrum one wonders if they get anything from it. However, to deny access to them seems to be saying 'sorry kids but you're just not clever enough for this'.
|
|
|
Post by tory on Dec 14, 2021 8:48:02 GMT
From a personal perspective I got to 40 and realised that there was this huge inheritance of thought and art about the human condition that was there for me to read and think about. To not do that seems to me a massive squandering of what previous generations have bequeathed us.
I became less interested in contemporary culture, particularly as I'd spent 20 years smashing garys in dark clubs listening to repetitive beats (having an absolute whale of a time) and now needed something that transcended that - a book or play or thinking that was transcendental. And the great thing about so much of it is that it's out there, waiting for you to inhale it. I used to rush to Detroit techno, now I rush to poetry and philosophy.
|
|
|
Post by DarknessFish on Dec 14, 2021 8:58:21 GMT
But the idea that contemporary culture is fundamentally lesser, or that the study of literature at GCSE level has to include Shakespeare is a nonsense. There's a huge inheritance of thought and art that can enrich the lives of children today without going to Elizabethan times. Works that engage and have relevance to their lives, teach them the joy of reading as well as the technical structures, the themes, etc. I reckon there's more chance of Crime and Punishment resonating with inner city kids in deprived areas than Twelfth Night, and it's hardly dumbing down, quite the opposite.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2021 9:03:02 GMT
Shakespeare is part of the syllabus so it has to be taught and at GCSE level knowledge of context is fundamental. From a distance, not teaching arguably the premier source of literature in this country would be like Germans not learning Goethe or the French Balzac etc. Yes, it's difficult but that's the point. I totally understand what might seem like futility in teaching barely literate kids Iambic Pentameter, but again we are on the utility vs cultural capital argument and at that end of the spectrum one wonders if they get anything from it. However, to deny access to them seems to be saying 'sorry kids but you're just not clever enough for this'. No it doesn't. This idea that you're somehow denying kids some enriching experience is complete nonsense. And it's not just the weak kids, I'd argue the majority get very little out of it. We are all aware it has to be taught Toby, we're saying it shouldn't be. It wasn't taught when I was doing O Level.
|
|
|
Post by oh oooh on Dec 14, 2021 9:04:53 GMT
Shakespeare is part of the syllabus so it has to be taught this is a bit like 'there was a vote for Brexit so we just have to get on with it', isn't it?
|
|
|
Post by Reactionary Rage on Dec 14, 2021 9:33:36 GMT
They are being failed because when they get to a certain age they can't string a sentence together so something is going seriously wrong prior to that. That goes deeper than learning Shakespeare at 15 or whatever, that's a failed education/home life. What about the kids who can string a sentence together and who might benefit? Should we remove such things entirely to accommodate those who can't? We did Macbeth at school and whilst I struggled a bit with the language it was not that bad. I would have benefited from watching a movie mind. On your first point - yes. Forget differences at 15, those differences are apparent at 6. That's the kind of discrepancy schools are having to deal with. Honestly you're probably in the top 5 % in English having gained a degree in it, so if you "struggled a bit" then imagine how the rest feel. There's all kinds of literature and poetry that can challenge and push and enrich brighter students, you don't have to go back to Elizabethan England for it. My degree was Computing! I wish I had done English or something more interesting but alas I went down the practical route.
|
|
|
Post by Reactionary Rage on Dec 14, 2021 9:43:31 GMT
Shakespeare is part of the syllabus so it has to be taught this is a bit like 'there was a vote for Brexit so we just have to get on with it', isn't it? Is there a cultural argument for learning Shakespeare? Is there an argument, as Toby said before, that English school kids should learn some Shakespeare due to his status and cultural importance as the foremost playwright in the English language? It's not just exposing them to a great genius but there is an element here of teaching children their own culture.
