Closing in on my 23rd birthday, it has been almost 15 years since I was taught how to write in cursive and about 14 years since I stopped using this pointless antiquated style of writing. So why are so many kids still having their time wasted on learning to write in cursive?

Modern cursive writing has its roots in professional correspondence of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. It became popular because cursive was fancier looking than traditional print and thus projected a higher class status. This eventually led to the adoption of the cursive style as the only style taught in public schools until the 1940’s (that’s why your grandparents always wrote in cursive). In the 1940s, as a part of education reform, standard print or manuscript as it is officially called, was taught in conjunction with cursive.

For many schools the progression goes something like this. Teach students the alphabet - IN PRINT. Teach students basic words -IN PRINT. Teach students basic sentences - IN PRINT. Finally, once they have learned to read and write in print, introduce a completely different looking alphabet and an entirely new system for combining letters. Think back to your own early education. I still remember my confusion and frustration at the prospect of learning to write all over again, I had just gotten good at print! So what is going on here? Surely there must be a reason for learning cursive today. Can something students spend literally months learning in school really be completely pointless?

The proponents of cursive writing put forth the following as their key arguments for teaching it:

1. Cursive may be especially useful for certain students with learning disabilities such as dysgraphia because it has fewer letters that are mirror images of one another, such as the printed b and d, and so may be easier for students who are prone to mixing them up. In some schools, students with such learning challenges are taught cursive before print (Zieman).

2. Cursive is easier and faster once mastered. There is no need to constantly pick up the pencil point and put it down again. (Learning Disabilities Support 2007).

Addressing the first point:

If cursive is in fact easier to learn for students with learning disabilities, why are all students taught print first? Why are early reading books in print fonts instead of cursive fonts? Any value that cursive writing can give kids with dyslexia or dysgraphia is essentially erased by the fact that they learn it second to print. For kids who already have difficulty differentiating between letters, how can introducing yet another confusing style make anything more clear?

Addressing the second point:

There are two problems I see with this argument. First, I would concede that cursive writing has the potential to be faster than print once mastered, but students have already spent three or more years writing print. It is certainly not beneficial to spend the time it takes to develop mastery of cursive writing just for a slight speed advantage. Additionally, the huge speed advantage of typing which is taught soon after cursive makes the entire argument moot.

Now let’s take a look at some common criticisms of cursive:

1. Cursive writing can’t be used to fill in official forms.

2. Cursive presents greater difficulty for left handed writers.

3. Cursive is soon abandoned by 85% of all students.

4. Cursive is a remnant of tradition, and of no value to the learning experience.

Addressing the first point:

Ironically, the form of writing that began with professional correspondence can no longer be used in most official or professional forms. Cursive is simply too messy. The style lends itself to exaggerated letters that can be difficult to differentiate or even recognize. Official and professional writing needs to be exact and without errors. Only print is sufficient for this purpose.

Addressing the second point:

For lefties, the “never lift your pen” aspect of cursive writing is what causes the difficulties. When left-handed writers are force to write in cursive, their left hands drag behind each letter, leaving them with smudged words and an ink-stained palm.

Addressing the third point:

Recent College Board statistics from the SAT writing sections show that only 15% of students consistently write their essays in cursive. Additionally, research has shown that many of those who do use cursive, use a modified half cursive/ half print form of writing that connects only the easiest letters and leaving spaces between others. (Berninger, Weintraub)

Addressing the fourth point:

In a 1960 study, administrators and teachers admitted the reasons cursive was still included in the curriculum:

“Public expectancy and teacher preparation probably are our main reasons. We doubt that there is significant advantage in cursive writing.” (Groff)

So here we are almost half a century later, still teaching something deemed unnecessary in 1960?

In the end it is up to administrators, teachers, and those who set curriculums to decide the worth or worthlessness of cursive writing. With this said, it is our responsibility to speak out against teaching our kids pointless, antiquated skills like cursive writing. Let’s face it, the world is changing, things are evolving, and there are many aspects of the written and spoken word that are going to change.

In a public school system with so many problems, do we really need to be wasting our kid’s time with this? As someone who works in the copywriting industry, I see the emphasis on handwriting as a hindrance to the development of the writing abilities in kids. Instead of focusing on the act of hand-writing, our schools should focus on what is being written.


-Chris Tynski

References:

Zieman, Gayle. "Nonverbal Learning Disability: The Math and Handwriting Problem". Retrieved January 14, 2007 from

Graham, S., Berninger, V., & Weintraub, N. (199. The relationship between handwriting style and speed and quality. Journal of Educational Research, volume 91, issue number 5, (May/June 199, pages 290-297.


Groff, Patrick J. “From Manuscript to Cursive-Why?”
The Elementary School Journal, Vol. 61, No. 2 (Nov., 1960), pp. 97-101

About Get It In Writing, Inc.: Whether it’s a website, articles, blog, newsletter, advertorial, e-zine or e-book, let our web copywriting tell your audience about your company in the best possible way. See why our words mean business. Visit us online at: www.GetItInWriting.biz or call toll-free at 877-989-8555.

Original Link: Getitinwriting.biz/blog/

I see your point, but when I write my salesletters, bullets and other copy (like my infomercial scripts), I write longhand in cursive, in layouts/storyboards, so it's a core skill I need. And use near-daily.

Plus when I write for Other people to read, it's always in block letters, for better readability.

So my .02 is that both are certainly needed. Cursive mainly for speed.

Your point well taken though re learning styles/timing of when to teach it.

Ken

and for more:

AWAI Member :: View topic - To write or keyboard?


ken

I prefer block lettering, but when I'm in a rush or need to get some ideas down fast, my writing merges into a hybrid of block and cursive... I'm sure I'm not the only one who does this mix.

Guilty as charged!

Between computers and graffiti as a child,
my penmanship is on it's last legs.

Last week while filling out my deposit slip
at the bank the teller looked at me like I
was scribbling in ancient Sanskrit.

I'd love to have my handwriting analyzed as
well. It's totally chaotic and completely
inconsistent. I have 3 or more ways to write
each letter and often write 2 different ways
even in the same word. It's really ridiculous.

I imagine a handwriting analysis would reveal
that I'm quite a lunatic.

Having a psych degree, I can tell you that you probably have multiple personality disorder:

"good" jason
"bad" jason
and "just way out there" jason.