Shakespeare Without Boots

Disadvantaged students and the compulsoryShakespeare requirement for Higher Level

study in the Junior Cycle Englishcurriculum in Ireland

by

Martin Murphy M.Ed.

Supervisor: Dr. Carmel O’SullivanTrinity College, Dublin

June, 2015

Introduction

This paper arises from research into the potential for

drama to help make the Junior Cycle Shakespeare

curriculum more accessible for students in a school

designated as disadvantaged (DEIS). The chosen subject

arose from the researcher’s belief that the teaching of

Shakespeare’s plays to students in a low literacy

environment could be significantly enhanced by the use of

drama-based methods. The research formed the basis of the

author's Master in Education thesis at Trinity College,

Dublin.

Shakespeare’s unique position in the Junior Cycle English

curriculum means that the issues involved are not just

about access to culture but, potentially, to overall

educational advancement. While the research design was

focused on drama's suitability as a methodology for

teaching cognitively demanding material in a low literacy

setting, analysis of the data raised significant

questions about the compulsory Shakespeare requirement

for Higher level study within the Junior Cycle curriculum

– a requirement which was confirmed by the National

Council for Curriculum Assessment (NCCA) during the

course of the research (NCCA, 2014, p4).

The research involved:

an analysis of the literature concerning Shakespeare

study within subject English, the Junior Cycle and

Linguistic Disadvantage

a drama-based project focused on teaching a

Shakespeare text to a Junior Cycle DEIS school class

group

an online survey of the experience and attitudes of

Junior Cycle English teachers in DEIS and non-DEIS

schools, with particular regard to the use of drama

as a methodology in the Shakespeare class.

The data collected from this research casts doubt on the

value of Shakespeare as a neutral measure of suitability

for Higher level study in the English curriculum, from

both a cognitive and a socio-cultural perspective.

Literature Review

Shakespeare in the Classroom - International

In England, from the 18th century onwards, writers like

Samuel Johnson and Matthew Arnold established a model for

English as a secondary level subject, based on a literary

canon of works with a moral interest at their heart.

(Hornbrook, 1988). This notion, that English should

concern itself with an agreed corpus of uniquely

civilising literature, reached a high point with F.R.

Leavis and the Cambridge School, whose insistence on the

primacy of textual analysis influenced generations of

teachers across the English speaking world from the

middle of the 20th century onwards (McGuinn, 2014).

This view was challenged from the 1970s onwards by

Marxists, feminists and other critical theorists for whom

the context of the work was almost as important as the

words on the page, and Shakespeare was just another dead,

white, male. Terry Eagleton’s claim that “there is no

such thing as a literary work or tradition that is

valuable in itself” (Eagleton, 1983, p10) was a direct

challenge to Arnold and Leavis’ vision for subject

English. In a similar vein, left wing critics like David

Hornbrook and Graham Holderness objected to what they

called the ‘Shakespeare Myth’, which they claimed,

promoted bogus notions of culture and ‘Englishness’ for

political reasons (Hornbrook, 1988). Others, like George

Steiner (1984) observed what they saw as an inevitable

drift into obscurity for Shakespeare’s plays:

As footnotes lengthen … the poetry (moves) … to a place of special learning. The world of classical mythology, of historical reference, of scriptural allusion … is moving beyond our reach. (Steiner, 1984, p29)

Attempts by the UK government, in the 1990s, to extend

the compulsory Shakespeare requirement within the

secondary English curriculum, led to public criticism

from sections of the academic establishment, and

vociferous support in the press from conservative

commentators (Atherton, 2005). Meanwhile, drama-based

approaches to Shakespeare pedagogy, popularised by Rex

Gibson (Irish, 2011) and the Royal Shakespeare Company

(RSC) amongst others, gave renewed impetus to the

argument, that an appreciation of Shakespeare could and

should be every British child’s birthright. Jane Coles

(2013) observes that this argument has been politically

attractive to politicians in England who continued to

insist that Shakespeare should be a compulsory author

against the advice of their curricular advisers (p54).

