Is Shakespeare not taught in DCPS?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Bible is foundational for the English literature but not guiding. Shakespeare is both foundational and guiding.

Interesting point. I’d say the time frames are at play here too- as the Bible predates Shakespeare by 1500+ years. But The difference is that the Bible was the source of rules people had to live by- so while it’s writing doesn’t resonate the way Shakespearean text do, the Bible holds the very framework many writers explored and pulled apart. Different role in literature.

The Bible was referenced through many later works, but you can argue that it was less for its literary value and more for its cultural (religious) role. Shakespeare on the other hand was a lot more prolific, gave us a wide vocabulary, style (poetry, theater), complex character development all this when there wasn’t much literature in the modern sense to precede him. He really influenced the way we use language and the literature we read today, which is why I call him guiding.

Shakespeare is to English what Newton is for sciences, the first to see the world as we understand it today.

To argue against reading Shakespeare in the English class is like asking to remove Newton from Physics lectures.

[Anonymous]

I come here for the Deal hate, stay for the Shakespeare boosterism. Stay classy, San Diego.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It would be cool, but in this thread we are talking about English literature classes. I wouldn't go beyong the bible for religious texts, there is too much to cover.

Nonsense!

OK, what religious texts would you include in the English literature class besides the bible?

People it's not that hard, please no religious texts in public schools! The claim about the Bible being the foundation of literature is such BS.

The only one who seems to be having difficulty with this is you. Religious texts that are taught as literature or part of World History are fine, as long as texts from different religions are represented. Or, as DCPS put it:

1. The evolution of the concepts of personal freedom, individual responsibility, and respect for human dignity over
time.
2. The struggles that men and women have faced in overcoming political oppression, economic exploitation, religious persecution, and racial injustice.
3. The growth and impact of centralized state power
through time.
4. The birth, growth, and decline of civilizations.
5. The influence of economic, political, religious, and cultural
ideas as human societies move beyond regional, national,
or geographic boundaries.
6. The historical patterns and relationships within and
among world nations, continents, and regions —
economic competition and interdependence; age-old
ethnic, racial, and religious enmities; political and military
alliances; peacemaking and war making — that serve as a
backdrop to and explain contemporary policy alternatives
with national and worldwide implications.
7. The effects of geography on the history of civilizations
and nations.
8. The effects of the interactions between humans and the
environment through the ages.
9. The growth and spread of free markets and industrial
economies.
10. The development of scientific reasoning, technology, and
formal education over time and their effect on people’s
health, standards of living, economic growth, government,
religious beliefs, communal life, and the environment.

That's not what the religious PPs are arguing. They want the Bible as the foundational guiding document for English literature in general. See the PPs above, they literally said first read the Bible before Shakespeare or anything else.

Oh ffs. Nobody said that.

Yes they did. Just search upthread for "bible" and "foundation"

Facepalm!
When we argue to study the Bible in the English literature class we don’t mean to have Bible study in the English class.

[Anonymous]

PP, can you spot the difference?

[Anonymous]

This canon argument is tired as hell. Like, can anybody even get close to reading all of the great literature that comes out every single year? Why doesn’t every world citizen read Bede or Beowulf or the Bible or Borges or Bunyan or Burns or whatever. Can you be musical without Beethoven or Brahms? I mean, have a little respect for the nonstop avalanche of achingly beautiful artistic output of the world.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This canon argument is tired as hell. Like, can anybody even get close to reading all of the great literature that comes out every single year? Why doesn’t every world citizen read Bede or Beowulf or the Bible or Borges or Bunyan or Burns or whatever. Can you be musical without Beethoven or Brahms? I mean, have a little respect for the nonstop avalanche of achingly beautiful artistic output of the world.

What exactly is your point?

The thread is about the canon in the context of public school education.

One can respect today’s literary output in a current literature class or Oprah’s book club.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It would be cool, but in this thread we are talking about English literature classes. I wouldn't go beyong the bible for religious texts, there is too much to cover.

Nonsense!

OK, what religious texts would you include in the English literature class besides the bible?

People it's not that hard, please no religious texts in public schools! The claim about the Bible being the foundation of literature is such BS.

The only one who seems to be having difficulty with this is you. Religious texts that are taught as literature or part of World History are fine, as long as texts from different religions are represented. Or, as DCPS put it:

1. The evolution of the concepts of personal freedom, individual responsibility, and respect for human dignity over
time.
2. The struggles that men and women have faced in overcoming political oppression, economic exploitation, religious persecution, and racial injustice.
3. The growth and impact of centralized state power
through time.
4. The birth, growth, and decline of civilizations.
5. The influence of economic, political, religious, and cultural
ideas as human societies move beyond regional, national,
or geographic boundaries.
6. The historical patterns and relationships within and
among world nations, continents, and regions —
economic competition and interdependence; age-old
ethnic, racial, and religious enmities; political and military
alliances; peacemaking and war making — that serve as a
backdrop to and explain contemporary policy alternatives
with national and worldwide implications.
7. The effects of geography on the history of civilizations
and nations.
8. The effects of the interactions between humans and the
environment through the ages.
9. The growth and spread of free markets and industrial
economies.
10. The development of scientific reasoning, technology, and
formal education over time and their effect on people’s
health, standards of living, economic growth, government,
religious beliefs, communal life, and the environment.

