Jump to content

Menu

Was told NOT to teach cursive


Recommended Posts

DD#2 [K'er] has been doing cursive on the whiteboard so I was going to start teaching her. During the PTC today I asked if they could send home some cursive sheets for her to do. The teacher said no. She said it would confuse her reading. That she would confuse Print letters and cursive letters.

 

Would teaching her cursive really confuse her? She knows all her print letters.

 

I also asked for more challenging work in Math. She again refused stating she is progressing nicely.

 

DD is in the highest levels of group according to skill. Why would you NOT want to challenge her if she is continually saying she is bored and it takes her less than 5 mins to complete a math sheet [connect the dots] she brings home.

 

According to her "progress report" she meets everything they have been doing. There is nothing she needs help with other than practicing her printing.

 

So I guess I will continue my before schooling without teacher support.

 

The protocol issue was resolved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 105
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Teach her what you want to teach her and phooey on the classroom teacher. No teacher or school board approval required --that's the beauty of afterschooling.

 

I taught ps primary grades for 7 years, and never heard of any child struggling with reading because he had learned to write in cursive. Your daughter's teacher may have different information, but I still say do what you want and enjoy it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Would teaching her cursive really confuse her? She knows all her print letters.

 

 

My kids learned cursive (before they learned how to print)in their Montessori school when they were three. They never had any trouble reading print letters despite having been taught in cursive.

 

The only problem my dd had was her 1st grade teacher in public school who would yell at her when she forgot and wrote her name in cursive. :confused:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My kids learned cursive (before they learned how to print)in their Montessori school when they were three. They never had any trouble reading print letters despite having been taught in cursive.

 

The only problem my dd had was her 1st grade teacher in public school who would yell at her when she forgot and wrote her name in cursive. :confused:

 

Wow! I can't believe that! Im going to purchase a cursive book and start with her anyway.

 

I can't believe that they wouldn't want to teach her and challenge her since she is showing the interest and the ability!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't believe that they wouldn't want to teach her and challenge her since she is showing the interest and the ability!

 

It was even worse for my middle son that year; he had beautiful cursive handwriting when we moved and placed him in the public school. His teacher would not permit him to write in cursive because the rest of the class had not yet been taught. He was forced to print, and his writing to this day is not as good as it was when he was eight. If I had a "redo", I would have intervened on that one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trained teachers are taught that cursive is developmentally inappropriate for kids that young. I suspect that is true for many kids.. I know neither of mine, even my very accelerated child, would not have had the motor skills for cursive in K. (But, it would have totally just been a motor skills issue. She learned to read almost effortlessly and I can't fathom that cursive would have confused the issue.)

 

But trained teachers accept what they learn in training as gospel and also often take what they know as one-size-fits-all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only thing that makes sense about your teacher's comment would be if your child learned cursive before she learned print, because she wouldn't see cursive in her learning to read books. But she didn't, so maybe your teacher is just mixing up some "rule" she heard in teacher training & not understanding the whole picture. Honestly tho, that's kinda strange that she won't send home more or more advanced work when you ask!! (I taught ps Kindergarten & preschool for 10 years, so I don't really get that)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only thing that makes sense about your teacher's comment would be if your child learned cursive before she learned print, because she wouldn't see cursive in her learning to read books. But she didn't, so maybe your teacher is just mixing up some "rule" she heard in teacher training & not understanding the whole picture. Honestly tho, that's kinda strange that she won't send home more or more advanced work when you ask!! (I taught ps Kindergarten & preschool for 10 years, so I don't really get that)

 

She did say "they are only here for 3 hours".

 

I GET that I do. BUT when my child has 'met" all the standards with no need for improvement and is going BEYOND that I would think they would give recommendations or make it more challenging for her.

 

Oh well. We will just keep doing what were doing at home in the AM:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trained teachers are taught that cursive is developmentally inappropriate for kids that young..

