Cursive, Anyone?

By Tom

Back in the mid-eighties, when I was fresh out of college and looking for a teaching job, I stopped by the Everett School District to apply for a position teaching fifth grade. When I checked in with the receptionist I was handed a piece of notebook paper and a pen and told to write an essay. I forgot what the topic was supposed to be, but I remember specifically being told to write in cursive. Unfortunately, I did not see that coming.

Needless to say, I didn't get that job. But I shook it off and went on to become a third grade teacher. That's the grade in which every American student learns how to write a paragraph, how to multiply and divide, how to subtract with borrowing and (ironically) how to write in cursive.

But that might be changing.

People are beginning to wonder if it still makes sense to teach cursive. Lots of people. The debate seems to go something like this:

• Cursive looks nice, especially in the context of a thank-you letter.
• Hardly anyone sends letters anymore, and if they do, it's usually done on a computer.
• Cursive is faster than manuscript.
• Not for everyone; besides, computers are even faster.
• If we don't teach kids to write in cursive, they'll never be able to read in cursive.
• That's a stupid reason; an argument that eats itself.
• People need to know cursive in order to sign their name. Especially if they become famous.
• Touche'

I'm not really sure where I stand. The state and the school districts are uncharacteristically vague on the subject. My district simply requires us to teach kids how "to communicate legibly." With all the demands placed on our instructional time (See Tracey's post below) it's hard to justify the time it takes to teach something that most students will never use. On the other hand, I consistently have two or three students in every class who blossom as writers after learning to write in cursive. It might have something to do with increased fluency or maybe they're just proud of how their writing looks. I'm not sure. Other kids, however, find it frustrating.

So as far as I'm concerned, the jury's still out. This year I'm planning to come back from Winter Break and teach cursive to my class. I'm not going to obsess over it, though, and I'm not going to require that they write everything in cursive by the end of the year, as I have in the past. I'll probably teach them a letter or two each day and then have them practice while I read aloud.

And then I'll think about it over the summer and perhaps reconsider. Or perhaps not.

What do you think?

Comments

[Tom]

Interesting question, Bob. When I think about my own writing, I use kind of a manuscript/cursive hybrid when I'm in a hurry and writing to myself, I use cursive when I'm being formal, and I use manuscript when I'm trying to be clear. But I mostly use a keyboard. (And now I'm starting to text on my phone a lot.) I think you're right, giving students different options is important. The question is balance: how much time do we spend teaching all the different forms of writing?

[Bob Heiny]

Do you think, Tom, that your students will never use cursive because they don't know how to do it so it makes a positive difference for them or because the will know how and will not use it anyway? It seems to me that the more options they have the more likely they will use them.

[Tom]

Still more No's than Yes's, but I think the middle ground might be the best route: Introduce cursive as an option without spending an inordinate amount of time on it. Content and spelling will always be more important, but presentation does matter.

[Rena]

Yes, this is an ongoing debate for sure. Districts are quite soft on the issue. Down in first grade the students yearn to write in cursive. So... I teach them how to write their names, should they ever become famous and need to autograph something. Then they can't wait until after winter break to learn cursive, it seems to be some right of passage. By fourth grade, they often revert back to print. So, I agree, at some point in ones life cursive should be studied, practiced as an experience then individuals should be allowed to choose which is most comfortable for them. Until you get that all important application that states clearly at the top - PRINT - I like your idea of teaching and letting them practice as you read. This allows time for those very interested in practicing, and those not as interested in listening more closely to the story.

[Mark]

Nice Brian...I like it!

...but the success of that hinges on the brain's ability to reorganize the letters in to the proper spelling...which is tough to do if they've never learned it.

[Brian]

Mark, I think spelling is overrated by people who know how to spell:
"Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at an Elingsh uinervtisy, it deosn'tmttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht frist and lsat ltteer is at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae we do not raed ervey lteter by it slef but the wrod as a wlohe."

[Kristin]

It's true that most writing is done on a keyboard, but I think cursive - like tying a shoe, being able to tell time on an analog clock, or use a phone book - is still a valuable skill. Not because communication in cursive is worth more than anything else, but because it requires kids to develop fine motor skills.

Even if they never write in cursive, their hands are still trained to shape letters in two different ways.

One thing I've seen in my years as a teacher, with the increased communication via phones or internet, is that handwriting in general has taken a turn for the worse. A child who is thinking and writing at a high level looks almost illiterate when his handwriting is illegible.

So, couldn't legibility be taught through print? Sure, but I think it can be taught better through both print and a little cursive.

[Mark]

On one hand, I do believe there are distinct connections between fluency of writing, fluency of oral reading, and overall literacy. When kids know how to spell correctly, for example, I believe that their understanding of the nuances of language is greater.

I don't know that spending time teaching cursive is the best use of already taxed instructional time. I think most adults nowadays end up writing in a kind of hybrid fast-print/cursive mutation. I get a lot of freshmen who cannot read cursive, particularly unusual looking letters like the capital G and I and the lowercase z or f.

I would rather see the time devoted to cursive refocused on basic spelling and vocabulary. If they're old enough to memorize two different ways to write each lowercase and capital letter, they're old enough to be able to use homophones correctly, and they are old enough to never misspell the words definitely, beginning, and are/our ever again.

[Travis A. Wittwer]

Cursive has historically been used as the formal way to present when writing. Given computers and word-processing, a new form of formal writing exists. My youngest son is in a Montessori school and all writing is done in cursive as the instructional philosophy dictates the connection between cursive and development.

I do not have any strong opinions on the matter, but do think that communication is the end goal, not the look. If cursive is forced, it will not be useful.

By the way, I composed this on a smart-phone with auto-spell correct and intuitive spelling. For cursive to continue its use in school, it will have to stay ahead of the curve.

[Tom]

Looks like the No's are ahead two to one.

Responding to Teachin: I agree that keyboarding is far more important than cursive, but I'm not sure third grade is the year to launch a full-out blitz to teach keyboarding. Middle school seems more appropriate, since those students will be using their skills right away.