An old picture, on the back a description written in cursive-Kids can't read it

a reply to: StoutBroux

The question is why is it being eliminated? And some of the posts have asked this.

I had handwriting classes when I was at school in Africa which was what you call cursive script. I know very few of the younger generation that can even writing joined up let alone in a script. When I came to the UK some schools still did handwriting lessons but it seemed to fade out after the 80's.

Its purpose was supposedly to encourage artistic flow, discipline and neatness...but then came word processors and then computers so now pretty much redundant. Most kids can't spell or write but can text at 100wpm!

This was the lady we had to follow, and boy was it a terrible lesson for those of us who were hopeless and art and curves
Mary Champion handwriting

However, I must add that it has come in quite handy now for my crafting business, for freehand writing on glasses etc which people often comment on

a reply to: PhyllidaDavenport

How does a computer encourage artistic flow and neatness, or as you said makes cursive redundant?

Its purpose was supposedly to encourage artistic flow, discipline and neatness...but then came word processors and then computers so now pretty much redundant. Most kids can't spell or write but can text at 100wpm!

a reply to: seasonal

i think i can answer that - time constraints

unless you are going to raise the high school graduation age - or increase the length of the school day - you have a fixed " number of hours " to teach the curriculum

showing my age - i was in the first year to do " computer studies " as a school exam subject - before then whe had a optional computer club at lunch time and 45 min after school - i think my parents had to pay 50 pence / week for me to join

now computers are ubiquitous in schools

originally posted by: DISRAELI

originally posted by: SRPrime
Cursive isn't any faster, this is a myth, you're also still plunking down one letter at a time.

I've tried both systems, so from personal experience I can confirm that the speed of cursive is not a myth.
It comes from not having to lift the pen between letters.

There is a keyboard everywhere, or a voice recorder/microphone everywhere

A dangerous assumption. What happens on the day when it isn't true, when you want to make a quick note of something that you've seen, and you happen not to have a laptop in your pocket?

Upper class people had better educations and wrote in script/calligraphy, lower class people wrote in print or couldn't read/write.

Nonsense. You're getting confused with special types of script, like Italics. Ordinary cursive used to be taught in state schools on a universal basis (my classmates were farmers' children). "Being able to do joined up writing" became a rite of passage and a metaphor, indicating that someone had graduated from the semi-literacy of their infant years. Social class had nothing to do with it.

The time you save by not lifting up the pen is then wasted by adding extra humps to existing letters. It's not faster -- and I guarantee you that I write faster in print than cursive. You write faster in cursive because you've written in cursive more and your print blocks and letter spacing are probably too large. You practice one thing more, it become faster than the way you don't practice it. For instance -- if you just stopped writing in cursive, do you believe that your speed wouldn't increase over time? Of course it would. The more you do something the faster and more efficient you get at it, and cursive really doesn't offer any advantage.

P.S. Italics is not a "type" of writing -- it's just writing slanted -- you can write italics in print or cursive. Social class also had everything to do with it -- you're just not going back far enough. Cursive comes from Calligraphy in it's earliest form, but was adopted by the Romans who based their cursive off of Carolingian Italics, which was more like print, with calligraphic flair. Sure the letters were joined by not lifting the pen -- however, the letters were essentially normal print letters.

Carolingian Italic

This is what it looked like -- I reckon even the Ops 11 year old that couldn't read cursive could identify the letters used in this image.

Regardless, if you don't have a keybaord around -- they still teach how to write. So if you need to jot something down real quick, there is no tangible advantage to cursive. If your argument is it saves time, on a quick note, what's it saving you? Milliseconds? Whoa, so dangerous.

You'd be correct if we weren't teaching kids how to write anymore, but phasing out a form of writing is not dangerous, if you fall in some kind of gap between technology, Print will still allow you to jot something down really quick like..... So I'm not really seeing your point, in fact -- you don't really have one.

There is no such thing as "Ordinary Cursive" as there are many different "Font" types for cursive -- and they were taught over different time periods. The Cursive from 1980 is quite different than the cursive used by Hamlet, for instance.

a reply to: ignorant_ape

How did the teachers manage 3 short years ago?

a reply to: seasonal

I doesn't, that's what I said. The precision of cursive handwriting does. We were also taught shorthand at the same time even though we were told it would probably be obsolete because of audio typing which was coming into businesses, I found it incredibly useful for alsorts.

