Would You Teach Your Child To Write In Cursive?

[TSherbs]

 

..... Who in a fountain pen forum would say they oppose to teach their kids cursive? ....

I have never spent even a fraction of a second instructing and/or modeling cursive to my children (now in college and older). And I am a teacher. And I am a fountain pen user (and manual typewriter user). I don't write in cursive now despite the fact that my primary school teachers taught me it and graded me on it. It is cumbersome and mostly non-utilitarian. It is a relic of the past that regarded one's "hand" as a sign of refinement and sophistication (and even intelligence). We know better now that it is not a reliable sign of any of these things.

 

My kids were taught it briefly in school, toyed with it dutifully, and dropped it as soon as they developed their own mode of writing.

[KateGladstone]

I once read a book about graphology called Handwritiing Analysis by Andrea McNichol. It briefly mentioned that in the early 80's the president of Mexico had banned cursive writing (it didn't state why, and I have no idea if that's still true today). Since handwriting (and especially cursive writing) is unique to each person like a fingerprint, the author argued that the more tyrannical a society becomes, the more individualism gets squeezed out of the picture. Throwing cursive out is just another symptom of collectivism, which is largely about sameness.

 

Non-cursive writing is every bit as individual as cursive ... Handwriting cannot lose its individuality, no matter how one tries. That is how first-grade teachers can reliably identify which child (out of 25 or 30) print-wrote an unsigned assignment.

[KateGladstone]

Just why would "medieval games" involve fountain pens rather than, say, reeds or quills?

 

If I ever have children I definitely would teach them cursive and how to write with elegant fountain pens and elegant ballpoints (like Watermans). They would grow up this way and probably think doing that was normal along with growing up around wooden gryphons, gothic medieval and baroque decor, and other antiques. I think growing up around art is good if it is all done in an encouraging manner. I would defintely teach my children about artistic things and how to live most of their lives without screens.

 

Myself I always handwrite and I have good handwriting. I am not good at printing though. When in school after 3rd grade we were forced to write in cursive and with me it stuck. I find it a ton easier than printing! Unfortunately they were not very nice about it and would grade our handwriting in very strange ways. I do think there would have been better ways to teach it. Instead of saying "that is the rule or else" I wish they would have said something like "it is art and it is beautiful" and I suppose that's a big reason why so many shy away from cursive. Schools have tought it in such an authoritarian manner it turns people off to it. And that is sad.

 

If I have children I would teach them cursive it in a respectful and enjoyable way. One can even teach using games or playing pretend such as playing medieval games with children where the pretend includes writing letters with fountain pens. If one wants to teach anything to anyone they should always do it in a creative way. Learning can be fun and doesn't have to be painful.

 

And honestly computers can be good for some things (typing a paper, researching, fun things in small amounts) but lately it's been taken too far - especially with ipads and smartphones - neither of which I find necessary. We don't need to strap kids onto computers in classrooms for hours at a time. Then have them read their textbooks on the same computer afterwards. I find this idea really disturbing. Having a screen in your face all the time is really bad for you. People weren't made to be that way. We need variety.

 

We aren't robots.

[TSherbs]

Non-cursive writing is every bit as individual as cursive ... Handwriting cannot lose its individuality, no matter how one tries. That is how first-grade teachers can reliably identify which child (out of 25 or 30) print-wrote an unsigned assignment.

+1 indeed

[flipper_gv]

Sadly, you're likely incorrect, if admirably hopeful.

 

In too many states the curriculum is dictated not by local school boards/districts, but by the state.

 

And they have a regrettable tendency to keep doing things shown repeatedly not to work, because it's the latest (or just pet) theory in education circles.

 

Ahh that's sad. There's wayy too much passion in American politics.

 

 

I have never spent even a fraction of a second instructing and/or modeling cursive to my children (now in college and older). And I am a teacher. And I am a fountain pen user (and manual typewriter user). I don't write in cursive now despite the fact that my primary school teachers taught me it and graded me on it. It is cumbersome and mostly non-utilitarian. It is a relic of the past that regarded one's "hand" as a sign of refinement and sophistication (and even intelligence). We know better now that it is not a reliable sign of any of these things.

