For too long, brothers and sisters, we have toiled under the oppressive lash of cursive writing. No more! The Indiana Department of Education is removing cursive as required subject matter for Indiana’s schools.
My view of this as a positive development is almost entirely due to the fact that my cursive writing is, and always has been, horrible. My otherwise spotless elementary report cards were marred by the handwriting grade. (Except in the case of my 5th grade teacher, Mrs. Busick, who simply declined to mess up my report card by giving me a grade in that subject.) As soon as they let me, I went back to printing; and once I learned how to type, that’s all she wrote – so to speak.
Others might find cursive useful in some fashion, but for me, it’s about as useful as my appendix. In the distant past, it probably held some utility, but at present, it’s mostly a neutral curiosity that occasionally causes severe medical problems.
Good riddance.
Co-signed. And as a further testament to the uselessness of cursive, I can’t recall how to make many of the capital cursive letters, despite at least 4 years of otherwise great teachers trying to drill it into my head.
I couldn’t agree more. I got an F on a book report in seventh grade because I printed it and used narrow rule paper. Told me I had to write it in cursive on wide rule paper or I would get an F. I took the F. Cursive is a huge waste of time. I am amazed at the number of people that have commented on the Indystar article on FB complaining about what a horrible this decision is. Teach kids to print well and then type…it’s what they need to survive.
How will they sign their name? (Granted, most signatures aren’t legible anyway so it probably doesn’t matter.)
Overall, I tend to agree. I wrote a story about the trend toward less cursive instruction several years ago. You could read the writing on the wall (no pun intended, honest). They don’t test you on cursive competence on the ISTEP. That time could be spent on teaching other things.
Personally, I learned to type before I had the motor skills to print. I type more than 100 words per minute. However, to this day, both my print and cursive handwriting is very, very neat. (And that’s rare in my line of work,when note-taking speed counts but prettiness doesn’t.) It’s probably my personality that keeps the curves and lines obsessively neat, and probably my gender as well. I find cursive is faster to write, personally. It’s mildly harder to read — but so is many people’s print hand writing (I ask Ryan a lot if his I is a Z or N is a U, for example). However, I ADORE old hand-written letters, almost universally in script. They’re beautiful to look at, if nothing else. I know no one writes letters anymore, but finding old ones in pretty script makes me happy. I’d be sad to know my kids can’t read my old notes. Then again, I’d probably teach them anyway just for fun.
Excuse my ignorance here, but am I correct in assuming that the elimination of “cursive” does NOT mean the elimination of teaching how to “Print” manually? In other words, Indiana’s educaction curriculum will still help assure that our descendants won’t be totally powerless when an solar flare knocks out keyboards and printers large and small. If I’m not correct then chisling in stone may have to become part of the retraining exercise.
I believe that’s the case, Don. Kids are taught to print in the earlier grades and then, maybe in 3rd grade?, the cursive kicks in.
I took a drafting class in 7th or 8th grade that actually helped my printing in various ways. (Putting the lines through the “7” and the “z” for example.)
Oh, and if it’s not part of the curriculum already, I think every kid should learn a computer programming language. Not necessarily for programming in the future, but for the logic it teaches, and for skill in communicating to an aggressively stupid audience.
Doug,
Is drafting even taught anymore? I would think nowadays it’s CAD (computer assisted drafting), so no help there with how to write legibly.
I have some things my father did in drafting class in, oh, the mid-1930s. They are quite beautiful, actually, and demonstrate a skill. I think it will be very interesting (and possibly sad) to see how people communicate 50 years from now.
I was told that putting the extra line through the 7s had something to do with showing you’re educated or something like that. I always try not to confirm so I never have done that. I don’t know anything about a line through a z.
I thought Z was written as Zed.
Zed’s dead……..Zed’s dead.
Giving up personal letters was one of the bigger shocks of reality in my lifetime. In retrospect, I admitted to being aware that most correspondents would have preferred some other form of communication — and chose it as soon as technology permitted. It just turned out that they were much less interesting on the telephone or in email, etc. I loved their curlicues and chicken-scratches, and a smiley face or (sp?) after a word, and all that. Many of them apologized for handwriting or grammar — for not being writers. It mystified me, that they didn’t know they were writers. I saved the letters for their grandchildren. Anyway, without the necessity to sit down and scratch out an occasional note to Uncle Pete, cursive matters not.
Doug, you had better look again at the uselessness of the appendix! New data.
Bit of trivia. The line through the ‘7’ is to differenciate it from the ‘1’ in Europe as there the lead in stroke starts at the base line. It would be very easy to mix it up with a 7 if the context did not clarify it, especially in handwriting.To use it in American/English/Australian/Canadian English is an affectation.
The stroke through the ‘Z’ is a throw back to an old writing style, I can’t remember which nation. Germen? Italian? Someone will remember.
The future of writing interests me. More info!
oops! German(y)….j
this is great. Cursive should be TAUGHT AS AN ELECTIVE ONLY. it is no more essential then Latin, and in my subjective opinion, less interesting. it’s benefits are largely a myth, the most proven ones it has to no greater extent then print, the claim that it is faster is based on an active distortion of facts, there are studies that show that cursive is faster only if legibility is not relevant at all, cursive with its ornate and pompous loops and curls is actually significantly slower to write legibly then print. in the end, the sole “benefit” is making your handwriting look more pompous. also to people who have trouble with long handwriting anyway, it is flat out torture. which is fine as an elective, but is in no sense something anyone should be required to learn, only those specifically interested should bother with it. let cursive survive as an optional elective.