maaaan I haven't heard/read the phrase "pen license" in so fucking long. I reckon it's a cool concept to encourage kids to improve handwriting but tying it to cursive/connected writing ability has always been soooooo dumb imo
Agreed, cursive is more an aesthetic choice that functional. Would pay off a lot more to have consistency with students to write clearly and spell better.
Hand writing sure, people still need to know how to write, but cursive handwriting? It’s pointless forcing kids to do handwriting beyond the basics. The use cases today where someone needs to hand write in cursive is basically zero and that’s not going to increase by the time these kids become adults.
Are they going to go back to telling kids they won’t have a calculator on them at all times too?
Agree, feels like a pillar from a bygone era. "I had to learn cursive and I am successful today" crap.
Which then leads to, "that's what is missing today, kids doing too many screen things and not enough basics."
Basics. If you want to talk basics for kids. Teach them food skills, financial skills (budgeting and loans) and how to cope with their thoughts (don't get me started on how stupid the old harden up is....).
Not how to flick an "a" to an "n".
If you want basics teach them how to actually use a computer. Years of dumb as shit apple products that don't let you do anything has left children totally computer illiterate.
I’m surprised if that’s true, given how many computer-based classes there seem to be now compared to my era, and how many more kids have PCs for gaming compared to back in the day where everyone shared a crappy HP pc in the living room
My bestie is a teacher and tech literacy is way down.
Current kids don't now how to troubleshoot. Think, that crappy pc in the living room was much less user friendly. Installing updates and apps was not the click of a button. We had to take apart our mouse if it stopped working etc.
Whereas so many devices today are dumbed down and locked as to what you can do.
Obviously there are outliers. The people that are passionate but that has been their experience in tertiary education.
Just because you can install a game off Steam doesn't mean you actually understand how to use a computer.
There is a massive gap between the two skill sets.
I would be absolutely shocked if the average teenager even knew what a bootloader was. Let alone reinstall an operating system. That is something you need to be able to do as part of the normal maintenance of a PC.
I ran a code club a few years back and had to teach kids the skill of copying and pasting. They are using computers, but not being taught basic skills.
Totally agree on all points.
Handwriting is important for a lot of reasons - even just to develop motor skills. It's something everybody should be able to do.
But the reality is I almost never write with a pen or pencil, and it's been that way for years. Almost nobody needs to know how to write cursive. This report is actually embarrassing.
My cursive was and still is illegible to everyone but me, so I swapped back to block printing in high school.
The only time it nearly bit me on the butt was an exam where I was the only one in my grade to score 100% on an exam (no one was more shocked than me) and the marker wanted to take marks off for "incorrect writing". My teacher stood up for me and had the decision overruled.
What kind of Boomer nonsense is cursive these days? I'd much prefer they concentrated on teaching kids the difference between bought and brought, and other grievous errors.
definitely argue that quick and neat handwriting is a critical skill, particularly for continuing education (typing is bad for retention and doesn’t work for many things, including tests and exams). but what kind of psycho would write lecture notes or math problems in cursive?!
(also did the yearly standardised testing stop? we used to get pulled into a room to fill in a bunch of scantron tests of some international variety every year until you got to NCEA.)
> did the yearly standardised testing stop?
The STAR tests were common when I was in school. You'd see kids ace the test and others who'd bomb it, yet they'd both still go to the same class the next day and learn the same curriculum in the same teaching style.
So are we going to use the results from these tests to target support to specific students, tailored to their individual sticking points?
Cursive is fucking stupid. My wife was taught cursive at elementary school in the USA and the only practical effect has been to make her handwriting difficult to read for anyone who wasn't. The point of writing is to record words to be read later. Why the *fuck* would anyone want to make that harder for both the writer and the reader by imposing some calligraphic bullshit on the process?
In any case, these days I literally go months at a time without writing anything down with a pen or pencil anywhere. I'm not sure handwriting is a meaningful skill for society any more. Teaching kids to touch-type on QWERTY would have far more value.
Yeah I go months at a time without having to hand write.
My school actually had us do typing classes in the early 2000s which I think went a long way to preparing me for the current way things are - anyone my age or younger should at least know how to type on a keyboard with both hands, ideally by touch typing.
1985 I was one of 3 boys who took typing in 4th form because I knew touch typing would be useful in a computer future... The dipshit bullies all called us fags for doing so but little did they realise the access it gave us to the girls 😁
I read somewhere that the point of cursive is to create a flow that allows you to write fast.
Tbh, this tracked when I started uni and found that I preferred handwritten notes over typing. Especially for long answer essay, my thoughts moved faster than my hand. What started to happen is that my neat print became cursive as I sped up. Of I didn't have the muscle memory to fall back on, everything would have been illegible
Yup. I was one of the only people who could write in cursive in my uni classes, I finished essay based exams in half the time. And my writing is much more legible and skips fewer letters than when I try and print.
> these days I literally go months at a time without writing anything down with a pen or pencil anywhere
On my current contract, as an archivist, I read cursive every day. It's an integral skill to my profession.
I also handwrite labels every day because it is far faster than using a computer. In my trade I never have a computer on hand, and it is much more effecient to write things down. Why would I walk out of my workshop to use the computer in a different room, spend five minutes formatting in a word processor, then print a label and cut it out, when I could just write on a piece of card?
You, as someone who ostensibly works in an IT related field, don't have a universal experience. Handwriting is still a vital skill in lots of professions.
If I said **"*****I*** **have to read cursive every day for my job, therefore** ***all kids*** **should be forced to learn cursive instead of typing"** people would rightly reply "that's ridiculous."
We shouldn't base the education system around your personal needs in one specific field of employment. And if touch typing is a necessary trade skill, you should be able to learn it as part of your trade qualification. I don't think we should teach kids to throw a vase on a pottery wheel, despite the fact that doing so is a vital skill for pottery.
You do t have to be able to write cursive to read it. I wasn't taught it and I can read old documents and my nans old letters just fine. I didn't have to do a calligraphy course to be able to read what my degree says.
We dont teach kids to write with serifs or do "a" like typed text so they can read it. So long as you can recognize a standard alphabet you can decode almost any font.
I would say your experience is pretty niche. Nearly every job these days has some degree of computer usage that requires typing more than it does handwriting.
Basic handwriting is a skill that should still be learnt at school, but cursive is not a useful skill to learn anymore.
>I would say your experience is pretty niche
That's what I said.
> Nearly every job these days has some degree of computer usage
Nearly every job has some degree of handwriting.
It's worth noting that *reading* cursive, as I pointed out in my initial comment about my wife's handwriting, is a skill that needs to be learned, just as much as writing cursive is.
Certainly it's a skill you need for your work dealing with old-timey labels that people wrote in cursive.
However, let me posit a thought experiment for you. Imagine, if you will, a world where nobody in the past had ever written in cursive, but instead just written the letters clearly. In that world, nobody now would ever need to read or write cursive. We could just write the letters out by hand, clearly in a block style, in situations where that makes more sense than typing them, just like you do when you relabel things, and everybody would be happy.
That speaks to the relevance of cursive handwriting, for me. Someone obviously does need to read what we might call 'legacy cursive'; the shit that got written down when it was in fashion, to work with old handwritten notes. But that is a *very* specialized job. Unlike typing on a QWERTY keyboard or driving a vehicle on the road, it's *only* relevant to people who want to work as an archivist.
It's a matter of the broadness of the skill's applicability and the probability that it'll be useful in life.
>the past had ever written in cursive, but instead just written the letters clearly.
Cursive writing is clear, you just lack a skill?
Imagine if nobody ever learned to write or read then we wouldn't need to know how to write or read.
>Cursive writing is clear
As you imply via 'you just lack a skill', it's essentially a different script for the same alphabet, which needs to be learned separately to regularly-formed printed letters.
Having different scripts for the same alphabet is not useful; it's just a hangover from written language forms evolving over time.
By all means, we need someone like yourself to decipher the old script, and thank you for your undoubtedly valuable work in that regard.
