Would You Teach Your Child To Write In Cursive?

[TSherbs]

I agree. There are many worthwhile skills that aren't economically useful. Playing a musical instrument, wood sculpture, blacksmithing, a familiarity with ancient texts, the writing of sonnets, painting. We could go on and on to enumerate them. And each of them provide cultural and cognitive skills that are invaluable. They each have intrinsic worth--they educate, edify, enrich, entertain, and enlighten. They are of clear benefit, even if not of quantifiable economic value.

 

The flaw in the pro-mandated cursive argument, however, is that it picks one of those many, many, many skills out of a hat and insists that it should be taught to everyone. It takes a one-size-fits all approach to what should be personalized and specific.

 

So I entirely agree, Mr. Fowler, that a great many skills worth having don't have any obvious economic use. No one would disagree. What makes less sense, however, is to randomly pick one of those skills and argue that it should be universally in the curriculum. Just as it would be draconian and short sided to make every child learn the same musical instrument or a certain craft, it's absurd to pick one extra-economic skill as the one that's most important. If we know that there is a limited amount of time in a human lifetime for the acquisition of skills, and there is an even more limited amount of time for the acquisition of non-economically motivated skills, from what basis are you going to dictate to other people's children what skill will most enrich them?

 

 

What is most ironic about the argument is its historical dubiousness. Cursive enters into history precisely because of its economic use: clear, standardized, teachable written communication. There was a time when it was precisely useful for its practicality. Now that it has somewhat faded out of usefulness, trying to maintain its place in the curriculum using an entirely different set of criteria is just silly. It's like trying to argue that every one should learn how to ride a horse, even though horseback riding is no longer a common form of transportation, because the skills that come with horseback riding are wonderful. No doubt they are. But I'd never be so arrogant as to say that everyone "ought" to learn horseback riding.

well put, Andrew

 

Of course, teaching writing (which I do) is VERY important, including being able, at times, to communicate clearly with one's own handwriting. No one disputes this in any way. But cursive is slowly and inevitably moving out as the standardized choice for the mandatory form of instruction. It turns out that persons who do this kind of a thing for a living have been looking at possibilities for improvement over time. This is wise.

 

The question actually was, Would we teach our children it? Some have said yes, some have said no. And some suggested (or claimed) that cursive has been a superior form of handwriting for learning and/or communication, and that schools were misguided in de-emphasizing it, and this is where I stepped in: to challenge those conclusions about teaching and literacy.

 

Some here have suggested, by the way, that judgments are made about handwriting by employers or others of power or influence. I don't disagree that this happens sometimes. I just disagree with this kind of judgment and I consider it to be misguided and inaccurate. Intelligence and aptitude and sophistication are not connected to handwriting style or form. All being good at cursive means is that one is good at cursive. And there is the limit of its meaning.

[dms525]

 

 

[AndrewThomas]

Teach cursive to child.jpg

 

 

Indeed that might solve the cursive "problem." However reading and writing are naturally taught hand-in-hand (though it wasn't always this way), and the majority of what we read is type not in an italic font. So it wouldn't make a whole lot of sense to teach an italic script to young students while also making them learn to read in a primarily non-italic culture. It is eminently logical to teach them a non-italic print because in the long run that will be the default written language they will encounter.

[dms525]

 

Indeed that might solve the cursive "problem." However reading and writing are naturally taught hand-in-hand (though it wasn't always this way), and the majority of what we read is type not in an italic font. So it wouldn't make a whole lot of sense to teach an italic script to young students while also making them learn to read in a primarily non-italic culture. It is eminently logical to teach them a non-italic print because in the long run that will be the default written language they will encounter.

 

Most fonts used on computers and for books derive from "humanist book hand," according to my understanding. Italic handwriting was also derived from the same source. The principal defining characteristics of italic script (handwritten or printed) are oval rather than round letter forms and, at least classically, an absence of looped ascenders and descenders. Letter slant, commonly seen as a defining characteristic is variable, including absent.

 

Your argument is persuasive regarding the loopy cursive I learned in school. It is just not valid with regarding to italic script, IMO.

 

David

Edited February 13, 2015 by dms525

[TSherbs]

Teach cursive to child.jpg

 

this is the argument for D'Nealian (it does not take that much alteration and it can become a connected script). It is also argued that D'Nealian has fewer strokes (full lifts from the page) than italic. Italic is a slower and more rigid font for beginners to learn. It is more "drawing" than "writing".

[dms525]

Italic is a slower and more rigid font for beginners to learn. It is more "drawing" than "writing".

 

I would be most interested in reading the study that demonstrates that "Italic is a slower and more rigid font (sic) for beginners to learn." Would you please provide the reference?

 

And please explain in what sense italic script is "more 'drawing' than 'writing.'" I do believe I am writing, not drawing, when I use italic script, whether formal or cursive.

 

David

[KateGladstone]

Re:

 

Indeed that might solve the cursive "problem." However reading and writing are naturally taught hand-in-hand (though it wasn't always this way), and the majority of what we read is type not in an italic font. So it wouldn't make a whole lot of sense to teach an italic script to young students while also making them learn to read in a primarily non-italic culture. It is eminently logical to teach them a non-italic print because in the long run that will be the default written language they will encounter.

