Would You Teach Your Child To Write In Cursive?

[amberleadavis]

What do you think?

 

 

 

No longer swearing by cursive writing
Editorial
As schools update their curriculum in the computer age, the handwriting may be on the wall for cursive writing.
September 04, 2013|By The Times editorial board
For all the new things that schools will be called on to teach under the soon-to-be-implemented Common Core curriculum standards, it's a skill that has been omitted that is causing controversy: cursive writing. Good old script penmanship isn't part of the standards, which have been adopted by 45 states, including California. It's not forbidden or discouraged, but Common Core focuses on analytical and computer-based skills rather than the long hours of practice required to link letters in a flowing style. Testing, note-taking and writing for academia and business are increasingly accomplished via keyboard, not pencil or pen and legal pad.

Several states, including California, have kept requirements for cursive instruction in place, but many others appear ready for its demise. The handwriting may be on the wall.

That's OK. States and schools shouldn't cling to cursive based on the romantic idea that it's a tradition, an art form or a basic skill whose disappearance would be a cultural tragedy. Of course, everyone needs to be able to write without computers, but longhand printing generally works fine. Many of today's young adults, even though they were taught cursive, have abandoned it in favor of printing. Print is clearer and easier to read than script. For many, it's easier to write and just about as fast.

Some educators claim that cursive writing plays a role in brain and overall academic development, but others disagree and say what the studies actually show is that any form of hand lettering, including print, engages more of the brain than keyboarding does.

When society adds new skills and new knowledge to the list of things public schools teach, some other items have to come off the list. Otherwise, the result is a curriculum that is a mile wide and an inch deep, as California's has famously been. Cursive might be one skill that can be painlessly dropped to make way for new ones.

Because so many adults still communicate in cursive, perhaps what's needed is a transition period during which students still learn to read it — that can be taught relatively quickly — but no longer go through the laborious and painstaking process of learning to write it.

This isn't a popular notion with many parents. We all tend to think of what we learned in school as "basic" to an educated populace. How can young people do without it? Easily, as they already are proving. As easily as replacing the old John Hancock with a fingerprint scan.

[WaskiSquirrel]

This debate comes up regularly on a fountain pen forum.

 

I'm more interested in students learning to write. The form the writing takes is far less important to me. I love writing in cursive, but I also know that I HATED handwriting in school. It was too monotonous and boring. I needed to learn the shapes of the letters, but I would have been a lot happier writing (with attention to letter form) than I was copying out from a book and getting bad marks and (in the case of one teacher) my knuckles rapped for not having perfect form.

 

In fact, for years I held my pencil incorrectly out of a habit ingrained from rebellion against the knuckle-rapping teacher. It made her mad, and that's why I did it. This past year, as I decided to improve my handwriting for my own reasons, I had to unlearn this habit. Also, my letters do not match the shapes I was taught.

 

The main point is to write to communicate.

[Opooh]

What do you think?

 

 

 

No longer swearing by cursive writing

Editorial

As schools update their curriculum in the computer age, the handwriting may be on the wall for cursive writing.

September 04, 2013|By The Times editorial board

For all the new things that schools will be called on to teach under the soon-to-be-implemented Common Core curriculum standards, it's a skill that has been omitted that is causing controversy: cursive writing. Good old script penmanship isn't part of the standards, which have been adopted by 45 states, including California. It's not forbidden or discouraged, but Common Core focuses on analytical and computer-based skills rather than the long hours of practice required to link letters in a flowing style. Testing, note-taking and writing for academia and business are increasingly accomplished via keyboard, not pencil or pen and legal pad.

 

Several states, including California, have kept requirements for cursive instruction in place, but many others appear ready for its demise. The handwriting may be on the wall.

That's OK. States and schools shouldn't cling to cursive based on the romantic idea that it's a tradition, an art form or a basic skill whose disappearance would be a cultural tragedy. Of course, everyone needs to be able to write without computers, but longhand printing generally works fine. Many of today's young adults, even though they were taught cursive, have abandoned it in favor of printing. Print is clearer and easier to read than script. For many, it's easier to write and just about as fast.

Some educators claim that cursive writing plays a role in brain and overall academic development, but others disagree and say what the studies actually show is that any form of hand lettering, including print, engages more of the brain than keyboarding does.

When society adds new skills and new knowledge to the list of things public schools teach, some other items have to come off the list. Otherwise, the result is a curriculum that is a mile wide and an inch deep, as California's has famously been. Cursive might be one skill that can be painlessly dropped to make way for new ones.

Because so many adults still communicate in cursive, perhaps what's needed is a transition period during which students still learn to read it — that can be taught relatively quickly — but no longer go through the laborious and painstaking process of learning to write it.

This isn't a popular notion with many parents. We all tend to think of what we learned in school as "basic" to an educated populace. How can young people do without it? Easily, as they already are proving. As easily as replacing the old John Hancock with a fingerprint scan.

