4 ms·

> “cursive” writing – in which the pen is not raised between each character – has been dropped from the Common Core Curriculum Standards, shared by all states.

by tboyd47 12y ago

> “cursive” writing – in which the pen is not raised between each character – has been dropped from the Common Core Curriculum Standards, shared by all states. Since 2013 American children have been required to learn how to use a keyboard and write in print. I'm sorry. This is so ludicrous. If you can't write legibly unless you're using a computer, how can you be called literate? And don't come back and say, "it's perfectly fine for them to use print." I attended public school myself, learned to write cursive in the 3rd grade, and never used it again. I thought my natural printing style was good enough, to the point where, to this day, I still sign my name in the jagged, chopped-up, pseudo-cursive printing style that I invented in 4th grade, and only I can read. Now, I'm a person who loves to listen to classes and take notes with a pen. About 6 months ago, I looked at the piles of jumbled-up notebooks in my closet and was horrified at the chicken scratch on it. I could barely make sense of it. I might as well have not even been taking notes. So I decided to try cursive again. Now, I refuse to print anything unless I have to. Cursive is so much easier, so much faster, so much more legible, so much neater. I simply can't believe I didn't use it for 20 years of my life. People always tell me how good my handwriting is now. Maybe some people came out of grade school with a neater printing style than I did, but I really, really doubt they can keep that neatness while writing as quickly as they WOULD be if they were using cursive. I would really like to know what the standards people were thinking when they made this decision.

viewer5 12y ago
> And don't come back and say, "it's perfectly fine for them to use print." I'm going to do exactly that. You having garbage print handwriting and pretty cursive hardly means that everyone is the same way. With the lack of cursive practice that most people get, you're much more likely to find someone with legibile printed handwriting than legible cursive. > If you can't write legibly unless you're using a computer, how can you be called literate? How can you even say this, and then go on to say "About 6 months ago, I looked at the piles of jumbled-up notebooks in my closet and was horrified at the chicken scratch on it. I could barely make sense of it. I might as well have not even been taking notes." ?
- tboyd47 12y ago
  I can say that because I don't consider myself to have truly been literate until 6 months ago, when I started using cursive. If I had written a letter to someone the way I usually wrote, they wouldn't have been able to read it if they tried. And I considered my own writing back then to be pretty okay, because I made it all the way through high school and college with it. Why all my teachers allowed me to write like that is a mystery to me. I'm able to say this stuff because I spent about 20 years of my life not using cursive at all, filling whole notebooks with print, then suddenly using it and filling notebooks with cursive. So the difference is very clear to me. Edit: And plus, you missed the whole second part of my comment where I said that even if they can print neatly, they certainly can't do it quickly, so it's still not as good as cursive in that regard.
  - Someone1234 12y ago
    Your definition of literacy and the popular view are dissimilar. The common definition is just "the ability to read and write." Nothing more, nothing less. I looked for a definition which contained the term "cursive" and was unable to find one.
    - tboyd47 12y ago
      That's true, and thanks for pointing that out. I wasn't saying that we should draft a law to redefine literacy. I was only trying to make a point, which was: if I can write, but no one can read what I write except for me, then have I really achieved the goals of learning how to write?
  - viewer5 12y ago
    Again, you having garbage print handwriting doesn't mean everyone does. My printed handwriting got a compliment just this Sunday, and mine pales in comparison to that of most people's I've seen. If print, on the whole, was impossible to read and write clearly, it would have died long, long ago. But it hasn't, because it's a perfectly acceptable way to convey information, without pretending that everyone's cursive (which, again, hardly anyone gets practice with--I can't even remember around 1/3 of the lowercase letters, or most of the capitals, like G) is so much nicer, and the only way to 'properly' go about things. I'm glad that you're happy with cursive. Nice cursive handwriting does indeed look quite nice. But it's fallen out of favor and out of practice, and it's not, and I say this without hyperbole, the one true way that you insist it is.
Someone1234 12y ago
> Now, I refuse to print anything unless I have to. Cursive is so much easier, so much faster, so much more legible, so much neater. I respectfully disagree. As someone who has had the "pleasure" of trying to grade college level assignments from best to worst: typed, printed, and then cursive as a distant last. Cursive is faster to write, but it being more legible and neater is debatable. Obviously it varies based on who wrote the cursive or print, but broadly speaking print is a lot more consistent between individuals than cursive is. A lot of doctor scripts now need to be printed, because cursive caused too many enquiries/bounces and incorrect prescriptions. Although bad hand-writing often comes up when the talk of electronic patient records is discussed/promoted. Cursive's only real benefit is speed. Maybe someone could argue that it is visually "prettier" to look at (I'd agree). But in terms of productivity speed is the only main draw.
- tboyd47 12y ago
  I appreciate the respectful counterpoint. I don't mean disrespect for the other side of the debate either. It's hyperbole -- so I don't understand why I'm being downvoted for bringing a legitimate point. I think you and the other commenter are missing my point. Like all languages that use the Roman alphabet, English has a printed form and a scripted form. It seems they're going to only teach one of the two, and for what? Typing? Typing is only useful if you use a computer, and writing is part of basic literacy. Don't get me wrong -- I am happy I know how to type. But I'm also happy I know how to write cursive. I don't understand what they're adding to the curriculum that's so important that they are dropping cursive. Perhaps you had a hard time reading the cursive papers, and that's understandable. But if their papers were that messy, then it seems to me that the solution is to spend more time on perfecting their cursive -- not throwing up our hands and eliminating script entirely from the curriculum.

