The Great Cursive Writing Debate: Lost Art Or Vital Skill?

[markh]

Here is another recent article:

 

Why Handwriting Makes you Smarter.

Learn anything easily with this simple trick.

 

<https://qz.com/1053334/learn-anything-easily-with-this-simple-trick/>

 

Scribbling is the most simple, powerful learning tool you already have in your hands. It works without any understanding of what you’re writing. Just scribble and information will make itself known to you.

 

 

 

I certainly practice this....

 

.

[ParkerDuofold]

...Can anyone out there who has not learned cursive honestly say that they could not read a note taped to your refrigerator from Mom saying....

 

"Johnny, please pick up some milk from the store when you're done work". ???

Hi Aalmcc4, et al,

 

I don't know,... it's hard to say... this note is in print; not script.

 

 

However, the problem DOES exist... and I know what you mean about most of the letters not being that different. I will also grant you that the problem is not as widespread as some claim it to be; however, there are some Millennials out there who just can't seem to grasp it.

 

They can read what you print by hand, but they cannot read what you write. Two examples I know personally, are a college educated intern at my office and the seventeen year-old kid who mows my lawn and prunes the hedges.

 

That said, most of the Millennials I know can read it, but it takes some effort for them... an effort most of them do not want to make.

 

Be well all and enjoy life.

 

 

- Anthony

[stevekolt]

I think it is a vital skill. Without the abilty to read cursive, the coming generations will not be able to read our original documents...

[Piper 987]

The Great Cursive Writing Debate: Lost Art Or Vital Skill?

 

I'll take what's behind curtain number three...

 

I don't know anyone who's been to high school who can't write in something resembling cursive... when they want/need to. So, cursive cannot be called a lost art. And if you can get through a day/week/month without needing to write in cursive, it's hardly a vital skill.

 

To me, it's a tool. It's one of several tools we all have for getting thoughts down on paper. I could print if I cared to do it. I could type using my Remington portable typewriter (that hasn't seen the light of day for about two decades). Or I could use the word processor program and then print.

 

Actually, I almost never print from a word processor anymore. The file gets sent as e-mail or some other such heathen technology.

 

I tried corresponding via snail-mail with a few pen-pals but that was never one of my favoured activities. It's too much like making small talk with a stranger at a party. So my daily cursive hit comes from journaling.

[AAAndrew]

Don't let the kids learn! It will be our secret language.

 

[markh]

The Great Cursive Writing Debate: Lost Art Or Vital Skill?

 

I'll take what's behind curtain number three...

 

I don't know anyone who's been to high school who can't write in something resembling cursive... when they want/need to. So, cursive cannot be called a lost art. And if you can get through a day/week/month without needing to write in cursive, it's hardly a vital skill.

 

 

I'm guessing that like me, you haven't been to high school in a while.

 

When my daughter was in the 3rd grade (she just turned 21) we had one of those teacher-parent meetings. I asked the teacher if she taught cursive handwriting. I was told that the students received about a week of instruction. She also said that it was quite limited, since she (the teacher) didn't know cursive.

 

I would say that she (daughter) and most of her generation never learned, and can't write, in cursive. Of course they could teach them self pretty quickly if they were interested, but they really have no reason to learn, or at least think they don't.

 

Even with this they can puzzle out reading handwriting - but that's quite different from initiating writing.

 

To put a more historical perspective - go to the Library of Congress (free online - here is Thomas Jefferson: <https://www.loc.gov/collections/thomas-jefferson-papers/about-this-collection/>

and check out the written letters, day books, journals etc... of well educated early Americans. Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, and others have their writings in facsimile images you can look at.

 

Pretty hard to read the connected cursive of 200+ years ago.

 

 

,

Edited September 1, 2017 by markh

[inkstainedruth]

 

I'm guessing that like me, you haven't been to high school in a while.

 

When my daughter was in the 3rd grade (she just turned 21) we had one of those teacher-parent meetings. I asked the teacher if she taught cursive handwriting. I was told that the students received about a week of instruction. She also said that it was quite limited, since she (the teacher) didn't know cursive.