The new iPhone's fingerscan has already been cracked, I will stick with the old J.H.!

[ac12]

Yes, if only to be able to read what others write in cursive/script.

And to understand some of variations that happen from "traditional" script.

 

But from a practical point of view.

If they can print quickly enough to take notes in college, more power to them.

I could not take notes as fast as the prof spoke, and that DESTROYED my handwriting.

Decades later, I am only now trying to get my handwriting back to a nice to look at form.

I wish my mother made me take a shorthand class when I was in high school.

Edited September 24, 2013 by ac12

[owenj]

I was in grade school in the 90s and at that point we weren't even taught "cursive" but some form of connected printing I think called Duvall. I turned to printing in early high school because I liked the way it looked a lot better and it was easily read by both myself and others. I didn't learn to write in cursive until my first year in law school when I was bored on evening and decided to learn cursive instead of study I agree that one can print pretty quickly, but I think that if you are comfortable writing in cursive it is faster than printing.

 

I'm sad to see handwriting given less and less focus in schools, but unless we increase the amount of productive time in a school day I'm not sure how we could ask teachers to find time to teach it as well as the myriad other things they're tasked with. In this electronic age I think learning computing skills takes precedence over learning cursive handwriting. But, hopefully some people will at some point take the time to learn cursive. I see it as perhaps becoming a niche-like thing similar to our use of fountain pens over other writing instruments.

[fiberdrunk]

I am teaching my own kids cursive writing, but then I homeschool. I do see value in learning to write in cursive.

[GClef]

I was in grade school in the 90s and at that point we weren't even taught "cursive" but some form of connected printing I think called Duvall.

 

D'Nealian, maybe?

[proton007]

I see as a two fold problem.

 

First, exposure. If kids don't even know what cursive is, there's little hope they'll want to use it, or understand the need for it.

 

Second, teaching. This one's tricky. There are a lot of things kids may not like yet are required to do (for example maths). Here its the role of the parents/teachers to ensure they generate interest.

 

AFAIK, kids certainly like drawing. If calligraphy and penmanship is viewed as an extension of art, I think kids will be drawn to it.

 

On a final note, I can see this becoming a generic question. " Would you teach your child __________ ? " in the future, because so many tools and techniques now have ready-made solutions (apps and the like).

 

There are some areas I seriously regret never learning, like navigation using a map and a compass. I'm hopelessly reliant on GPS.

Edited September 24, 2013 by proton007

[irish_monk]

As a teacher I think this is just one of the many, many problems with the "common core".

[Laura N]

Our schools teach cursive writing in third grade, and many middle school teachers make students use it. But many parent wish they taught keyboarding instead. None of the classrooms have chalkboards anymore; instead they all have computerized "smart boards." Meanwhile, the high school is phasing in a requirement that every student have an iPad.

 

So I think cursive's role in the curriculum eventually will be limited to a short introduction so kids can read it. Just as kids are taught to recognize Roman numerals, although we don't use them widely.

[GabrielleDuVent]

Would I teach it, if I were ever to have children? That would depend.

 

Despite knowing cursive, and using cursive, and writing things in cursive, because it was mandatory for a good few years of my education, I was ridiculed for it. It wasn't the "cool" thing to do; printing was the way to go. In adulthood, most people either complained that they could not read my cursive - because they were not taught - or they ignored it completely. It was only recently that my handwriting started to be appreciated, and that's mostly by the older generation, and mostly overseas.

 

Cursive is most appreciated by other readers; "you have a beautiful handwriting!" is a compliment one receives from the readers. And since published works are not handwritten, it is most likely that beautiful handwriting is appreciated when one writes letters. If I were in a country where handwritten letters are valued, then yes, I'd probably teach it. But why would I teach my child cursive if his/her method of communication relied on internet and not post? Although I am appreciating my education now, I don't think my former classmates are, because I don't think they have had a setting where one evaluated based on one's manners.

 

I fail to see how iPads can help students to learn, but they must do the job efficiently, otherwise it'd be a waste of money (and quite frankly, time). I'm probably just terribly outdated. So it's most likely my peers see no value in handwritten things. And since the next generation to become parents is probably mine (I already have a few former classmates with six year olds), I'm fairly certain cursive is on its way out. It's just too under-appreciated. I'm certainly not going to force my child to be the little Robert Langdon. That's probably going to lead to bullying.

 

If I was living in a country where handwritten letters are much appreciated, then I'd certainly teach it to my child. Along with how to write letters.

[proton007]

Our schools teach cursive writing in third grade, and many middle school teachers make students use it. But many parent wish they taught keyboarding instead. None of the classrooms have chalkboards anymore; instead they all have computerized "smart boards." Meanwhile, the high school is phasing in a requirement that every student have an iPad.

