Pam Tharp, writing for the Richmond Palladium Item has an article about legislation being introduced by Sen. Leising (SB 83) and, apparently, Sen. Skinner. It mandates cursive writing as part of the school curriculum. The interests in having cursive taught by schools that is so compelling it justifies Indianapolis imposing the will of the State government?
Kids need to know how to write in cursive to read the original Constitution. Cursive is “just as important as mathematics and science.” State intervention is necessary to prevent local budgetary concerns causing a cut in cursive education in favor of science and math.
If that’s the best they can come up with by way of explanation, I’m more convinced than ever that cursive is as timeless as buggy driving.
So, how do you “sign” legal documents? Block printing or scribbling?
Good question, Varan. But do we have to spend weeks and months teaching people cursive just so people can sign documents? Why not focus on the signature instead. A signature is all about making a distinctive mark. You can’t even read my name in my signature anymore.
These mostly sound like excuses for keeping cursive in the curriculum; not the actual reasons. I suspect the reason has more to do with reflexive inertia with maybe a touch of “I had to do it; so you should too” thrown in.
The reading the constitution reason is a little goofy to me. But I do think learning cursive is a valuable process; I am not an educator, but I believe a couple of the benefits of learning cursive are A) the habit formed by practicing to improve, a habit that will transfer to success in other endeavors, B) the “reinforcement” afforded by such practice will help certain individuals to read better. For people in certain learning styles, ones who learn more effectively through bodily-kinesthic actions, the action of making the letters and words mechanically will help imprint them in the memory.
I guess I don’t see what’s unique about cursive in that respect. Seems like the same items apply to writing letters in print.
Since I’m not an educator I don’t know for sure — could it be that cursive, with more complex movements of curved lines and not picking the pen/pencil off the paper, is the next step in the process which began with the choppy lines and simple circles of printing and lifting the pencil? So, they are beginning and end of the same process, not two separate ones? Plus, cursive, is faster to implement, so more efficient. Takes longer to learn, but is more efficient once learned. And more visually pleasing to read.
Clearly you’ve never seen my cursive!
But, in any event, to me, it seems like folks with a sentimental attachment to cursive are looking for justifications to keep it around. I’m probably just as guilty about an emotional response, given how much I hated writing in cursive (probably because I was bad at it).
And, think of how much easier forgery might become when we are reduced to marking ourselves with an “X”, and block printing everything (if anything) else. Perhaps Doug is thinking of picking up a sideline in criminal law? More forgery cases = mo’ money, mo’ money, mo’ money. lol
One of these days, we’ll get around to digitally encrypted signatures.
Exactly. The use of ink signatures to prove identity is more outdated than faxes.
I think (perhaps) that you’re all forgetting that this is Indiana. Not exactly on the leading edge of, well, most anything. ;)