Is Shakespeare not taught in DCPS?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So I assume we do the Christian Bible too (with Apocrypha, not just Torah/Mishnah, of course). Wouldn't want to skip any books because otherwise you'd miss allusions from Ruth to Revelation as you watch NCIS.

not sure if you’re being sarcastic - but yes, some study of Biblical motifs would definitely be part of a great English curriculum. And of course this ties right into broadening the canon, since so many slavery narratives, hymns, etc, draw on Biblical motifs. It would actually be a fantastic lens to build a class around the connections between African American lit and the traditional canon.

Speaking as an atheist, we should study the bible for its literary value. It is so influential in society that we need to understand the cultural background of the people around us.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So I assume we do the Christian Bible too (with Apocrypha, not just Torah/Mishnah, of course). Wouldn't want to skip any books because otherwise you'd miss allusions from Ruth to Revelation as you watch NCIS.

not sure if you’re being sarcastic - but yes, some study of Biblical motifs would definitely be part of a great English curriculum. And of course this ties right into broadening the canon, since so many slavery narratives, hymns, etc, draw on Biblical motifs. It would actually be a fantastic lens to build a class around the connections between African American lit and the traditional canon.

It absolutely was one of the pieces of literature we studied at my very secular high school for this very reason. It touches on history and literature. Certainly makes reading Morrison's "Song of Solomon" a whole lot more compelling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why Shakespeare? Why not Chaucer?
I’m also wondering how many of the vigorous supporters of reading Shakespeare have read any of his works beyond some academic requirement, or have even gone to plays. Is this an ongoing interest with ongoing support? Any Folger fans?

I have read everything he wrote. I reread plays during the summers. In my years as an English teacher at a UK boarding school, I have taken many classes to the Globe to see live performances, and I often attend these just with friends. I have been so grateful to engage with a programme via the educational team at the Globe, which sends their team to schools to lead workshops in acting Shakespeare with students. Every year I direct a play at my school. And I have a Ph d. in English Literature.

What are your credentials?

Yale undergrad and a PhD in a social science — which is more than enough education to ask a very simple question about why some people are championing a particular recommendation.

I don't need a PhD to understand that teaching Shakespeare is racist.

Care to explain or it should be self evident? From your statement we can be confident that you don’t have a PhD or that you understand anything of substance.

For one, Shakespeare is just not equitable. The wording is highly specific to Anglo culture that not all communities may be familiar with (I know I certainly wasn't). That right there shuts out many kids. For the same reason they stopped making questions on the SAT about country clubs and sailing a long time ago. Why can't we also be more inclusive in our general education?!

You've never heard of No Fear Shakespear?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why Shakespeare? Why not Chaucer?
I’m also wondering how many of the vigorous supporters of reading Shakespeare have read any of his works beyond some academic requirement, or have even gone to plays. Is this an ongoing interest with ongoing support? Any Folger fans?

I have read everything he wrote. I reread plays during the summers. In my years as an English teacher at a UK boarding school, I have taken many classes to the Globe to see live performances, and I often attend these just with friends. I have been so grateful to engage with a programme via the educational team at the Globe, which sends their team to schools to lead workshops in acting Shakespeare with students. Every year I direct a play at my school. And I have a Ph d. in English Literature.

What are your credentials?

Yale undergrad and a PhD in a social science — which is more than enough education to ask a very simple question about why some people are championing a particular recommendation.

I don't need a PhD to understand that teaching Shakespeare is racist.

I don’t think it’s the actual literature that’s racist, as much as the people who think there is a need to ask about Shakespeare and cry if it’s only taught a little or not at all.

huh? if English instruction doesn’t go deep into the foundation of texts and classics like Shakespeare, that’s a problem. The canon should be broadened not thrown away. And the idea that we shouldn’t teach Shakespeare because it is “too hard” is it’s own separate concern!

It seems some of those who rigidly insist on Shakespeare are basically saying that English is really "their" language and therefore "their" authors must be the foundation for everyone else.