 

:confused:

When I went to school in Germany, cursive was taught from the very beginning; we NEVER printed. We learned to read printed books just fine.

I don't buy the confusion part.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it is silly. Teaching printing first is relatively new - a hundred years ago kids learned to write in cursive and read print, and then they learned to print themselves later.

 

And printing is actually more difficult for young kids than cursive is.

 

The only thing I would say is I wonder whether it would be confusing to be learning cursive and actually printing at the same time? I would tend to do one at a time, whichever order I did them in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trained teachers are taught that cursive is developmentally inappropriate for kids that young. I suspect that is true for many kids.. I know neither of mine, even my very accelerated child, would not have had the motor skills for cursive in K. (But, it would have totally just been a motor skills issue. She learned to read almost effortlessly and I can't fathom that cursive would have confused the issue.)

 

Actually, many OTs recommend cursive for kids who have fine motor problems and I have also read that it is recommended for kids with LDs such as dyslexia. It is easier to not have to pick the pencil up off the paper so frequently, it prevents reversals, the sequential flow forward is more natural, etc. (LOL, yesterday I was chatting with a well-known developmental optometrist, and she was very strongly in favor of cursive; long story.)

 

My ds was receiving OT services during K for significant fine motor issues. At the beginning of K, he could barely print his three-letter name in uppercase, with a fist-grip. His Montessori teacher taught cursive to all, including him. By the end of K, his cursive writing was better than mine (which isn't saying much LOL, but it was very nice). Unfortunately, his later teachers allowed all their students to print :glare:, which he does quite nicely, and I attribute his nice printing to the time he spent writing cursive.

 

As far as what teachers are taught, I have no idea, but teaching cursive first is the traditional Montessori approach. I'm bummed that my kids' school stopped that in order to make things more consistent amongst the K teachers (I have a kiddo in K at the moment and a couple more coming up).

Edited by wapiti
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

DD is in the highest levels of group according to skill. Why would you NOT want to challenge her if she is continually saying she is bored and it takes her less than 5 mins to complete a math sheet [connect the dots] she brings home.

 

 

In the school I taught at, it was policy not to give work that belonged to "next year's curriculum". The reason? It simply transferred the problem of the bored/under-challenged child from one grade to the next. We could 'enrich' in all kinds of other ways--computer games, special library trips for reading material, having the child do a special report/presentation on something that interested them but wasn't part of the 'official' curriculum, etc.--but you didn't give out work/worksheets from a different grade. Period.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, many OTs recommend cursive for kids who have fine motor problems and I have also read that it is recommended for kids with LDs such as dyslexia. It is easier to not have to pick the pencil up off the paper so frequently, it prevents reversals, the sequential flow forward is more natural, etc. (LOL, yesterday I was chatting with a well-known developmental optometrist, and she was very strongly in favor of cursive; long story.)

 

My ds was receiving OT services during K for significant fine motor issues. At the beginning of K, he could barely print his three-letter name in uppercase, with a fist-grip. His Montessori teacher taught cursive to all, including him. By the end of K, his cursive writing was better than mine (which isn't saying much LOL, but it was very nice). Unfortunately, his later teachers allowed all their students to print :glare:, which he does quite nicely, and I attribute his nice printing to the time he spent writing cursive.

 

As far as what teachers are taught, I have no idea, but teaching cursive first is the traditional Montessori approach. I'm bummed that my kids' school stopped that in order to make things more consistent amongst the K teachers (I have a kiddo in K at the moment and a couple more coming up).

 

Dd6 picked up cursive in about a week, when it took years previously to get her printing to legible levels. Cursive seems much easier for her. Also, bonus, no reversals! :) I wish we taught cursive much earlier! I say go for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "official" homework policy of DD's school is that homework will not be differentiated, period, but children will not be downgraded for failing to turn it in. My response to this announcement (made last week) was to omit their useless undifferentiated worksheets from our homework routine and return more appropriate assignments of my choosing in the same subject area. I am not going to waste time having DD find and cut out pictures of single digits in magazines (waste of a perfectly good mag!) when she needs more hands on work with regrouping tens and hundreds! Schools make up all sorts of ridiulous rules to keep the herd together. Ignore 'em. It's not high school. What can they do? If your child is showing an interest in cursive, indulge it.

