Why Aren't Theatre History Classes Mandatory for High Schools? — Page 2

I would want classes about how to do my taxes mandatory before making Theatre mandatory. One more time, reminding you that this is very niche, and very few people would be interested. Do you want schools to waste their money when they're already not getting enough funding? Who would provide the money for these classes?

Updated On: 6/6/24 at 03:19 PM

Kad said: "Having gone to an arts high school and then majored in acting in college, at schools in two different states, one public and one private, there was absolutely a core canon of worksthat were taught, from Ancient Greek plays up through contemporary plays. If you’re an acting student, then you’re also introduced to plays through your acting classes as well. So I’m a little confused on what exactly you want to see here."

One more time. Theatre history classes to be offered in high schools, or some sort of alternative to theatre history, so that theatre kids are well educated on the world they might go into. That's what I want to see.

I know everybody sees the word "mandatory" and thinks that I mean for students so maybe I should've said something like "Why Don't More High Schools Offer Theatre History Classes" but if you look at what I said I didn't actually suggest making every student take such a class at any point.

BeingAlive44Ever said: "I don't mean a mandatory class for every student, I mean a mandatory class for the school tooffer

I think about half of the people replying got that and the other half didn't"



Sorry but either way it's just as dumb. In many schools, teachers have to pay out of their own pockets just for basic school supplies. Half of the country is banning/burning books that at one time were considered required reading in many school curriculums. As others have said -- should schools also be REQUIRED to offer courses on the history of Football? How about Fly Fishing 101? The Origins and History of Gangsta Rap? Just because something would be your favorite category on Final Jeopardy, doesn't mean that everyone needs to share your interests/obsessions.

hearthemsing22 said: "I would want classes about how to do my taxes mandatory before making Theatre mandatory. One more time, reminding you that this is very niche, and very few people would be interested. Do you want schools to waste their money when they're already not getting enough funding? Who would provide the money for these classes?"

Came here to say something similar. Barely 50% of NYC public schools students have math and English proficiency, meaning half of them can't read/write and count at the grade level they're in. Theater history as a required class sounds like something from a utopian future.

And so sad that as this discussion is being had, this was just announced...



https://6abc.com/post/university-of-the-arts-philadelphia-closing-letter-accreditation-president-kerry-walk/14897571/?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR0hV3dD2togGsFnlsxrSNq2yQICbLzP-c2nLdI5A11irR4Ht3wywfy-VBc_aem_AXXlJ_yHaKI51rfwRpfo449KLaCVm4kZO-LcGOwOgicet4g7Go41Tmkc7RZV5RBYlUsgqPzOAus2ci5K383agQTn

Another aspect that I haven't seen mentioned (or missed it) is that the large majority of kids doing shows in high school do not go on to major in theatre in college or pursue it as a profession. Like in my high school in the 90s, maybe 1 or 2 of us from each year (in the mid to late 90s) are working in the business, and I'm guessing there are plenty of years where no one who participated with the drama program continued doing it professionally.

dramamama611 said: "You aren't listening to what others are saying. If you want schools to offer theater history for the very few that might want it, then you have to offer every other very niche topic to exist. The history of video game design. The history of football. The history of education. The history of auto mechanics. The history of engineering. High school isn't there to prepare you for your possible profession. It's to teach you to be a decent member of society and to learn how to learn."

That's a positively silly response. As Kad noted, the history of theater predates most religions. Certainly all Christian religion. Theater has intersected with politics throughout its history. Honestly...it's only recently that theater has become niche and ghettoized. And boy, do we as theater people love to ghettoize ourselves and think we're so special. I mean...the very basics of audience building and audience engagement is to expose people to the arts at a young age. The relentless pursuit of STEM has rendered us with a generation or two that can think technically but not broadly. We are dealing with shocking amounts of disinformation in our culture because our students aren't being exposed in a profound way to the 'softer' liberal arts that would allow them to be able to discern what is real content and what is weaponized propaganda. I mean....look at the psychopaths that make up big tech. That's what we want for our populace???

The question may have been inelegant, but it's a good question. Why are artforms that predate religion considered niche rather than elemental to our learning. Or rather, why are the artforms that have been coopted by religion (ie. the pageantry of the Mass, the religious artwork and icons) considered something that is trivial to our learning? I'm kind of shocked by some of the responses here.

Something that theater people want to avoid thinking about is money. I haven't seen anyone address this. Where is the funding coming from to add these classes? Who do we think would want to gamble on interest? How would you work it into a curriculum? How would you propose this to a school board?

You certainly don't need to apologize to me! Even though I was a little confused as to your intent when i read your first post, I thought you further posts really clarified your thinking. And I agree. World history (and American history) can very much reflect on what the artists were doing during those time periods. I was lucky that my English classes in high school almost always involved us reading a play a semester. I read Shakespeare, Shaw, Stoppard, Beckett, etc. I was lucky to be in honors classes and AP, so maybe it was different for other students. But unlike our other readings, we always read the plays aloud in class. Theater is a huge part of world literature. And it's the part of world literature that we get to watch played out live in front of our eyes. That's remarkable.

Someone earlier made the point that people who do theater in high school rarely go on to study it in college or pursue it as a career. The implication being that, because enough students aren't figuring out a way to monetize it, it's of lesser importance. That seems absolutely insane to me. I taught at a musical theater conservatory for about 5 years. No...not every person that came through those doors was going to end up on Broadway. But I always made a point of telling my students that, no matter where they end up in life, they will always be able to stand in front of a group of people and communicate effectively.