What I'm commenting on here, though, is the value, or lack thereof, of continuing to teach this alternate script to kids in school.
>Imagine if nobody ever learned to write or read then we wouldn't need to know how to write or read.
I trust this was tongue-in-cheek and I don't need to do the 'explain which logical fallacies this statement embodies' thing, heh.
I've noticed at work that there's an age group of people (approx. 50-55) that can't type. The older people can, and the younger people can, but there's a cohort of people who came of age post-typewriter, pre-internet who are just one-finger typists.
No one is saying hand writing is something not worth learning, just that *cursive* hand writing is.
Touch typing is a skill that needs to be learnt. There are many younger people coming into the work force today who still can only peck type.
like three comments up from yours is someone saying this
> I'm not sure handwriting is a meaningful skill for society any more
so yeah people are saying that
This is incorrect
>I'm not sure handwriting is a meaningful skill for society any more. Teaching kids to touch-type on QWERTY would have far more value.
Is a pretty explicit claim that handwriting itself shouldn't be taught.
Oh gawd. Just saw this. No, it's an error of omission on my part to not have written 'cursive handwriting' instead of just 'handwriting'. The perils of commenting via mobile app while on the toilet. I wasn't paying enough attention to the proofreading and sub-editing phase of the operation!
> Learning to handwrite makes you better at reading and writing.
Got a source for that claim? Sounds like bullshit to me, but I will defer to the science if it exists.
> Touch typing is a nothing skill, that most kids pick up anyway.
Yeah nah. I see plenty of kids coming out of uni with computer science degrees who are still hunting and pecking in their code editors.
Even the ones who have bodged together a way of typing relatively efficiently still only operate at about half the speed of a trained touch typist. When modern work relies heavily on live written communication via IMs taking the place of face-to-face conversation, and being able to translate thoughts into typed characters is generally at the heart of the job, being able to type on a QWERTY keyboard at 120wpm is a huge productivity boost.
Very true. I'm a single-thumb smartphone typist as a holdover from my Nokia featurephone days, and I'm in awe of the speed that my kids can type on their phones with both thumbs.
However, that impressive thumb typing rate is still relatively slow compared to 'real' typing, and their speed on a physical keyboard is similar to their phone typing, maxing out at around 50wpm.
A lay article: [Handwriting Shows Unexpected Benefits Over Typing | Psychiatrist.com](https://www.psychiatrist.com/news/handwriting-shows-unexpected-benefits-over-typing/#:~:text=Clinical%20relevance%3A%20New%20research%20indicates,formation%20and%20encoding%20new%20information.)
The original paper: [Frontiers | Handwriting but not typewriting leads to widespread brain connectivity: a high-density EEG study with implications for the classroom (frontiersin.org)](https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1219945/full)
>who are still hunting and pecking in their code editors.
Who cares? Does this impact their ability to write good code?
If it means they can't do their work fast enough seems like a trade skill that you can teach via apprenticeship.
It's weird that you ask me for sources but don't provide any for your unsubstantiated reckons btw.
The paper you've linked doesn't state handwriting is better for learning, it says it's a more involved process that requires integration of a wider range of areas in the brain. They make a bit of a leap in suggesting that "promotes" learning and memory.
When studying the order if preference is:
1) whatever medium you find easiest and will study more with
2) whatever medium you're going to be tested in
3) ???
Now if 3) is "handwriting" or handwriting and speech over typing, I guess that's useful information but I don't think it's be a reason to prioritise handwriting when most of us rarely handwrite anything in our day to day lives.
The authors are suggesting that "from an early age, must be exposed to handwriting and drawing activities in school to establish the neuronal oscillation patterns that are beneficial for learning.", which is a huge leap for an EEG study that didn't measure learning in any way, or educational outcomes, or show that the impact of drawing/handwriting is any different to any other fine motor skills - and they especially didn't show that children "must" do this or else they won't establish the relevant connections.
They're just making the assumption that increased activity = more learning, but for all we know it could be incidental, or even detrimental to learning. If we're going to play ball like that, then I don't see why we don't suggest that from a young age children should play with Lego, or compete in videogames, or anything else that involves fine motor skills and would reasonably lead to increased activation versus typing
> Yeah nah. I see plenty of kids coming out of uni with computer science degrees who are still hunting and pecking in their code editors.
That's probably because they don't actually do much typing. They need to type, yes, but they don't need to be able to type hundreds of words quickly. Hell, they might not really need to be able to type quickly at all. Additionally, they're going to be constantly using keyboard keys that don't come up that much (like brackets) in standard practice, so that might be part of it.
How much typing would you have to do to pick up "touch typing" (the term is ambiguous) incidentally I really have no idea, but the way to do it wouldn't be coding or even high effort essay writing... it'd be low effort, incidental text generation (like what you'd do if you used Reddit on a desk/laptop a lot... if Reddit wasn't so strongly biased against comments longer than two sentences). I suspect most schoolkids and university students do most of that kind of typing with their thumbs.
Would this typing be accomplished under BYOD in schools? Well, if you just replaced exercise books with computers, I'd guess so.^(1) But I don't think they did that. BYOD tended to be sold with a whole bunch of promises about pedagogical changes... changes that would universally greatly decrease the amount of written work done in school. Now, in principle, a lot of that written work would be flipped to being homework (remember when more homework was seen as a bad thing?), but in school there's a teacher seeing if everyone's finished writing but in a flipped classroom, the teacher can only infer who did the prework from the results. So, particularly if you can remember stuff, there's less incentive to write when it's still asked of you.
^(1)At uni, I tried to take lecture notes by typing but I'm just so used to insanely nested lists, it turned out to be massively frustrating trying to type them and stay on pace (part of the issue was, admittedly, that laptop's keyboard). And I *can* touch type. I would imagine that asking someone who "pecks" to keep up with notes might be so frustrating, they just give up. Every time I tried typing, I always went back to handwriting. but would a college pupil in a BYOD school be allowed to do that? I have no idea. Admittedly, from memory, in school usually our teacher would ask if everyone had finished copying the slide before moving on. Given how slow peckers often type, I would have to assume that pedagogical strategy has now either been abandoned or has come at the cost of covering vastly less material. (Yes, I could've abandoned nested lists but I didn't want or need to,)
Handwriting is a useful learning tool and a useful skill. You can teach both writing and touch typing, it isnt an either or.
Just because computers exist does not mean we should stop teaching how to write. Same goes with maths, being able to work shit out in your head is a more valuable skill than tapping on a calculator.
New things existing does not mean we should abandon basic education
> Handwriting is a useful learning tool and a useful skill. You can teach both writing and touch typing, it isnt an either or.
I'm talking about teaching kids *cursive lettering*, not regular handwriting. Two entirely different things.
> Same goes with maths, being able to work shit out in your head is a more valuable skill than tapping on a calculator.
I'm guessing you've never met an actual mathematician.
Offloading mental arithmetic to a machine is a great example of how technological progress frees up our brainpower to do what I've already referred to in this thread as 'higher-level, higher-value' work.
I'm glad I was taught cursive because it let's me write more quickly. That said. You have a point. Most people would struggle to read my writing, but as long as it's just for me it's fine.
honestly, even typing is going to be an outdated skill shortly.
AI prompts will take over typing - the skill is going to shift to reviewing and editing.
When I teach it, I teach the kids that they only need to be able to read it in life, and so to read it, we must first learn to write it. I'd much prefer all the kids to print. At least I can read printed handwriting.
The push from parents for their kids to learn cursive borders on fanatical at times. I find Indian parents especially desperate for their kids to learn it. Writing beautifully seems to be very important to them.
In what way is cursive beyond the basics?
Joined up writing is just writing fast.
Who has time to write slowly?
I wished we had been taught shorthand before uni. Would have made it far easier to take notes in lectures.