Edited by Sneezyone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only problem my dd had was her 1st grade teacher in public school who would yell at her when she forgot and wrote her name in cursive. :confused:

 

That brought on a flashback of my first grade teacher calling me to her desk and reprimanding me for writing my name at the top of a page, rather than printing it. Apparently cursive was forbidden; no one had told me. I felt guilty and ashamed, and was rendered much less likely to "step out of line" again in the future . . . so I guess it all worked out like it was supposed to.

 

I think this is all part of herd management. As veggiegal said, students aren't supposed to be doing the next year's work, because it makes trouble for the next teacher down the line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, many OTs recommend cursive for kids who have fine motor problems and I have also read that it is recommended for kids with LDs such as dyslexia.

 

Yup, I've heard that too.

 

But I'm telling you, that's what trained teachers are taught - that it is developmentally inappropriate. My mom was a 3rd grade teacher for 18 years (the grade cursive is taught in her state) and that is what she was taught and insists to this day. (In fact, she thinks some are not even ready in 3rd.)

 

Not saying I agree (in fact, I introduced my dyslexic daughter cursive in 2nd because of your above point). Just saying that is what many teachers in the U.S. are taught and believe, and so that is likely why the OP received that advice. It's not out-of-nowhere bad advice, it comes from a belief in the field.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At least they teach it! I had two moms, one a teacher, in the parent's balcony at gymnastics tell me that I was behind the times and out of date for teaching my DD cursive-after all, they just need to learn to type because it's faster.

 

Except for one small thing-they're talking to someone who only learned to write at all with serious help from an OT, and who types almost exclusively. There are a LOT of places where typing just plain doesn't work well, and since the answer to that is "new computers have styluses so you can draw or whatever on the screen", you're going to need to be able to write legibly there, too!

 

Besides, my DD wanted to learn cursive because it was "pretty"-so I saw no good reason for missing that launch window :).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I guess I will continue my before schooling without teacher support.

 

The protocol issue was resolved.

 

 

That's it. Your teacher is a dead end, for you and your dd. :( I know how frustrating that can be for both of you. If she must stay in this class with this teacher, just keep up your afterschooling like you said and make it through the year. God willing you'll have a better teacher next year.

 

:grouphug:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At least they teach it! I had two moms, one a teacher, in the parent's balcony at gymnastics tell me that I was behind the times and out of date for teaching my DD cursive-after all, they just need to learn to type because it's faster.

 

/QUOTE]

 

Ohio is removing cursive writing from its state standards so it will no longer be required to be taught when those go into effect in a few years. A few of the better local districts have announced that they will continue to teach it but I am sure as funding cuts continue, that will be among the first to go.

 

Keep doing what you are doing. Your daughter will be fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only problem my dd had was her 1st grade teacher in public school who would yell at her when she forgot and wrote her name in cursive. :confused:

 

My teacher did this in SECOND!

 

Cursive will not hurt her reading. This is an excellent explanation:

 

http://donpotter.net/PDF/Cursive%20First.pdf

 

Trained teachers are taught that cursive is developmentally inappropriate for kids that young. I suspect that is true for many kids.

 

My mom was taught cursive (first) in 1st grade as a 4 year old, in 1934. It didn't inhibit her reading at all and was apparently "developmentally appropriate" for the whole class of 4-5 year olds (1 Dec cutoff date, so half the class was still 4.)

 

She can refuse to provide you with resources, but she can't dictate what you do with your child at home. It would be nice to have her cooperation, but you don't need her blessing or her permission. Best wishes!