Coles’ research with educationally disadvantaged students

leads her to question the value of this ‘cultural

entitlement’:

I get no sense that reading Macbeth or even Romeo and Juliet has broken down cultural barriers for the students in my study; rather it appears to have confirmed preconceptions. (p62)

This characterisation of Shakespeare as the touchstone

for a traditional, and threatened, cultural pedagogy has

been echoed in other English-speaking countries, often in

a post-colonial context. While debate in the United

States has seemed to focus on how rather than whether

Shakespeare should be taught, in countries with more

recent ties to the British Empire – Australia, New

Zealand, Canada – the debate inevitably includes

questions of inherited culture.

In Australia, the use of Gibson’s drama-based approaches

have been described as indicative of an outdated

‘cultural heritage’ model of English, and incompatible

with the critical and cultural studies debates of a

country closer to Shanghai than to Stratford (Flaherty,

2013). On the other hand, the New Zealand Association for

the Teaching of English had to fight a rearguard action

against various subject heads and politicians in the

national media recently for proposing that the last

compulsory ‘Shakespeare-specific’ unit in the high school

curriculum be optional (Neale, 2011).

Shakespeare in the Classroom - Ireland

Despite a similar post-colonial past to Australia and

Canada, the discourse in Ireland around Shakespeare’s

exalted position in the second level curriculum appears

to have been more muted, at least in public. Tom Mullins

(Mullins, 1996) relates how, when Shakespeare was first

introduced in schools in Ireland, in the late 19th

century, the plays that were consistently prescribed –

Julius Caesar, Richard II, Macbeth – were meant to send a clear

message of the dangers of rebellion at a time of civil

unrest against the imperial regime. Following

independence, and a period when there was no formal

prescription of texts, the introduction of the new

Leaving Certificate syllabus in the 1930s, saw the

reintroduction of compulsory study of a Shakespeare play

for all students of English. Three decades later, when

universal free secondary education was introduced, the

Minister for Education, Brian Lenihan, suggested that

students would be better off learning to read and write

first rather than learning off “slabs of Shakespeare”. is

view was strongly resisted by the academics on the

Leaving Certificate English Syllabus Committee (p212),

whose nominal head, Augustine Martin, threatened to

resign. Consequently, the compulsory requirement was

preserved.

Thirty years later, the roles were reversed. In autumn

1994, the Minister for Education, Niamh Bhreathnach,

directed that Shakespeare would remain a compulsory study

requirement at senior level contrary to the advice of the

Leaving Certificate English Course Committee, of which

Mullins had been a member. He cites this as an example of

how, once again, “the mythical power attributed to

Shakespeare in an educational context … overrode all

other considerations” (p211).

Mullins identifies three traditional arguments for

compulsory Shakespeare study that are commonly deployed

in the Irish context:

cultural – Mullins finds it unlikely that

prescribing Shakespearean drama would achieve a

sense of cultural unity in post-colonial Ireland

(p215)

development of sensibility – he questions the belief

that only an encounter with Shakespeare – rather

than Brian Friel, for example - can enrich

imaginative resources and generate new feelings in

students.

language – he dismisses as a “popular romantic

theory” (p217) the notion that reading Shakespeare’s

language will immeasurably enrich the students’ own,

stating that “the daunting task of reading through a

play in an academic way may well be a complete waste

of educational time” (p219).

Whilst anecdotally the subject has continued to be of

significance to teachers and curricular authorities,

there appears little if any literature concerning the

compulsory requirement at Junior or Senior Cycle level

after 1996.

Literacy

Whilst arguments over Shakespeare’s absolute value as a

set text at secondary level continue, the specific

question remains as to whether facility with

Shakespearean language is appropriate as a neutral

measure of suitability for higher level study in the

modern Irish context, and specifically at Junior Cycle

level.

The 1989 syllabus for Junior Certificate English owed

much to the threefold characterisation of language

advanced by James Britton (NCCA, 2012). This comprised:

Expressive language: the language of home and

personal thinking and identity.

Transactional language: the language for doing

business in the world.

