Get Schooled

By V for Vendetta

March 12, 2008 9:25 AM | Link to this

I absolutely do. Children are only limited by our expectations for them. Reading Shakespeare at a young age could have many benefits:

• It would aid in the development of children’s physical reading skills. Many of my students can barely read out loud to begin with, much less read Shakespeare (or anything written before 1900 for that matter).

• Exposing children to more complex ideas and themes is not a bad idea. Although, some of the, um, dirtier themes in works such as Romeo and Juliet can wait for high school.

• It broadens horizons! Too many kids enjoy reading about a selective list of topics. Why not encourage them to read newer and different material. Heck, if they can read and understand dinosaurs as I did, Shakespeare can’t be that much harder!

I think it’s a great idea. Now we just need to combine that with some foreign language training at a young age and we’d be doing something right (for once).

By V for Vendetta

March 12, 2008 10:01 AM | Link to this

LOL, by “newer and different” I meant newer ideas compared to the same old junk we’ve been teaching young children for years. Oops. Maybe I need another Diet Coke.

By teach1

March 12, 2008 10:03 AM | Link to this

I have a unique idea! If you want your child exposed to the great literary authors READ TO THEM!

Why should the school be brought into this discussion at all. What is left for the parent to experience with their child!

By JustMe

March 12, 2008 10:50 AM | Link to this

I am certainly no expert on 4 year olds or on Shakespeare. But, from my understanding, these Shakespeare books for 4 year olds are re-worded to plain American English on the reading level for 4 year olds. If this is true, then IMHO it destroys the good of reading Shakespeare all together.

As a high school teacher, it would be GREAT to have high school students that simply know the basics. Having them read at least on an 8th grade level would be a start.

By JustMe

March 12, 2008 10:55 AM | Link to this

Come on, teach1, don’t you know that today’s parents are expected to do nothing and today’s schools must do everything?

And, of course, per jim d and Tater, schools must accomplish this with no money….

By catlady

March 12, 2008 10:58 AM | Link to this

My son at 6 quoted Shakespeare to the person testing him for Gifted and asked me to get him the play called “Helmet” to read. He also, somehow, worked into the testing conversation “drinking a pina colada at Trader Vics”. You should have seen the report for his evaluation! Kids cannot learn what they have not been exposed to.

By mmm

March 12, 2008 11:37 AM | Link to this

Catlady Cute story. I’m sure that apple didn’t fall far from the tree.

I think we all agree on this one.

I predict there will be no more than 25 posts by the end of the day.

By Liz

March 12, 2008 11:49 AM | Link to this

JustMe:

Don’t group all parents together. I back the teachers 100% and know that education begins at home. My kids know that you don’t misbehave at school. The punishment will be severe….total restrictions.

Now for the topic, yes, I think children should be exposed to Shakespeare at an early age. I always encouraged my kids to reach higher than was expected of them.

By lyncoln

March 12, 2008 11:52 AM | Link to this

Something in this topic tells me to expect “Baby’s First Shakespeare” coming soon to a store near me.

I am intrigued by the statement that the younger children are fearless by unknown words and wouldn’t be intimidated by reading difficult works. They might not be worried about reading difficult things, but will they be interested?

I don’t think I would have found King Lear to be compelling when I was in kindergarten. Spiderman was more my speed. Maybe Much Ado About Nothing… a watered down version probably would’ve worked.

I worry that some kids will be forced to read Shakespeare and dislike reading all the more because ‘they had to read Shakespeare and wow it was boring. I’ll bet all assigned reading is just as boring…’

I’d advocate to let the child read what interests them and recommend new stories/books regularly to show that there are lots of books to enjoy, not just the ones about Clifford or some other favorite character.

By JustMe

March 12, 2008 11:57 AM | Link to this

Liz

I do apologize. My comment was flippant. I know that there are excellent parents, also.

By msbssy

March 12, 2008 12:36 PM | Link to this

ditto, V. my 5 year old attends a school where teaching 1 grade level up is the norm, 3 year olds are learning what typical pre-k4 classes are learning. K4 classes READ the directions on their homework, K5 classes learning sentence structure, and terms such as congruent. It is never too early to teach a child

By HS Teacher Too

March 12, 2008 1:22 PM | Link to this

I love the idea of introducing kids to classics early, and I understand what the Royal Shakespeare Company is saying about exposing kids to a challenge in order for them to learn, and that their brains are like sponges … but I also share the worry about how it will be done. Will it be dumbed down, which might dilute the purpose? Or will it be as “difficult” as it is and turn kids off?

I think an ideal compromise would be to take kids of all ages to see productions of the plays. Little kids will still get the “story” even if the language is a challenge, and older kids will get the benefit of SEEING what they are reading, or have read … to some extent, it is no different from going to the opera — you can largely follow the story even if you can’t understand the Italian!

By Tony

March 12, 2008 3:15 PM | Link to this

Never sell our kids short! One of the reason our kids can not think is because they have no experiences that help them understand the world around them. Parents should provide many of these activities for young minds, but schools certainly should allow the use of artistic materials and not only Shakespeare’s. Music, art, literature, drama, dance, …. All these facets of life help kids learn but are omitted from schools because of the “basics” crowds. Then, we wonder why our teens listen to and watch the junk that our smut purveyors dump on them.

By catlady

March 12, 2008 3:29 PM | Link to this

My younger daughter (age 8) ended up sitting in with her senior sister’s English class at the end of the day for a week in Athens when I had jury duty. She got to read (and take some part in class discussions!) the Taming of the Shrew. Great experience! Thanks to that teacher for giving her that chance!

