“Supporters of the directive argue that it will help pupils to develop the ability to write concisely and factually, which will be more useful in the workplace than a knowledge of Shakespeare.”
I’d argue that a knowledge of Shakespeare will help pupils develop the ability to THINK, which is a prerequisite to writing concisely and factually.
Reading Shakespeare probably forces you to think no matter what. But the way they teach it nowadays, usually it’s to find what’s “relevant,” as entertainment, or as “look at what those foolish people thought back then.” Hardly ever is it in the most instructive way, which is to study it as actually worthwhile on its own merits. That presents interesting questions and answers and a way of thinking and expressing itself that’s not only different but superior to what you bump into in regular life.
If they think crappy, dry textbooks written by committee will help people write more concisely and factually, they are morons. They don’t think that. It’s just that they don’t value what’s said in most great literature. If they could write like Shakespeare and drill into your head what they think you need yo know, they would. But it’s easier to crank out industrial education manuals than write something people want to read, so that’s what they do.
It probably would be impossible to express their ideas in Shakespearean form, given the paucity of higher culture or homespun wisdom in their brains. But even if they could, they wouldn’t, because they don’t value it.