In the past 14 months there have been nine Irish productions of Macbeth. While many students might be glad to see it before facing an exam, Patrick Lonergan argues it is unimaginative programming, often with questionable standards

One of Shakespeare's great moments is Lady Macbeth's declaration that, had she sworn to do so, she'd have "plucked my nipple" from the "boneless gums" of her child and "dashed the brains out". This powerful statement should reinforce the chaotic mood that pervades Macbeth - but it's rarely delivered to anything other than uncontrollable sniggering, for obvious reasons. Productions of Shakespeare notoriously attract large school audiences, so that any mention of nipples is almost certain to generate giggling - just as Macbeth's remark about "self-abuse" at the end of Act III will always bring the house down.

This may demoralise actors, but it doesn't seem to bother producers much. Since October 2001, Irish audiences have been presented with no less than nine different productions of Macbeth. These varied from experimental pieces in small venues, to big budget touring productions - to one version that promised audiences "seven actors, two Oriental dragons, one Zulu war dance, Balinese masks and Aboriginal mysticism - all with a Celtic influence".

The appearance of so many versions of the play isn't a coincidence: Macbeth is on the Leaving Certificate and GCSE curricula this year, and Irish companies are programming it to attract school audiences. This isn't necessarily a bad thing. Students can benefit from seeing the play they're studying and, because plays on exam syllabi virtually guarantee an audience, they can be lucrative for theatres. It may sometimes be difficult to decide whether theatre for schools should be seen as a necessary evil or an important public service - but it's hard to blame producers for keeping an eye on the curriculum.

However, it's also hard not to be concerned. When we see nine productions of one play in a 14-month period, we have to ask whether "public service" has now become unimaginative programming. And when we see venues sold out for productions that are - in some cases - of questionable quality, it's hard to defend theatres against the accusation that they're simply exploiting schoolchildren. So with a 10th Macbeth on its way to the Olympia this spring - Second Age has announced that, not a year after its last staging of the play, it's doing a new production in March - it seems worth considering whether the relationship between schools and theatres is working to the benefit of everyone concerned.

Michael Colgan recently commented (in a Theatre Talk interview), there may now be only two ways of producing Shakespeare in Ireland successfully: "You really do have to make sure you have an Anthony Hopkins in your cast, and if you have to have an ordinary cast, you depend on the schools."

Macbeth is a famously unlucky play because, simply, it's difficult to produce well. Irish theatres often have trouble hiring actors with sufficient technical ability to handle the language and verse in any Shakespeare play, and this difficulty is compounded in the case of Macbeth by the problems audiences have with the play's emphasis on the supernatural - and its latent misogyny causes problems too. Trying to accommodate the educational needs of students makes the task even more difficult.

An interesting example of this difficulty is the way theatres deal with the three witches in Macbeth. When the play was written, Shakespeare's use of witches was disturbing for an audience that regarded the supernatural with more fear than scepticism - but, four centuries later, the characters tend mainly to inspire laughter. Economics are important too: paying three actors who spend little time on stage will seem a luxury to many producers. As a result, these characters are rarely presented as Shakespeare intended: in the nine recent productions, many presented only one witch; some had none - and one production had five.

Whatever one's feelings about directors taking liberties with Shakespeare, the problem here is that if students see anything other than three witches on stage, they may become confused. Teachers can therefore react negatively to artistic innovation. Peter Hussey of Crooked House Theatre Company, which presented Macbeth last spring, agrees that this can be a problem. "Often we're asked by teachers if there have been any cuts or any 'messing' with the text before they'll consider booking for a school production. Some teachers are worried that students will pick up stray or errant ideas."

Not surprisingly, Hussey is uncomfortable with this. "It suggests that there's a single 'true' interpretation of the play - that reading in a classroom generates the truth, whereas watching the play as a member of an audience can obscure that truth." But therein lies the conflict: teachers are not preparing students to appreciate drama, but to give a correct answer to an exam question - so their attitude is understandable, if artistically limiting for theatres.

