This article considers the challenges of teaching Shakespeare in the twenty-first century and considers how practitioners could sustain his educational value.
Why We Study Shakespeare
1,700. This is the number of words that William Shakespeare is credited with contributing to the English language that we still use today (Shakespeare Birthplace Trust). Given his vast linguistic legacy, why is the inclusion of his works in the modern curriculum so frequently questioned?
In short, our classrooms are becoming more diverse, our students’ literary worlds broader and, therefore, the literary choices made by English departments around the world are being contested, challenged and continually revised. This reflection becomes necessary as we acknowledge that contemporary fiction, post-colonial writing and more recently, digital texts all deserve a meaningful space in a modern curriculum.
Despite this, Shakespeare remains a constant, a rock in an ever-changing sea of texts and curriculum reform. The key question here is why?
Historically, Shakespeare has been positioned as culturally indispensable. As Blocksidge observed, he was ‘separated from his fellows’ in a way that privileged his work above all others (Blocksidge 1). During the inception of the National Curriculum in England in 1990, Shakespeare became the only author compulsory for all students with his work framed as cultural heritage and imperative to intellectual development. This ideology is grounded in Shakespeare’s ability to allow students to access a long-respected literary and theatrical conversation. There is no doubt that his influence runs through contemporary writing, film and everyday language. Due to the compelling nature of his literary technique and his critique on society through drama, students are afforded a window into history and the opportunity to question the values and morals of past societal structures. However, is this historical importance sufficient justification? Shakespeare’s place in education must be earned through pedagogy, not assumed and protected by tradition.
‘The Shakespeare Problem’ in 21st-Century Teaching
When one writer is positioned as culturally untouchable, resentment can build. This resentment is evident in both teacher and student resistance. Research exploring Shakespeare in English classrooms found that a significant majority of students feel his plays are irrelevant and engage with them reluctantly, with an astounding 80% of respondents in one study reporting no sense of personal relevance (Purewall 26-27).
For the most part, Shakespeare is taught as a literary figure rather than a theatrical one. Despite teachers stating “Remember, this was written to be performed”, this is seldom followed up with opportunities to do so and as a result, his works become static; his plays have become texts to analyse, summarise, annotate and examine. Blocksidge notes that schools have historically favoured “Shakespeare the poet rather than Shakespeare the dramatist” a shift that fundamentally alters how students encounter his work (Blocksidge 5). This approach is further reinforced by assessment structures adopted by schools as students are often asked to write about character and theme in the same way that they would a novel; instead of discussing and arguing expression, representation and the dramatic possibilities. As a result, students produce fixed meanings rooted in language analysis. Consequently, the study of Shakespeare becomes stagnant and uninspiring, rooted in worksheets, language analysis and exam responses.
The irony of this is that these methods make Shakespeare feel even less relevant and further removed. What was once popular theatre becomes a burden of academic obligation.
From personal experience, it is fair to say that resistance to Shakespeare is common and vocal. Students complain that they cannot understand the language, the lexis is complex and unfamiliar. A familiar quandary: “If he meant that, then why didn’t he just say that then?” followed up with “I just don’t get it” As a result, a term of Shakespeare becomes something to endure rather than something to enjoy.
Can we take these complaints as evidence that Shakespeare no longer belongs in modern education? If students cannot access the language, does the text become obsolete?
These questions rest on a flawed assumption; that difficulty is exclusionary. Can we say that we are offering a challenging curriculum if we remove the difficulty?
Ayanna Thompson and Laura Turchi argue that access is not created by simplifying texts or removing challenge, but through pedagogy that is purposeful and student-centered (Thompson and Turchi 184). It could be argued that the language is a barrier only when they are not given meaningful ways into the text. The difficulty is not the problem, the teaching of it is. Students need to be taught to read and experience him with confidence, making this an issue of pedagogy rather than practice.
Any discussion of Shakespeare in the 21st Century must engage with questions surrounding diversity and inclusion. If a curriculum is dominated by a narrow range of voices, it is not representative nor defensible. Students deserve the opportunity to experience a range of texts that reflect their identities, cultures and beliefs. In saying this, if we reject Shakespeare entirely, we risk replacing one form of exclusion with another- hinting that historical texts have nothing to offer. Sarah Olive argues, Shakespeare’s value has never been stable or universally agreed upon. It has been “ascribed, produced, constructed, received and projected” requiring constant justification within shifting political, cultural contexts (Olive 14) It is well known that Shakespeare’s plays address power struggles, gender politics, violence, and inequities. These are not texts that are comfortable, they are texts that challenge thought and do not reinforce dominant narratives, exposing injustice and inequality – this is what makes them useful in a modern-day curriculum. However, it is possible to decentre Shakespeare while making space for new voices, inclusion does not require erasure.
What Teachers Need to Do to Ignite the Fire
To conclude, the future of Shakespeare in education lies in the delivery and ultimately the pedagogy. The research consistently shows that when Shakespeare is approached as drama rather than text, student engagement improves (Elliot and Olive 406). Practitioners should adopt performance-based methods, discussion, experimentation and interpretation. We must ourselves remember that “this was written to be performed”.
We must move away from the argument of language and understanding. Students are often able to decode, understand and enjoy texts that they do not fully understand – they do this with film, music and art all the time. We mustn’t underestimate them, we must give them the tools and the passion to succeed.
Out, out, brief candle? Possibly. But if Shakespeare is extinguished, we lose more than a body of texts, we lose a critical lens through which students can examine how language, literature and culture have evolved. Shakespeare should neither dominate the curriculum nor be preserved without reflection. Rather, schools should adopt purposeful teaching that allows future generations to engage positively with his work to ensure its legacy.
Reference List
Blocksidge, Martin, editor. Shakespeare in Education. Continuum, 2003.
Elliott, Victoria, and Sarah Olive. “Secondary Shakespeare in the UK: Pedagogies and Practice.” Changing English, vol. 30, no. 4, 2023, pp. 402-13.
Gibson, Rex. Secondary School Shakespeare: Classroom Practice. Cambridge Institute of Education, 1990.
“Teaching Shakespeare in Schools.” Teaching English, 2nd ed., Cambridge University Press, 2016.
Olive, Sarah. Shakespeare Valued: Education Policy and Pedagogy 1989–2009. Intellect, 2015.
Purewal, Sandeep. “Shakespeare in the Classroom: To Be or Not to Be?” Warwick Journal of Education, vol. 1, 2017, pp. 26-33, journals.warwick.ac.uk/index.php/wjett/article/view/42/243.
“Shakespeare’s Words.” Shakespeare Birthplace Trust, 2024, www.shakespeare.org.uk/explore-shakespeare/shakespedia/shakespeares-words/. Accessed 1 Feb. 2026.
Thompson, Ayanna, and Laura Turchi. Teaching Shakespeare with Purpose: A Student-Centred Approach. Arden Shakespeare, 2016.
Winston, Joe, and Steve Strand. “The Impact of Rehearsal Room Pedagogy on Students: What Research Shows.” Transforming the Teaching of Shakespeare with the Royal Shakespeare Company, edited by Joe Winston, Bloomsbury Arden Shakespeare, 2015.
Michaela Pierre is Assistant Head of House, Javi at North London Collegiate School Dubai, with over ten years of experience as an English educator across international school contexts. She has been teaching at NLCS Dubai for the past three years, working closely with students to support both academic progress and pastoral wellbeing.
Previously Michaela served as Head of Year at Dulwich College Beijing, where she developed a particular passion for student wellbeing and holistic education. She is deeply committed to encouraging young people to engage with literature, seeing it as a powerful tool for empathy, self-expression and critical thinking.
Parent Portal