In an office environment there are many notes written in cursive. Many historical documents are in cursive. If you are tracing your ancestry you will find many of the documents which must be researched are in cursive. In the legal profession many court orders are written in cursive. If you wish to be a title abstractor you will need to read cursive. Prescriptions are often written in cursive. Not knowing cursive renders one partially illiterate. As a parent and employer I am disturbed by the lack of practical skills of today's children. Skills such as counting change, cursive, reading a ruler, knowing how many ounces are in a pound, feet in a mile, the points of the compass and how to write a coherent sentence I have found lacking in today's children. But they can do well on the Common Core tests!! This is the problem with federal standards on education. If the standards are bad every public school student in the country is rendered unskilled. The purpose of the schools shifts from teaching children to obtaining and maintaining federal funding. There must be a better way to teach than eliminating subject matter until there is so little left to learn that a student cannot help but to be proficient at what is left.
I feel that writing (especially cursive) should stay in all of our schools. I teach fourth, fifth, and sixth graders. Recently I had a sixth grader who did not know how to write his signature or sign his name. He has never heard of cursive writing or signing his signature. Our children are into too much game playing and not interested in "cursive" writing.
I recently sent my daughter's son a greeting card on which I added a paragraph hand written at the bottom. I was shocked when my daughter said she had to read it to him because he couldn't read cursive cause they don't teach it at his school. This to me is the crux of the problem. We will be raising a generation of the written word illiterates. There is an immediate connectivity between the spontaneity of writing something by hand with creativity which will be forever lost if everything will have to be written on a keyboard.
It is definitely important, and should be taught!! What will happen when they have to sign their name for important documents or checks? It is also a help for reading, since the letters are connected and kids see one word instead of several letters. And think about kids with dyslexia. Less letters look alike, particularly b and d. We must save our cursive!
Things such as penmanship should always maintain strict documentation. It is part of mankind's history and development. If the understanding of cursive ever does slip out of society's knowledge then we may find ourselves with another large amount of information which cannot be deciphered. Much like we face today with writing from centuries ago.
Hello, I support that schools should teach cursive. I, myself actually still use cursive as my writing. It may not be the easiest writing tool but the basics should be taught. I am not saying people should write in cursive; I am just saying that schools should teach cursive. People are into technology and games too much. Especially in South Korea, gaming is crazy! We should change all that and have people read and write! READ AND WRITE! We can't go back to old-school with the cursive. Which is probably important
Students should learn cursive writing, along with regular manuscript writing. This world hasn't gone completely paperless yet, so students still need to learn. Cursive writing is an important handwriting form to know, and students not learning it are being deprived of a basic skill that they may need in their future.
Humans, even in a modern society, still sign documents which requires a basic working knowledge of cursive script. There may come a time when electronic signatures are all that is needed to complete legal documents. However, there are still contemporary processes that require handwritten copies of someone's writing. Until we move to a totally paperless society, there should be cursive classes in school.
All the modern technology has all but dehumanized the younger generation. Children are thinking less and texting, video gaming and surfing the web more. Do not take cursive writing away from the curriculum. That's the only way a person can "identify" themselves on checks, or any other document that requires a personal "mark". Our signature validates who we are and is "somewhat" unique to each individual. It's hard to prove that you didn't "print" your name when nearly everyone can print, but a signature has its own unique format based on the writer. I think we, as a nation, have let too much of our old-school practices go ... but don't let our identity go too.
Hey i am Evi from West Virginia I came on here because we are doing a paper on this debate. Yes kids should learn cursive writing because lots of teachers use cursive writing old documents are in cursive . Lots of important papers require a cursive signature so you should at least learn how to write your name in cursive.
"Cursive" is JUST ONE FORM of script writing, and far from the best of them. Other forms -- like Italic, Copperplate and Blackletter -- are far more legible, easier to learn, quicker to teach, and frankly more beautiful. Cursive, on the other hand, tends to degenerate rapidly into that illegible scrawl for which doctors are notorious -- which has caused thousands of deaths from "medical errors". Just ask any pharmacist. If only for the lives it has cost, Cursive deserves to die!
No students should not have to learn cursive. One reason is because it is hard work and it takes a long time to learn. Another reason is because it is just another way to write the alphabet. The last reason is because your just learning the alphabet again. For this reason schools should not have to learn cursive learning.
The cost of cursive it too high... Not just financially.
The time wasted in the classroom on teaching cursive costs students more than just free time. 15 minutes per day (avg. Time spent teaching cursive) could be used to teach one of the core content areas. Time is too precious to spend on this archaic writing style...
Handwriting matters — but does cursive matter? The fastest, clearest handwriters join only some letters: making the easiest joins, skipping others, using print-like forms of letters whose cursive and printed forms disagree. (Sources below.)