 

My kids were taught it briefly in school, toyed with it dutifully, and dropped it as soon as they developed their own mode of writing.

 

That's why I used the phrasing "oppose to teach". Unless you're against teaching it, but most you're like me and think it's not necessary, but I think it can be fun.

Edited February 3, 2015 by flipper_gv

[amberleadavis]

That book, like graphology and graphologists in general, in my experience, abounds in demonstrable errors which the purveyor will not admit. (Of note: the author of the book you mention — Andrea McNichol — also sells a video course which claims that written Chinese has no cursive form — and which says that "this is why the Chinese never progress or invent anything." Most people here will recognize both statements as incorrect; when she has been challenged on either [once by a Chinese professor of paleography at Beijing University], her response has been: "What would you rather trust, some Chinese person or the entire science of graphology?"]

 

It is also of note that she claims to have majored in graphology at the Sorbonne — a school which offers no graphology major and has no record of her attendance — although she can barely speak a word of French and does not appear to have ever lived in France.

 

Mexico DID, however, indeed (for a few years in the past century) forbid its public schools to teach cursive. This was for the worst of reasons — a close relative of the country's president had written a book on print-wroting and wanted the maximum sales. Private schools could not be required to follow a governmental decree on the wroting curriculum, but public schools could be — and were.

 

 

Interesting.

[GClef]

The End of the Palmer Era

 

Although alternative methods of handwriting existed concurrently, the Palmer Method enjoyed a large market share in both the business world and in the pedagogical method of primary schools. The method was eventually supplanted by the D'Nealiean method and the Zaner-Bloser method (which was an original competitor of the Palmer method, but remains a key player in handwriting pedagogy). It is admittedly hard to pinpoint exactly when and how the Palmer Method disappeared as a mode of mediation; its demise is inferred by the fact that Palmer ceased publishing textbooks in the early 1980's, and the methods of learning advocated by both the D'Nealiean and Zaner-Bloser systems differ greatly than those endorsed by Palmer. Modern penmanship systems such as D'Nealiean and Zaner-Bloser differ from Palmer in two distinct ways: they privilege manuscript over cursive, and they further digitize the writing system by atomizing each letter into combinations of six basic strokes. (Alston, 56) The Palmer method as a mode of mediation exposed the 19th century preoccupation with economies of attention in psychology. As this trend gave way to behaviorism, the Palmer method was no longer suitable as a mode of mediation. The 1960s, 70s, and 80s saw the emergence of a brand of child psychology where individuality was encouraged— less emphasis was placed on enforcing discipline, and a comparative laxity and permissiveness in child-rearing became the norm. Concurrently, teaching penmanship began with the mastery of manuscript, with the rationale that children should learn to write the characters they encounter in print. Cursive emerges later as an extension of the writing project: the new cursive is modeled after the already-mastered manuscript.

"[M]anuscript that has been learned is not unlearned but, rather, built upon." (Alston, 57)

 

 

Copied from Palmer Method of Penmanship

Edited February 3, 2015 by GClef

[LionRoar]

I would teach my own kids to write cursive because it's perceived as being higher social class.

But I understand why public schools are not teaching cursive anymore. It's an unnecessary skill in today's world (children need to learn typing, not fancy cursive handwriting), and many elementry-school children just aren't very good at writing cursive.

[dms525]

Re. cursive writing and social class: Several responders have alluded to cursive handwriting being associated with higher social class. This is a new concept for me. Does any one have any background on this?

 

Historically, in Western Europe, handwriting in general and "good" penmanship in particular were not associated with higher social class - quite the opposite. In ancient Rome, the upper classes were illiterate (except for the military). Reading and writing was done for patricians by slaves - most often Greek POW's. Literacy and writing were important during the middle ages for clergy and monkish scribes, for the military and for diplomats and scholars, but the ruling classes had secretaries and scribes to write for them. The association between sloppy handwriting and the upper classes persisted into the early 20th century. I have read allusions to this (in defense of good handwriting) in the writings of Edward Johnston and Alfred Fairbank. For example, in Writing & Illuminating & Lettering, in the "Author's Preface," page xii, Johnston references "the old-fashioned notion that a legible hand is a mark of bad breeding."