Poetic language: language for its own sake

This marked a departure from the previous notion that

proficiency in English language and literature should be

treated separately, and instead made the integration of

all aspects of the subject a fundamental aim. (Crooks,

1990). The most recent Junior Cycle English syllabus (NCCA,

2013) updates this integration, expressly stating that

its aim is to “develop students’ knowledge of language

and literature, to consolidate and deepen their literacy

skills and make them more self-aware as learners” (p5).

However, what had previously been qualitative

classifications – personal, social and cultural literacy

– are now defined by their function:

• Communicating as a listener, speaker, reader, writer

• Exploring and using language

• Understanding the content and structure of language

This more practical emphasis echoes the language of the

2011 National Literacy Strategy (Department of Education

and Skills, 2011a, p13), which was initiated in part as a

response to Ireland’s disappointing PISA (Programme for

International Student Assessment) test results for 2009.

In this document, ‘literacy’ is identified as not just

reading and writing, but including:

The capacity to read, understand and critically appreciate various forms of communication including spoken language, printed text, broadcast media, and digital media. (p8)

The National Literacy Strategy has been criticised as

being “a significant threat to the holistic nature of the

Irish curriculum” (O’Breacháin & O’Toole, 2013, p404),

and as an example of the influence of neo-liberalism, and

the government’s drive for value in the global jobs

market (Conway & Murphy, 2013). The PISA testing scheme

has also been significantly criticised for its

concentration on ‘performativity’, and particularly with

regard to English:

As exam grades increase, the value of what we are testing, and the educational challenge presented therein may be concurrently in decline. (Hennessey and McNamara, 2013, p9)

Educational Disadvantage

The main government initiative for tackling disadvantage

in the Irish school system is the DEIS (Delivering

Equality of opportunity In Schools) Programme, which was

launched in 2005. It incorporated a number of government

initiatives to tackle educational disadvantage, with an

emphasis on planning and target setting in key areas:

attendance rates, retention, progression, examination

attainment, literacy and numeracy. DEIS schools, by

definition, are made up of students from primarily low

Educational, Social and Cultural Status (ESCS)

households. In the 2012 PISA tests, students in DEIS

schools performed “significantly less well than their

counterparts in other schools on all domains (literacy,

numeracy and science)” (Perkins et al., 2013, xvii). In

addition, the mean Educational, Social and Cultural

Status (ESCS) within a school was shown to influence

predicted performance of individual students, indicating

that:

The positive influence of high-ESCS schools can raise the achievement scores of low-ESCS students toclose to the national mean score, but the opposite effect is also apparent: scores of high-ESCS students attending low-ESCS schools are below the national average. (p107)

In other words, while students from a more disadvantaged

background attending a more advantaged school performed

better than their predicted average, the inverse was also

true: students from an above average economic, social and

cultural background scored worse than predicted in a

disadvantaged school setting.

Linguistic Disadvantage

Basil Bernstein’s theory of elaborated and restricted

codes shows how the structure of the language employed in

everyday talk reflects and shapes the assumptions of a

social group (Littlejohn, 2010). Bernstein claimed that

disadvantaged communities prioritise ‘restricted codes’,

relating to shared identifications and assumptions, where

there is little need for the speakers to elaborate on

what they mean. On the other hand, middle class

communities, who value individuality over group identity,

will tend to use elaborated codes, which are more

complex, and allow the speakers to make their ideas and

intentions explicit. While the restricted code appears

unconscious and spontaneous, elaborated codes require

more planning, explaining why speakers pause more and

appear to be thinking as they talk. Bernstein offers the

example of a couple talking about a film they have just

seen, who then discuss the film at length with another

couple:

“The meanings now have to be made public to others who have not seen the film. The speech … is no longer contextualised. The meanings are explicit, elaborated and individualised” (Bernstein, 1971, cited in Littlejohn, 2010, p376).

In Ireland, Bernstein’s theories were recently tested by

Louise Heeran Flynn (Heeran Flynn, 2013) who used

Shakespeare’s stories in a drama-based investigation of

linguistic discontinuity amongst primary age children in

a DEIS school. Heeran Flynn notes that educational

disadvantage and linguistic disadvantage often occur

together, and that linguistic disadvantage has often been

cited as the cause of educational disadvantage (p278).