by tboyd47 12y ago

viewer5 12y ago

> And don't come back and say, "it's perfectly fine for them to use print." I'm going to do exactly that. You having garbage print handwriting and pretty cursive hardly means that everyone is the same way. With the lack of cursive practice that most people get, you're much more likely to find someone with legibile printed handwriting than legible cursive. > If you can't write legibly unless you're using a computer, how can you be called literate? How can you even say this, and then go on to say "About 6 months ago, I looked at the piles of jumbled-up notebooks in my closet and was horrified at the chicken scratch on it. I could barely make sense of it. I might as well have not even been taking notes." ?

tboyd47 12y ago
I can say that because I don't consider myself to have truly been literate until 6 months ago, when I started using cursive. If I had written a letter to someone the way I usually wrote, they wouldn't have been able to read it if they tried. And I considered my own writing back then to be pretty okay, because I made it all the way through high school and college with it. Why all my teachers allowed me to write like that is a mystery to me. I'm able to say this stuff because I spent about 20 years of my life not using cursive at all, filling whole notebooks with print, then suddenly using it and filling notebooks with cursive. So the difference is very clear to me. Edit: And plus, you missed the whole second part of my comment where I said that even if they can print neatly, they certainly can't do it quickly, so it's still not as good as cursive in that regard.
- Someone1234 12y ago
  Your definition of literacy and the popular view are dissimilar. The common definition is just "the ability to read and write." Nothing more, nothing less. I looked for a definition which contained the term "cursive" and was unable to find one.
  - tboyd47 12y ago
    That's true, and thanks for pointing that out. I wasn't saying that we should draft a law to redefine literacy. I was only trying to make a point, which was: if I can write, but no one can read what I write except for me, then have I really achieved the goals of learning how to write?
- viewer5 12y ago
  Again, you having garbage print handwriting doesn't mean everyone does. My printed handwriting got a compliment just this Sunday, and mine pales in comparison to that of most people's I've seen. If print, on the whole, was impossible to read and write clearly, it would have died long, long ago. But it hasn't, because it's a perfectly acceptable way to convey information, without pretending that everyone's cursive (which, again, hardly anyone gets practice with--I can't even remember around 1/3 of the lowercase letters, or most of the capitals, like G) is so much nicer, and the only way to 'properly' go about things. I'm glad that you're happy with cursive. Nice cursive handwriting does indeed look quite nice. But it's fallen out of favor and out of practice, and it's not, and I say this without hyperbole, the one true way that you insist it is.

Someone1234 12y ago

> Now, I refuse to print anything unless I have to. Cursive is so much easier, so much faster, so much more legible, so much neater. I respectfully disagree. As someone who has had the "pleasure" of trying to grade college level assignments from best to worst: typed, printed, and then cursive as a distant last. Cursive is faster to write, but it being more legible and neater is debatable. Obviously it varies based on who wrote the cursive or print, but broadly speaking print is a lot more consistent between individuals than cursive is. A lot of doctor scripts now need to be printed, because cursive caused too many enquiries/bounces and incorrect prescriptions. Although bad hand-writing often comes up when the talk of electronic patient records is discussed/promoted. Cursive's only real benefit is speed. Maybe someone could argue that it is visually "prettier" to look at (I'd agree). But in terms of productivity speed is the only main draw.

tboyd47 12y ago
I appreciate the respectful counterpoint. I don't mean disrespect for the other side of the debate either. It's hyperbole -- so I don't understand why I'm being downvoted for bringing a legitimate point. I think you and the other commenter are missing my point. Like all languages that use the Roman alphabet, English has a printed form and a scripted form. It seems they're going to only teach one of the two, and for what? Typing? Typing is only useful if you use a computer, and writing is part of basic literacy. Don't get me wrong -- I am happy I know how to type. But I'm also happy I know how to write cursive. I don't understand what they're adding to the curriculum that's so important that they are dropping cursive. Perhaps you had a hard time reading the cursive papers, and that's understandable. But if their papers were that messy, then it seems to me that the solution is to spend more time on perfecting their cursive -- not throwing up our hands and eliminating script entirely from the curriculum.