 

So, if this has changed, when did this happen and how did it come about?

 

David

[TSherbs]

The End of the Palmer Era

 

Although alternative methods of handwriting existed concurrently, the Palmer Method enjoyed a large market share in both the business world and in the pedagogical method of primary schools. The method was eventually supplanted by the D'Nealiean method and the Zaner-Bloser method (which was an original competitor of the Palmer method, but remains a key player in handwriting pedagogy). It is admittedly hard to pinpoint exactly when and how the Palmer Method disappeared as a mode of mediation; its demise is inferred by the fact that Palmer ceased publishing textbooks in the early 1980's, and the methods of learning advocated by both the D'Nealiean and Zaner-Bloser systems differ greatly than those endorsed by Palmer. Modern penmanship systems such as D'Nealiean and Zaner-Bloser differ from Palmer in two distinct ways: they privilege manuscript over cursive, and they further digitize the writing system by atomizing each letter into combinations of six basic strokes. (Alston, 56) The Palmer method as a mode of mediation exposed the 19th century preoccupation with economies of attention in psychology. As this trend gave way to behaviorism, the Palmer method was no longer suitable as a mode of mediation. The 1960s, 70s, and 80s saw the emergence of a brand of child psychology where individuality was encouraged— less emphasis was placed on enforcing discipline, and a comparative laxity and permissiveness in child-rearing became the norm. Concurrently, teaching penmanship began with the mastery of manuscript, with the rationale that children should learn to write the characters they encounter in print. Cursive emerges later as an extension of the writing project: the new cursive is modeled after the already-mastered manuscript.

"[M]anuscript that has been learned is not unlearned but, rather, built upon." (Alston, 57)

 

 

Copied from Palmer Method of Penmanship

Why did you bold part of this? Are you critical of this, or supportive of it?

[TSherbs]

I would teach my own kids to write cursive because it's perceived as being higher social class.

 

But I understand why public schools are not teaching cursive anymore. It's an unnecessary skill in today's world (children need to learn typing, not fancy cursive handwriting), and many elementry-school children just aren't very good at writing cursive.

In America, it is often perceived as affected. Social concerns are a two-edged blade.

[TSherbs]

Re. cursive writing and social class: Several responders have alluded to cursive handwriting being associated with higher social class. This is a new concept for me. Does any one have any background on this?

 

Historically, in Western Europe, handwriting in general and "good" penmanship in particular were not associated with higher social class - quite the opposite. In ancient Rome, the upper classes were illiterate (except for the military). Reading and writing was done for patricians by slaves - most often Greek POW's. Literacy and writing were important during the middle ages for clergy and monkish scribes, for the military and for diplomats and scholars, but the ruling classes had secretaries and scribes to write for them. The association between sloppy handwriting and the upper classes persisted into the early 20th century. I have read allusions to this (in defense of good handwriting) in the writings of Edward Johnston and Alfred Fairbank. For example, in Writing & Illuminating & Lettering, in the "Author's Preface," page xii, Johnston references "the old-fashioned notion that a legible hand is a mark of bad breeding."

 

So, if this has changed, when did this happen and how did it come about?

 

David

Rise of the middle class and the spread of education and literacy after the Reformation (my guess). The Renaissance also put a value on noble pretensions to literary conceits -- the art and style of poetic composition, for example.

[GClef]

Why did you bold part of this? Are you critical of this, or supportive of it?

Neither; I just thought it might've had something to do with how teaching seems to be evolving away from writing altogether.

And, I had the urge to bold something (which I can't do right now with my tablet.)

[domnortheast]

My 9 year old son is taught cursive at school (they are very keen to keep it going) and at home with me he is encouraged to write (he has his own FPs as well as BPs); thank you letters for birthdays and Christmas, letters to relatives living overseas. He learns it alongside keyboarding and print script, it's no big deal for him, his brain is a sponge.

