Should the Bard be optional?

English teachers are claiming that the government is considering making Shakespeare optional for GCSE students.

According to the claims, students could instead chose media and internet studies.

Teachers are said to be horrified by such proposals and say that key elements of the English cultural heritage would be lost.

The Department for Education has denied planning such a move.

The web or the Bard: Which is more useful in the 21st century?

This debate is now closed. Read a selection of your comments below.

---

Your reaction

I was dumbfounded when this question pops up "Should the Bard be optional?" Of course not. The Bard is the soul of the English Language. I do not pretend to know much about Shakespeare, but what I do know is that his works contain deep understandings of human weakness.
K Poh, Singapore.

I have never had any time for Shakespeare, but my wife does. I cannot fathom what is going on in any of the plays, where a form of English is used that takes fifty words to say something that could be said in five. It doesn't mean to say that Shakespeare should be retired from the curriculum, but the curriculum needs to reflect life and the world today. The Internet has and will continue to have a profound influence on the world - wait five years and you won't believe how we managed without it.
Steve Brereton, UK

If presented well, both Shakespeare and IT have a place in the curriculum

John Gant, UK

For my GCE 'O' levels (in 1962), I had to study both Shakespeare's "Macbeth" and Shaw's "Arms and the Man''. I found them both incredibly dull and boring UNTIL we had a change of teacher. What a difference that made! Suddenly they were interesting, exciting and fun. The lesson I really learned is that there are no boring subjects, only boring teachers - and this applies to every subject. If presentation of the subject was not of paramount importance we wouldn't have a multi-billion pound adverting industry. So, if presented well, both Shakespeare and IT have a place in the curriculum.
John Gant, UK

To appreciate Shakespeare you need to go and see the plays properly acted, not endure them on the page in a boring classroom. The best one I ever saw was on a school outing to see "A Midsummer Night's Dream" acted out of doors. We were all sitting on benches on a lawn and the play was acted on a tree-covered bank with small ledges as the "stage". The whole thing came alive and was pure magic. Keep Shakespeare and teach teachers how to make their lessons interesting!
Lindsay Ponting, UK

Yes. He should be replaced with Eminem.
R. McNaughton Phillips, USA

Could it be that recent films based on Shakespeare's play have not been popular because of the resident 'Leo' or 'Ethan' but because the issues that are raised actually have relevance to today's society?
Rebecca, UK

How could we not have Shakespeare on the curriculum?

Marie, UK

How could we not have Shakespeare on the curriculum? I studied Shakespeare when I was at school and it was brilliant. Children should be made to study a wide range of literature in order to gain an appreciation of it. Of course, they do need to have knowledge of IT and the web but not at the expense of everything else. They may argue that it is more relevant but children are forgetting the pleasure that reading can bring (thank goodness for Harry Potter!). They sit in front of the television or their computers playing games and are not developing linguistic and interpersonal skills. Writers such as Shakespeare have inspired millions with wonderfully expressive and descriptive prose.
Marie, UK

I'm doing my GCSE's at the moment and quite frankly neither grab my attention. Is Internet studies working out how long before Amazon and Co run out of cash?
ZM, Pangbourne, England

I believe Shakespeare is taught too early in schools. I have never overcome my initial dislike and boredom. I believe study of these plays should always start with a viewing of a good professional performance - perhaps in modern dress - and that the everlasting analysis should not begin until pupils are about 15 years old. The outdated language is too difficult for those who have not a good grasp of modern English.
June Tills, UK

I find it difficult to believe such a thing as "internet studies" actually exists!
Mike, England

Pandering to the lowest common denominator does our children no favours at all

Adrian, UK

I studied not only Shakespeare but also Latin. The point was simply to develop both an eye for detail and a precise mind. These subjects are unpopular because they are hard; they are hard because they are worth doing. Media Studies may be easier to teach and students may consequently achieve higher results, but the results will be worth less and the students will be less able. Pandering to the lowest common denominator does our children no favours at all.
Adrian, UK

My college degree is in English Literature (yes, we actually study that in the US), and it makes me a bit nervous when the cradle of the language seems to be considering doing very silly things.
Would that Shakespeare were required in US schools! The Bard practically invented the modern language and should be required reading, for at least a few months during formal schooling, for all who pretend to "use" this wonderful language with anything like true knowledge and skill.
S. D. Yana Davis, US