Reading cursive matters, but even children can be taught to read writing that they are not taught to produce. Reading cursive can be taught in just 30 to 60 minutes — even to five- or six-year-olds, once they read ordinary print. (In fact, now there's even an iPad app to teach how: named. "Read Cursive," of course — http://appstore.Com/readcursive .) So why not simply teach children to read cursive — along with teaching other vital skills, including some handwriting style that's actually typical of effective handwriters?
Educated adults increasingly abandon cursive. In 2012, handwriting teachers were surveyed at a conference hosted by Zaner-Bloser, a publisher of cursive textbooks. Only 37 percent wrote in cursive; another 8 percent printed. The majority — 55 percent — wrote a hybrid: some elements resembling print-writing, others resembling cursive. When most handwriting teachers shun cursive, why mandate it?
Cursive's cheerleaders sometimes allege that cursive makes you smarter, makes you graceful, adds brain cells, or confers other blessings no more prevalent among cursive users than elsewhere. Some claim research support, citing studies that consistently prove to have been misquoted or otherwise misrepresented by the claimant.
So far — in this article, this thread, and elsewhere — whenever a devotee of cursive has claimed the support of research, one or more of the following things has become evident when others examine the claimed support:
/1/ either the claim (of research support for cursive) provides no traceablew source,
/2/ if a source is cited, it is misquoted or is incorrectly described (e.G., an Indiana University research study comparing print-writing with keyboarding is usually misrepresented by cursive's defenders as a study "comparing print-writing with cursive"),
/3/ the claimant _correctly_ quotes/cites a source which itself indulges in either /1/ or /2/.
What about signatures? In state and federal law, cursive signatures have no special legal validity over any other kind. (Hard to believe? Ask any attorney!)
All writing, not just cursive, is individual — just as all writing involves fine motor skills. That is why, six months into the school year, any first-grade teacher can immediately identify (from print-writing on unsigned work) which student produced it.
Mandating cursive to preserve handwriting resembles mandating stovepipe hats and crinolines to preserve the art of tailoring.
Handwriting research on speed and legibility:
/1/ Steve Graham, Virginia Berninger, and Naomi Weintraub. “The Relation between Handwriting Style and Speed and Legibility.” JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH, Vol. 91, No. 5 (May - June, 1998), pp. 290-296: on-line at http://www.Jstor.Org/stable/pdfplus/27542168.Pdf
/2/ Steve Graham, Virginia Berninger, Naomi Weintraub, and William Schafer. “Development of Handwriting Speed and Legibility in Grades 1-9.”
JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH, Vol. 92, No. 1 (September - October, 1998), pp. 42-52: on-line at http://www.Jstor.Org/stable/pdfplus/27542188.Pdf
All writing styles and fonts, whether it's basic handwriting, D'Nealian handwriting, Times New Roman, or Helvetica, have roughly the same letterforms (the only letters that can vary are a, g, and k). Cursive is a mess. You have a G that looks like a harp rectangle, an r that looks like an n, an n that looks like an m, an m with an extra hump, a Q like a 2, and a Z that looks like a strange vacuum beast sucking the other letters in. It's unreadable unless you are over 40.
Most people for cursive are the types who believe that society must never change (i.e., "I did this in school, you must too"). Handwriting is less important in the technology age, and if we ever lose electricity, we can always go back to typewriters which do not require power. Or just use a more readable script (i.e. PRINTING) for writing. Writing is about practicality. Let cursive be dead.
Most people's cursive writing is horrible and hard to read, and writing in cursive doesn't really seem to help them write any faster than regular print, so what is the point? No important documents are ever accepted or published in cursive writing, they have to be typed and printed from a computer (which is faster and neater anyway).
Imagine if all that time wasted on teaching cursive went towards teaching something more useful like math, science, or technology? And think of how much more efficient the world would be if we didn't have to worry about trying to read people's sloppy cursive scribbling!
If your cursive writing is so bad that it can't be read by average people, you shouldn't be writing in cursive.
In the twenty first century typing on a computer is more common than writing in cursive. Teaching should evolve with what is needed and what is needed now is typing. Some people may argue that you need cursive to read historical documents but honestly, you can find them in print form on the computer.
In the past, writing was the main source of communication, used for all work daily. The ability to write quickly was necessary. These days it's just no longer necessary, most work is done on computers. Writing is still needed but not to the extend it once was. It is simply unnecessary.
Cursive is not necesary at all in society any longer besides of course our signature. Other than that it's kind of a waste of time. In fact after spending months learning it I have almost completely forgotten it because it is never used today. It has nothing to do with "technology" or "video games" it's simply not useful.
Cursive's role in society is less significant in modern day. Although writing does play a part in society, cursive is less important than other things that students can learn and use in everyday life. Students have more vital skills to learn than handwriting. Teaching cursive in schools is less important now that society has developed.