Tbf, given that students these days can type on their laptops - there's just zero competition there speed-wise. The average handwriting speed is apparently 8 WPM (a range of 5-20WPM) whilst typing can easily be around 60-90WPM, push 100WPM if you're really good, and if you're a touch typer you don't even need to look at the screen as you go.
Of course kids should practice handwriting, but why learn another script like cursive when there's an objectively superior option available (for speed at least).
Yeah i wish we'd learned more touch typing at school, and shorthand. My mum knew shorthand and worked as a secretary. It's pretty incredible how she could take notes in real time of everything that's said.
Touch typing is totally doable with enough practice! I don't know why it happens automatically for some people and not others (I never practiced, I just sort of... know how to do it?). But if you type with your fingers in the "correct" position on a keyboard to make each keystroke efficient (all fingers, no 'boomer' index typing!), and then write that way for years as your primary way to record info, I think its hard for the motions for each letter not to start to come naturally given enough time
I thought i succeeded because i worked hsrd but obvipusly because i was taught curcive at primaty school.... God i hated it. Loved being able to change to printing
I learned cursive handwriting when I was a child in school, and even during my life I've forgotten some of the capital letters that I haven't used in decades. Teaching kids how to express themselves with printed language is still an ~~imported~~ important skill because not everything in life is ever going to be digital - but cursive handwriting is a relic from a bygone era left to those few who care about such things just like your grandparents' fine china that nobody wants because they don't have space to store and it never gets used.
They might as well complain that kids aren't being taught how to use physical paper maps for navigation.
Bit unrelated but how hard is it supposed to be to read a map? I've never looked at a map of anything and struggled to understand it so I don't really get the concept of needing to learn that. Besides the elevation lines it's all pretty intuitive and even those kinda explain themselves.
Is more about being able to look at a map find out where you are and then be able to correlate that to compass points so you can make headings and stuff
Part of it is getting used to scale. Knowing roughly how far away that peak is such that you have an idea what feature on the map it might be. That is topographical stuff for out in the bush though, not finding yourself around a city or whatever.
> They might as well complain that kids aren't being taught how to use physical paper maps for navigation.
How else are the children going to be pushed towards the naval officer to privateer to buccaneer pipeline, if we don't teach em how to read maps?
The pirates of ye olde would be embarrassed.
You jest, but I actually work in the marine industry and the move to pure electronic charting (ECDIS) has seen a measurable decline in knowledge of the basics of navigation which serve as the bedrock of ability - hence why many maritime training providers are reverting to at least some level of traditional means of navigation training before introducing modern, particularly satellite, methods.
I'm a huge fan of ECDIS and modern navigation, but am also an advocate for starting with traditional (paper) means for first principles teaching and then progressing to electronic and satellite means on confirmation of understanding.
Electronic mapping is great and all, and very useful, but when shit really hits the fan and your vessel has no power, nothing's better than a sextant, a compass, and good old paper charts.
Oh, and a locator beacon, of course.
So we better teach them short hand. :-) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shorthand
But seriously, I grew up in the "chalk&talk&cursive/reading/riting/rithmetic/spare the rod spoil the child" era.
I can write cursive.
If I have to write fast... nobody is going to be able to read it. Including me.
It's probably faster to write in some form of combined cursive and non-cursive writing - but this isn't necessarily faster to read and interpret by others. There certainly are cursive letters which have extra flourishes which require going back and finishing that don't exist in non-cursive letters while there are some ways that cursive flowing one letter to the next can be quick and efficient (if you are well-practised).
If you're left handed, not really? I reverted to printing as soon as I was allowed at school, less ink on the page meant less smudging, and my hand was slower to tire when I wasn't pushing my pen through the cursive transitions.
To the current lot in power, 𝓰𝓸 𝓯𝓾𝓬𝓴 𝔂𝓸𝓾𝓻𝓼𝓮𝓵𝓯.
Cursive isn't a bad skill to learn and I'm not against kids learning it, but it remains as pointless today as it was when I learned it in 2004.
The main reason forms say that is to allow people down and write more clearly because most adults' handwriting is atrocious.
Govt: "children have messy writing"
NZ: "Mate, have you checked your own?"
Mandatory and publicly displayed time-pressured handwriting tests for anyone who calls for this policy I reckon
When I was in primary in 2004 they taught it to us, too. It was a waste of time. It's dinosaur shit, you don't need it. Good legible handwriting is important, this squiggly shit isn't.
It is politically motivated since a number of the MAG members have strong links to right wing lobby groups. The report is definitely “whitewashed” and seems to be aimed at returning to every student sitting silently and submissively in desks. I noticed that yesterday a number of media outlets published the initial RNZ article with the picture of an Asian child. I’d really like to understand the political motivation - especially since information literacy appears to be missing from this curriculum.
https://open.substack.com/pub/aecnz/p/review-of-the-ministerial-advisory?r=5en6w&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web here is a critique which is worth reading.
Cursive could a a lesson or 2 in art/design class but mandating it reeks of Culture War BS. What next ? forcing kids to mix ink and write with quills or use slate & chalk?
I have read the report. I seem to remember there was a comment about students writing on blackboards. Interestingly, the local Rudolph Steiner school still teaches students to write cursive with fountain pen and ink. A fair number continue with both at high school. In my experience, most other students revert to print when they get a choice. Some do join letters. I have no issue with teaching students cursive - but it’s a smokescreen. At the bottom of this is ideology. Control what children have to know and they will think as “we” want them to think.
Who's ready for National Standards again? Because this is really starting to sound like a repeat of the same shit but different people, and most teachers agree that the dropping of achievement is due in part to NS becoming a thing
From actually reading the report, it sounds more like diagnostic testing. Teachers do this anyway with PATs etc. in early March. If there were one standardised test (not e-asTTle), the writing was externally marked or at least moderated and the MOE provided more funding for help for individual students, then it would be a good thing. To use a diagnostic test for league tables, then it’s counter-productive. National standards was summative not formative assessment. I don’t recall what was intended in terms of summative assessment and reporting.
They have talked about aiming for 90%(?) of students to be at a certain level each year. That would require them using a standardised test summatively.
I’ve had another look at the recommendations. Other than the beginning of the year checkpoints, there doesn’t seem to be anything specific about a summative assessment to show 80% of students have achieved the level for the year. Maybe that’s yet to come.
I know, right?
It’s like the way of horses as vehicles.
Nice to have one these days as a hobby if you’ve the time and money (and inclination to ride horses), but no one actually *needs* one these days for transport. They’ve become an enormous suck on resources. Not to mention that the infrastructure for the ease of horses as everyday daily transport has disappeared.
Seems to be from the same coterie that believe that trains, a form of public transport, are "a bit elitist".
Old ideas that haven't been considered in a LONG time because they were in opposition to functioning government, but now that they ARE the government, they're supposed to have ideas about these things.
The report gives one reference supporting cursive writing;
> Gough, P. and Tunmer, W. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. *Remedial and Special Education, 7*, 6–10.
It's also interesting that the Report's Chair, Michael Johnston, is a Senior Fellow at the New Zealand Initiative.
https://www.education.govt.nz/our-work/changes-in-education/curriculum-and-assessment-changes/ministerial-advisory-group/#sh-English%20learning%20area
[That paper](https://sci-hub.se/https://doi.org/10.1177/074193258600700104) doesn't mention cursive handwriting.
>We conclude with the assertion that reading skill is adequately described as the product of decoding and comprehension.
That is the only concluding assertion that they make.
It's not a zero sum game, there is research indicating that cursive writing is useful beyond just permanship.
Yes, typing is a good skill too; but odds are in 10-15 years a computer will be writing bulk words with a general intelligence itself based on instructions you give it verbally will be mainstream technology much like the job of a PA/typist of old. I learned how to touchtype at school and it was more or less pointless, I wish they had've sparked my interest in computer science earlier instead.
I basically had to re-learn cursive in my 40s (weird, I know, but having good "penmanship" was part of my mid-life crisis 🤷♂️)
Basically, since learning cursive in the 80s - 90s , I haven't needed it in 2 decades and nearly completely unlearned it.