Shakespeare was a funny, brilliant and at times mischievous genius who taught generations of us not only scores of new words and expressions, but also how to write with style. He predicted that his works would stand the test of time, even though superficially they were indeed only popular entertainment of the time. No-one writing in English has ever matched him, and that is why he should still be taught in schools. He is also very relevant to our era - how often to we watch films or read articles dealing with "star-crossed lovers", blinding ambition, personal betrayal etc - before Old Willie, no such sensitivity of emotion was expressed in prose, and nearly every writer since then has been inspired by it.
Paul, UK

Let's face it, most of the things we learn in school are forgotten before the ink dries on our exam papers

CF, Canada

Shakespeare's about the only thing I do remember, I can still quote reams but cannot for the life of me tell you anything about the periodic table. Let's face it, most of the things we learn in school are forgotten before the ink dries on our exam papers. Useful? What is useful anyhow when you're 13?
CF, Canada

Why does everyone assume that studying internet studies would have a useful impact on a person for the rest of their life? If for some reason the child didn't like using the web and chose to avoid it, say, for the next ten years, by the time they came back to it, the sites and programs would likely be so different as to render all their previous work on the subject completely useless! At least Shakespeare has managed to teach children the same skills for the past 400 years without them becoming outdated.
Susi, UK

A balanced curriculum should involve literature and technology, old and new. Internet is after all an opportunity to make available quality content like Shakespeare.
Andy Millward, UK

Britain is already a nation of money-obsessed philistines, and removing Shakespeare from the syllabus would further degrade what little culture there is left in this country. So knowledge of Shakespeare doesn't improve the bank balance. So what? I'm studying Shakespeare at University at the moment, and I honestly pity people who cannot or will not appreciate his works. You don't know what you're missing out on!
Matt Spencer, England

Today there are wonderful technical means of communication, and an increasingly limited capability of people to communicate clearly

John Tippler, England

Several contributors touch on Shakespeare's usefulness or otherwise, and argue that that's not the point. I would say that it's not the only point. The irony is that today there are wonderful technical means of communication, and an increasingly limited capability of people to communicate clearly. One 'useful' thing to be able to learn from Shakespeare and his contemporaries, is how they managed to use words with a precision that seems to elude modern generations. Having said that, I would also say that enjoyment of these gems of literature is greatly aided by a little study at school, even though it may seem boring to some at the time.
John Tippler, England

I wonder what Shakespeare read before the world had Shakespeare ? Good grief one would think sometimes that nobody else in British History had written a book, I did Chaucer for English and Tolkien. As for the internet I bet Willy would have loved it, look at the endless inspirational sources available to kids today who may take to writing, we should concentrate on making sure they can read, write and think for themselves, then if they are inclined the imagination should do the rest. Kids are alienated enough from teachers without making things worse forcing them to read what we had to read.
Simon, UK

Why study any literature? Shakespeare, Twain, Hawthorne, Keats, Yates, Lord Byron, Wilde, Joyce (UGH!!), how useful have these guys been to me in my life? However, if we gut the Literary Canon, then there goes another part of our common culture. At least we are all complaining about the same tedious lessons in 16th century English.
Adrienne, American in Germany

Surely there are ways to teach Shakespeare which highlight the dramatic rather than purely literary aspect of his work

Katherine Roberts, England

Several people have complained about the dry, scholastic way in which Shakespeare is taught at GCSE level. This totally contradicts my own experience of GCSE English - as well as having to analyse the text, we had to act out and video a scene from Macbeth as part of our coursework. Surely there are ways to teach Shakespeare which highlight the dramatic rather than purely literary aspect of his work, and allow its enormous entertainment value, as well as its continued relevance, to be realised.
Katherine Roberts, England

They should expand what is taught of Shakespeare's plays in school. The more difficult ones too, such as Cymbeline which also was where the name Imogen came from). Knowledge like this might seem frivolous, but it builds an incredible base for a lifetime of learning. Most people don't know the vast majority of what he wrote!
Jonathan Bensley, Australia

I think the Internet and Shakespeare are both fascinating in their different ways - the Internet may be more 'useful' but Shakespeare says a lot about people through the ages, most of it being that they don't change! Yes, you can read it later, or watch plays without knowing the text but it is more rewarding if you have studied it to some extent and you get so much more out of it if you make the effort that is often needed.
C Foley, England

