Cursive slowly scribbled out of N.J. curriculums as computer skills gain value in schools

Star Ledger ^ | June 17, 2012 | By Jeanette Rundquist/The Star-Ledger

[RansomOttawa]

But who writes by hand anymore? Really other than grocery lists.

I'm sitting at my desk in my office, and I'm surrounded by handwriting: to-do lists, sketches (I work for an architect), revisions to plans, phone messages, calculations, addressed envelopes, fax covers, annotations on invoices, notes from one person to another, Post-It notes, labels . . . on and on.

Yes, we generate a lot of business documents by computer: CAD files, 3D renders, letters, invoices, emails and so forth. But for a lot of small tasks, it's just as easy to pull out a pencil and paper and do it by hand. I'm not going to waste my time using a word processor to put a "John Smith to pick up on Tuesday" note on a roll of plans, or leave a list of messages for my boss, when I can write it just as quickly on a page from a notepad.

If anybody wants to learn it on their own great, but as for spending taxpayer money teaching it to kids there’s many more useful things to have in the curriculum.

Writing is one of the 3 R's, along with reading and 'rithmatic. It's a fundamental life skill, in other words. You might as well ask why you should spend taxpayer money teaching kids to read when they can download an audiobook from the Internet, or teach 'em math when you can just buy 'em a $5 calculator.

And you teach them cursive so they can read notes from their parents. I'm not changing my habits just to compensate for a deficiency in the little twerps' education.

[discostu]

Notice most of that stuff is in the same basic category as grocery lists, quick jotted notes not worth turning a computer on for. And most importantly it can all be printed just as fine. The purpose of cursive was reducing vertical movement on quill pens because they really don’t handle it well, used a quill lately? So printing is fine. If you want to use cursive good for you, but is that a reason to teach it to the masses? No.

Yes being able to thoughts onto some form of page in a cogent manner is one of the basic skills that should be taught in school. But writing != cursive. You and I are writing to each other quite extensively now without cursive. Nowhere in the dictionary definition of the word http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/writing do you find cursive. We can teach every aspect of writing to students that they need and never touch cursive.

If their parents want to write them notes in cursive then the parents can teach them cursive.

[RansomOttawa]

Notice most of that stuff is in the same basic category as grocery lists, quick jotted notes not worth turning a computer on for.

And it still accounts for about 50% of my daily paperwork.

And most importantly it can all be printed just as fine.

Though not as quickly. Printing is less efficient because you have to lift the pen off the paper constantly (instead of just between words).

The purpose of cursive was reducing vertical movement on quill pens because they really don’t handle it well, used a quill lately?

I write regularly with a fountain pen, as a matter of fact. So yes.

You and I are writing to each other quite extensively now without cursive.

Well, if you don't want to equivocate on the definition of "writing" in question (i.e. handwriting) you and I are in fact typing to one another.

Nowhere in the dictionary definition of the word http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/writing do you find cursive.

You don't find a mention of block letters, either. That proves nothing, except that the exact style of lettering is not part of the definition of writing per se.

Why shouldn't it be taught? It's fast, efficient, traditional, makes the writing of everyone elese readable to them, and everybody's done it for hundreds of years. I don't see a minus here.

[discostu]

The speed difference between printing and cursive is negligible if it even exists. Really it’s all about practice, what you do most you’ll do fastest. For me printing has always been fastest because I only used cursive on demand from a teacher.

I didn’t equivocate on the word writing, I gave you the dictionary link, among the definitions was this kind of writing, not among the definitions was cursive.

And with the style of the letters not being part of writing we know we can teach children to write without teaching them cursive.

It should be taught because it is post dated and not used. It’s NOT faster, it’s NOT more efficient, it’s antiquated which is very different from traditional, it does NOT make the writing of everyone else readable because styles differ as much if not more in cursive than print (guaranteed you couldn’t read my mother’s cursive, I’ve been trying for 43 years and can’t get more than 1/4 of it), and while everybody USED to do it most folks DON’T anymore. The minus is that it’s a complete waste of time, most folks are like me, we suffered through it in school and only used it when forced and the minute we were out stopped. Since it’s something we know 99% of the students will stop doing the minute they’re out of school there’s simply no reason to waste time on it.

[RansomOttawa]

The minus is that it’s a complete waste of time, most folks are like me,

Well, good for you, then.

[St_Thomas_Aquinas]

They can use the free time to teach the high school kids how to tell time. My wife, who works in a Massachusetts suburban supermarket, has worked with several who can’t. And forget about making change.

[discostu]

Sorry that bothers you but the facts are there. Just look on this thread, read the article, read other articles on the subject. The vast majority of people abandon cursive the minute nobody is making them use it. Some folks like it, but most don’t. And with the level of computerization in our life even hand printing is becoming something people don’t do, but at least those characters are the same ones we see in typed documents so teaching that has other uses. If you don’t write cursive you’ll never see it. It’s a printed world now.