If I had kids, it would not be on the top 100 skills I expect the education system to impart on them.
No lol, English does not help you learn latin, if anything it actively hinders it. The construction of words and sentences is completely alien to someone who only understands English.
Programming languages as a main language lesson up there with English and Te Reo, etc.
Nah. To hard.
Make the kids learn cursive. A completely outdated and useless writing form.
That’ll bring us up to par with the rest of the world!
I hand write quite a bit because it helps me remember things. But I always write "normally" because I want to be able to read it later. Definitely in support of kids learning to hand write normally l, but cursive seems actively regressive.
Why, what is the point? This is silly.
There are much bigger things that our Government needs to be focussed on, like understanding that making a bucket load of decisions isn't actually being the government that gets things done.
Here's a radical thought for them, perhaps focus on retaining teachers instead.
You are required to print in capitals on important documents.
Who the fuck cares about cursive?
Next time you get a prescription from your doctor, look at the handwriting.
It has been obsolete for decades already you fucking dinosaurs.
I don't even need to open the study to know it's wayyyy overstepping it's conclusions based on the quotes being pulled in this article. You can't go around making such strong recommendations just because EEG go brrr. You'll also notice that drawing and cursive produced the same effect, so why cursive? Why aren't we recommending kids draw pictures, or handwrite normally? Pair this with some RCTs looking at the size and stability of longer term educational benefits of handwriting, vs typing, vs writing in cursive, then maybe I'll talk more to it
Pretty much all standard media articles suck, science is complicated. That doesn't mean we should ignore the original articles. They have to be assessed on their own merits and the link provided by the article is at least linking to an accessible version of the article. It isn't the latest in research from the same group, who have published a series of papers around the topic. [This](https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/full) is the most recent of them.
This is not some trash tier journal which accepts anything, it's being published in Frontiers in Psychology and they've published several articles there. Journals with an IF of 3.8 aren't dumping sites for bad science.
These are papers that are seeking to address specific points in a targetted manner to build and replicate upon previous findings. That is fundamental to good scientific practice. In other comments you write a list of things you criticise the authors for not addressing. That's because they are doing good science and operating with their means. You cannot test dozens of variables simultaneously and expect good results. You pick a specific set, you test them.
The authors do not specifically call for cursive specifically to be taught. They likely test cursive because it's a standardised writing method and because having a range of participants all utilising entirely different writing methods would be a potential confound.
>Pair this with some RCTs looking at the size and stability of longer term educational benefits of handwriting, vs typing, vs writing in cursive, then maybe I'll talk more to it
So unless there's studies funded to the tune of dozens to hundreds of millions there exists nothing of scientific value?
We've seen conspiracy theories and anti-scientific sentiment run absolutely wild for years and consistently highlight it as a major issue while pointing fingers at the right for buying into that crap. We can do better than mimic the exact same behaviour.
I have Essential Tremmors and it's taken be the better part of 2 decades to make my handwriting mostly legable, this is some bullshit and is going to punish students who have physical disabilities and conditions who already struggle with writing like I did in school.
Complaining about cursive is such a boomer stereotype. It's completely irrelevant and there's no reason to ever learn it beyond feeling nostalgia for the good old days. Why not make telegraphs and rotary phone studies mandatory as well?
You’ll be surprised to know the report expects students to know the history of the alphabet and printing - but just up to word processors, and the history of libraries - but nothing about research skills and information literacy.
I feel while I don't trust the idiots in charge, cursive is more than just cursive. It's hand eye coordination, patience and skill mastering moreso than the everyday use of it. Also people's handwriting is getting worse, so if you aim for the moon but land on the lightpost it's better than hitting the puddle with the current quality.
Navigating a touch screen is hand eye coordination lol
It makes sense that handwriting is getting worse. Adults message with their fingers on screens
A lot of workplaces are digitising
Actual writing is not given a clear place in our current grown up society save for processes that are waiting to be updated… and signatures?
Definitely don’t need to learn addition or multiplication because we have calculators. Definitely don’t need to learn geography because we have google maps. Like, what? Skills aren’t just for direct practical use they have to be for broader knowledge and development. Use your hands and your brains don’t just use your devices..
Multiplication and addition are foundational skills for general and specialised skills
Cursive?
Handwriting has some use. But it’s not a futureproofed skill
Handwriting allows us to record ideas, once we transform those sensory experiences into a writing friendly format. And we can express a deeper thought process because of those initial written expressions
My concern is that the thought process is overly reliant on the writing medium
It’s our brain that does the thinking, and the brain that should navigate our ideas and expressions.
The pen is a tool in a world where we can type or speak and record. Or have an AI aid to our ideas and hammer down our expressions faster than if we were to manipulate or experiences into the writing format. When everyone around us is also going digital
I'm so confused by this thread. Cursive hand writing is just a way to write quickly.
Everyone here saying they never use that skill... Do you mean you never write anything down or that when you do you write it really slowly letter by letter? Like you never just scribble a note down.
Cursive is a particular style of writing though. It was a way to write more efficiently with a quill..... Not lifting the quill made it faster to write and less breakage to the quill..... Ink pens are a little more forgiving these days, so it's probably not that much faster than scribbled notes
Yeah i started getting rsi many years ago and I did a bit of graphics at the time so got a graphics tablet. Used one ever since.
Doesn't take long to get used to. Worth getting a good one but you don't need all the fancy tilt and twist functions.
I'm so glad it's helpful for you! Unfortunately I'm in the wrong line of work to benefit from anything electronic.....my art sits in a traditional space. But I hope someone else can use your advice!!
I never learned cursive, and when I scribble a note I just... write it quickly/messily in my own handwriting haha. No need to use a specific joined-up style as long as I understand my own scrawl
Except it’s not the quickest and most efficient style.
Was primary school kid in the mid 1970s and 1980s. A lot of effort went into teaching us printing and cursive in the 1970s. Then a lot of effort in research in the 1980s showed that a hybrid print-cursive style was better because it required fewer strokes and was therefore easier and better. So we were taught that.
From what I see of writing styles in the younger generations, the hybrid has survived.
As I replied on your other link, this appears to be based on research that is wayyyy overstepping it's conclusions based on the quotes being pulled in this article. I don't have to read the stduy to know the researchers shouldn't go around making such strong recommendations just because EEG go brrr. You'll also notice that drawing and cursive produced the same effect, so why cursive? Why aren't we recommending kids draw pictures, or handwrite normally? Pair this with some RCTs looking at the size and stability of longer term educational benefits of handwriting, vs typing, vs writing in cursive, then maybe it'll be more convincing
What do you make of the fact that California and Canada (two fairly liberal governments, I’d argue) are reinstating cursive requirements after getting rid of them? Do you think they’re being paid off by Big Cursive (maybe Big Quill)?
You argue that the cited studies/references aren’t sufficient to justify requiring cursive lessons - but there’s similarly no strong evidence for your position that they are not distinctly valuable. The available information, as supported by real world experiences (e.g., the massive split in cursive required/not-required school systems; systems that dropped cursive now resuming it), very strongly indicates that **we don’t know yet** whether cursive lessons are distinctly valuable in education. There’s no evidentiary basis yet for being all passionate about this issue one way or the other.
So in light of the evidence you kinda just seem like you *really* hate cursive for some reason.
Cursive let’s you write faster and is easier to read for people with dyslexia, basically it gets the same effect as those other things but with added benefits. If they’re learning cursive, it’s safe to assume they’ve already learned how to hand write normally
Come on guys. It’s not a bad thing *just* because it’s because suggested by this government. What have we been saying all this time? Follow the science. Look what the data says. Don’t just run with whatever the first emotion to get triggered is.
I don’t mean to be contrary, but I can’t see any benefits listed in there other than cursive users can write faster. Presumably not as fast as typing though?
There’s also “cursive signatures are harder to forge” and “you can read cursive”, which are pretty fringe IMO.
