Doesn't it seem like cursive was useless to learn. Back in 3rd - 4th grade we were told that we needed to learn cursive it was important, that we would be using it every day. I was told in 6th grade that once we hit high school everything we wrote would be in cursive. Yeah right I can probably count on 1 hand that number of times I've had to use cursive. The only time you really have to is to sign your name and it doesn't even have to be good. 99% of the stuff I wrote in high school was regular print and not good print at that. If cursive is so important why don't we have cursive letters on our keyboards, and they type in cursive as the default?
I'd like to thank the schools for making me learn more useless shit that I will never use ever again in my life. It goes nicely with the other 95% of the stuff I was spoon feed and shoved down my throat for no other reason than that the people of the school board thought it was necessary. People who don't even know whats helpful because they haven't been in school since the 60's. It's all just to please everyone the school board, the parents, everyone but the people who actually matter the students.
I'm not saying school is useless and doesn't have it's place, it does. We need to be able to be taught about engineering and water purification and so forth. I'm talking about the other shit that is completely useless. Who cares what a compound adverb is? You don't need to know what is it to write a good story or book. Teach us the basics and let us explore that's how we will really learn.
Handwriting matters — does cursive matter? Research finds that legible cursive writing averages no faster than printed handwriting of equal or greater legibility. (Research sources are available on request.)
ReplyDeleteThe fastest, clearest writers avoid cursive, though they are not absolute print-writers either. Highest speed and legibility in handwriting belong to those who join some letters, NOT all: joining only the most easily joined letters, leaving the rest unjoined, with print-like shapes for letters whose printed and cursive shapes disagree.
Reading cursive matters, but this is much easier and quicker to master than writing cursive. Reading cursive can be taught in 30 - 60 minutes to anyone who reads print. (There's even an iPad app teaching how — a free download: “Read Cursive” at appstore.com/readcursive .)
Why not teach children to READ cursive — along with other vital skills, such as a form of handwriting that is actually typical of effective handwriters?
Teaching material for a better method abounds — especially in the UK and Europe, where such handwriting is taught at least as often as the accident-prone cursive that's loved by too many North American educators. Examples of a better handwriting, often with student work: http://www.BFHhandwriting.com, http://www.handwritingsuccess.com, http://www.briem.net, http://www.HandwritingThatWorks.com, http://www.italic-handwriting.org, http://www.studioarts.net/calligraphy/italic/curriculum.html
Educated adults quit cursive. In 2012, handwriting teachers across North America were surveyed at a conference run by Zaner-Bloser, a cursive textbook publisher. Only 37% wrote in cursive; 8% printed. The majority (55%) wrote with some elements like print-writing, others resembling cursive.
(To take part in another, ongoing poll of handwriting forms — not hosted by a publisher, not restricted to teachers — see http://www.poll.fm/4zac4 for the One-Question Handwriting Survey. As with the Zaner-Bloser survey, results so far show very few purely cursive handwriters, and even fewer purely printed writers. Most handwriting in the real world consists of print-like letters with occasional joins.)
When even most handwriting teachers do not themselves use cursive, why glorify it?
Cursive's cheerleaders suppose that cursive has benefits which justify absolutely anything said or done to promote cursive. They claim (often under oath, to school boards and legislatures) that cursive cures or prevents dyslexia, makes you intelligent, creates proper etiquette and patriotism, improves grammar and spelling, or grants numerous other blessings which are no more prevalent among cursive users than among the rest of as. (The claims that it improves English are mostly in very bad English — beautifully penned.)
Some invoke research: citing studies that they misquote or misrepresent. often in testimony to school districts, legislatures, and other decision-makers. Bills for cursive are perennially introduced by legislators whose misrepresentations are then revealed: often with signs of undue influence on the legislators. (Documentation on request: I'm glad to be interviewed by anyone who will put this serious issue before the public.)
You wonder: “How about signatures?” In state and federal law, cursive signatures have no special legal validity over any other kind. (Hard to believe? Ask any attorney!)
Questioned document examiners (specialists in identifying signatures, verifying documents, etc.) tell me the least forgeable signatures are the plainest — including print signatures.
ALL handwriting, not just cursive, is individual (and involves fine motor skills). That is how a first-grade teacher tells right off (from printing on unsigned work) which student wrote it.
Mandating cursive to support handwriting is like mandating top hats and crinolines to support the art of tailoring.
Kate Gladstone
DIRECTOR, World Handwriting Contest
CEO, Handwriting Repair/Handwriting That Works
HandwritingThatWorks.com