Oh and I still can't write well in capitals or not joined up! Give me "joined up" handwriting every time

a reply to: PhyllidaDavenport

I mis under stood

a reply to: seasonal

no idea - i has spent the last 35 years avoiding schools and children

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: StoutBroux

The question is why is it being eliminated? And some of the posts have asked this.

The better question is why is it needed? As I've said, I'm proficient in cursive as much as any other older person is. But I don't write in cursive anymore, I write a hybridized cursive/print combo script, which I'm sure would drive the purists insane. I DGAF what they think or like, though, it's the right speed & legibility for me. I'm much slower writing in pure cursive, and very quick, but chicken-scratchy in pure print. I write very neatly and legibly, at a medium pace with my hybrid version. That blows that old "cursive is faster" myth right out of the water.

I have very seldom needed to use pure cursive in life versus pure print, other than for signing my name. Which has evolved into a chicken scratch of it's own, not much like a "proper" cursive sig anymore at all. What it boils down to is not any mark of any kind of success or high-bar at all anymore. It's part aesthetics, part personal preference as to who writes what way and why. That's all.

a reply to: ignorant_ape

You are a wise human.

so, when people can`t even read the constitution they will have take someone elses word for what it says, what could possibly go wrong with that?

a reply to: Tardacus

No silly FB will have a page dedicated to the constitution (unabridged promise) and FB's 6,000 word manifesto.

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: StoutBroux

The question is why is it being eliminated? And some of the posts have asked this.

It's obviously been answered as well, apparently it isn't needed by a great majority of people. I'm stating it is a necessary skill. For things like old photographs, old letters, genealogy research and things that haven't been re-done with new age equipment and can't be looked up on line or some other way. Granted, the need is less as time goes by, and I also disagree that printing by hand is as fast to write as cursive. I would have dropped out of college in my first few weeks if I had to hand print my class notes. Now everyone uses a laptop so yahoo....really. Wish the technology was available way back when but it wasn't. But, now I can read and write cursive and standard printing, and I can type really really fast! So my horizons are expanded!

I suppose if I were younger, I wouldn't give as much thought to it if I didn't use it. But it's nice to be learned enough that if you need a simple skill you have it. And how much more does it cost to teach cursive writing in grade school? They teach all kinds of stuff children don't need in school these days. There are many things I learned that I don't use but I'm glad I know what I know because my overall depth of understanding is greater.

a reply to: ignorant_ape

There is a little bit of ability there. But it is not something that is a easily done.

I am going to have to show how to read it, not a huge problem, and I did not realize this until the picture with the cursive came up.

I didn't realize they stopped teaching cursive in schools. Stupid me.

Why? What's the intent behind it? Learning how to write in multiple forms is very good for a developing brain. Helps with foreign languages later. It's also part of our history, cursive is part of the fabric of our society. I also wonder, what was this part of the curriculum replaced with? Anything valuable or something like teaching white kids they're already guilty?

I just reviewed cursive quickly. The capital Q was the only letter I didn't remember. I was caught thinking however that cursive is art, it looks better, it's stylish. I think from now on I'm going to write in cursive again. Anyone who can't understand, unless foreign, I'll immediately know doesn't have the intellect which is worth my time. Then I save time. Awesome.

So many younger folks today can't even use "your/you're" or "there/their/they're" correctly in printed English. In the 80's and 90's, we knew both proper grammar and how to use it in print and cursive. So really, the younger generation, say ~23 and below, might be the dumbest we've ever seen and only getting dumber. We're talking the base and breadth of knowledge here.

a reply to: MysticPearl

The reasons seem to be varied. I think it is a good idea to teach it. It challenges and may help with other things in the students classes.

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: ketsuko

Oh sorry, I thought you meant proof reading as a profession, press releases, legal documents and such like.

I do that too. I was also a teacher for a few years.

But the process of handwriting is an important tool for helping children to develop fine motor control.

originally posted by: FHomerK
a reply to: seasonal

Then you, my friend, need to teach him how to read cursive.

Just like all of the other things we teach out children that our "education system" does not.

Oh and wow we are paying out the nose in property tax and still have to teach. Lazy subpar "educators". We need to be able to spend our tax burden where we will.

originally posted by: FHomerK
a reply to: seasonal

Then you, my friend, need to teach him how to read cursive.

Just like all of the other things we teach out children that our "education system" does not.

This ^ ^ ^ ^