Who are ‘those’ that insist that English is ‘their’ language and Shakespeare is ‘their’ author. One can claim English as their language by using it. The only way one can claim Shakespeare as theirs is by reading his work.

Obviously there have to be foundational literature, the so called canon, some works are more influential than others, bible for example, also The Odyssey, there aren’t many people that argue Shakespeare is not there.

Are you saying Shakespeare is artificially put on the list and should be replaced?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So I assume we do the Christian Bible too (with Apocrypha, not just Torah/Mishnah, of course). Wouldn't want to skip any books because otherwise you'd miss allusions from Ruth to Revelation as you watch NCIS.

not sure if you’re being sarcastic - but yes, some study of Biblical motifs would definitely be part of a great English curriculum. And of course this ties right into broadening the canon, since so many slavery narratives, hymns, etc, draw on Biblical motifs. It would actually be a fantastic lens to build a class around the connections between African American lit and the traditional canon.

It absolutely was one of the pieces of literature we studied at my very secular high school for this very reason. It touches on history and literature. Certainly makes reading Morrison's "Song of Solomon" a whole lot more compelling.

That's BS and just trying to inject illegal bible study in public schools in disguise. If needed, a good teacher can just point out any relevant biblical references along the way as you read Morrison. That's like saying you must first study Latin for years before you can begin learning Spanish or French.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why Shakespeare? Why not Chaucer?
I’m also wondering how many of the vigorous supporters of reading Shakespeare have read any of his works beyond some academic requirement, or have even gone to plays. Is this an ongoing interest with ongoing support? Any Folger fans?

I have read everything he wrote. I reread plays during the summers. In my years as an English teacher at a UK boarding school, I have taken many classes to the Globe to see live performances, and I often attend these just with friends. I have been so grateful to engage with a programme via the educational team at the Globe, which sends their team to schools to lead workshops in acting Shakespeare with students. Every year I direct a play at my school. And I have a Ph d. in English Literature.

What are your credentials?

Yale undergrad and a PhD in a social science — which is more than enough education to ask a very simple question about why some people are championing a particular recommendation.

I don't need a PhD to understand that teaching Shakespeare is racist.

Care to explain or it should be self evident? From your statement we can be confident that you don’t have a PhD or that you understand anything of substance.

For one, Shakespeare is just not equitable. The wording is highly specific to Anglo culture that not all communities may be familiar with (I know I certainly wasn't). That right there shuts out many kids. For the same reason they stopped making questions on the SAT about country clubs and sailing a long time ago. Why can't we also be more inclusive in our general education?!

Are we should have an English literature class on lowest common denominator works so that all students are 100% familiar with the vocabulary and everyone gets an A+, or even better no grades anymore because equity. What books would you find appropriate for this purpose? Dog Man, Wimpy kid? The fact that the SAT culturally favors white students has been debunked numerous times.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why Shakespeare? Why not Chaucer?
I’m also wondering how many of the vigorous supporters of reading Shakespeare have read any of his works beyond some academic requirement, or have even gone to plays. Is this an ongoing interest with ongoing support? Any Folger fans?

I have read everything he wrote. I reread plays during the summers. In my years as an English teacher at a UK boarding school, I have taken many classes to the Globe to see live performances, and I often attend these just with friends. I have been so grateful to engage with a programme via the educational team at the Globe, which sends their team to schools to lead workshops in acting Shakespeare with students. Every year I direct a play at my school. And I have a Ph d. in English Literature.

What are your credentials?

Yale undergrad and a PhD in a social science — which is more than enough education to ask a very simple question about why some people are championing a particular recommendation.

I don't need a PhD to understand that teaching Shakespeare is racist.

I don’t think it’s the actual literature that’s racist, as much as the people who think there is a need to ask about Shakespeare and cry if it’s only taught a little or not at all.

huh? if English instruction doesn’t go deep into the foundation of texts and classics like Shakespeare, that’s a problem. The canon should be broadened not thrown away. And the idea that we shouldn’t teach Shakespeare because it is “too hard” is it’s own separate concern!

