This morning I woke up to Meet The Press with Howard Dean (note: I'm a huge H.D fan), which was a nice way to wake up on Sunday morning. I imagine that Mrs. Russert and Dr. Steinberg would agree... although for different reasons. Anyhow, while the two are doing the political jibba-jabba of "you said this - no, I said that" I started thinking about teaching Julius Caesar. My sophomore classes are in the midst of the ancient political drama. Although the students find it somewhat boring, they are interested in the concept of "absolute power corrupts absolutely" - a phrase none had heard previously. It's not something they've really ever considered before... corruption and hypocrisy is something they tend to view as coming with age. Anyone over the age of 25 (horrifically old!) is obviously an corrupt hypocrit. The idea that not all adults are out to keep them from having fun and might struggle with ideals and desire to serve the society as a whole isn't something they've ever really thought about. Adults tell them what to do and prescribe dire consequences if they don't, all the while doing the exact thing they can't.
At the end of the week, students wrote and presented campaign speeches for either Mark Antony or Brutus. The choosing of character was an interesting dialoge for several of the students... I heard Brutus referred to as the bad one several times, only to stoutly defended by other students as simply stupid. They're still pretty much black and white when projecting ethics onto characters/people they don't know. This lead to a discussion of the old adage "if you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything" - again wholly new to student lexicon (a few remembered the song, but hadn't a clue what it actually meant). Brutus murdered Caesar, thus, he is bad or stupid. I guess you could liken the ideas and justifications for this action are in the toddler stage. In discussions and the speeches, the listener can hear the start of extenuating circumstances. Then something happens and the student's reasoning peters out. It's like watching a toddler walking - they take off running and then trip... the kid stumbles around and then drops like a stone.
On The Daily Grind, the author has a post listing curricula that may be obsolete and whether it should be retained. One of things mentioned is Shakespeare as a whole, along with several other classics, expository writing and literature circles. Are these important? Personally, I think Beowulf loosing something in many of the modern translations that are out there, but neither would any teacher have time to teach it in the original language as one of my college professors did... but does that mean it is tossed? I've been reading the NYT series on class all week. Tuesday's article was about a woman who grew up in poverty and became a lawyer. The epitomy of the American success story, only with a stressful catch. Della, the focus of the article, walks a tightrope of social cues and cultural mores that she never learned as a child. Similar to those social rules that state you don't wear white after Labor Day, there is shared background of literature in the upwardly mobile classes. "A rose by any other name, would smell as sweet" has meaning in our society - the random professional may not be able to name which act or scene it was in, the play or even the author (this is the US), but they do know instantly that the meaning is that no matter what it's called, the description is the same.
If education is to be the great equalizer, then students who won't have the chance of that background knowledge need to obtain it in school. I would even argue that it is one of the founding principles of public education. Maybe Shakespeare is boring. Maybe there are more modern examples of the heroic journey... but what is actually obsolete? The knowledge or the teaching? Maybe someone should just write to Kenneth Branagh to get a better movie version of The Tempest?
At the end of the week, students wrote and presented campaign speeches for either Mark Antony or Brutus. The choosing of character was an interesting dialoge for several of the students... I heard Brutus referred to as the bad one several times, only to stoutly defended by other students as simply stupid. They're still pretty much black and white when projecting ethics onto characters/people they don't know. This lead to a discussion of the old adage "if you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything" - again wholly new to student lexicon (a few remembered the song, but hadn't a clue what it actually meant). Brutus murdered Caesar, thus, he is bad or stupid. I guess you could liken the ideas and justifications for this action are in the toddler stage. In discussions and the speeches, the listener can hear the start of extenuating circumstances. Then something happens and the student's reasoning peters out. It's like watching a toddler walking - they take off running and then trip... the kid stumbles around and then drops like a stone.
On The Daily Grind, the author has a post listing curricula that may be obsolete and whether it should be retained. One of things mentioned is Shakespeare as a whole, along with several other classics, expository writing and literature circles. Are these important? Personally, I think Beowulf loosing something in many of the modern translations that are out there, but neither would any teacher have time to teach it in the original language as one of my college professors did... but does that mean it is tossed? I've been reading the NYT series on class all week. Tuesday's article was about a woman who grew up in poverty and became a lawyer. The epitomy of the American success story, only with a stressful catch. Della, the focus of the article, walks a tightrope of social cues and cultural mores that she never learned as a child. Similar to those social rules that state you don't wear white after Labor Day, there is shared background of literature in the upwardly mobile classes. "A rose by any other name, would smell as sweet" has meaning in our society - the random professional may not be able to name which act or scene it was in, the play or even the author (this is the US), but they do know instantly that the meaning is that no matter what it's called, the description is the same.
If education is to be the great equalizer, then students who won't have the chance of that background knowledge need to obtain it in school. I would even argue that it is one of the founding principles of public education. Maybe Shakespeare is boring. Maybe there are more modern examples of the heroic journey... but what is actually obsolete? The knowledge or the teaching? Maybe someone should just write to Kenneth Branagh to get a better movie version of The Tempest?
Comments