 

Handwriting, whether cursive or print script or a mixture of both, is a personal act of creation, the creation of something unique, and beautiful simply for its uniqueness, whether the contents are of deep import or of no value to anyone other then the scribe is of no matter, to me at least. Tell me that the mundane details recorded on clay tablets in Cuneiform or Roman curse tablets or Norse rune stones are not valuable to us now, our in-boxes won't survive 2000 years I'm sure.

 

If my son can manage to get through the education system with a sense of wonder and inquisitiveness intact and an appreciation for beauty then I will be happy.

[byggyns]

At first I wondered why I had not seen this topic before. I then realized it was previously active right when I joined the forum, so I probably missed it then.

 

I certainly will be teaching my children cursive. I have helped encourage my young cousins, ages 5 to 10, in learning it.

I haven't seen it mentioned in this thread, but I may have missed it, that Michael Sull has written a wonderful book to teach American Cursive Handwriting. He has it in a bound format and also in loose leaf. The loose leaf version he distributes for the purpose of making photo copies to teach multiple children in a home or homeschool group. If you are ever at a pen show he attends, I encourage you to talk to him about it and pick up a copy.

 

Also, I thought that I had read about a study that linked cursive handwriting specifically to greater development of "right brain" artistic conceptual development. It has been several years ago, so I can't remember which study or the specific correlations they described.

[byggyns]

double post, sorry

Edited February 3, 2015 by byggyns

[TSherbs]

Neither; I just thought it might've had something to do with how teaching seems to be evolving away from writing altogether.

And, I had the urge to bold something (which I can't do right now with my tablet.)

Do you agree that that there has been a normalization of "laxity and permissiveness" in child-rearing? (I am quoting from the part that you chose to bold).

[LionRoar]

Re. cursive writing and social class: Several responders have alluded to cursive handwriting being associated with higher social class. This is a new concept for me. Does any one have any background on this?

 

Historically, in Western Europe, handwriting in general and "good" penmanship in particular were not associated with higher social class - quite the opposite. In ancient Rome, the upper classes were illiterate (except for the military). Reading and writing was done for patricians by slaves - most often Greek POW's. Literacy and writing were important during the middle ages for clergy and monkish scribes, for the military and for diplomats and scholars, but the ruling classes had secretaries and scribes to write for them. The association between sloppy handwriting and the upper classes persisted into the early 20th century. I have read allusions to this (in defense of good handwriting) in the writings of Edward Johnston and Alfred Fairbank. For example, in Writing & Illuminating & Lettering, in the "Author's Preface," page xii, Johnston references "the old-fashioned notion that a legible hand is a mark of bad breeding."

 

So, if this has changed, when did this happen and how did it come about?

 

David

 

Since cursive writing was removed from being a required subject in nearly all public school systems, it's now only taught in public schools with PTAs that demand it (which means public schools in affluent neighborhoods) and in private schools.

[GClef]

Do you agree that that there has been a normalization of "laxity and permissiveness" in child-rearing? (I am quoting from the part that you chose to bold).

Yes, yes! Try as hard as I might to dance around it, I do agree that there has been a laxity and permissiveness in child rearing that has become the norm that started in the 60's, and has evolved to today, where even the simple discipline of penmanship is no longer encouraged.

As someone born in 1963, and a product of public school education, I understand how I got to where I am, and why most from my, and the generations that followed, have some really really bad handwriting.

 

If it weren't for a very early interest in penmanship, I would've never found my way here to FPN, where all I've tried to do from the very beginning was to encourage users to break free of their keyboards, and let loose with the ink. But it's easier to type away, discussing and lamenting the demise of handwriting and penmanship, than to actually take the time to write out and post it as a picture. Yes, a "tutuguan"!

 

Now, anyone who has taken the time to know me here may wonder why did I not handwrite this post.

It was easier, as I lay on my couch, to do it this way (and I do my best to not clog up threads I did not start with pictures some might have a hard time reading, and ignore anyway, because it's easier to read typeface).

 

So, what do YOU think?

[cancoi]

So...am still wondering what people have found helpful for their children? My son started w/D'Nealian..should I continue with that? Italic? The aforementioned American Cursive? Am looking for some guidance.

thanks.