She contrasts the cognitively undemanding, context-

dependent language of the disadvantaged household with

the cognitively more demanding, context-reduced

communication of the middle class household, and of the

school system. By using the children’s own restricted

codes within a Shakespearean story, she attempted to

develop context independent speaking skills through

drama, in order to encourage higher order questioning and

thinking skills, and a shift from the students being

extrinsically to intrinsically motivated.

Heeran Flynn and Bernstein’s analyses would seem to

accord with socio-cultural theories of education, as

described by Conway (2002), who distinguishes the

questions implicit in the cognitive perspective – ‘how

smart are you?’ or ‘in what ways are you smart?”, from

the socio-cultural question – ‘in what contexts are you

smart?’ (p80). For Conway, socio-cultural theories offer

the possibility “of a more socially just perspective on

learning and teaching than either behavioural or

cognitive learning theories” and challenge deficit

thinking which “is characterised by beliefs policies,

practices that ‘blame the victim’”(p80).

He critcises deficit thinking models of education

“whereby the more powerful party blames the individual or

a particular sector of the community rather than the

society as a whole” (p80). Jane Coles (2013), citing

Bourdieu, makes the point even more strongly in relation

to the arguments for compulsory Shakespeare in the

British curriculum:

“such a curriculum reproduces existing class advantages by adopting the cultural practices of thepowerful and using this as an apparently neutral measure of ‘ability’. (p55)

Her own research, with advantaged and disadvantaged

students, is in marked contrast to the revelatory and

emancipatory claims (Neelands, 2009; Irish, 2011) made on

behalf of organisations like the Royal Shakespeare

Company:

If policymakers continue to adhere to a view of culture which presents it more as a body of elite knowledge rather than as social practice, then students who do not come from backgrounds where Shakespeare forms part of their cultural capital, are unlikely to find it the liberating experience itis claimed to be. (p63)

Summary

For whatever reason – sentimental, traditional, cultural

- Shakespeare continues to occupy a unique position in

English secondary curricula throughout the world. Whilst

the intrinsic value and approaches adopted will continue

to be debated, it is clear that from a socio-cultural

perspective, compulsory Shakespeare is hard to justify,

certainly in the Irish context. Even from a cognitive

perspective, if Bernstein’s linguistic theories are

correct, it would be hard to claim it was in any way a

‘neutral’ measure of the student’s abilities or potential

in any context apart from that of Elizabethan England.

However, given the continued requirement, it seemed

important to investigate whether, in the context of the

Shakespeare curriculum, the linguistic playing field

might be leveled by using drama methodologies.

The research sought to investigate how the compulsory

requirement to study Shakespeare impacts on the school

career of students in a DEIS school class, whether this

was equitable in light of the differing linguistic

capabilities of students in a low ESCS context, and

whether drama could be an appropriate alternative or

supplemental approach.

Methodologies

The research project was conducted in accordance with the

ethical guidelines stipulated by Trinity College’s School

of Education. Parents/guardians of students were informed

that the work they would be doing in class would be part

of a research project, and all of them were given the

option of declining to participate. All teachers signed a

letter of agreement that outlined the nature of the

research and the role they would be asked to take. All

reasonable efforts were taken to ensure the

confidentiality of participants was preserved.

The research project took place in a DEIS Post primary

school, in the greater Dublin region over the course of

five weeks at the end of the Easter term and the

beginning of the summer term, 2014. The school is

situated in a relatively affluent catchment area, with a

significant number of fee-paying schools within a three

or four mile radius. The school has an evenly mixed

population of male and female students. The school has

achieved student retention rates of almost 100% up to

Junior Certificate, and “nearly the same” (Murphy, 2015,

p76) up to Leaving Certificate. Over the past 5 years,

44% of Leaving Certificate students have progressed on to

recognised college courses (144 out of 333 –

www.schooldays.ie), a conversion rate that compares

favourably with other DEIS schools in Dublin. Classes are

streamed according to ability from 1st year, with the

lowest ability class typically having an improved

pupil/teacher ratio. Due to scheduling difficulties, the

2nd year group originally chosen was switched to a 1st year

group of average ability compared with the other 1st year

students in the school. Literacy levels within the school

are generally below the national average. Compared to the

rest of 1st year in the school, the class teacher

estimated that one sixth of the research class were above

average, a half were roughly average, and a third were

below average. The weakest student had a reading age of

7.