 

:iagree::iagree:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I taught all 5 of my kids cursive first. The boxed curriculum I was using (at first) was big on cursive first, and that it is actually easier for little kids to manage. They thought it was easier for kids to manage curves and circles than straight lines and hard angles. (I was using Abeka-which is used in many private Christian schools, but actually the only thing I still use by that co. now are the handwriting books)

 

I did not see a problem with the kids in learning to read, they seemed able to place each kind of writing in its own context. Different books also use different fonts, but someone we all work it out.

 

I'd go ahead and teach it if you want to, I know that I enjoy seeing how nice looking my kids' work looks. I use a homeschool charter school, and the teacher that meets with us once a month gets all wistful at our handwriting, saying that the public school she used to teach in had abandoned handwriting decades ago.

 

(I'm lurking here, I don't after-school but I am thinking my nephews might be eventually...)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess if your daughter shows an interest and you want to spend time on that instead of math, etc., teach cursive. I don't see much point to it, personally, since printing is faster. In addition while I'm sure most children can learn to write in cursive and read print just fine, it can't hurt that printed letters look the same as what they read for most of their young lives. {shrug} Good luck.

 

She doesn't have to choose between math and cursive. American children have always managed to learn both, until this generation. Nowadays it seems that very few schoolchildren are privileged enough to receive proper instruction in either subject.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

She doesn't have to choose between math and cursive. American children have always managed to learn both, until this generation. Nowadays it seems that very few schoolchildren are privileged enough to receive proper instruction in either subject.

 

 

I agree. We are already doing Math and Reading and adding in cursive will not take any time away from her other stuff that we do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I write in cursive faster than I do in print, though admittedly my writing is more of a combination.

 

 

Mine is too. I use a print/cursive combo.

 

My DD #1 prefers print to cursive b/c it is faster for her to print but she is very meteculous when it comes to her cursive......Both her print and cursive are very neat. I wish I had her handwriting!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My point-- which I continue to think is blindingly obvious the way I wrote it-- is that in my opinion, the time could be far better spent.

 

Here's what I wrote:

 

I guess if your daughter shows an interest and you want to spend [the time you'd spend on cursive] on that instead of math, etc., teach cursive.

 

Nowhere did I state, or imply, that no other time was being spent on math, or other useful pursuits. I hope I've been clear enough.

 

What a strange explanation! Of course I understood you. I just disagreed.

 

You're talking about teaching her a new skill. Teaching takes time. You may feel it's time well spent, but it's time nevertheless. In my opinion you'd be much better off teaching her useful math or other skills. This is true even if she's getting some of those now. There's a whole world of knowledge waiting to be learned, and I just don't see any value in spending time practicing an outmoded writing system that's of no real practical value.

 

So, if you were to spend two hours a day teaching your little one, and added on ten minutes of cursive practice, you've just lengthened her school day by ten minutes. I'd say that time is better spent in an extra ten minutes of <insert more practically useful knowledge or skill learning here>. If you're implementing some sort of efficiency measures to free up the time, without impacting core subjects such as math, I say bravo!-- but still the time would be better spent on something else. That's all.

 

This argument has been made by educators and administrators in Indiana where cursive was dropped from the curriculum for the first time this year. It comes down to a weird system of pedagogical timekeeping, as far as I can tell, having more to do with classroom management and preparation for standardized tests than with the real education of individual children.

 

As I heard from a third grade teacher on the evening news this past summer, "Cursive is too hard to teach and not on the tests required for NCLB, anyway. It is high time we it go." Hoosier parents and grandparents have been astonished to hear these sentiments from public schoolteachers and administrators.

 

If something is of value, the time is not wasted. School people today think that cursive is not of value, but many Americans disagree. I am one of them, having witnessed the value of cursive in my own life and in the academic careers of my classically educated children.