I still perform (and I'm grateful for that), but one of my main functions at my survival job is to put together global partner meetings for a top 20 global law firm. I have these millionaires who are at the top of their fields sitting in front of me asking me to make them better when they are on stage presenting. And I make good money doing that. We lessen these incredibly important skills when we tell ourselves what we love and/or what we do is niche. Let's not do that.

BeingAlive44Ever said: "chrishuyen said: "Bringing up AP classes made me wonder if this could be a potential subject for the AP board, though I readily admit I have no clue how a new subject would get added, and of course there's all the logistics of schools needing to provide such class for it to gain enough traction so that it catches on. But we have AP subjects for music theory and studio art and art history so it doesn't seem completely out of the realm of possibility from my point of view (again, I'msure the process is MUCH more complicated to make it actually happen)"

Well this is a nice idea but what you have to remember is that, for example, AP Studio Art is only offered at schools that already have an art pathway. An AP Theatre History class would only really make sense in a school that already offered theatre history classes, which just brings us right directly back to where we were. Somebody else made a great point (immediately preceded by a not as good point)...

dramamama611said:"You do not seem to be understand what mandatory means. There is no such thing as a mandatory elective choice. Also, many schools have problems keeping electives running... Without minimum participation. The number of kids that a really care about the history of things is very small."

The way I worded my title is confusing. I thought it'd make sense because I said "for high schools", as in forschools (like as in the individual building, the schoolboard, etc)to be required to have such a class. It seems like people have read this as either "high schoolers," meaning all kids in high school, or "high school," meaning the time period of high school, should require theatre history. I acknowledge that I was unclear in exactly what I meant, but I do not think the phrasing is technically wrong. I did not say mandatory for students. I said mandatory for high schools. I know what mandatory means.

Now to that greatpoint you made:
A lot of electives already have minimum or near minimum participation, and something as niche as a theatre history class may indeed be pointless to wish upon public schools. However, this makes me consider another thought: what if theatre classes had more regulations on their curriculum, akin to an academic classes? There are certain books-- like Great Gatsby and Of Mice and Men-- that everybody has to read in high school. There should be certain plays and people that every drama student has a reasonable level of familiarity with by the time they get through high school. I'm not proposing completely regulating what the schools are allowed to teach, I only mean a little clause that includes some things that are incredibly important to the medium and how it came to be (eg. Wagnerian leitmotifs, Gilbert and Sullivan, early musical theatre, Ethel Merman changing how people sing, Rodgers and Hammerstein, the Pulitzer prize winning musicals and other such shows that have changed the art form)

I find everybody's perspective on this valuable, not that I'd ever have the guts topropose such a thing directly to whatever department makes these kinds of bills, but it is still something I think is important.

"Your second to last paragraph completely lost me, at least the examples you use. I love the theatre; but as a high schooler, I would have had no interest in learning about Wagner leitmotifs, Gilbert and Sullivan, Ethel Merman changing how people sing (did she?). That sounds like topics a student can investigate on You-Tube, if they have enough interest, or by taking books out of the library. There are any number of books on musical theatre that any high schooler interested in theatre could read. I did that when I was in high school in the late 60s. It was learning fun things about a topic I was interested in. Having a mandatory rule that a high school has to offer a course on this general subject seems ludicrous to me the more I think about it.

Let's not tell others what we can or can not call things. It's great that you have that much knowledge that people come to you about certain things. But those skills can be taught in other ways that are currently available. It will take a long time before people agree that theater should be a mandatory part of a curriculum. It's also not something as important as what one would learn in say, a trade school, something people will always need to know and carry with them and teach to others. It's not like learning how to repair things, how to cook, how to do things along those lines. People who are interested in theater today may not be within the next few weeks, months, years. Even people who were on Broadway at a certain point have gone on to other jobs, most noticeably to me in real estate. It also depends on where you grew up. In certain states in certain parts of the country, they won't place as much importance on the arts. It will be very low on their list of priorities. I think the main thing is having community theater, having touring productions come to town, having school drama clubs. But mandatory? You've got a long way to go, a lot of convincing, and a lot of fundraising to do before that happens.

SonofRobbieJ said: "I have absolutely no problem telling you not to call theater niche. And if you knew the history of theater, you would know that it's become niche in the last...70 years or so.

I'd argue that there aren't that may ways to learn the soft skills discussed here other than being exposed to them and trying them. It doesn't have to be as an actor on stage, but you can't get goo d at presenting to people without the actual opportunity of being in front of people and telling some kind of story. That's what presenting is. It's theater without stabbing your eyes out when you found out you slept with your mom.

Trade schools are amazing and essential. But it's not just enough to learn how to do the repair. You need to learn how to balance your books. You need to learn how to get and retain customers. It's a balancing act of technical skills and soft skills. Persuasion is incredibly important and we are learning that people who aren't attuned to persuasion and what it looks like fall for con men and autocrats.

And to be clear, I may be focusing on theater (that's my expertise), but I really am thinking about the arts as a whole. Music is math. Football players take dance classes. Art is geometry. I am arguing for a holistic type of education where the analytical and technical are reinforced and deepened through the arts."

With any school anywhere, they have oral reports where people have to present in front of the class. And they can learn that skill without taking theater. People have been doing them for years and I'm betting most of them don't take theater classes as well. Sometimes people are just thrust into situations and have to learn. And people are learning now, even if it's not what you want. I am a huge, huge, huge theater fan, and I'm not trying to imply that I think this is a ridiculous idea. But I'm trying to open your eyes to the fact that this is not realistic, at least not right now. If you can tell me what to do, I can say you're not being realistic. It goes both ways. Unfortunately people who are higher up in the education system will not see the benefit to these classes any time soon, so we'll have what we do right now.



Again I ask- which so many people are ignoring, so thanks- where is the funding coming from for these classes?