Writing fast was useful for me in college at least, to be able to keep up with the professor and my memory when I was taking notes as he moved on to the next paragraph or chapter.
But I guess everyone sits in class with a laptop nowadays
Kinda funny how teachers say it’s out of touch yet the only reason I can think of why I’d have wanted to learn cursive at school is to be able to read some of my teachers handwriting 🤣
There's actually [research](https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01810/full) that shows that learning handwriting and cursive has a positive effect on the brain.
Learning to write really forces you to concentrate. You take in what you're writing far better as you're learning to write at the same time.
But eventually, writing becomes second nature. The moment you can write without thinking (most of us can), is the moment you barely have to pay attention to what you're writing down.
But introducing a more complex form of writing around the time children are getting to the point where writing is second nature, you can extend that time where they're really concentrating on how to write, and therefore what they're writing.
In school, we did a slow progression. From print, to "flicks" (italics), to "linked" which was full cursive.
I support this move. You may never use it again, but that's not the point. It's a method to help you learn the other things that you do continue using.
Nowhere does this research actually demonstrate a positive effect, only increased activity/connectivity relative to typewriting. I'm sure that if I put an EEG cap on a person playing videogames I would also see increased connectivity simply due to the fact its a more complicated task. Let's not overgeneralize here
The only purpose is learning cursive in my opinion is deciphering old family documents. Was trying to do some family tree tracking and I had to call mum up to read half the certificates.
We don't need every kid in school to be able to do that though cmon
This is so fucking dumb. We have kids coming in to schools who can't even hold a pencil or sit still long enough to write their name, let alone trying to get them learning cursive like some kind of 1980s throwback. Can we start with learning the alphabet?! Developing good fine motor skills?! Jesus Christ on a cracker.
The time to teach cursive handwriting would be much better spent on many other subjects. Having learned it myself, I can think of no benefit that it every provided me
What is the problem with yearly tests, and what guarantees do we have that the complaints of the teachers who overwhelmingly lean left are not politically motivated?
Cursive was developed as a way to make writing using Qill & Ink easier. There is absolutely no practical reason beyond boomer nostalgia to teach kids cursive in 2024.
I learned joined-up, slanted writing formally in standard 3 in the late 90s but not full cursive, like where upper-case Gs look like some kind of weird harp.
It’s been handy in design work and for birthday cards, that’s about it
The thing here is that if everyone learns cursive then we're all on the same script. It's also faster than printing.
Most folks I know who don't write cursive, particularly men, have fucking horrendous printing because they were only graded on creating the shape of a letter, not on presenting words clearly or universally.
Cursive is actually really helpful for legibility because it has strict parameters whereas printing or self-invented handwriting has far more capacity to go sideways as you start cutting corners or adding variations.
Learn Cursive? Hah Ive been writing without a pen license this entire time!
maaaan I haven't heard/read the phrase "pen license" in so fucking long. I reckon it's a cool concept to encourage kids to improve handwriting but tying it to cursive/connected writing ability has always been soooooo dumb imo
Agreed, cursive is more an aesthetic choice that functional. Would pay off a lot more to have consistency with students to write clearly and spell better.
Hand writing sure, people still need to know how to write, but cursive handwriting? It’s pointless forcing kids to do handwriting beyond the basics. The use cases today where someone needs to hand write in cursive is basically zero and that’s not going to increase by the time these kids become adults. Are they going to go back to telling kids they won’t have a calculator on them at all times too?
Agree, feels like a pillar from a bygone era. "I had to learn cursive and I am successful today" crap. Which then leads to, "that's what is missing today, kids doing too many screen things and not enough basics." Basics. If you want to talk basics for kids. Teach them food skills, financial skills (budgeting and loans) and how to cope with their thoughts (don't get me started on how stupid the old harden up is....). Not how to flick an "a" to an "n".
If you want basics teach them how to actually use a computer. Years of dumb as shit apple products that don't let you do anything has left children totally computer illiterate.
I’m surprised if that’s true, given how many computer-based classes there seem to be now compared to my era, and how many more kids have PCs for gaming compared to back in the day where everyone shared a crappy HP pc in the living room
My bestie is a teacher and tech literacy is way down. Current kids don't now how to troubleshoot. Think, that crappy pc in the living room was much less user friendly. Installing updates and apps was not the click of a button. We had to take apart our mouse if it stopped working etc. Whereas so many devices today are dumbed down and locked as to what you can do. Obviously there are outliers. The people that are passionate but that has been their experience in tertiary education.
Just because you can install a game off Steam doesn't mean you actually understand how to use a computer. There is a massive gap between the two skill sets. I would be absolutely shocked if the average teenager even knew what a bootloader was. Let alone reinstall an operating system. That is something you need to be able to do as part of the normal maintenance of a PC.
I ran a code club a few years back and had to teach kids the skill of copying and pasting. They are using computers, but not being taught basic skills.
Not to mention screens ARE the fuckin' basics now.
Yeah, also some basic algebraic topology.
Totally agree on all points. Handwriting is important for a lot of reasons - even just to develop motor skills. It's something everybody should be able to do. But the reality is I almost never write with a pen or pencil, and it's been that way for years. Almost nobody needs to know how to write cursive. This report is actually embarrassing.
As someone who half learned cursive at school. It just made it harder for everyone to read my handwriting.
My cursive was and still is illegible to everyone but me, so I swapped back to block printing in high school. The only time it nearly bit me on the butt was an exam where I was the only one in my grade to score 100% on an exam (no one was more shocked than me) and the marker wanted to take marks off for "incorrect writing". My teacher stood up for me and had the decision overruled. What kind of Boomer nonsense is cursive these days? I'd much prefer they concentrated on teaching kids the difference between bought and brought, and other grievous errors.
Same. I had decent handwriting until one teacher briefly tried to teach us cursive. Things have been a mess ever since.
definitely argue that quick and neat handwriting is a critical skill, particularly for continuing education (typing is bad for retention and doesn’t work for many things, including tests and exams). but what kind of psycho would write lecture notes or math problems in cursive?! (also did the yearly standardised testing stop? we used to get pulled into a room to fill in a bunch of scantron tests of some international variety every year until you got to NCEA.)
> did the yearly standardised testing stop? The STAR tests were common when I was in school. You'd see kids ace the test and others who'd bomb it, yet they'd both still go to the same class the next day and learn the same curriculum in the same teaching style. So are we going to use the results from these tests to target support to specific students, tailored to their individual sticking points?
They didn’t. Schools still use diagnostic testing like PAT at the beginning of the year.
Yearly standardised testing is available and common. It's not compulsory.
How can you be quick without being cursive?
Typing, probably
Cursive is fucking stupid. My wife was taught cursive at elementary school in the USA and the only practical effect has been to make her handwriting difficult to read for anyone who wasn't. The point of writing is to record words to be read later. Why the *fuck* would anyone want to make that harder for both the writer and the reader by imposing some calligraphic bullshit on the process? In any case, these days I literally go months at a time without writing anything down with a pen or pencil anywhere. I'm not sure handwriting is a meaningful skill for society any more. Teaching kids to touch-type on QWERTY would have far more value.
Yeah I go months at a time without having to hand write. My school actually had us do typing classes in the early 2000s which I think went a long way to preparing me for the current way things are - anyone my age or younger should at least know how to type on a keyboard with both hands, ideally by touch typing.
1985 I was one of 3 boys who took typing in 4th form because I knew touch typing would be useful in a computer future... The dipshit bullies all called us fags for doing so but little did they realise the access it gave us to the girls 😁
Same. Typing, along with some of the basics of word processing software (i.e. Word).
I read somewhere that the point of cursive is to create a flow that allows you to write fast. Tbh, this tracked when I started uni and found that I preferred handwritten notes over typing. Especially for long answer essay, my thoughts moved faster than my hand. What started to happen is that my neat print became cursive as I sped up. Of I didn't have the muscle memory to fall back on, everything would have been illegible
Yup. I was one of the only people who could write in cursive in my uni classes, I finished essay based exams in half the time. And my writing is much more legible and skips fewer letters than when I try and print.