 

I would say that she (daughter) and most of her generation never learned, and can't write, in cursive. Of course they could teach them self pretty quickly if they were interested, but they really have no reason to learn, or at least think they don't.

 

Even with this they can puzzle out reading handwriting - but that's quite different from initiating writing.

 

To put a more historical perspective - go to the Library of Congress (free online - here is Thomas Jefferson: <https://www.loc.gov/collections/thomas-jefferson-papers/about-this-collection/>

and check out the written letters, day books, journals etc... of well educated early Americans. Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, and others have their writings in facsimile images you can look at.

 

Pretty hard to read the connected cursive of 200+ years ago.

 

 

,

 

I dunno -- I didn't have much trouble with reading Jefferson's handwriting.... But then, I'm in the pre-computer, pre-smartphone generation, and learned cursive in 3rd grade. And even though I mostly stopped using it by middle school (and almost definitely by high school), I did write notes for classes all through high school and college (and even made little sketches of works from the slides shown in my art history courses in college).

Some of the Spencerian style script of letters some of my ancestors wrote, on the other hand....

Ruth Morrisson aka inkstainedruth

[Shaggy]

I don't know anyone who's been to high school who can't write in something resembling cursive... when they want/need to.

Interesting.

 

I don't know anyone under age 35 who learned cursive in public school.

 

One of my best friends, who is 33,looked at a sample of Palmer method I had from my mother and called it "old timey writing."

Edited September 1, 2017 by Shaggy

[TSherbs]

.....To put a more historical perspective - go to the Library of Congress (free online - here is Thomas Jefferson: <https://www.loc.gov/collections/thomas-jefferson-papers/about-this-collection/>

and check out the written letters, day books, journals etc... of well educated early Americans. Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, and others have their writings in facsimile images you can look at....

emphasis is mine

 

That's the thing. I am a teacher and I have a love-hate relationship with the history of penmanship. One's "hand" was never meant as a universal or democratic skill: it is was sign of the elite (those who had been tutored). Some clerks were able to teach themselves the skill and sell their talents, but these folk worked for pittance. One demonstrated one's sophistication with the elegance of one's handwriting. The poor were mostly illiterate and did not give a sh*#%^ about handwriting and the elite did not give a s*$% about them.

 

And the greatest technological contribution to the increase of literacy and learning was the development of movable type (paper from wood pulp helped a lot, too). Connected handwriting looks nice. But that is about all it has going for it, and its past is complex.

[TSherbs]

 

I don't know anyone under age 35 who learned cursive in public school.

 

 

keep looking

 

just ask some young folk here

[Shaggy]

 

keep looking

 

just ask some young folk here

That's doesn't negate my point.

 

I said, No one I know who's under 35 learned cursive in public school.

 

People on an online forum are not in that group.

Edited September 4, 2017 by Shaggy

[TSherbs]

That's doesn't negate my point.

 

I said, No one I know who's under 35 learned cursive in public school.

 

People on an online forum are not in that group.

 

well ok

[max dog]

I remember we learned cursive like in grade 2 or 3, and then we were done. You could either choose to use cursive or not as you grew up. The argument that cursive some how wastes valuable learning time in school does not wash. The benefits of being able to read and write cursive far outweigh the lame excuse that the time spent learning it somehow takes away from kids learning other skills. It's taught in grade 3 for Pete's sake, and that is it. Teachers dont have to spend any more time on it after that!

Edited September 4, 2017 by max dog

[JakobS]

I remember we learned cursive like in grade 2 or 3, and then we were done. You could either choose to use cursive or not as you grew up. The argument that cursive some how wastes valuable learning time in school does not wash. The benefits of being able to read and write cursive far outweigh the lame excuse that the time spent learning it somehow takes away from kids learning other skills. It's taught in grade 3 for Pete's sake, and that is it. Teachers dont have to spend any more time on it after that!

How prominent and/or required cursive is definitely generational, country, and in the U.S. especially, school district specific. In the U.S. during my childhood (currently 32 years old), cursive was generally required to be used from 2nd or 3rd grade until at least middle school in public schools. After this point, you could write in whatever hand you wanted as long as it was legible, most students wrote in print by the time I started high school. What you describe is more like the amount of cursive teaching that is happening in the U.S. in the past 10+ years.