'Shakespeare' is not yet another subject to be taught or read in school. It is a collection of the most amazing human experiences which should be brought alive and explored by every child who hopes to share a world populated by ... people. In his works, Shakespeare allows us to meet the weak, the strong, the easily led and vulnerable, the lost, confused, rejected and triumphant. Oh, please don't try to say that the internet 'opens up the world' too because I have yet to feel the pulse beating in anything encountered in cyberspace ... but Angelo, Iago, Isabella...
Emma, England

I'm an avid reader, but that has absolutely nothing to do with being taught English Lit at school. All that analysis just served to put me off reading, and it was at least five years after leaving school before I even considered reading anything that could be described as "literature". So if you want Shakespeare to die a death, then by all means carry on making it compulsory at school. Anyway, I don't see why any one author should be compulsory. There are thousands of great authors, both ancient and modern, so why force people to study any one in particular? Shakespeare will survive whether or not we force more generations of teenagers to study him.
Rob, UK

Without exposure to the classics, how can we offer children a choice

C J Hendrick, Italy

Shakespeare's writing should continue to be taught in schools. So should Dickens, Shaw and Orwell. When I was at school, we learnt some of the works of these authors as part of the English literature syllabus. It has value. Without exposure to the classics, how can we offer children a choice? Not all kids aspire to be web designers, some want to learn how to write.
C J Hendrick, Italy (on vacation)

Well, then it follows we should drop history, geography, English literature (especially poetry), religion (hey, why not?), and anything else deemed not "useful". Of course, we'll end up with a nation full of culturally vacuous idiots, but my goodness, they'll have had every opportunity to be brilliant on the Internet!
Mark M. Newdick, USA/UK

Shakespeare had an incredibly complex mind and was also a great storyteller, although in these times of celebrity worship I can see how he might seem outdated. Nobody can deny that learning to use the internet will be more useful in the job market, but I thought the purpose of school was to provide an all round education, which inevitably includes the learning of history and an appreciation of our rich and varied culture. The issues Shakespeare deals with are definitely relevant today and those who disagree were probably watching cultural delights such as "Home and Away" instead.
Susy Fowler, UK

Internet studies? In school? Is this a plot to get kids away from the Internet? Let's face it--you make an Internet class a requirement in school, kids will stay away in droves. They already get enough web experience and exposure at home.
Andy, United States

He absolutely loves Shakespeare

Elaine, UK

My 10-year-old has taught himself to use the internet, as have millions of others of all ages, but he needed his teacher to benefit from Shakespeare. Alongside basketball, skateboarding and the Guinness Book of Records (aghh!!), he absolutely loves Shakespeare.
Elaine, UK

What about studying Shakespeare through the web? Most of the texts are online now anyway, so children could do both things at the same time.
Daniel, Colombia

I've always said Shakespeare is as overrated as the Beatles and have been pilloried for it in the past. And why has the list of historical figures who also couldn't stand him like Johnson, Boswell and Oscar Wilde et al always been ignored? Because you couldn't be a proper intellectual without liking Shakespeare. Just like you had no life if you didn't like the Beatles; the "intellectuals" were in charge.
Steve, UK

Who's Shakespeare? Does he work with Bill Gates?
Helen, UK

To be perfectly honest I found all the books I studied at GCSE to be exceptionally boring, not just Shakespeare. The books themselves were probably good, but all that analysis? I'm a scientist, I'm supposed to love analysing stuff, but I really couldn't care less what an author's hidden meaning was and how they were feeling when they wrote a certain line. However of all the playwrights that students could read about, who on earth would be better? Shakespeare is the only playwright I could mention! He shouldn't be dropped, but the teaching improved, less an analysis of each and every line and a review of the overall tale, when you can actually appreciate the story.
Alison, UK

Shakespeare has never been 'useful' in the way that learning to use a computer is 'useful'. Reading Shakespeare, and poetry in general teaches self-expression and the ability to communicate. Paradoxically these are the most enduring 'useful' things a person can learn and will survive when the internet has been made obsolete. The same comparison may be drawn between a philosophy degree and a business studies degree - the latter will be out of date in four years, but the former will have taught the student how to adapt.
Tim Saunders, UK

Everyone knows that because something is old it is ipso facto worthless, and that because it does not immediately turn a profit it is irrelevant

David Szondy, USA

Yes, of course most of the previous comments are right. Everyone knows that because something is old it is ipso facto worthless, and that because it does not immediately turn a profit it is irrelevant. True, there are still silly people today who believe that listening to some dead Englishman making keen poetic insights into the eternal verities of the human condition are more worthwhile than sticking one's nose into a trough of soon to be obsolete technical jargon, but they will be ultimately drowned out by our realistic, forward-looking dynamism.
David Szondy, USA (British)