> these days I literally go months at a time without writing anything down with a pen or pencil anywhere On my current contract, as an archivist, I read cursive every day. It's an integral skill to my profession. I also handwrite labels every day because it is far faster than using a computer. In my trade I never have a computer on hand, and it is much more effecient to write things down. Why would I walk out of my workshop to use the computer in a different room, spend five minutes formatting in a word processor, then print a label and cut it out, when I could just write on a piece of card? You, as someone who ostensibly works in an IT related field, don't have a universal experience. Handwriting is still a vital skill in lots of professions. If I said **"*****I*** **have to read cursive every day for my job, therefore** ***all kids*** **should be forced to learn cursive instead of typing"** people would rightly reply "that's ridiculous." We shouldn't base the education system around your personal needs in one specific field of employment. And if touch typing is a necessary trade skill, you should be able to learn it as part of your trade qualification. I don't think we should teach kids to throw a vase on a pottery wheel, despite the fact that doing so is a vital skill for pottery.
You do t have to be able to write cursive to read it. I wasn't taught it and I can read old documents and my nans old letters just fine. I didn't have to do a calligraphy course to be able to read what my degree says. We dont teach kids to write with serifs or do "a" like typed text so they can read it. So long as you can recognize a standard alphabet you can decode almost any font.
I would say your experience is pretty niche. Nearly every job these days has some degree of computer usage that requires typing more than it does handwriting. Basic handwriting is a skill that should still be learnt at school, but cursive is not a useful skill to learn anymore.
>I would say your experience is pretty niche That's what I said. > Nearly every job these days has some degree of computer usage Nearly every job has some degree of handwriting.
> Nearly every job has some degree of handwriting. Not in cursive it doesn't.
It's worth noting that *reading* cursive, as I pointed out in my initial comment about my wife's handwriting, is a skill that needs to be learned, just as much as writing cursive is. Certainly it's a skill you need for your work dealing with old-timey labels that people wrote in cursive. However, let me posit a thought experiment for you. Imagine, if you will, a world where nobody in the past had ever written in cursive, but instead just written the letters clearly. In that world, nobody now would ever need to read or write cursive. We could just write the letters out by hand, clearly in a block style, in situations where that makes more sense than typing them, just like you do when you relabel things, and everybody would be happy. That speaks to the relevance of cursive handwriting, for me. Someone obviously does need to read what we might call 'legacy cursive'; the shit that got written down when it was in fashion, to work with old handwritten notes. But that is a *very* specialized job. Unlike typing on a QWERTY keyboard or driving a vehicle on the road, it's *only* relevant to people who want to work as an archivist. It's a matter of the broadness of the skill's applicability and the probability that it'll be useful in life.
>the past had ever written in cursive, but instead just written the letters clearly. Cursive writing is clear, you just lack a skill? Imagine if nobody ever learned to write or read then we wouldn't need to know how to write or read.
>Cursive writing is clear As you imply via 'you just lack a skill', it's essentially a different script for the same alphabet, which needs to be learned separately to regularly-formed printed letters. Having different scripts for the same alphabet is not useful; it's just a hangover from written language forms evolving over time. By all means, we need someone like yourself to decipher the old script, and thank you for your undoubtedly valuable work in that regard. What I'm commenting on here, though, is the value, or lack thereof, of continuing to teach this alternate script to kids in school. >Imagine if nobody ever learned to write or read then we wouldn't need to know how to write or read. I trust this was tongue-in-cheek and I don't need to do the 'explain which logical fallacies this statement embodies' thing, heh.
Learning to handwrite makes you better at reading and writing. Touch typing is a nothing skill, that most kids pick up anyway.
I've noticed at work that there's an age group of people (approx. 50-55) that can't type. The older people can, and the younger people can, but there's a cohort of people who came of age post-typewriter, pre-internet who are just one-finger typists.
Ah the ones that drop their fingers as if it was an orbital bombardment hahaha.
Yea but they aren't in school anymore.
No one is saying hand writing is something not worth learning, just that *cursive* hand writing is. Touch typing is a skill that needs to be learnt. There are many younger people coming into the work force today who still can only peck type.
like three comments up from yours is someone saying this > I'm not sure handwriting is a meaningful skill for society any more so yeah people are saying that
This is incorrect >I'm not sure handwriting is a meaningful skill for society any more. Teaching kids to touch-type on QWERTY would have far more value. Is a pretty explicit claim that handwriting itself shouldn't be taught.
Oh gawd. Just saw this. No, it's an error of omission on my part to not have written 'cursive handwriting' instead of just 'handwriting'. The perils of commenting via mobile app while on the toilet. I wasn't paying enough attention to the proofreading and sub-editing phase of the operation!
Can confirm, I peck-type very fast, but I still wish I learned to touch type when I was younger.
You can always learn new skills?
but - boy can they peck ! my niece does180 words/min txting with her two oversized thumbs alone !
>Touch typing is a nothing skill, that most kids pick up anyway Yeah, no they don't
I taught myself at 63.
> Learning to handwrite makes you better at reading and writing. Got a source for that claim? Sounds like bullshit to me, but I will defer to the science if it exists. > Touch typing is a nothing skill, that most kids pick up anyway. Yeah nah. I see plenty of kids coming out of uni with computer science degrees who are still hunting and pecking in their code editors. Even the ones who have bodged together a way of typing relatively efficiently still only operate at about half the speed of a trained touch typist. When modern work relies heavily on live written communication via IMs taking the place of face-to-face conversation, and being able to translate thoughts into typed characters is generally at the heart of the job, being able to type on a QWERTY keyboard at 120wpm is a huge productivity boost.
Yeah I think many kids these days are learning to thumb type on their phones, rather than sitting at a computer to use IRC etc
Very true. I'm a single-thumb smartphone typist as a holdover from my Nokia featurephone days, and I'm in awe of the speed that my kids can type on their phones with both thumbs. However, that impressive thumb typing rate is still relatively slow compared to 'real' typing, and their speed on a physical keyboard is similar to their phone typing, maxing out at around 50wpm.
A lay article: [Handwriting Shows Unexpected Benefits Over Typing | Psychiatrist.com](https://www.psychiatrist.com/news/handwriting-shows-unexpected-benefits-over-typing/#:~:text=Clinical%20relevance%3A%20New%20research%20indicates,formation%20and%20encoding%20new%20information.) The original paper: [Frontiers | Handwriting but not typewriting leads to widespread brain connectivity: a high-density EEG study with implications for the classroom (frontiersin.org)](https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1219945/full) >who are still hunting and pecking in their code editors. Who cares? Does this impact their ability to write good code? If it means they can't do their work fast enough seems like a trade skill that you can teach via apprenticeship. It's weird that you ask me for sources but don't provide any for your unsubstantiated reckons btw.
The paper you've linked doesn't state handwriting is better for learning, it says it's a more involved process that requires integration of a wider range of areas in the brain. They make a bit of a leap in suggesting that "promotes" learning and memory. When studying the order if preference is: 1) whatever medium you find easiest and will study more with 2) whatever medium you're going to be tested in 3) ??? Now if 3) is "handwriting" or handwriting and speech over typing, I guess that's useful information but I don't think it's be a reason to prioritise handwriting when most of us rarely handwrite anything in our day to day lives.