|
|
|
Post by Reactionary Rage on Dec 14, 2021 9:58:34 GMT
But the idea that contemporary culture is fundamentally lesser, or that the study of literature at GCSE level has to include Shakespeare is a nonsense. There's a huge inheritance of thought and art that can enrich the lives of children today without going to Elizabethan times. Works that engage and have relevance to their lives, teach them the joy of reading as well as the technical structures, the themes, etc. I reckon there's more chance of Crime and Punishment resonating with inner city kids in deprived areas than Twelfth Night, and it's hardly dumbing down, quite the opposite. Is Crime and Punishment contemporary? What does some Russian bloke from the 19th Century say to an inner city kid from London? How about we go over some of Stormzy's raps? I can hear that argument being made right now by some well meaning teacher as a means of encouraging their students. If kids are semi-literate and have little interest in learning then going over Shakespeare or Dostoevsky or *insert name of current writer here* won't make any difference. By that point it's too late. They are lost.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2021 9:59:29 GMT
this is a bit like 'there was a vote for Brexit so we just have to get on with it', isn't it? Is there a cultural argument for learning Shakespeare? Is there an argument, as Toby said before, that English school kids should learn some Shakespeare due to his status and cultural importance as the foremost playwright in the English language? It's not just exposing them to a great genius but there is an element here of teaching children their own culture. Yes, but that can be done without studying the texts in that kind of depth.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2021 10:02:31 GMT
But the idea that contemporary culture is fundamentally lesser, or that the study of literature at GCSE level has to include Shakespeare is a nonsense. There's a huge inheritance of thought and art that can enrich the lives of children today without going to Elizabethan times. Works that engage and have relevance to their lives, teach them the joy of reading as well as the technical structures, the themes, etc. I reckon there's more chance of Crime and Punishment resonating with inner city kids in deprived areas than Twelfth Night, and it's hardly dumbing down, quite the opposite. Is Crime and Punishment contemporary? What does some Russian bloke from the 19th Century say to an inner city kid from London? How about we go over some of Stormzy's raps? I can hear that argument being made right now by some well meaning teacher as a means of encouraging their students. If kids are semi-literate and have little interest in learning then going over Shakespeare or Dostoevsky or *insert name of current writer here* won't make any difference. By that point it's too late. They are lost. It's a bit of myth that brighter kids will really respond to Shakespeare as well. Just think of your own lives, how many people do you know who grew up with a love of Shakespeare, I can't think of any!
|
|
|
Post by oh oooh on Dec 14, 2021 10:04:09 GMT
this is a bit like 'there was a vote for Brexit so we just have to get on with it', isn't it? Is there a cultural argument for learning Shakespeare? Is there an argument, as Toby said before, that English school kids should learn some Shakespeare due to his status and cultural importance as the foremost playwright in the English language? It's not just exposing them to a great genius but there is an element here of teaching children their own culture. I think it's a lot more complex than the arguments here would suggest. Shakespeare's been on the syllabus for English school kids for generations and I don't see that changing for a long time. He's our greatest playwright and there's so much wisdom and humour in his work that it pays dividends to dig in. HOWEVER - as I keep saying - it's dead on the page. All plays are dead on the page, especially the way teachers typically deal with them (assigning roles to kids and getting them to read aloud in class) - but especially in this case, when we're looking at writing that's over 400 years old and is all but incomprehensible to even educated people in 2021. Only very gifted teachers can bring this stuff to life for young people - and even then, it depends entirely on how receptive the students are to it. Considering all the great literature out there, and also (this is of course a separate issue) taking into account the priorities of a high school education, I'd say it's a waste of time to push Shakespeare onto kids at any age. I'm not entirely sure why it still happens, it's a sign of the fossilisation of the UK school system I suppose. One last point I'll make - there's an obvious and very clear difference between voluntary and involuntary education. If people choose to study Shakespeare because they're interested in it, then the rewards can be great. It's always going to be there for you to go to, like Rembrandt's painting or Coltrane's jazz. It almost never happens that a 14-year-old voluntarily chooses to read As You Like It - so why cause no end of stress for both teacher and pupil to force this learning, regardless of how great it is?
|
|
|
Post by oh oooh on Dec 14, 2021 10:05:20 GMT
Is Crime and Punishment contemporary? What does some Russian bloke from the 19th Century say to an inner city kid from London? How about we go over some of Stormzy's raps? I can hear that argument being made right now by some well meaning teacher as a means of encouraging their students. If kids are semi-literate and have little interest in learning then going over Shakespeare or Dostoevsky or *insert name of current writer here* won't make any difference. By that point it's too late. They are lost. It's a bit of myth that brighter kids will really respond to Shakespeare as well. Just think of your own lives, how many people do you know who grew up with a love of Shakespeare, I can't think of any! Exactly right. But the argument could be made that this love can be instilled by the teacher. If it's not taught in schools then Shakespeare will die altogether.
|
|
|
Post by Reactionary Rage on Dec 14, 2021 10:06:55 GMT
I'll have you know by the age of 14 I walked around my Highland town in full Elizabethan garb complete with a pipe and stick on tache in tribute to the BARD.
I was quite the eccentric!
|
|