How to make Shakespeare accessible for students with SEND

In many schools, canonical texts by authors like Austen and Shakespeare are taught through models that prioritise coverage over comprehension, such as full-class reading with dense annotation.

Students are expected to navigate Shakespearean language with its complex narrative structures or abstract themes with limited scaffolding.

In our specialist secondary school, traditional approaches like these simply won’t suffice.

All our students present with complex special educational needs and disabilities profiles and considerably disrupted educational journeys, paired with high levels of anxiety around literacy. If the core design of the curriculum assumes fluency and prior knowledge that students do not yet have, these texts will never be accessible to them.

Adapting canonical texts is part of how we secure access for our students, who may face barriers in their route into this literature.

Why traditional models fall short

Traditional methods of teaching canonical texts can work for some, but in our context three problems frequently arise.

First, cognitive overload. Students are asked to decode archaic language, track plot, infer character motivation and write analytically - all at once. For learners with working memory difficulties or gaps in literacy, this often results in disengagement.

Second, a false dichotomy between access and rigour. Adaptations sometimes involve simplifying the text - through overreliance on summaries, for example - but this can remove the elements that make canonical texts powerful.

Third, separation from core systems. Adaptation becomes something that happens at the point of delivery, rather than being built into curriculum design, assessment and literacy strategy. As a result, it is inconsistent and difficult to sustain.

So what is the alternative? In our setting, we have adopted an approach where accessibility is engineered into the curriculum from the outset, not retrofitted at the point of teaching.

A structured approach

We begin with clarity on what matters most. For each text, we identify the non-negotiable knowledge and concepts and then reverse-engineer what our students need to learn (eg, themes, character arcs, key quotations and disciplinary vocabulary). We sequence this learning and revisit it systematically.

Language is what unlocks meaning. For this reason, we explicitly teach vocabulary first. We don’t approach this as a pre-teaching bolt-on, but as part of the reading process. Students encounter words in context and get ample opportunities to rehearse them through oracy and apply them in structured writing.

We reduce cognitive load without reducing complexity. This means we avoid summaries, but extracts are carefully selected and chunked, to draw students’ attention to key moments. Visual support (dual coding) and guided annotation provide further help.

Staff “think aloud” as they read, actively demonstrating how to navigate unfamiliar language. Rather than students being left to “struggle productively” without a map, we show them what expert reading looks like.

Repetition is also important. Key scenes and ideas are revisited in different forms (eg, through discussion and written work) to consolidate understanding over time.

In our context, challenge is not about how much content we cover but the depth at which students can engage with it. Students still analyse Shakespeare and they still explore themes of power and morality. They still write extended responses. The difference is in how structured the path to those outcomes is.

We use scaffolds that are gradually removed: sentence starters become prompts, then prompts become independent writing. Oral rehearsal precedes written work.

As an independent special school, we are able to align our assessment accordingly. We focus on whether students can use evidence and engage with the text meaningfully. This allows us to keep expectations high but attainable.

What other schools can replicate

A common misconception is that adapting canonical texts requires entirely new resources or a reduced curriculum. In reality, many elements of this approach are transferable.

1. Start with clarity on the essential knowledge and vocabulary for each text.
2. Design sequences that revisit and reinforce, rather than move on too quickly.
3. Embed reading, writing and oracy as a trio, rather than treating them separately.
4. Use scaffolding (there is no such thing as over-scaffolding) deliberately, with a clear plan for removal.
5. Most importantly, reject the idea that accessibility and ambition are in tension. In specialist settings, they are interdependent and happily coexist.

When students can access the text, they can think about it. When they can think about it, they can respond to it, and when they can respond to it, they experience the very thing canonical literature offers: a sense of connection and a much-needed intellectual challenge.

Oana Robu is head of English at independent special school