Shakespeare shouldn't be just read because it is "cultural", "educational", "useful". Read Shakespeare because it is just a very good (although at first - difficult, for me) read - pacy, scary, inspirational, and much more.
Ed, Ireland

More dumbing down. Surely there is time at least for one play to give people a taste. If you don't like it, fair enough. I came to appreciate Shakespeare only when I went to see a play, which is what they were written for. It can't be more boring than reading a computer manual!
Ken Beach, Germany

That a government would prescribe what the people should read sounds more like a plot from a George Orwell novel. Perhaps Blair will now require you all to read Karl Marx. And for those who write that they got nothing out of reading Shakespeare I would suggest that that says more about the intelligence of the reader than it does about the talent of the Bard.
Rich Vose, USA

If he were alive today he would be writing scripts for Eastenders and Coronation Street

Roger Moran, Scotland

Personally, I can't see the point in studying Shakespeare; his writing was designed as ephemeral entertainment for the masses (theatres in his day were the hangout of low-life's and prostitutes). If he were alive today he would be writing scripts for Eastenders and Coronation Street. Let the children study something relevant to today!
Roger Moran, Scotland

Studying Shakespeare is tedious and pointless. So is working for a living. Best that the kids get used to it!
Mark B, UK

I think what is needed here is a two tier education system. The lower tier drops things like Shakespeare, and Mathematical concepts like equations, pi, and trig, offering instead a basic education suited to everyday practical life - home economics (including basic maths), basic electrical engineering (plugs, soldering), basic English (concentrating on confidence of usage and expression rather than expanding the vocabulary). The second tier would include more abstract quantities, such as higher maths, Shakespeare, drama, history, geography etc. You could then base entry on an exam, at about age 11, with those who pass going into the higher tier and then onto university to train in professional and cultural areas, whilst those who fail go into work related training in semi-skilled and skilled areas. Would this system agree with anyone else?
Lee, England

I find it ironic that your contributors who complain that studying Shakespeare bored them fail to see that that says nothing about Shakespeare but a great deal about them. The purpose of education is notto be 'relevant' or 'useful'. It is to take us beyond our customary field of sensory and mental experience, and introduce us to the wisdom contained in tradition and the process of critical inquiry.
The assumption that Shakespeare is incapable of enriching the lives of inner-city comprehensive schoolchildren, as he has enriched the lives of countless millions of the rest of us, is a deplorable instance of condescension and snobbery, tantamount to saying, "sorry, children, but you're too thick to grasp this stuff".
Oliver Kamm, UK

It takes discipline and insight to study and understand Shakespeare

Faye, USA

It takes discipline and insight to study and understand Shakespeare. It's no wonder so many people nowadays find it boring and a waste of time. Great literature makes one think in ways that are different from "point and click".
Faye, USA

I did Shakespeare at GCSE about 11 years ago. I found it to be the most boring thing I ever took part in at school. 4 hours per week of utter, utter tedium. I really wish that I'd had the opportunity to spend the same time on something like economics, IT or even childcare. Just something that would have been relevant later in life. The kind of people that insist that we all study this dross are the same people who squander lottery funds on the National Opera House. It's not what the majority of people have even the slightest interest in. If schoolchildren must be made to read books when they have no inclination to do so then let them read Harry Potter, or better still - a newspaper. Shakespeare is not heritage for the majority of people in this country - it's simply irrelevant English history.
Simon, UK

I've read the comments so far, but have found none asking why the UK Government is interfering in the education system again.
Colin, Netherlands

The culture of the British Isles didn't end when Shakespeare died

Rod MacLean, Scotland

You don't automatically study Shakespeare in Scotland. I don't feel like I've missed out though. It means that you get a chance to study other quality literature. Anyone who is interested in reading Shakey will do it anyway, so isn't it better not to waste everyone's time with it and to teach something else instead? The culture of the British Isles didn't end when Shakespeare died...
Rod MacLean, Scotland

At last a sensible suggestion from the Labour Government. Shakespeare should have been dumped years ago. It seems far more sensible to equip today's children with the skills they need to get on in the world, like e-mail etc. What do they get from Shakespeare? Nothing! Those who want to read him will but it won't equip anyone for life in a modern world!
Dave Allen, London, UK

