Last fall I remember being astounded to find out that cursive writing was no longer a part of my local elementary school's curriculum. I simply could not understand why cursive writing would be taken out of school, because to me it is not simply a means of writing. Cursive writing allows each and every one of us to develop our own style. A style that includes our personal signature- something that we use to separate ourselves as a form of identification. So to me it seemed illogical to take cursive writing out of the curriculum of our educational institutions.
Some of my friends and even members of the educational system told me to accept this change, because it was a sign of our times. They implored me to accept the new ways in which children were processing information such as, Text messaging, e-mail, and computers. I simply could not fathom this as an excuse to eliminate cursive writing from the educational process. My head was spinning, my argument to them was the question that popped into my head when I first heard this news, and that was: "If we don't teach our children how to write in cursive, how will they sign their name on important documents, such as, their Social Security card, car loans, bank loans, passport, and even their mortgages?" I was eager for an answer, because the responses I was getting was "They'll pick it up somewhere" or "That is the result of state mandated tests, they are taking up teachers' time so the kids have to pick it up on their own". And my thought was, "Really, really, we are going to leave this educational teaching to ...they will pick it up on their own!?! or blaming it on state tests!?!"
I was not only irritated by these thoughts, but appalled by the lack of understanding for what a loss this is for us as a society. How are we to compare with other nations, when we refuse to teach our children basic concepts? To me, cursive writing was a major part of my education, it was the big important step alongside multiplication tables prior to entering middle school. I mean when you look back at your childhood there are important stages and concepts one remembers learning: tying your shoes,someone reading you a story, how to read on your own, spelling your name, making your first friend, adding numbers, riding your bike without training wheels, calling someone on the phone. Cursive writing was among these, some students of course, dreaded the process, but others practiced until they reached their goals. And honestly, the same can be said for multiplication tables, some of us, hated every moment of the process, while others embraced the concept of numbers. My point is just because some of us despise learning something, does it make it not important to our well-being as a citizen?
Of course, not. Oftentimes the concepts that were harder for us to grasp are the ones we need most. Therefore, I think we should not just replace our well-established technology for new. Does this mean I think we should toss all new technology out, of course, not, but there needs to be a happy medium.
This point was raised in an article written by Associated Press Writer Tom Breen, entitled "Cursive writing may be fading skill, but so what?". In this article, Breen quotes Paula Sassi, a certified master graphologist, "People still have to write, even if it's just scribbling".
Another point, I would like to make is that texting is becoming its' own language. I personally have friends who are younger and grew up with owning a cellphone in their early teen years and I will admit, trying to decipher their encrypted words can be rather challenging. I also have many friends that are college professors and become very irritated when their students turn in essays in a text-language format. And I deeply understand this frustation because many of the words become intangible for instance, bak = back, but if one is reading this as it is written, one might first think this is a shorter version of bake or black. Another one that I have encountered is dis = this, but from slang definitions, this could appear to mean that one is avoiding another person, or disapproving of that person or thing. The other two that I truly just do not get are: bi = by and wit = with. I do not understand using bi in place of by because, it is not any shorter and bi by definition usually means two of something. Nor do I understand wit in place of with, when in writing, texting or emailing it would be just as easy to use w/, to show with. Now with that said, I am not against text-language, but I also admit, I am not totally text-language savvy.
In conclusion I think that we must realize that there need to be foundations, if we want to develop a society, where a majority are sufficiently skilled writers, then we need to teach them how to start with rough drafts and this includes taking notes by hand and transferring them into larger concepts through a word processor.
I originally wrote this piece back in 2009, since then a few more things have occurred to me regarding the need to teach cursive writing. When I first realized this wasn't being taught anymore, my first response was, but people need their own signature as way of identity. I still agree with this thought, I mean every time a new president is elected into office one of the first things we do is have a graphologist interpret what their signature says about them. I was recently told that cursive writing is not critical to one's education. I want to argue this point, it is critical, or we need to admit that by removing something from our education, something else will replace it. Ah! Ha! And just what is going to replace it...have you given much thought to biometric identification? Consider Frank Abagnale on steroids, don't remember who he is, have you seen Catch Me, If You Can?
And this leads me to pose the new things that have occurred to me since I wrote this back in 2009. The first thing that came across my mind when I wanted to argue with the person who told me cursive writing is no longer critical was ,but how are students meant to read and interpret documents? You see, my undergraduate work was in Liberal Studies, which meant I had three concentrations: English, History and Religion. So you can well imagine the types of "old" documents I came across in my studies. And yeah, sure they are often translated in a form of standard English that one can read, but then I am relying on the person(s) that translated those documents. And for me, if we just use the Bible as an example of how relying on someone's translation can lead us to interpreting things in one way is problematic. I chose the Bible because there have been so many translations made, making it clear that certain words simply do not translate from one language to another. It also shows that depending on who is commissioning the work/document to be translated can have it translated with certain meanings swayed to their direction of power. Another point to be made with translating is often words are removed or left out, which also changes the document. When I raised this point to a peer in my education studies, she realized that if her students can't write cursive they may not be able to read it; and therefore, would not be able to read The Declaration of Independence without it being translated. As a teacher, this seems easy enough to tackle, just get a translation of the document and proceed with your lesson. But, yet again, this raised an "ah! ha!" moment for me.
If students are not being taught cursive then are they able to read cursive writing? The answer, probably not. So to all of you teachers who are writing responses on your students' assignments , whether high school or college aged, did it ever occur to you why they may not understand you at all? This raises another point, what type of deprivation is this? Is this print deprivation or something else and how do we shrink the gap that has occurred with the growth of generations without this knowledge and are consumed by the technical age?
This brings me back to Frank Abagnale on steroids and the dawn of the age of biometric identification. Biometric identification will be the future signature of every individual, whether it is our fingerprint or scanning our eye (optimapping). I would like to see us revert back and teaching our children to write in cursive, but sadly I think that time has passed. For me, cursive writing teaches a person to slow down, to pay attention to detail, and to realize the beauty of all languages. Its' dying flame saddens me as it makes me aware that the children of today will not be able to read the letters and diaries of their grandparents, and quite possibly their parents, unless someone is able to translate for them. So yet another chapter closes and we say so long to the discoveries in the boxes in the attic.
As for me, I plan to continue to teach whoever is willing to learn the art of cursive writing, because as my high school journalism teacher, Ms. Bonner taught me, "the pen is mightier than the sword" -Edward Bulwer-Lytton from his play, Richelieu .
In the past when literacy was a luxury, handwriting was an art form. Some teachings of swordsmanship stress good penmanship to promote practicing proper form. As a graffiti artist myself (I only paint on stuff I own.. its just the style of art) the words (or word) itself is art. I like to think of it as poetry with pictures, where a single word can tell a story. My fascination with handwriting and art with words began when I started to learn cursive writing in elementary school. I can't imagine how different my life would be if I had never had that learning experience..
ReplyDeleteFurthermore.. if you cant write in cursive, how are you supposed to read it?
utter insanity.. all of it..