It seems some of those who rigidly insist on Shakespeare are basically saying that English is really "their" language and therefore "their" authors must be the foundation for everyone else.

I’m pretty comfortable asserting that Shakespeare is one fundamental for the study of English. Did you know Toni Morrison wrote a play based on Desdemona? It seems like you are either a) a troll or b) operating under some other kind of bad-faith assumptions that English curriculums are a political battleground primarily.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So I assume we do the Christian Bible too (with Apocrypha, not just Torah/Mishnah, of course). Wouldn't want to skip any books because otherwise you'd miss allusions from Ruth to Revelation as you watch NCIS.

not sure if you’re being sarcastic - but yes, some study of Biblical motifs would definitely be part of a great English curriculum. And of course this ties right into broadening the canon, since so many slavery narratives, hymns, etc, draw on Biblical motifs. It would actually be a fantastic lens to build a class around the connections between African American lit and the traditional canon.

It absolutely was one of the pieces of literature we studied at my very secular high school for this very reason. It touches on history and literature. Certainly makes reading Morrison's "Song of Solomon" a whole lot more compelling.

That's BS and just trying to inject illegal bible study in public schools in disguise. If needed, a good teacher can just point out any relevant biblical references along the way as you read Morrison. That's like saying you must first study Latin for years before you can begin learning Spanish or French.

I feel sad for you - I can tell you never had a good English class, one that teaches you to appreciate literature and approach difficult texts, whether canon or non-canon. Only someone who dislikes literature could argue so trenchantly against Shakespeare.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So I assume we do the Christian Bible too (with Apocrypha, not just Torah/Mishnah, of course). Wouldn't want to skip any books because otherwise you'd miss allusions from Ruth to Revelation as you watch NCIS.

not sure if you’re being sarcastic - but yes, some study of Biblical motifs would definitely be part of a great English curriculum. And of course this ties right into broadening the canon, since so many slavery narratives, hymns, etc, draw on Biblical motifs. It would actually be a fantastic lens to build a class around the connections between African American lit and the traditional canon.

It absolutely was one of the pieces of literature we studied at my very secular high school for this very reason. It touches on history and literature. Certainly makes reading Morrison's "Song of Solomon" a whole lot more compelling.

That's BS and just trying to inject illegal bible study in public schools in disguise. If needed, a good teacher can just point out any relevant biblical references along the way as you read Morrison. That's like saying you must first study Latin for years before you can begin learning Spanish or French.

I feel sad for you - I can tell you never had a good English class, one that teaches you to appreciate literature and approach difficult texts, whether canon or non-canon. Only someone who dislikes literature could argue so trenchantly against Shakespeare.

You're confusing different PPs. I like Shakespeare, but I'm 100% against illegal bible study in public schools under the guise of "literature".

[Anonymous]

This thread is so depressing. Saving my pennies now for private school for my kids (which will definitely not further the goal of equity that folks are striving for by eliminating Shakespeare from the curriculum).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So I assume we do the Christian Bible too (with Apocrypha, not just Torah/Mishnah, of course). Wouldn't want to skip any books because otherwise you'd miss allusions from Ruth to Revelation as you watch NCIS.

not sure if you’re being sarcastic - but yes, some study of Biblical motifs would definitely be part of a great English curriculum. And of course this ties right into broadening the canon, since so many slavery narratives, hymns, etc, draw on Biblical motifs. It would actually be a fantastic lens to build a class around the connections between African American lit and the traditional canon.

It absolutely was one of the pieces of literature we studied at my very secular high school for this very reason. It touches on history and literature. Certainly makes reading Morrison's "Song of Solomon" a whole lot more compelling.