 

The differences between italic letter-shapes and those of book type are no greater than — in fact, in several regards are smaller than — the differences between conventional school-style printing letter-shapes and those of book type. If we could not read any letter-shape that we had not been trained to write — or to read — it would be easy for parents to conceal (e.g.) Christmas-gift lists from their children by simply writing the lists in italic, or even by typing them in any book-font that has serifs and a "two-story" lower-case "a" and "g." However, such attempts (when made) fail to conceal the written matter from any child who can read ordinary kindergarten printing — to make something illegible to a literate small child, one must put it into cursive! (Merely writing it in italic won't make it illegible to the print-literate).

I routinely teach small children to read cursive (though they do not write it, they can be taught within an hour or less to read it), and I won't deny that one reason I enjoy teaching them to read cursive (as part of handwriting lessons NOT focused on _writing_ cursive) is to see the look on the parents' faces when a four-, five-, or six-year-old (or older) child who cannot write cursive is fluently reading _theirs_.

[KateGladstone]

I would be most interested in reading the study that demonstrates that "Italic is a slower and more rigid font (sic) for beginners to learn." Would you please provide the reference?

 

And please explain in what sense italic script is "more 'drawing' than 'writing.'" I do believe I am writing, not drawing, when I use italic script, whether formal or cursive.

 

David

I'm with David here, and in his previous response. I can write both italic and conventional cursive — fluently, according to observers and not just according to my own judgment — and conventional cursive is the one that I experience as being "like drawing" when I do it or see it.

[KateGladstone]

this is the argument for D'Nealian (it does not take that much alteration and it can become a connected script). It is also argued that D'Nealian has fewer strokes (full lifts from the page) than italic. Italic is a slower and more rigid font for beginners to learn. It is more "drawing" than "writing".

Whoever argues that italic has fewer pen-lifts than D'Nealian is incorrect. Several versions of italic have as few pen-lifts as D'Nealian.

For pen-lifting in italic, when the hand is properly taught, the pen of course remains in motion as it skims off, then onto, the page. It is not a "stop-and-start" of the sort that is taught — or is, at any rate used — in conventional school print-writing of either the D'Nealian variety or the circle-and-stick variety.

[KateGladstone]

David As I recall, you are an MD. I hail you for your VERY legible (and evidently fluent) handwriting.

[Kataphract]

I'm with David here, and in his previous response. I can write both italic and conventional cursive — fluently, according to observers and not just according to my own judgment — and conventional cursive is the one that I experience as being "like drawing" when I do it or see it.

Speaking as an artist, writing is like...writing. The least like drawing is cursive. Admittedly, to me, but at least that's a professional opinion. ;-)

 

Of course, if I admitted that I sometimes do endless doodles where I never take my pen off the page, then I suppose I'd have to furiously back-pedal on that claim...

[PS104]

I would imagine that discipline problems have been greatly reduced since the students can't write they can't pass notes

[dms525]

I would imagine that discipline problems have been greatly reduced since the students can't write they can't pass notes

 

Right. The problem these days is students texting in class, or so I've heard.

 

David

[dms525]

David As I recall, you are an MD. I hail you for your VERY legible (and evidently fluent) handwriting.

 

Thank you Kate. I am a physician. In retirement, I have resumed the use of italic for my everyday writing, in penance for 40 years of illegible penmanship.

 

David

[domnortheast]

 

[Occipital Lobe]

 

http://i1128.photobucket.com/albums/m496/gclef1114/Gibberish/0212151432a-1.jpg

 

HA! good point :0)

[TSherbs]

 

I would be most interested in reading the study that demonstrates that "Italic is a slower and more rigid font (sic) for beginners to learn." Would you please provide the reference?

 

And please explain in what sense italic script is "more 'drawing' than 'writing.'" I do believe I am writing, not drawing, when I use italic script, whether formal or cursive.

 

David

I did, above. from the D'Nealian website. There was no "study" attached, that I saw, but I did not explore far. This is why I called it "claimed" or "argued"--kind of like the discussion here.

 

In reply to Kate, I guess that I have never seen Italic written without many lift-offs, but I also know that I was never taught it nor was any other student I know ever taught it (not formally). So perhaps there is a way that it can be composed with fewer lift-offs. Would that be something that would appropriately be taught to a beginner in literacy (anyone learning to write)? Does anyone in literacy work suggest this for beginning children?

[GClef]

In case anyone missed this post from another thread last July.

[KateGladstone]

Italic models with few pen-lifts, and with a history of successful use with young children/beginners and others, include Getty-Dubay (handwritingsuccess.com) and Barchowsky (BFHhandwriting.com) — both were designed by teachers of youngsters and others.

In each model, for instance, the vast majority of power-case letters (and some upper-case letters) are made WITHOUT pen-lifts at all.

[TSherbs]

Italic models with few pen-lifts, and with a history of successful use with young children/beginners and others, include Getty-Dubay (handwritingsuccess.com) and Barchowsky (BFHhandwriting.com) — both were designed by teachers of youngsters and others.

In each model, for instance, the vast majority of power-case letters (and some upper-case letters) are made WITHOUT pen-lifts at all.

very interesting

 

Do you recommend these over cursive or stick printing as a literacy tool?