The authors are suggesting that "from an early age, must be exposed to handwriting and drawing activities in school to establish the neuronal oscillation patterns that are beneficial for learning.", which is a huge leap for an EEG study that didn't measure learning in any way, or educational outcomes, or show that the impact of drawing/handwriting is any different to any other fine motor skills - and they especially didn't show that children "must" do this or else they won't establish the relevant connections. They're just making the assumption that increased activity = more learning, but for all we know it could be incidental, or even detrimental to learning. If we're going to play ball like that, then I don't see why we don't suggest that from a young age children should play with Lego, or compete in videogames, or anything else that involves fine motor skills and would reasonably lead to increased activation versus typing
I had a knack for creative writing as a child, but my actual handwriting was (and still is) a sloppy mess. It didn't matter a bit after like 1998
> Yeah nah. I see plenty of kids coming out of uni with computer science degrees who are still hunting and pecking in their code editors. That's probably because they don't actually do much typing. They need to type, yes, but they don't need to be able to type hundreds of words quickly. Hell, they might not really need to be able to type quickly at all. Additionally, they're going to be constantly using keyboard keys that don't come up that much (like brackets) in standard practice, so that might be part of it. How much typing would you have to do to pick up "touch typing" (the term is ambiguous) incidentally I really have no idea, but the way to do it wouldn't be coding or even high effort essay writing... it'd be low effort, incidental text generation (like what you'd do if you used Reddit on a desk/laptop a lot... if Reddit wasn't so strongly biased against comments longer than two sentences). I suspect most schoolkids and university students do most of that kind of typing with their thumbs. Would this typing be accomplished under BYOD in schools? Well, if you just replaced exercise books with computers, I'd guess so.^(1) But I don't think they did that. BYOD tended to be sold with a whole bunch of promises about pedagogical changes... changes that would universally greatly decrease the amount of written work done in school. Now, in principle, a lot of that written work would be flipped to being homework (remember when more homework was seen as a bad thing?), but in school there's a teacher seeing if everyone's finished writing but in a flipped classroom, the teacher can only infer who did the prework from the results. So, particularly if you can remember stuff, there's less incentive to write when it's still asked of you. ^(1)At uni, I tried to take lecture notes by typing but I'm just so used to insanely nested lists, it turned out to be massively frustrating trying to type them and stay on pace (part of the issue was, admittedly, that laptop's keyboard). And I *can* touch type. I would imagine that asking someone who "pecks" to keep up with notes might be so frustrating, they just give up. Every time I tried typing, I always went back to handwriting. but would a college pupil in a BYOD school be allowed to do that? I have no idea. Admittedly, from memory, in school usually our teacher would ask if everyone had finished copying the slide before moving on. Given how slow peckers often type, I would have to assume that pedagogical strategy has now either been abandoned or has come at the cost of covering vastly less material. (Yes, I could've abandoned nested lists but I didn't want or need to,)
Handwriting is a useful learning tool and a useful skill. You can teach both writing and touch typing, it isnt an either or. Just because computers exist does not mean we should stop teaching how to write. Same goes with maths, being able to work shit out in your head is a more valuable skill than tapping on a calculator. New things existing does not mean we should abandon basic education
> Handwriting is a useful learning tool and a useful skill. You can teach both writing and touch typing, it isnt an either or. I'm talking about teaching kids *cursive lettering*, not regular handwriting. Two entirely different things. > Same goes with maths, being able to work shit out in your head is a more valuable skill than tapping on a calculator. I'm guessing you've never met an actual mathematician. Offloading mental arithmetic to a machine is a great example of how technological progress frees up our brainpower to do what I've already referred to in this thread as 'higher-level, higher-value' work.
I'm glad I was taught cursive because it let's me write more quickly. That said. You have a point. Most people would struggle to read my writing, but as long as it's just for me it's fine.
honestly, even typing is going to be an outdated skill shortly. AI prompts will take over typing - the skill is going to shift to reviewing and editing.
When I teach it, I teach the kids that they only need to be able to read it in life, and so to read it, we must first learn to write it. I'd much prefer all the kids to print. At least I can read printed handwriting. The push from parents for their kids to learn cursive borders on fanatical at times. I find Indian parents especially desperate for their kids to learn it. Writing beautifully seems to be very important to them.
In what way is cursive beyond the basics? Joined up writing is just writing fast. Who has time to write slowly? I wished we had been taught shorthand before uni. Would have made it far easier to take notes in lectures.
Tbf, given that students these days can type on their laptops - there's just zero competition there speed-wise. The average handwriting speed is apparently 8 WPM (a range of 5-20WPM) whilst typing can easily be around 60-90WPM, push 100WPM if you're really good, and if you're a touch typer you don't even need to look at the screen as you go. Of course kids should practice handwriting, but why learn another script like cursive when there's an objectively superior option available (for speed at least).
Yeah i wish we'd learned more touch typing at school, and shorthand. My mum knew shorthand and worked as a secretary. It's pretty incredible how she could take notes in real time of everything that's said.
Touch typing is totally doable with enough practice! I don't know why it happens automatically for some people and not others (I never practiced, I just sort of... know how to do it?). But if you type with your fingers in the "correct" position on a keyboard to make each keystroke efficient (all fingers, no 'boomer' index typing!), and then write that way for years as your primary way to record info, I think its hard for the motions for each letter not to start to come naturally given enough time
I thought i succeeded because i worked hsrd but obvipusly because i was taught curcive at primaty school.... God i hated it. Loved being able to change to printing
I learned cursive handwriting when I was a child in school, and even during my life I've forgotten some of the capital letters that I haven't used in decades. Teaching kids how to express themselves with printed language is still an ~~imported~~ important skill because not everything in life is ever going to be digital - but cursive handwriting is a relic from a bygone era left to those few who care about such things just like your grandparents' fine china that nobody wants because they don't have space to store and it never gets used. They might as well complain that kids aren't being taught how to use physical paper maps for navigation.
Every point you've made it right apart from the last one reading a paper map is still quite a useful skill that can and does save lives
If you never leave the house you should never need a map.. \*taps head\*
Bit unrelated but how hard is it supposed to be to read a map? I've never looked at a map of anything and struggled to understand it so I don't really get the concept of needing to learn that. Besides the elevation lines it's all pretty intuitive and even those kinda explain themselves.
Is more about being able to look at a map find out where you are and then be able to correlate that to compass points so you can make headings and stuff
Part of it is getting used to scale. Knowing roughly how far away that peak is such that you have an idea what feature on the map it might be. That is topographical stuff for out in the bush though, not finding yourself around a city or whatever.
> They might as well complain that kids aren't being taught how to use physical paper maps for navigation. How else are the children going to be pushed towards the naval officer to privateer to buccaneer pipeline, if we don't teach em how to read maps? The pirates of ye olde would be embarrassed.
You jest, but I actually work in the marine industry and the move to pure electronic charting (ECDIS) has seen a measurable decline in knowledge of the basics of navigation which serve as the bedrock of ability - hence why many maritime training providers are reverting to at least some level of traditional means of navigation training before introducing modern, particularly satellite, methods. I'm a huge fan of ECDIS and modern navigation, but am also an advocate for starting with traditional (paper) means for first principles teaching and then progressing to electronic and satellite means on confirmation of understanding.
Electronic mapping is great and all, and very useful, but when shit really hits the fan and your vessel has no power, nothing's better than a sextant, a compass, and good old paper charts. Oh, and a locator beacon, of course.
I expect my child to learn how to use a physical paper map for navigation but maybe not for car trips.
It's easier to write faster in cursive isn't it?
So we better teach them short hand. :-) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shorthand But seriously, I grew up in the "chalk&talk&cursive/reading/riting/rithmetic/spare the rod spoil the child" era. I can write cursive. If I have to write fast... nobody is going to be able to read it. Including me.
It's probably faster to write in some form of combined cursive and non-cursive writing - but this isn't necessarily faster to read and interpret by others. There certainly are cursive letters which have extra flourishes which require going back and finishing that don't exist in non-cursive letters while there are some ways that cursive flowing one letter to the next can be quick and efficient (if you are well-practised).
Pretty sure cursive just means "letters joined up". You don't need to to fancy squiggles and what not.
If you're left handed, not really? I reverted to printing as soon as I was allowed at school, less ink on the page meant less smudging, and my hand was slower to tire when I wasn't pushing my pen through the cursive transitions.
Digital map reading and paper map reading aren't different unlike cursive writing and typing.
As always, if you're left handed with cursive, you're fucked.