Language changes just like anything else. There's no more point in being made to study 16th century English than there is being made to study 16th century boat-building techniques. Yes, we should have the information stored away somewhere, but that's all.
Graham, Brazil/ UK

Optional - YES! Internet studies? No! To make one single artist compulsory on a course that can only cover a maximum of 5 texts is ridiculous. It massively reduces the potential breadth of English education. No one man is worth that much cultural study, whoever they are. However to replace it with internet studies massively reduces the cultural knowledge of our nation.. No way!
Simon Groom, UK

I studied Macbeth at school and learnt nothing from it, it seems like a waste of valuable teaching time to me

Stephen, UK

I think children should be taught things at school that will be useful to them in later life. Internet, computer and IT skills will be used by virtually everyone in the next few years so I think it is very important for school children to be given good teaching in these at school. I can't see how anyone can argue that Shakespeare will ever be useful after leaving school. I studied Macbeth at school and learnt nothing from it, it seems like a waste of valuable teaching time to me.
Stephen, UK

Culture lives and shouldn't be set in stone. The longer it lives the more topics there will be to study.
P, UK

I must admit that when I was at school I was not the biggest fan of Shakespeare but this was more to do with the overly scholastic method of teaching it. As I have got older (late 20's) I appreciate the Bard more and only wish I had spent more time at school on him. Its a cliché but a truth nonetheless that the issues in Shakespeare are as relevant today as they were when written...if he is removed from the syllabus it will be to our great loss.
Mike Gore, UK

The education system has a responsibility to turn out comprehensively educated pupils that have a grasp on our cultural heritage as well as getting to grips with modern-day life

Kate, UK

The point of a fully rounded education is to expose students to all subjects and disciplines, both academic and vocational - why can't a well-balanced syllabus include both? The education system has a responsibility to turn out comprehensively educated pupils that have a grasp on our cultural heritage as well as getting to grips with modern-day life. These aren't mutually exclusive elements.
Kate, UK

I am a software engineer who visits Stratford when I can to see the plays. Why should the Web and the Bard be mutually exclusive? What people need is a rounded inclusive education, not to be trained like laboratory rats. And in any case, the technology is changing so fast that what you learn in school today will probably be obsolete when you get to the job market.
Edward, UK

I work with computers for a living. Looking back to my school days, I can't honestly see how learning about Shakespeare has done anything for me. If I was back at school I would opt out of it and pick a more useful subject. Besides I can find all I want to know about Shakespeare myself on the Web. The world changes, education should keep up with the times.
Josh, UK

Shakespeare is representative of the best in writing, art, poetry, human understanding and self-expression. By extension he is also among the best things we should be teaching

Russell Jones, UK

It's not a question of Shakespeare's usefulness. Shakespeare is representative of the best in writing, art, poetry, human understanding and self-expression. By extension he is also among the best things we should be teaching. He may not be contemporary, and I well remember him being sometimes difficult, but isn't that the point? How can we expect the next generation to achieve if we consistently eat away at the very things that stretch them? It frightens me how low educational standards have become, even at Degree level. We are failing our kids if we avoid giving them a challenging and rewarding education.
Russell Jones, UK

I had to study Macbeth for my GCSE 7 years ago. I never ceased to be amazed by my classmates, who could spout what I considered to be three pages of complete rubbish about a single scene written by Shakespeare. By some miracle I got a B in the end. Maybe I learnt to write rubbish along with the best of them come exam time. But it has not been remotely useful in any part of my life since. It would have been a lot more useful if I could have spent the time learning grammar. I fail to see how Shakespeare remotely benefits the 21st century student's education.
Alex Banks, Wales, Living in Sweden

I can safely say that Shakespeare is not only unnecessary; it is entirely irrelevant

Jamie Evans, UAE

Speaking as a person who took GCSE English last year I feel I can safely say that Shakespeare is not only unnecessary; it is entirely irrelevant. His references are completely outdated, his grammar is questionable and his jokes are certainly not funny.
Jamie Evans, UAE

I think Shakespeare's only use is for answering questions in a pub quiz, in the real world I don't see the relevance
Diane, UK

If I had to sit through endless hours of utter drivel then why shouldn't they?
Jonathan, Denmark

Other than sounding clever with the occasional quote, I never found much use for him...
Chris, UK

I don't recall any of Shakespeare's great works containing the word "New" in the title, so it is entirely predictable that New Labour should try and drop it from classes.
John B, UK