Four research questions were formulated, focusing on

different possible applications of drama in the context

of the Shakespeare curriculum:

Q1 To what extent is active involvement in the performance of an

edited version of a Shakespeare play useful to a below average literacy

group in the context of the Junior Cycle English programme?

Q2 To what extent might a kinaesthetic approach to Shakespeare’s

language facilitate comprehension of the meaning and significance of

the text with a below average literacy group?

Q3 Does an ‘ensemble’ approach to exploring and preparing a

performance of a drama text have pro-social benefits for a below

average literacy group?

Q4 To what extent is the capacity to use an especially crafted

drama-based scheme of work for the study of a Shakespeare play

within the current skill set of the typical Junior Cycle English teacher in

a DEIS school?

The project itself consisted of 14 drama-based sessions,

focused on a specially formulated version of The Merchant of

Venice, and 2 observations of an English class given by the

regular teacher. Each session was 35 or 40 minutes. The

venue was initially an old church hall on campus, but

class management issues meant the English teacher’s room

became the preferred location after week 1. After three

weeks (11 drama-based sessions) it was decided to ignore

Shakespeare for the final three days, and use an

original, contemporary story instead.

A convergent mixed methods design (Cresswell, 2013) was

chosen for data collection, before, during and after the

project. The data sources were:

Literature review – focusing on Shakespeare,

educational drama, literacy, disadvantage and the

Irish Junior Cycle.

Participant observation (Researcher’s Journal) –

during the project

Non-participatory observation

Student focus group interviews – before, during and

after the project

Class teacher interviews – before, during and after

the project

English teachers’ interview – before the project

Principal’s interview – during the project

Student questionnaire – before and after the project

Written assessment – after three weeks

In addition, an online survey of English teachers

nationally, focusing on behaviour and attitudes towards

using drama in the Junior Cycle Shakespeare class, was

conducted during the course of the project.

Findings were grouped chronologically, and analysed using

an inductive approach.

Findings

Baseline and post project questionnaires

A multiple choice class questionnaire resulted in 18

written responses. When asked from who(m) they learned

most, “other family’ was the most popular for girls,

whilst “parents” was most popular for boys. “Classmates”

ranked lowest for girls, whilst “classmates” and

“teachers” ranked lowest for boys. Given a list of five

possible sources of learning, ‘the internet’ and

“television” ranked significantly higher than any other

source for girls and boys. One quarter of the group had

encountered Shakespeare on television or film, and a

similar number claimed to have encountered his plays in

the theatre. When given three possible meanings for three

Shakespearean phrases, the group scored one in four

correct, worse than would have been expected from random

answers – by contrast, the pilot group, who were on

average two years younger but at a non-DEIS school,

scored two out of three correct.

In the baseline and post project questionnaires, Students

were asked to rate a list of five possible worries around

doing Shakespeare through drama from 1 to 5, with 5 as

“really worried”. The results showed that worries about

understanding Shakespeare’s language had decreased

significantly for boys during the course of the project,

but increased slightly for girls. This pattern was

largely repeated in the other four categories – boys

worries significantly improved, girls about the same at

the end of the project as at the beginning.

Student Focus Group Interviews

Over the course of the project, there was a shift in the

students’ attitude towards Shakespeare. All expressed

positive attitudes at the prospect of learning

Shakespeare, and said they were not worried about the

language prior to the project. However, there were

complaints mid-way through that Shakespeare was “a bit

boring” (Murphy, 2015, p63). One girl expressed a

preference for plays by modern writers like Roddy Doyle:

Helen: They’re fun, and they have, like, newEnglish language, and it’s more, like, happy and less depressing. (p63)

By the end, the consensus was that they would have

preferred a more modern play, or one that they knew like

Romeo and Juliet. Understanding of the context had not

progressed, and was limited to what they had been told by

the teacher before the project about women not being

allowed to be actors. Some misconceptions persisted,

notably about Jews being “slaves”.