 

A Defense of Cursive by Leigh Bortins

The Real Hands-On Learning by Cheryl Lowe

 

Schools have decided that many foundational tools of learning have no value in the modern world. Latin, logic, phonics, memorization of math facts and familiarity with traditional algorithms, rules for spelling, formal grammar, and now even cursive have all been jettisoned for the convenience of schoolteachers and the accommodation of the latest standardized tests. But none of these were ever without value, and they will never be outdated! They weren't a waste of time in America's past and they aren't a waste of time now. These outdated methods were and are powerful vehicles for instruction in diligence, patience, logic, and reason, laying a strong foundation for future learning.

 

Classical homeschoolers and private school teachers have learned that these supposedly outdated methods and subjects still train the minds of children for future learning. Anyone who has taught a child with classical methods has seen the difference.

 

Cursive is worth ten minutes, and no competent school would view those ten minutes as better spent on so-called core subjects. A competent school would devote sufficient time for all subjects necessary for a good education.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think it's strange, in light of the fact you disregarded the meaning of what I'd written. Since you've changed your tune, I guess we can move on.

 

 

Teaching cursive in a standard curriculum is not of any value I can see. I have seen some anecdotal benefits related by people who like using and teaching cursive, but nothing in the way of real scientific evidence. Quotes from people on homeschooling blogs, websites selling cursive curricula and materials, and the like don't qualify. A parade of horribles such as the supposed inability to read cursive doesn't qualify, either-- as someone has pointed out in this very thread, one can easily and quickly learn to read cursive if ever necessary, without building up skills necessary to use it.

 

 

One can disagree, and one can of course be wrong too. The problem with relating value from cursive seen in your own life is that it's unquantifiable, especially as you haven't lived a parallel life without cursive-- those can be quite rich with all sorts of value too-- and impossible to reproduce accurately.

 

 

Cursive is not a "foundational tool of learning". You make it sound as if a printing child will have nothing to which to moor herself, and just drift away... Nothing I've ever seen suggests that cursive is a "foundational tool of learning", although I'm happy to learn if there is something credible along those lines. What I've seen repeated ad infinitum here and elsewhere is usually false statements about relative writing efficiency.

 

 

As I understand it, cursive writing came about largely because of the physical limitations of quill pens. We've come a long way since then.

 

 

I really think this is laying it on a bit thick. By aggregation you're suggesting now that cursive is a "powerful vehicle for instruction in... logic, and reason", not to mention implying that all of the majority of people out there who favor print over cursive lack a strong foundation for their knowledge. :001_huh::willy_nilly:

 

 

I guess my best response to that is that at one time, people learned that the Earth was flat. Other people learned that it was the best thing to do to drink the Kool-Aid, still others that humans are actually thetans from a far-off place, etc. Belief is not the same as knowledge.

 

 

Any competent school, or home schooler, would view those ten minutes as better spent on just about anything else. In fact, many are actually going in that direction. It's also generally true that there simply isn't enough time in the day to teach anyone optimally. Witness the threads that pop up here every so often from angst-ridden home schoolers over whether the WTM schedule is really meant to be implemented in full, whether they're doing enough for their little ones, etc. etc. etc.

 

Slower method of writing developed for use with quill pens vs. useful knowledge? I know what will win in my not so humble opinion, every time. I might change my mind if there were some compelling evidence that the claims for the benefits of cursive were real, or that weeding out cursive from any curriculum anywhere was linked to any actual loss of real-world capability that matters.

 

At the very end of your ungracious response I finally found the only possible common ground between us: I totally agree with you that your opinion is not humble.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What a strange explanation! Of course I understood you. I just disagreed.

 

 

 

This argument has been made by educators and administrators in Indiana where cursive was dropped from the curriculum for the first time this year. It comes down to a weird system of pedagogical timekeeping, as far as I can tell, having more to do with classroom management and preparation for standardized tests than with the real education of individual children.