That's BS and just trying to inject illegal bible study in public schools in disguise. If needed, a good teacher can just point out any relevant biblical references along the way as you read Morrison. That's like saying you must first study Latin for years before you can begin learning Spanish or French.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So I assume we do the Christian Bible too (with Apocrypha, not just Torah/Mishnah, of course). Wouldn't want to skip any books because otherwise you'd miss allusions from Ruth to Revelation as you watch NCIS.

not sure if you’re being sarcastic - but yes, some study of Biblical motifs would definitely be part of a great English curriculum. And of course this ties right into broadening the canon, since so many slavery narratives, hymns, etc, draw on Biblical motifs. It would actually be a fantastic lens to build a class around the connections between African American lit and the traditional canon.

It absolutely was one of the pieces of literature we studied at my very secular high school for this very reason. It touches on history and literature. Certainly makes reading Morrison's "Song of Solomon" a whole lot more compelling.

That's BS and just trying to inject illegal bible study in public schools in disguise. If needed, a good teacher can just point out any relevant biblical references along the way as you read Morrison. That's like saying you must first study Latin for years before you can begin learning Spanish or French.

Learning about religions and reading religious texts as part of world history or literature in public school is not illegal. Prosletyzing is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So I assume we do the Christian Bible too (with Apocrypha, not just Torah/Mishnah, of course). Wouldn't want to skip any books because otherwise you'd miss allusions from Ruth to Revelation as you watch NCIS.

not sure if you’re being sarcastic - but yes, some study of Biblical motifs would definitely be part of a great English curriculum. And of course this ties right into broadening the canon, since so many slavery narratives, hymns, etc, draw on Biblical motifs. It would actually be a fantastic lens to build a class around the connections between African American lit and the traditional canon.

It absolutely was one of the pieces of literature we studied at my very secular high school for this very reason. It touches on history and literature. Certainly makes reading Morrison's "Song of Solomon" a whole lot more compelling.

That's BS and just trying to inject illegal bible study in public schools in disguise. If needed, a good teacher can just point out any relevant biblical references along the way as you read Morrison. That's like saying you must first study Latin for years before you can begin learning Spanish or French.

I feel sad for you - I can tell you never had a good English class, one that teaches you to appreciate literature and approach difficult texts, whether canon or non-canon. Only someone who dislikes literature could argue so trenchantly against Shakespeare.

You're confusing different PPs. I like Shakespeare, but I'm 100% against illegal bible study in public schools under the guise of "literature".

ok I don’t think you understand what English literature is. Knowing the story of Judith etc is basic cultural literacy, not religion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So I assume we do the Christian Bible too (with Apocrypha, not just Torah/Mishnah, of course). Wouldn't want to skip any books because otherwise you'd miss allusions from Ruth to Revelation as you watch NCIS.

not sure if you’re being sarcastic - but yes, some study of Biblical motifs would definitely be part of a great English curriculum. And of course this ties right into broadening the canon, since so many slavery narratives, hymns, etc, draw on Biblical motifs. It would actually be a fantastic lens to build a class around the connections between African American lit and the traditional canon.

It absolutely was one of the pieces of literature we studied at my very secular high school for this very reason. It touches on history and literature. Certainly makes reading Morrison's "Song of Solomon" a whole lot more compelling.

That's BS and just trying to inject illegal bible study in public schools in disguise. If needed, a good teacher can just point out any relevant biblical references along the way as you read Morrison. That's like saying you must first study Latin for years before you can begin learning Spanish or French.

This is not the same at all. It's a layered novel that is using the bible on her own terms, which in and of itself is part of the point and part of her grabbing back the idea of "canon" and rewriting it as Black cannon.

I wouldn't expect the Bible to show up in public schools anytime soon, but kids who are not familiar with it (and many will be from church or temple) are missing out on some of the most fundamental building blocks of English literature and world history.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This thread is so depressing. Saving my pennies now for private school for my kids (which will definitely not further the goal of equity that folks are striving for by eliminating Shakespeare from the curriculum).

Yup.