Class Teacher Interviews

The class English teacher - “Brian” – had two years

teaching experience, and his first subject was Religion.

In the first interview, prior to the start of the

project, he frequently cautioned about what he called

‘student vulnerability’ in relation to using drama:

It’s that fear of failure, “if I read this someone’sgoing to laugh at me” … it’s a massive thing, it’s across the board, it’s not just Shakespeare.(Murphy,2015, p50)

He expressed doubts about the suitability of using the

original text with a 1st year group. He didn’t enjoy

teaching Shakespeare, and students in all years didn’t

engage with the language. In two subsequent interviews

during the project, when it was clear that the students

were not engaging with the initial drama activities, he

stated that in his opinion it was the “understanding of

the text” (p64) that was the biggest single factor. When

a more contemporary story was used for the final week’s

lessons, he noted a significant improvement: “I think

they did engage with (it) a lot more (in the fourth week)

just solely because of the language” (p75). Despite these

experiences, Brian subsequently confirmed that 50-60% of

the class would be expected to take the Higher Level

paper in 2016 (p67).

Other interviews

Two other English teachers were interviewed prior to the

start of the project. One stated her concern with

literacy in the school

Evelyn: Unfortunately, we’re just not up with the national average yet, and these kids, most of them don’t read and they struggle with the language. (Murphy, 2015, p52)

Both agreed that they would be unlikely to teach

Shakespeare to this age group, with Evelyn stating that

it was: “nearly like teaching a foreign language” (p52).

The interviews with all the teachers contrasted with the

views of the Principal, who stated of Shakespeare study:

“they love it, when they get over the panic of looking at

the words” (p76)

Participant and non-participatory observation

The Researcher’s Journal is notable for the extreme

difficulty encountered in getting the group to

participate in a wide range of drama activities around

the Shakespeare text:

(I was) using an actual lesson plan from the RSC Toolkit, but they were struggling with the ‘starter’ activity ... horrible suspicion it’s all beyond them. (Murphy, 2015, p57)

Nice atmosphere. Then asked them to sit in a circle and produced sheets (of Shakespeare text). Instant depression. (p60)

They are happy to engage as long as they are not made to feel stupid, and Shakespeare’s words make them feel stupid. (p61)

Even when more modern versions of scenes were used, there

was not much improvement: “Clear after, however, that

(they) had hardly read/ understood even (the) colloquial

version.” (p61)

At one point, the Journal questions how appropriate it

was for schools to be forcing children to study an author

so far beyond their literacy capabilities: “Would we make

them … play football if they didn’t have boots?” (p61).

When Shakespeare was abandoned in the fourth week, and a

contemporary story adopted instead, the change was

marked:

For (the) first time it felt like a Drama class, andthey were running things, I was just facilitating. (p58)

For two lessons, a normal English class given by ‘Brian’

was observed. The Journal notes how an approach that was

much closer to direct instruction, rather than

explorational drama, yielded results.

Written assessment

At the end of three weeks (11 lessons) of Shakespeare,

the class were asked to complete a simple written

assignment – recalling the names of characters and events

of the play – to establish how much content knowledge

they had acquired during the project. Of the 24

assignments that were returned, only 4 showed sufficient

understanding to be deemed suitable for taking the Higher

level paper in 2016. These assessments were confirmed

with an experienced (11 years) DEIS school Junior Cycle

teacher. In reality, over 50% of the class will be

expected to take the higher level paper.

Online Survey

148 surveys were returned from teachers in 127 schools –

34 DEIS and 93 non-DEIS. The questions were mostly

focused on the teachers attitudes towards using drama in

the Shakespeare class, but one question of particular

relevance to this paper, asked if teachers found teaching

Shakespeare to this age group was more difficult, less

difficult or no difference from teaching the other

prescribed English texts. 56% of DEIS school teachers and

48% of non-DEIS teachers said it was more difficult, with

nearly the same numbers saying there was no difference:

Q3: Is teaching Shakespeare for this age group more difficult than teaching the other prescribed texts?

More difficult

No difference

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Non-Deis (91)Deis (34)

A similar number – 56% DEIS teachers, 48% non-DEIS

teachers – agreed with the statement "The remoteness of

Shakespeare’s language is an initial, and sometimes

insurmountable, barrier to learning for students".