 

So I think cursive's role in the curriculum eventually will be limited to a short introduction so kids can read it. Just as kids are taught to recognize Roman numerals, although we don't use them widely.

 

Having attended lectures in both blackboard and powerpoint style, I have to say blackboards are much better. Powerpoint slids are pictures, they can help illustrate a point, but understanding it needs a step by step approach thats best done by hand. When someone's writing on the board, the act of reading it is vital to register information.

 

Secondly, I'm not entirely sure what 'printing' letters means. If it means copying a printed alphabet, its not a very efficient way to write is it? Why not teach shorthand?

 

Also, I'm not sure if handwriting was a mass means of communication at any point in history. In the 15th century when the printing press was invented, the literacy rate was pretty low.

By the time literacy (both reading and writing) rate reached 80% in the mid 19th century, typewriters had already been invented.

The use of the postal system for the public as we see today (carrying personal messages) also began somewhere around mid 17th century.

 

So, the way I see it, the handwritten form of communication as used by the common public is only for about a 100 years or so, from mid 19th century to mid 20th century, before phones took over.

The systems of cursive handwriting were developed by and for professional/business communication and documents, and it was in use until typewriters took over.

 

This means there hasn't been a pressing need for anyone to learn cursive for a long time. Its the schools that've been keeping it alive, probably because a generation of teachers were trained in cursive.

Edited September 24, 2013 by proton007

[KateGladstone]

D'Nealian, maybe?

No; it was a program whose author (Betty Duvall) I happen to have known (she's gone now passed on, quite old, just a year or two ago).

Duvall Handwriting was an italic program, very similar to Barchowsky Fluent Handwriting or Getty-Dubay. It was used for a decade or so in some parts of Montana (where Dr. Duvall lived). She quit the handwriting business, though, about 30 years ago: basically in disgust that people weren't caring to use her program and were indifferent to the research studies on handwriting which she had co-ordinated. (Google "Betty Duvall" + education + research)

Edited September 24, 2013 by KateGladstone

[carlosviet]

This debate comes up regularly on a fountain pen forum.

 

I'm more interested in students learning to write. The form the writing takes is far less important to me. I love writing in cursive, but I also know that I HATED handwriting in school. It was too monotonous and boring. I needed to learn the shapes of the letters, but I would have been a lot happier writing (with attention to letter form) than I was copying out from a book and getting bad marks and (in the case of one teacher) my knuckles rapped for not having perfect form.

 

In fact, for years I held my pencil incorrectly out of a habit ingrained from rebellion against the knuckle-rapping teacher. It made her mad, and that's why I did it. This past year, as I decided to improve my handwriting for my own reasons, I had to unlearn this habit. Also, my letters do not match the shapes I was taught.

 

The main point is to write to communicate.

 

Hear, hear!

 

And not just ortography or grammar, which are also form. I am between sad and angry to witness the paulatine death of the writen language. Fluent descriptions, development of ideas, rythm and vocabulary... I would be happy to see those back into the priorities far more than penmanship.

[The Grim Sheaffer]

No - the time of the pen and writing has ended in middle earth.

 

The ipad from Mordor now rules.

 

I will tell my grandchildren that we used to write.

[ndw76]

I keep a journal all about my daughter which I intend to keep going until she is much older at which time I will give it to her as a gift. This journal is written in cursive and sometimes cross-hatch. So if I don't teach my daughter to read and write cursive this would be a useless exercise.

[OldGriz]

My daughter going to be 15 in December.... I taught her cursive in Kindergarten (at her request)... our school system teaches it in second grade and that is it...

Most of her friends can not sign their names in cursive or read it.....

She is one of only a few students that her English teacher allows to write their assignments in cursive because they can be read..

[CS388]

I'm with Waski_the_Squirrel on this one.

 

What we write is more important than how we write it.

 

If we are fortunate enough to write works of great wisdom, they will be transcribed into many other media.

Most of the great works I have read have been commited to typeface and printed into books.

I don't know how they first appeared to the world, but it's not that important. The content is more important than the form.

I have seen some original manuscripts - but that is mainly due to my curiosity, rather than shining a new light on the works.

 

Fortunately, my (now adult) children are excellent writers.

When they were young, it was always nice to see a well presented piece of work, but I was always more thrilled when they had written an excellent piece.

 

So: I would teach my children cursive, if they wanted to learn it.

But I would teach them many other things first.

No longer a priority.

 

Thanks.

[WayTooManyHobbies]

No - the time of the pen and writing has ended in middle earth.

 

The ipad from Mordor now rules.

 

I will tell my grandchildren that we used to write.

 

+1

 

A day may come when the courage of FPN fails, when we forsake our pens and break our bonds of fellowship, but it is not this day. This day we write!

[GClef]

 

Thanks! And I found this tid-bit in my search.