 

As I heard from a third grade teacher on the evening news this past summer, "Cursive is too hard to teach and not on the tests required for NCLB, anyway. It is high time we it go." Hoosier parents and grandparents have been astonished to hear these sentiments from public schoolteachers and administrators.

 

If something is of value, the time is not wasted. School people today think that cursive is not of value, but many Americans disagree. I am one of them, having witnessed the value of cursive in my own life and in the academic careers of my classically educated children.

 

A Defense of Cursive by Leigh Bortins

The Real Hands-On Learning by Cheryl Lowe

 

Schools have decided that many foundational tools of learning have no value in the modern world. Latin, logic, phonics, memorization of math facts and familiarity with traditional algorithms, rules for spelling, formal grammar, and now even cursive have all been jettisoned for the convenience of schoolteachers and the accommodation of the latest standardized tests. But none of these were ever without value, and they will never be outdated! They weren't a waste of time in America's past and they aren't a waste of time now. These outdated methods were and are powerful vehicles for instruction in diligence, patience, logic, and reason, laying a strong foundation for future learning.

 

Classical homeschoolers and private school teachers have learned that these supposedly outdated methods and subjects still train the minds of children for future learning. Anyone who has taught a child with classical methods has seen the difference.

 

Cursive is worth ten minutes, and no competent school would view those ten minutes as better spent on so-called core subjects. A competent school would devote sufficient time for all subjects necessary for a good education.

 

Amen sister:D:iagree::iagree::iagree::iagree:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I GET that I do. BUT when my child has 'met" all the standards with no need for improvement and is going BEYOND that I would think they would give recommendations or make it more challenging for her.

 

 

 

that is not how public schools are structured. They don't look to challenge them. They have standards for her grade that they have to meet with all students and that is their goal and not to challenge your child because she has already met that level. If that's what you are looking for out of school, I'm afraid you will be disappointed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

that is not how public schools are structured. They don't look to challenge them. They have standards for her grade that they have to meet with all students and that is their goal and not to challenge your child because she has already met that level. If that's what you are looking for out of school, I'm afraid you will be disappointed.

 

:iagree:

Your dd has already met the standards, so the teacher's job (in her eyes and the state) is done! Now, the only job the teacher needs to do with your dc is keep her occupied so she can work more with the dc who are not meeting standards. She is not required to challenge your dd, but she is required to make sure all students reach the set standards. Basically, you are receiving free daycare. As long as you afterschool your dc and she stays above standards, free childcare is going to be the only benefit that public education will provide. At this point you basically have three options: homeschooling, use public school as free child care and continue to afterschool or quit afterschooling and let her level out with the dc in public school, so in years to come she can actually learn something in school.

But, never expect the schools to go beyond what is required. Teachers struggle enough as it is to keep behind student up to par. They don't have the time and energy to try to excell a student who is doing wonderfully.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a data point-today we ended up "Cafe Schooling" at a local restaurant while the car was getting maintenance done. The single thing that brought not one but THREE restaurant employees over to observe what DD was doing wasn't the above grade level math or reading, or even the Latin, but the fact that she was doing copywork and writing sentences IN CURSIVE!

 

Guess that shows me just how much it's taught around here :).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I got in trouble in Kindergarten for writing my name in cursive on my papers. I thought that was ridiculous then, and I still think it's ridiculous now. My K teacher told my mom that we weren't supposed to write in cursive until 2nd grade. Whatever. My mom told me I should probably refrain from writing in cursive in kindergarten, but I continued to practice it at home. I liked it! I had asked my mom to show me how. Plus I already knew how to print.

 

Teaching her to write in cursive is not going to confuse her. You're just going to have to get a workbook on your own and do it at home, since it seems there will be no support from the school. I would also avoid advertising to her teacher that you are teaching her cursive.

 

Writing in cursive is faster than printing, because you don't have to lift your pen/pencil off the page. I can print fast, oh yes, but if I need more speed (such as taking notes from a lecture, or writing down my child's narration from history as he speaks) I switch to cursive.