Discussion

In identifying the research data relevant for this paper,

the key observations would seem to be:

Compulsory Shakespeare study in the English-speaking

world has been promoted for political as much as for

educational reasons (Mullins,1996, Coles, 2013)

There is little or no educational literature to

support Shakespeare’s unique position within the

Irish Junior Cycle curriculum (Mullins, 1996).

Data from this research support Bernstein’s theories

(1971) of restricted and elaborated language codes,

and the contention (Heeran Flynn, 2013) that for

disadvantaged students, learning Shakespeare is like

learning a foreign language.

Data from this research suggest that a compulsory

Shakespeare requirement at higher level stigmatises

students from disadvantaged backgrounds and accords

with Conway’s (2002) characterisation of deficit

models of education, and with Coles’ (2013) notion

of a self-serving curriculum that portrays the

culture of the powerful as a neutral measure of

‘ability’.

The requirement on DEIS schools to set targets for

academic achievement means there is significant

incentive for English teachers to enter their

students for a course (Shakespeare) for which they

are poorly suited. The data appear to confirm this

phenomenon.

Data suggest that students in DEIS schools, before

they even start a course of study, are significantly

poorer in comprehending Shakespeare’s language than

younger students from non-DEIS schools.

For these students, engagement with a non-academic

activity (drama) was problematic when the context

was a Shakespeare text (The Merchant of Venice), but

significantly improved when the language and context

were made more modern

Data from the online survey suggest that teachers in

DEIS schools are only slightly more likely than non-

DEIS school teachers to agree that teaching

Shakespeare is more difficult than teaching the

other prescribed authors. Similarly, DEIS teachers

are only slightly more likely to agree that

Shakespeare’s language is an initial and sometimes

insurmountable barrier for students.

A consistent message from both the teachers in the

research school, and the online survey, is that

Shakespeare’s language is a significant barrier for all

students. Indeed, given the strength of feeling of the

teachers in the research school, as well as the

researcher’s own experience, it is perhaps surprising

that the online survey results did not show a more marked

difference between DEIS and non-DEIS teachers in this

regard. This may be explained by the fact that the

schools were all identifiable from their email addresses,

and by the teachers’ commendable loyalty towards their

students. It may also be further evidence for

Shakespeare’s “mythical power” (Mullins, 1996).

However, the key finding is that the requirement for

higher level students to study Shakespeare, and the

structure of the DEIS school programme, appear to

incentivise schools to visit wholly inappropriate

educational practice on vulnerable students. The

rhetorical question in the Researcher’s Journal, about

whether we would make children play football without

boots, reflected the concern that there could be no

positive justification for obliging the students in that

class to study a complete Shakespeare text. Like playing

football without boots, it was painful, it produced a

poor result, and above all, it ensured that the vast

majority of those young people would forever associate

the activity with an experience of painful failure. The

contrary arguments – that there is enduring cultural

value for the student, that may not be appreciated at the

time; or that Shakespeare enriches the sensibilities like

no other writer; or that knowledge of Shakespeare’s

language initiates the student into the discourses of the

powerful – are wholly unsupported by evidence, as Mullins

(1996), Coles (2013) and others have pointed out.

ImplicationsJunior cycle is inclusive of all students and contributes to equality of opportunity, participation and outcome for all. (Junior Cycle English Syllabus, NCCA, 2014, p3)

The medical profession’s Hippocratic Oath enjoins doctors

to “abstain from doing harm”, and would seem in

accordance with the quote above, which is taken from the

opening paragraph of the new English curriculum. This

endorsement of educational inclusivity is followed on the

next page by confirmation that Shakespeare is the sole

compulsory author for higher level.

