harry potter or shakespeare?

[dilli-theclaw]

I wonder why I never read Shakespeare at school - I feel left out now.

[Bex]

Originally Posted by ntluser

I think that children need to develop a knowledge and appreciation of both traditional and modern literature.

Ideally,the teaching of it should be pitched at a level and time when the pupils would most appreciate it.

Harry Potter is a modern classic with wide appeal. It can be read to younger children and can be read by older children and adults. Shakespeare is pitched at older children and adults, but there are simplified versions for younger children.So both can be enjoyable.

It would be a shame if children were deprived of either.

i think you've just hit the nail on the head for me.
i think reading something like harry potter is good for younger kids, it gets them interested in reading. my nephew and i have been reading harry potter together for a year or so and also roald dahl, what makes me really smile is he (at six) has now caught the reading bug and will sit in his room and read books for hours.

maybe contemporary books do have their place in children till say 14... when in most cases they are then ready for something more challenging.

i think it was scastle who said that schools should have place for both contemporary and classics, which i totally agree with

also diamen... the poll was nicked straight from the sky news website so

i find it interesting to see that the majority of voters atm have voted "who cares" was it just lack of another option? or do we really not care what our kids read at school?

[punky]

Originally Posted by dilligaf1701

I wonder why I never read Shakespeare at school - I feel left out now.

My schools seem to have avoided them where possible. Probably to stop us automatically loathing WS. The trouble is they forced more rubbish on us (Tess Of The D'Urbervilles, yippee ), to loathe instead.

[Matthew]

I think something more modern like Harry Potter should be taught. I know when I did Shakespear three years ago for my SATs it was the most boring thing ever, did not understand it and had eventually I gave up. Now if that was something like Harry Potter I would be interested because it is more modern and we can relate to some of the things a little easier.

I know some of our English staff have had enought of the "classics" and want us to do more modern but they are told what to teach so have no choice. I think if they want grades to improve they need to stop teaching all the old rubbish and get with the times.

Originally Posted by Matthew

I think something more modern like Harry Potter should be taught. I know when I did Shakespear three years ago for my SATs it was the most boring thing ever, did not understand it and had eventually I gave up. Now if that was something like Harry Potter I would be interested because it is more modern and we can relate to some of the things a little easier.

I know some of our English staff have had enought of the "classics" and want us to do more modern but they are told what to teach so have no choice. I think if they want grades to improve they need to stop teaching all the old rubbish and get with the times.

That way we end up disregarding more and more of our past in an effort just to stay with the times..

[Matthew]

It is not getting disregarded as things like that are taught in History.

Originally Posted by Matthew

It is not getting disregarded as things like that are taught in History.

We still need the literature of our past for the same reasons as we learn history.To maintain our culture and hopefully to learn from the shared experiences of others.If we only learn that which is modern we lose touch with what has made us what we are today.