Is Shakespeare not taught in DCPS?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That is for middle school.

[Anonymous]

I am a 45 year old book nerd and I recently re read Hamlet.

Honestly, I would be okay with my kids reading the cliff notes. Reading it as is is equivalent to a high schooler in 2521 reading the screen play for Clueless. There is wisdom in it, but wrapped up in so much trendy colloquialisms you need a map to make your way through a conversation.

I’m okay with reevaluating what should be considered “required reading” without giving too much stock to trends.

Fwiw, I also recently reread some Steinbeck and oh boy, that stuff would NEVER fly in today’s schools. A great writer, but hot he woke police would never let that fly.

[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!?

1990

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Nobody said you had to read the Bible first. That is a complete fabrication. But knowledge of Biblical stories and motifs is necessary for full education in English lit. Not sure why this seems to be at all controversial.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No said that. However maybe you should have. Pushkin is a great example where many of his works are based or reflect biblical stories including The Prophet. Balzac’s the human comedy is titled intentionally as a reaction to Dante’s Divine Comedy which is in turn reflects the church teachings of the afterlife in the 14th century. Voltaire spent half his time railing against Christianity and organized religion as a whole. It was the focus of much of his work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Nobody said you had to read the Bible first. That is a complete fabrication. But knowledge of Biblical stories and motifs is necessary for full education in English lit. Not sure why this seems to be at all controversial.

There’s a strong argument for not teaching things which people are very likely to encounter anyway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am a 45 year old book nerd and I recently re read Hamlet.

Honestly, I would be okay with my kids reading the cliff notes. Reading it as is is equivalent to a high schooler in 2521 reading the screen play for Clueless. There is wisdom in it, but wrapped up in so much trendy colloquialisms you need a map to make your way through a conversation.

I’m okay with reevaluating what should be considered “required reading” without giving too much stock to trends.

Fwiw, I also recently reread some Steinbeck and oh boy, that stuff would NEVER fly in today’s schools. A great writer, but hot he woke police would never let that fly.

You sound clueless.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a 45 year old book nerd and I recently re read Hamlet.

Honestly, I would be okay with my kids reading the cliff notes. Reading it as is is equivalent to a high schooler in 2521 reading the screen play for Clueless. There is wisdom in it, but wrapped up in so much trendy colloquialisms you need a map to make your way through a conversation.

I’m okay with reevaluating what should be considered “required reading” without giving too much stock to trends.

Fwiw, I also recently reread some Steinbeck and oh boy, that stuff would NEVER fly in today’s schools. A great writer, but hot he woke police would never let that fly.

You sound clueless.

Wait I thought reading Shakespeare makes you smart? So if she’s clueless then no value in Shakespeare’s

Love everyone here thinks if you are going to be “well read” you have read the Bible and Shakespeare. Wow! What are you currently reading, do you still read? Waiting for the I’m busy responses. How many female authors do you read? How many non-American authors do you read?

Just because you did it doesn’t mean it was of value, just because you loved it doesn’t mean it’s right for ALL children.

Just because a bunch of white men said a bunch of white male writers are good doesn’t mean they were or are.

[Anonymous]

There is a meme making the rounds:

“White men did not produce great art and literature, white men produced art and literature that spoke to other white men, so they all just collectively agreed amongst themselves that it was great.

A lot of it ain’t great.”

Stop enabling this. If you live Shakespeare wonderful. But can you give the ISD reasons why it’s beneficial to teach it? Do you know what ISD means - I mean you know all the answers to curriculum development.

I don’t like how they teach math know. I love math but I see how my kid understands the machinations of how math works and it’s glorious.

Darling child might love Shakespeare and I will embrace that.

It is not 1951 anymore so why are you setting the bar based on that? If you do then stop helping your kids w their homework, stop involving yourself in school affairs, start baking pies and bringing yours husband your slippers.

So many smart women on here but they don’t look past their own experience. It’s sad. You could be great but chose to be basic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am a 45 year old book nerd and I recently re read Hamlet.

Honestly, I would be okay with my kids reading the cliff notes. Reading it as is is equivalent to a high schooler in 2521 reading the screen play for Clueless. There is wisdom in it, but wrapped up in so much trendy colloquialisms you need a map to make your way through a conversation.

I’m okay with reevaluating what should be considered “required reading” without giving too much stock to trends.

Fwiw, I also recently reread some Steinbeck and oh boy, that stuff would NEVER fly in today’s schools. A great writer, but hot he woke police would never let that fly.

Completely agree! Shakespeare was low brow back in the day. So funny that folks here think he’s so brilliant.

[Anonymous]

My favorite class in HS was a world literature. We read Siddhartha by Hesse and The Stranger by Camus. Can’t remember all the books but those two I loved. School should foster a live of reading and intellectual curiosity. Shakespeare didn’t do it for me. I still was forced to read him but I’m not sure he’s all that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My favorite class in HS was world literature. We read Siddhartha by Hesse and The Stranger by Camus. Can’t remember all the books but those two I loved. School should foster a love of reading and intellectual curiosity. Shakespeare didn’t do it for me. I still was forced to read him but I’m not sure he’s all that.

Goodness sorry for the typos. I fixed ‘em for you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a 45 year old book nerd and I recently re read Hamlet.

Honestly, I would be okay with my kids reading the cliff notes. Reading it as is is equivalent to a high schooler in 2521 reading the screen play for Clueless. There is wisdom in it, but wrapped up in so much trendy colloquialisms you need a map to make your way through a conversation.

I’m okay with reevaluating what should be considered “required reading” without giving too much stock to trends.

Fwiw, I also recently reread some Steinbeck and oh boy, that stuff would NEVER fly in today’s schools. A great writer, but hot he woke police would never let that fly.

Completely agree! Shakespeare was low brow back in the day. So funny that folks here think he’s so brilliant.

.

Because it’s fun to dress up in Renaissance garb and put on a Middle English accent. But yes, it’s about as low (or high) brow as many Broadway shows today. For example, I would argue ‘Hamilton’ was fresher and better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a 45 year old book nerd and I recently re read Hamlet.

Honestly, I would be okay with my kids reading the cliff notes. Reading it as is is equivalent to a high schooler in 2521 reading the screen play for Clueless. There is wisdom in it, but wrapped up in so much trendy colloquialisms you need a map to make your way through a conversation.

I’m okay with reevaluating what should be considered “required reading” without giving too much stock to trends.

Fwiw, I also recently reread some Steinbeck and oh boy, that stuff would NEVER fly in today’s schools. A great writer, but hot he woke police would never let that fly.

Completely agree! Shakespeare was low brow back in the day. So funny that folks here think he’s so brilliant.

.

Because it’s fun to dress up in Renaissance garb and put on a Middle English accent. But yes, it’s about as low (or high) brow as many Broadway shows today. For example, I would argue ‘Hamilton’ was fresher and better.

Middle English was a language of the Middle Ages, not the Renaissance.
Shakespeare's plays were written for both high and low audiences.
Do you really think people will be arguing about "Hamilton" 500 years from now?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My favorite class in HS was a world literature. We read Siddhartha by Hesse and The Stranger by Camus. Can’t remember all the books but those two I loved. School should foster a live of reading and intellectual curiosity. Shakespeare didn’t do it for me. I still was forced to read him but I’m not sure he’s all that.

Because you didn't love Shakespeare, it shouldn't be offered?