Whilst the theoretical background to the curriculum seeks

the integration of language and literature study, the

practice that follows from the compulsory requirement –

surface learning, repetition, students studying a

syllabus for which they are unsuited - can only ensure

the reification of cultural experiences, and the

promotion of culture as “a body of elite knowledge”

(Coles, 2013). Moreover, setting Shakespeare as the

gatekeeper to advancement in the education system, risks

alienating even further the disadvantaged learner from

their potential for learning within that system. Clearly,

Pythagoras’ theorem is fundamental to advancement in

mathematics, and understanding the relationship between

pressure, volume and temperature is essential for

chemistry, but can we say the same of Shakespeare? What

benefit is being accorded to the student population or to

society by maintaining such an arbitrary, outdated, and,

as we have seen, excluding standard? If the concern of

the designers of the curriculum – to help teachers decide

who should be studying higher level English, and who

ordinary – can be as effectively addressed by the

teacher’s own choice of set texts, why insist on a

benchmark that only encourages bad educational practice

in Disadvantaged schools? Why have any compulsory author?

This research suggests that the requirement to study an

entire Shakespeare text at Junior Cycle level serves no

useful purpose, is potentially discriminatory to students

in low ESCS schools, and, in the absence of evidence to

justify its retention, should be suspended at the

earliest opportunity.

References

Atherton, C. (2005). Compulsory Shakespeare. English Drama Media, 4, 5-7.

Coles, J. (2013). ‘Every child's birthright’? Democratic entitlement and the role of canonical literature in the English National Curriculum. Curriculum Journal, 24(1), 50-66.

Conway, P. F. (2002). Learning in communities of practice: Rethinking teaching and learning in disadvantaged contexts. Irish Educational Studies, 21(3), 61-91.

Conway, P. F., & Murphy, R. (2013). A rising tide meets a perfect storm: new accountabilities in teaching and teacher education in Ireland. Irish Educational Studies, 32(1), 11-36.

Creswell, J. W. (2013). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. London: Sage.

Crooks, T. (1990). The Changing Curriculum. Perspectives on the

Junior Certificate. Dublin: O’Brien.Department of Education and Skills, Ireland. (2011). Literacy and

Numeracy for Learning and Life: The National Strategy to Improve Literacy and Numeracy Among Children and Young People, 2011-2020. Dublin: Department of Education and Skills.

Eagleton, T. (1983). Literary Theory: An Introduction. Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press.

Flaherty, K., Gay, P., & Semler, L. (2013). Teaching Shakespeare Beyond the Centre: Australasian Perspectives: Palgrave Macmillan.

Heeran Flynn, L. (2013). Breaking The Code. (Ph.D.), Trinity College Dublin, Dublin.

Hennessy PhD, J., & McNamara PhD, P. (2013). At the altar of educational efficiency: Performativity and the role of. English Teaching Practice and Critique, 12(1), 6-22.

Hornbrook, D. (1988). ‘Go play, boy, play’: Shakespeare and Educational Drama. The Shakespeare Myth, 145-159. Manchester:Manchester University Press.

Irish, T. (2011). Would You Risk It For Shakespeare? English In Education, 45(1).

Mullins, T. (1996). Shakespeare: To be or not to be…. Irish Educational Studies, 15(1), 210-220.

Murphy, M. (2015). Shakespeare Without Boots. (M.Ed.), Trinity College, Dublin, Dublin.

NCCA. (2012). Background paper and brief for the review of English in Junior Cycle Dublin: Stationary Office.

NCCA. (2013). Junior Cycle English. Dublin: Stationary Office.NCCA. (2014). Junior Cycle English Text List. Dublin: National Council

For Curriculum and Assessment.Neelands, J. (2009). Acting together: ensemble as a democratic process in art and life. RiDE: The Journal of Applied Theatre and Performance, 14(2), 173-189.Ó Bréacháin, A. & L. O’Toole. (2013).“Pedagogy or Politics?:

Cyclical Trends in Literacy and Numeracy in Ireland and Beyond.”. Irish Educational Studies, 32(4), 401-419.

Perkins, R., Shiel, G., Merriman, B., Gosgrove, J., & Moran, G. (2013). PISA 2012: Learning For Life. Dublin: Educational Research Centre.

Steiner, G. (1984). George Steiner: A Reader: London: Penguin Books.

Online Sources

Neale, I. (2011). Bard's Death Scenes Played Out At School. Retrieved 23/07/14, 2014, from http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/5561035/Bards-death-scenes-played-out-at-school