My thoughts on this are:expose your child to all the positive that you can. The stuff they are ready for, they will “get” and the stuff they are not ready for will fly over their heads. Nurture their interests and watch them fly! Don’t be hamstrung by what is “normal”. When I taught my children the names of objects as toddlers, I also mentioned what letter they started with. I showed them letters and told them the names just like I told them that is a cow or a duck goes “quack, quack.” When they were ready for it, they “heard” me. Their ages for “hearing” it varied somewhat, but they heard me when the readiness was there.

By high school teacher

March 12, 2008 3:34 PM | Link to this

I too, love the idea of exposing children to culture eary. However, do we really want our kids to read Shakespeare? He had a very dirty mind, yet wove the jokes eloquently. I’m afraid of what our kids might pick up too early! :)

By jim d

March 12, 2008 3:38 PM | Link to this

JM,

There’s an article in the paper regarding a sizeable cash offer being nade to teachers. Take the money and run!

You think there are a lot of 4 year olds in public school now? Indeed there are pre-k offers out there but most are not run by the public schools. Get a grip!

I wouldn’t let mine go to public school indoctrination center for any amount of money because they might end up with a teacher like you.

By Dan

March 12, 2008 4:05 PM | Link to this

It’s a great idea shakespeare can be quite simple to understand particularly when it is read aloud. It’s themes while often a bit “adult” in nature, are ones of basic human experience. Furthermore it will give great insight into the fluidity of language, how it changes and evolves

By Erin

March 12, 2008 4:46 PM | Link to this

Why NOT expose 4-year-olds to Shakespeare? Like another poster said, maybe King Lear wouldn’t be the best choice to start with, but there’s such a wide range of works to choose from, something suitable can’t be too hard to find.

Clearly, not expecting much of anyone, at any level of public schooling, hasn’t worked out too well.

Give the kiddies a chance and let’s see what they can do!

By Jenne

March 12, 2008 5:40 PM | Link to this

My kids loved the Shakespeare in the Park plays we took them to every summer when we lived in Louisville, KY. The biggest hits were Hamlet’s father’s ghost and Malvolio in Twelfth Night. Kids benefit from seeing live theatre, ballet, and concerts. Too bad our school budgets have been cut back so far that kids whose parents lack time and money to take them to live performances never see a real play. We also read to the kids every night. We not only read all the standard kids’ books, but also read poetry. Robert Frost was their biggest favorite.

By HS Teacher Too

March 12, 2008 5:52 PM | Link to this

Tony, Couldn’t agree more. We need to keep the math, science, social studies, and English; but not at the cost of art, music, physical education, and even home-ec and wood shop. You know what needs to go? 20 days lost to testing and another 20 lost to prepping for the tests!

By happy2teach

March 12, 2008 9:03 PM | Link to this

For anyone that doubts the positive impact that Shakespeare can have on children, do a Google search on Rafe Esquith. He is a teacher in Los Angeles who has done, and is doing, amazing things with Shakespeare in his inner-city 5th grade classroom. Enough with anyone who doesn’t believe in high expectations!

By JustMe

March 12, 2008 10:08 PM | Link to this

jd

Your last post, as with all of your posts, shows your wonderful ability to draw bad/wrong conclusions based on no data, wrong data, misleading information, or interpreting information incorrectly.

In this world of uncertainty, it is nice to know that at least your posts are consistant.

By DB

March 12, 2008 11:16 PM | Link to this

Why stop at Shakespeare? My son knew the entire libretto of “The Mikado” and “Pirates of Penzance” when he was 4, and had been to productions of both.

Kids rise to expectations.

By HS Teacher Too

March 12, 2008 11:50 PM | Link to this

DB, I think I love you. I love Gilbert and Sullivan …! It is so exciting to hear that so does someone else around here! I sing “modern major general” to my daughter all the time — and no one I know has the foggiest idea what on earth I am singing!

By f(x) = 36x^2

March 13, 2008 12:31 AM | Link to this

My parents took me to my first Shakespeare play when I was perhaps 8. I still remember it to this day - the Alabama Shakespeare Festival, one of the premiere Regional Shakespeare companies, though in those days it was in it’s beginning phases in Anniston. The play was “A Midsummer Night’s Dream”. It remains my favorite.

I’ve now seen more live productions of the Bard’s work than I can count - and Georgia Shake is now every bit the equal of the tremendous Alabama company.

I agree with the RSC - Shakespeare is fantastic at any age. Even if a child doesn’t understand all of the language, the experience is worthwhile, and the understanding will come.

By TJW

March 13, 2008 7:03 AM | Link to this

HS Teacher Too: Your dead right, Home Ec, Shop, Music, ad Gym were FAR more valuable then our current administration seems to think. They gave our minds a break while still teaching important life skills. Of course the cost of ‘No Child Left Behind’ is that everyone needs to go at the speed of the lowest common denominator, making it hard for any to get ahead. Back on Topic: I love Shakespeare’s work, and will introduce my daughter to it when she’s ready. I’d think starting with a production of one of his works, to set the hook and generate an interest in reading the play.

FYI: For those unaware of its existance, The Shakespeare Tavern is a dinner theatre just south of the Fox. They do a good show. I’m hoping to catch ‘A Mid Summer’s Night Dream’ and ‘Rosencrantz and Gildenstern are Dead’ in April and May.

By jim d

March 13, 2008 7:24 AM | Link to this

JM,

I must admit that your fatuity never ceases to amaze and entertain.

By Hick from the Sticks

March 13, 2008 8:10 AM | Link to this

Guffaw.

I think it’s brilliant.

If my four year old nephew streaked through the house after a shower screaming at the top of his lungs: “My naked sword is out!”, I’m pretty sure Bob Saget would be forking out a cool ten grand to yours gruesomely.

By teach1

March 13, 2008 8:43 AM | Link to this

Congratulations to those of you who experienced all these wonderful things with your children. I am sure every teacher is overjoyed to work with your children!