 

Though I know the argument is made that other skills can be taught in place of cursive, my argument is not that handwriting shouldn't be taught, but that it shouldn't be limited to only cursive. Cursive is not the end all and be all in handwriting, though it appears to taken up by many, mostly in the U.S., of being so. If a student likes cursive great, if a student likes print great, if a student likes uncial, italic, carolingian awesome! As long as what the students are writing is legible and creates coherent ideas, that is what should be important. Cursive is one way to do so, but by far not the only way. As is obvious by how many students give cursive up when it's no longer required, allowing them to discover the type of handwriting that is best for them is the only way handwriting will sustain in an educational setting. And, if it's not legible and forming coherent ideas, stories, or arguments is pointless to uphold. Society needs critical thinkers, those who cannot think, but can write cursive provide little benefit to any of us.

Edited September 5, 2017 by JakobS

[TSherbs]

.... The benefits of being able to read and write cursive far outweigh the lame excuse that the time spent learning it somehow takes away from kids learning other skills. ....

 

Which benefits? I am a teacher and I can't find any substantial research or argument as to the benefits of cursive over other forms of handwriting, connected or otherwise.

[TSherbs]

... As is obvious by how many students give cursive up when it's no longer required, allowing them to discover the type of handwriting that is best for them is the only way handwriting will sustain in an educational setting. And, if it's not legible and forming coherent ideas, stories, or arguments is pointless to uphold. Society needs critical thinkers, those who cannot think, but can write cursive provide little benefit to any of us.

 

word

[max dog]

Well let’s see. For one thing, cursive was taught in our schools spanning back 100, 150, maybe even 200 years? By dropping it, we render a new generation illiterate to all the cursive handwritten correspondence (letters, diaries, declarations etc) of many past generations, and not to mention important historic documents written in cursive. By dropping this in grade 3, what do we hope to teach them instead that would be of greater benefit?

But what worries me more than that are some (not all) “critical thinkers”, with a tunnel vison grasp of the world, who would rather do away with anything remotely considered not fitting into the new way of things for the sake of efficiency. What will be next in their cross hairs? All hand writing in general, arithmetic, poetry, music? Computers can write and calculate for us right?

Beware, because there are some who would rather free our education systems of the general arts in favour of vital skills training only needed to enable our children to work and get a job when they grow up.

It’s a slippery slope!

Maintaining a well rounded education system is important, and cursive fits in there as part of that because of it's history.

Edited September 5, 2017 by max dog

[TSherbs]

 

Well lets see. For one thing, cursive was taught in our schools spanning back 100, 150, maybe even 200 years? By dropping it, we render a new generation illiterate to all the cursive handwritten correspondence (letters, diaries, declarations etc) of many past generations, and not to mention important historic documents written in cursive. By dropping this in grade 3, what do we hope to teach them instead that would be of greater benefit?

 

But what worries me more than that are some (not all) critical thinkers, with a tunnel vison grasp of the world, who would rather do away with anything remotely considered not fitting into the new way of things for the sake of efficiency. What will be next in their cross hairs? All hand writing in general, arithmetic, poetry, music? Computers can write and calculate for us right?

 

Beware, because there are some who would rather free our education systems of the general arts in favour of vital skills training only needed to enable our children to work and get a job when they grow up.

 

Its a slippery slope!

 

Maintaining a well rounded education system is important, and cursive fits in there as part of that because of it's history.

1. Reading well and thinking well and writing well and computation and problem solving are all more important than learning cursive. Learning to play an instrument is more important than cursive. Playing outside for an hour a day is more important than practicing cursive. There are studies about the learning efficacy of each of these. There are none for cursive.

 

2. Slippery slope arguments about fear of greater losses are not persuasive because they don't address the issue in focus.

[max dog]

...they don't address the issue in focus.

Predictable deflection when you don't have a viable argument.

[amberleadavis]

 

Which benefits? I am a teacher and I can't find any substantial research or argument as to the benefits of cursive over other forms of handwriting, connected or otherwise.

 

 

Ooo, I have read some. I will have to find them.