 

Even my son, who is 6, and has just started learning cursive (he has learned 10 letters so far) is already faster when he writes words in cursive.

 

Also, taking 5-10 minutes to work on cursive is not going to take away from something like math. If a child has already spent 30, or 45, or 60 minutes (whatever is appropriate for their age) on math for the day, adding 10 minutes is not going to help, especially if they have hit a wall, or their eyes are glazing over. Their brains need time to rest and sleep to process the math they have learned that day. I have heard this from many people on this board, as well as observed it in my own child. However, they are able to switch topics and continue learning using a different part of their brain. Five to ten extra minutes on any one subject isn't going to do a whole lot of good (If you're already doing spelling for 15 minutes, then why do it for 25? If you're doing history for an hour, what good will an hour and 10 minutes do?) However, those 5-10 minutes could be put to good use by learning something else, such as cursive.

 

I don't see why anyone would want to limit their child's options. Cursive is not a time intensive thing to teach. Neither is typing. They can learn to print, write in cursive, *and* type. It doesn't have to be one or the other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a data point-today we ended up "Cafe Schooling" at a local restaurant while the car was getting maintenance done. The single thing that brought not one but THREE restaurant employees over to observe what DD was doing wasn't the above grade level math or reading, or even the Latin, but the fact that she was doing copywork and writing sentences IN CURSIVE!

 

Guess that shows me just how much it's taught around here :).

 

 

That's a good point. One of the first comments as I sat down for my oldest's portfolio review was, "Oh, lovely cursive!" in a shocked, but pleasantly surprised tone.

 

Fact: We are judged by appearances. Handwriting is an issue of apppearance.

 

 

And as for the time factor, I spend time in the early days teaching handwriting (cursive) just like any other mom. 2 of mine (the 2 who are old enough to count LOL) have picked up printing *naturally* after learning cursive (b/c print is EVERYWHERE and the strokes are so similar). I got a 2-for-1 deal.;) No extra time spent. My kids write fluidly in cursive, print and are working on typing regularly.

 

Obviously, I cannot be swayed from cursive first philosophy...anecdotal as my evidence may be.

 

My handwriting is wretched, my mom's handwriting is wreteched, my grandmother's handwriting is beautiful...the difference? Cursive first. I get along just fine, and my mom makes a decent living without cursive...but my grandmother's handwritten letters, notes, and poetry are of a different caliber. Appearance matters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was even worse for my middle son that year; he had beautiful cursive handwriting when we moved and placed him in the public school. His teacher would not permit him to write in cursive because the rest of the class had not yet been taught. He was forced to print, and his writing to this day is not as good as it was when he was eight. If I had a "redo", I would have intervened on that one.

 

Exactly what happened to my middle ds. He struggles with handwriting now, and he had such beautiful handwriting going into 1st grade.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, it is a bit slower. :) No kidding.

 

 

I suppose one could similarly argue for adding tiddlywinks to the curriculum; it only takes a little time per day, and one can write in cursive, print, type, and play tiddlywinks. Still, the value of the pursuit matters; wasted time is wasted time.

 

Cursive is not slower in my experience at all. Perhaps it is slower for those who never mastered cursive. I cannot imagine taking notes in print at all since it is very slow to have to lift the pencil off the paper for every single letter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know that for me, personally, I'm proficient in both printing and a mixed style which involves almost all cursive with a few capital letters that I find illegible in cursive and obnoxious to form. (Hello G!)

 

I find about equal speed in both. The legibility for me is fine, but for other people is slightly higher in printing. I always printed if given a choice, until in college when I started developing wrist pain while taking notes. I then switched to cursive and found the wrist pain eased when I switched to cursive.