Students' needs are also compromised by companies' financial limitations. This problem is particularly evident in the often inadequate standard of acting in productions of Shakespeare for schools. As Derek West, a school principal and board member of Second Age Theatre Company, says, "Of all Shakespeare plays, Macbeth is particularly poetic: you just cannot ignore the verse. But when you're operating on a tightrope financially, you don't always have the resources you'd like - and you will end up with stilted accents occasionally."

Hussey agrees that financial limitations can affect a production's quality. "Our Macbeth was produced, performed and toured on a budget of €3,000," he says, suggesting that casting inexperienced actors was the only way for his company to produce the play. The conflict here is clear: theatre companies often programme plays like Macbeth precisely because of their lack of money, whereas school audiences benefit most from seeing high-quality productions - which require a level of investment beyond the means of many Irish companies.

Of course, it's easy to criticise theatres, but if school productions have a bad reputation, it's largely because of the disruptive behaviour of many students. It's tempting to assume that bad behaviour occurs only at bad productions - but this isn't the case. Irish readers can only cringe when reading the Royal National Theatre's Observing Hamlet, which chronicles the international tour of their highly celebrated production of Hamlet. Full of praise for the response of audiences in Denmark, the US and Serbia, the book is less positive about the play's October 2000 sojourn in Dublin. "At one performance at the Gaiety in Dublin the rowdy behaviour of school groups attracts dozens of complaints from the audience during the interval," we're told. "The management has to make an announcement over the tannoy before the second half can begin."

So it's clear that there are problems with theatre for schoolchildren in Ireland. Artistic and educational priorities are not always the same - and sometimes conflict. Many companies lack the resources to mount high-quality productions. And the behaviour of schoolchildren may sometimes be disruptive, whether the production is good or not. What can be done to improve the situation?

Theatre practitioners are not educators, so the best way to resolve any conflict between artistic and educational priorities is through the mediation of teachers. While the Lyric and the Abbey have dedicated education outreach personnel, who are doing wonderful work, few Irish companies have access to such resources. The example of Crooked House is therefore worth noting. The company offered workshops in support of their production, including a "state visit" by Macbeth to children's classrooms - for a small fee. Such locally based workshops appear to be the most practical means of enhancing schoolchildren's appreciation of theatre. If funded appropriately, they could prove the best method of mediating students' experience of theatre throughout Ireland.

What about quality? Derek West puts it clearly. "If the production is good enough, it will almost always hold students' attention." This view is supported by the fact that the most successful recent Macbeth was the Prime Cut/Lyric Theatre co-production last September. Prime Cut's Emma Jordan agrees that, since the play is on the GCSE syllabus, it was "of interest and relevance to a school audience". However, the company was serious in its attempts to ensure "that our production was not seen only as an educational aid, but of interest to lovers of drama across the board".

Accordingly, they treated the play as they would any other script - with high production values, strong acting and a style of direction that challenged audiences' attitudes. The support of the Lyric's financial and staffing resources was undoubtedly a factor in their success, but the approach of doing the best possible production, regardless of the prospective audience, is one that should be widely imitated.

It's indisputably the case that theatre for schoolchildren and students matters. At the recent productions I attended, I heard mobile phones ringing, sniggering at every predictable moment, wolf whistles at Lady Macbeth, and the usual clatter of soda cans and sweet-papers. But I also saw teenagers who were riveted; I listened to them talking animatedly at the intervals, and I watched them applaud each performance sincerely and enthusiastically.

Although theatres could be accused of exploitation, their biggest problem seems to be that they don't fully appreciate the needs of schoolchildren. Discussions of school audiences often focus on audience development, but students are an audience right now, and ought to be treated accordingly. Nine productions of Macbeth in a 14-month period really is unimaginative programming - but what's important is that so few of the nine would have represented a positive educational experience for their audiences. It's time to get serious about theatre for schools.