That's not what the religious PPs are arguing. They want the Bible as the foundational guiding document for English literature in general. See the PPs above, they literally said first read the Bible before Shakespeare or anything else.

Oh ffs. Nobody said that.

Yes they did. Just search upthread for "bible" and "foundation"

Oh sweet Jeebus. There's a difference between saying the Bible is foundational to English literature and what you seem to be claiming, that you have to study the Bible in a religious manner as a "guiding document for English literature in general." Again I really weep for you since you clearly never had any sort of liberal arts education.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Eh, no Bible.
Unless it’s being read as a fictional piece of work, which I assume will make some mad lol.
Might as well just do the Odyssey, it’s just like the Bible but people like to pretend it’s very different.

I think the difficulty in having it understood as a study of literature by parents (see: this thread) is enough to preclude it from public school. But ideally it should be part of any English lit curriculum.

No, it shouldn't. Kids today are barely learning at all, the last thing the need is filling up precious classroom time with more Jesus stories.

You grasp of complex ideas and canon is clear.

:waves white flag, gives up

yup.

/starts saving for private/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This canon argument is tired as hell. Like, can anybody even get close to reading all of the great literature that comes out every single year? Why doesn’t every world citizen read Bede or Beowulf or the Bible or Borges or Bunyan or Burns or whatever. Can you be musical without Beethoven or Brahms? I mean, have a little respect for the nonstop avalanche of achingly beautiful artistic output of the world.

It's not tired as hell at all. You have to have SOME sort of notion of structure, canon, and culture if you're going to teach literature. Maybe your canon is Harlem Rennaisance through Colson Whitehead, but it's still a canon. Structure is good. Great literature is in conversation with culture and other literature that came before it. Randomly surveying "achingly beautiful artistic output of the world" with no structure is pretty pointless as an academic exercise.

[Anonymous]

I have a conspiracy theory for everyone.

This thread is a marketing ploy to boost enrollment in private schools. The cancel Shakespeare and anti Bible literature posters are actually principals in real life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have a conspiracy theory for everyone.

This thread is a marketing ploy to boost enrollment in private schools. The cancel Shakespeare and anti Bible literature posters are actually principals in real life.

You may be right. Next up: why algebra isn’t relevant for today’s modern high schooler.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a conspiracy theory for everyone.

This thread is a marketing ploy to boost enrollment in private schools. The cancel Shakespeare and anti Bible literature posters are actually principals in real life.

You may be right. Next up: why algebra isn’t relevant for today’s modern high schooler.

It was earlier on the thread: school needs to be relevant to the student’s personal life.
Also, school needs to equitable to all students and not privilege the ones who study.

All of a sudden a $10k a year tuition doesn’t seem that bad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a conspiracy theory for everyone.

This thread is a marketing ploy to boost enrollment in private schools. The cancel Shakespeare and anti Bible literature posters are actually principals in real life.

You may be right. Next up: why algebra isn’t relevant for today’s modern high schooler.

It was earlier on the thread: school needs to be relevant to the student’s personal life.
Also, school needs to equitable to all students and not privilege the ones who study.

All of a sudden a $10k a year tuition doesn’t seem that bad.

Where can you send your kid to high school for $10k!?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a conspiracy theory for everyone.

This thread is a marketing ploy to boost enrollment in private schools. The cancel Shakespeare and anti Bible literature posters are actually principals in real life.

You may be right. Next up: why algebra isn’t relevant for today’s modern high schooler.

It was earlier on the thread: school needs to be relevant to the student’s personal life.
Also, school needs to equitable to all students and not privilege the ones who study.

All of a sudden a $10k a year tuition doesn’t seem that bad.

Where can you send your kid to high school for $10k!?

Local catholic school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Eh, no Bible.
Unless it’s being read as a fictional piece of work, which I assume will make some mad lol.
Might as well just do the Odyssey, it’s just like the Bible but people like to pretend it’s very different.

I think the difficulty in having it understood as a study of literature by parents (see: this thread) is enough to preclude it from public school. But ideally it should be part of any English lit curriculum.

No, it shouldn't. Kids today are barely learning at all, the last thing the need is filling up precious classroom time with more Jesus stories.

You grasp of complex ideas and canon is clear.

:waves white flag, gives up

I grew up reading Pushkin, Balzac and Voltaire, but nobody ever wagged their finger at me and said, "No, no, no, you first must read the Bible!" Maybe that's a uniquely American thing.