 

This is purely anecdotal and not meant as a general statement that you will give your kids carpal tunnel if they print. :P

 

But for me personally, that's why I chose mostly cursive, especially for my own notes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Teaching her to write in cursive is not going to confuse her. You're just going to have to get a workbook on your own and do it at home, since it seems there will be no support from the school. I would also avoid advertising to her teacher that you are teaching her cursive.

 

Writing in cursive is faster than printing, because you don't have to lift your pen/pencil off the page. I can print fast, oh yes, but if I need more speed (such as taking notes from a lecture, or writing down my child's narration from history as he speaks) I switch to cursive.

 

Even my son, who is 6, and has just started learning cursive (he has learned 10 letters so far) is already faster when he writes words in cursive.

 

Also, taking 5-10 minutes to work on cursive is not going to take away from something like math. If a child has already spent 30, or 45, or 60 minutes (whatever is appropriate for their age) on math for the day, adding 10 minutes is not going to help, especially if they have hit a wall, or their eyes are glazing over. Their brains need time to rest and sleep to process the math they have learned that day. I have heard this from many people on this board, as well as observed it in my own child. However, they are able to switch topics and continue learning using a different part of their brain. Five to ten extra minutes on any one subject isn't going to do a whole lot of good (If you're already doing spelling for 15 minutes, then why do it for 25? If you're doing history for an hour, what good will an hour and 10 minutes do?) However, those 5-10 minutes could be put to good use by learning something else, such as cursive.

 

I don't see why anyone would want to limit their child's options. Cursive is not a time intensive thing to teach. Neither is typing. They can learn to print, write in cursive, *and* type. It doesn't have to be one or the other.

 

:iagree:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I wrote before, cursive is slower for proficient cursive users than printing is for proficient printing users, mixed styles are faster, and a mixed style using printing with some linked letters is fastest. The fact that you, a person who prefers cursive and presumably doesn't print so much by habit, find cursive faster for you doesn't show anything to the contrary, although I certainly believe you.

 

On another note, I've found during my reading up on this that it doesn't seem to be true that cursive causes problems in learning to read printed text. I did find some mentions that reading cursive takes a little longer than reading print, but that also doesn't seem to be a reason to avoid cursive.

 

In addition the additional speed of printing over cursive seems to be not a huge difference, and if someone prefers to write in what they find to be a nicer-looking style, that's fine. My point first and foremost is that there is zero speed advantage* to cursive. When people advocate for cursive writing, they usually claim huge speed advantages which are simply untrue.

 

* Despite what others have written about people oohing at a child's pretty cursive, I also think it'd be obviously false that anyone would make a decision on academic placement, or anything else that matters, on such a basis. This is more of an offhand kitchen-sink sort of rationalization in my opinion than the oft-repeated falsehood about a speed advantage.

Do you have any links to back you up that printing is faster? Of course, you could ask me the same:D Intuitively, it seems it would be faster not having to lift the pen with every letter as in print style.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If speed is the primary reason for teaching cursive, perhaps SuperWrite or Shorthand could be taught instead. I took a year long course in high school at my ps in SuperWrite. I don't use it much anymore as a sahm, but I find myself using some of the shortcuts when I am writing lists, etc. Although, you might need to know some cursive before you learn SuperWrite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I wrote before, cursive is slower for proficient cursive users than printing is for proficient printing users, mixed styles are faster, and a mixed style using printing with some linked letters is fastest.

 

I agree that writing is faster when letters are linked. Technically, when you are printing, the letters should not be connected - letters are connected when writing in cursive. So printing is going to be slower than writing in cursive.

 

* Despite what others have written about people oohing at a child's pretty cursive, I also think it'd be obviously false that anyone would make a decision on academic placement, or anything else that matters, on such a basis. This is more of an offhand kitchen-sink sort of rationalization in my opinion than the oft-repeated falsehood about a speed advantage.

Actually, I read about a study that was conducted regarding the scores of students SAT Writing Essays. The students who wrote their essays in cursive received a higher score. Edited by snowbeltmom
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


Ă—
Ă—
  • Create New...