Another Giant Leap Foward

Shakespeare Going the Way of the Dodo

According to NZ Herald columnist, Garth George, Shakespeare is on his way out.  No longer will Shakespeare be a compulsory part of the English curriculum for Level 13 students.  Here is George's cynical comment on this great educational leap forward at our government schools. 

As of next year changes to the Level 3 English component of the ridiculous National Certificate of Educational Achievement, which asks students to respond critically to a Shakespearean drama, will expire and not be replaced.

It is the last Shakespeare-specific unit in the curriculum and its demise will mean that studying the Bard will be entirely up to individual teachers. Not much hope for him, then, since I suspect that one reason for this is that far too many English teachers today are simply incapable of interpreting him to their students.

Whilst we understand George's frustration, and indeed agree that removing the study of Shakespeare from the government school curriculum is deplorable, we have to confess we are not surprised. 

Firstly--a general observation.
  When civil government attempts to run anything outside the basic tasks for which it has genuine (God ordained) competence (justice, defence, maintaining the peace) the repeated outcome is almost always gross bumbling and woeful waste and incompetence.  Why, then, would be surprised that government schools would be any different.  The reason we have 30% illiteracy and innumeracy in New Zealand is because most of the schools in this country are government run schools.  The underlying reason we have, on any given school day, ten percent of the student population absent from government schools without a justified, certified excuse is because governments are incompetent as educators.

Therefore it comes as no surprise that our government schools constantly lower educational standards to make "achievement" more easy.  After all that is the fundamental objective and intent of our unique NCEA qualification.  It has been deliberately designed to make education and educational qualifications more relevant to NZ pupils--which is to say, the system is designed to facilitate pupils getting qualifications in what they can do and in what interests them.  Since its introduction we have seen a constant watering down of NCEA: the removal of Shakespeare is just one more example.  That is why schools (and students) are pushing for more and more internal assessment on subjects: they can demonstrate their educational excellence by passing out serried rows of  "achieved" students, where, in the end, it is the teacher and the pupils who are defining and identifying and certifying the "pass". 

We have to make a bit of a distinction at this point.  The hard science subjects have largely escaped the grade inflation and standards deflation.  There is a certain hard reality to the material world.  No matter what our preferences, we cannot suspend natural laws, orders, and structures at will.  Gravity is gravity whether one likes it or not.  But when it comes to the liberal arts, free flights of fancy are able to take over.  There is no "hardness" about these subjects.  They are consequently far more subject to the whim and fancy of teachers and pupils. 

Why, however, should we be critical of Shakespeare being removed from the English curriculum?  Surely there is nothing wrong with replacing the ancient Bard with a modern, fast moving, racy playwright.  Like Roger Hall and some of his oh-so-contemporary comedies of manners, for instance. The answer lies in the word "civilisation".  Shakespeare and his corpus represent a very significant way point in the development of Western civilisation, not only in capturing and portraying the world-and-life view of Elizabethan England, but in drawing together so many themes and strands that had influenced the development of Western civilisation from the time of the ancient Hebrews and then the classical era onwards.  Not only that: Shakespeare's plays are so significant and momentous they have influenced the West for four hundred years since. 

In a word, Shakespearian plays are able to make us wise.

To cut ourselves off from Shakespeare is to cut ourselves off from our cultural roots, our heritage--the world-view that we have inherited and that Shakespeare has facilitated passing down to us.  Moreover, that is the only Christian civilisation we have seen to date in the history of the world.  Therefore, the study of it is vital to Christians and to the Church in general.  That is why Chinese Christian academics, for example, are pouring over the great works of theology, literature, and Christian philosophers of the West.  They are attempting to learn what a Christianised China would look like, and how to bring it into being. 

But of these things government schools know nothing.  Their "thought leaders" find it objectionable to suggest that we can learn anything of the past that is relevant.  The idea that there is an authoritative and vital tradition to be imparted and inculcated into students is not just wrong, they regard it as an offensive anathema. 

For Christians, our schools will always be very different.  Focused upon learning the past thoroughly--in every subject--so that we might understand and be effective in serving God in the present.  That is why Christian educators and Christian schooling will never get rid of Shakespeare.