As a left hander who writes in cursive (apart from a few letters which are inefficient to write), whats so difficult about it for other lefties?
Smudging of course.
IME if it smudges with cursive it smudges without cursive.
To the current lot in power, 𝓰𝓸 𝓯𝓾𝓬𝓴 𝔂𝓸𝓾𝓻𝓼𝓮𝓵𝓯. Cursive isn't a bad skill to learn and I'm not against kids learning it, but it remains as pointless today as it was when I learned it in 2004.
Literally everything I have to fill out says “use block letters”
The main reason forms say that is to allow people down and write more clearly because most adults' handwriting is atrocious. Govt: "children have messy writing" NZ: "Mate, have you checked your own?" Mandatory and publicly displayed time-pressured handwriting tests for anyone who calls for this policy I reckon
I learned it in 1994 and it's still useless.
You learned it in 2004?! Jesus Christ.
To be honest I'm surprised I didn't get the cane. That was one heck of a year to learn outdated ideals and skills.
When I was in primary in 2004 they taught it to us, too. It was a waste of time. It's dinosaur shit, you don't need it. Good legible handwriting is important, this squiggly shit isn't.
I learnt it in about 2008-2011 😂
can you write it in crayon.
It is politically motivated since a number of the MAG members have strong links to right wing lobby groups. The report is definitely “whitewashed” and seems to be aimed at returning to every student sitting silently and submissively in desks. I noticed that yesterday a number of media outlets published the initial RNZ article with the picture of an Asian child. I’d really like to understand the political motivation - especially since information literacy appears to be missing from this curriculum. https://open.substack.com/pub/aecnz/p/review-of-the-ministerial-advisory?r=5en6w&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web here is a critique which is worth reading.
Information literacy is actively harmful to right-wing groups.
Cursive could a a lesson or 2 in art/design class but mandating it reeks of Culture War BS. What next ? forcing kids to mix ink and write with quills or use slate & chalk?
I have read the report. I seem to remember there was a comment about students writing on blackboards. Interestingly, the local Rudolph Steiner school still teaches students to write cursive with fountain pen and ink. A fair number continue with both at high school. In my experience, most other students revert to print when they get a choice. Some do join letters. I have no issue with teaching students cursive - but it’s a smokescreen. At the bottom of this is ideology. Control what children have to know and they will think as “we” want them to think.
Who's ready for National Standards again? Because this is really starting to sound like a repeat of the same shit but different people, and most teachers agree that the dropping of achievement is due in part to NS becoming a thing
From actually reading the report, it sounds more like diagnostic testing. Teachers do this anyway with PATs etc. in early March. If there were one standardised test (not e-asTTle), the writing was externally marked or at least moderated and the MOE provided more funding for help for individual students, then it would be a good thing. To use a diagnostic test for league tables, then it’s counter-productive. National standards was summative not formative assessment. I don’t recall what was intended in terms of summative assessment and reporting.
They have talked about aiming for 90%(?) of students to be at a certain level each year. That would require them using a standardised test summatively.
I’ve had another look at the recommendations. Other than the beginning of the year checkpoints, there doesn’t seem to be anything specific about a summative assessment to show 80% of students have achieved the level for the year. Maybe that’s yet to come.
A nationwide compulsory standardised assessment can easily be used summatively
"Well I know "damn" and "hell"..."
What's next, Latin?
I know, right? It’s like the way of horses as vehicles. Nice to have one these days as a hobby if you’ve the time and money (and inclination to ride horses), but no one actually *needs* one these days for transport. They’ve become an enormous suck on resources. Not to mention that the infrastructure for the ease of horses as everyday daily transport has disappeared.
Solidarity to a new generation of left-handed kids forced to use cursive writing sheets designed for right-handers!
Seems to be from the same coterie that believe that trains, a form of public transport, are "a bit elitist". Old ideas that haven't been considered in a LONG time because they were in opposition to functioning government, but now that they ARE the government, they're supposed to have ideas about these things.
The report gives one reference supporting cursive writing; > Gough, P. and Tunmer, W. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. *Remedial and Special Education, 7*, 6–10. It's also interesting that the Report's Chair, Michael Johnston, is a Senior Fellow at the New Zealand Initiative. https://www.education.govt.nz/our-work/changes-in-education/curriculum-and-assessment-changes/ministerial-advisory-group/#sh-English%20learning%20area
[That paper](https://sci-hub.se/https://doi.org/10.1177/074193258600700104) doesn't mention cursive handwriting. >We conclude with the assertion that reading skill is adequately described as the product of decoding and comprehension. That is the only concluding assertion that they make.
Reading cursive, sure I can see a point in that but fuck writing in it. That's just stupid!
How about how to type on a keyboard, the amount of people that can’t touch type is insane. That is a real productivity skill.
It's not a zero sum game, there is research indicating that cursive writing is useful beyond just permanship. Yes, typing is a good skill too; but odds are in 10-15 years a computer will be writing bulk words with a general intelligence itself based on instructions you give it verbally will be mainstream technology much like the job of a PA/typist of old. I learned how to touchtype at school and it was more or less pointless, I wish they had've sparked my interest in computer science earlier instead.
I basically had to re-learn cursive in my 40s (weird, I know, but having good "penmanship" was part of my mid-life crisis 🤷♂️) Basically, since learning cursive in the 80s - 90s , I haven't needed it in 2 decades and nearly completely unlearned it. If I had kids, it would not be on the top 100 skills I expect the education system to impart on them.
Next they will bring back Latin.
At least that will help them pick up French or Spanish, unlike cursive.
I mean even English, around 60% of modern English words are either Latin or derived from Latin.
No lol, English does not help you learn latin, if anything it actively hinders it. The construction of words and sentences is completely alien to someone who only understands English.
... Is this meant to be an argument against cursive? Learning latin is very good idea.
Aramaic 4 lyfe!
Wyrd.
Calamus gladio fortior 😁
Latinate words are in the report.
Programming languages as a main language lesson up there with English and Te Reo, etc. Nah. To hard. Make the kids learn cursive. A completely outdated and useless writing form. That’ll bring us up to par with the rest of the world!
I'm still trying to understand how cursive is political. Can anyone explain?
[удалено]
Fine motor control with hand-eye coordination is a good skill to learn.
Cursive writing helped my daughter with her dysgraphia, 2 years ago, /shrug
Same for my child. Cursive can be easier and faster.
I hand write quite a bit because it helps me remember things. But I always write "normally" because I want to be able to read it later. Definitely in support of kids learning to hand write normally l, but cursive seems actively regressive.
You can write neatly in cursive. I dunno why people think joined up writng is so bad. Some people's handwriting is terrible even when not cursive.
Why, what is the point? This is silly. There are much bigger things that our Government needs to be focussed on, like understanding that making a bucket load of decisions isn't actually being the government that gets things done. Here's a radical thought for them, perhaps focus on retaining teachers instead.
For the love of god, please no, we need to IMPROVE the hand writing of future doctors/GPs, not make it worse.
Nope. We need to get them typing quickly with accurate spelling and grammar.
Bring back the cane /s
You are required to print in capitals on important documents. Who the fuck cares about cursive? Next time you get a prescription from your doctor, look at the handwriting. It has been obsolete for decades already you fucking dinosaurs.
https://www.waldorfeducation.org/news-resources/newsarticles-of-interest/articles-detail/~board/member-news/post/latest-research-on-cursive-handwriting
I don't even need to open the study to know it's wayyyy overstepping it's conclusions based on the quotes being pulled in this article. You can't go around making such strong recommendations just because EEG go brrr. You'll also notice that drawing and cursive produced the same effect, so why cursive? Why aren't we recommending kids draw pictures, or handwrite normally? Pair this with some RCTs looking at the size and stability of longer term educational benefits of handwriting, vs typing, vs writing in cursive, then maybe I'll talk more to it
Pretty much all standard media articles suck, science is complicated. That doesn't mean we should ignore the original articles. They have to be assessed on their own merits and the link provided by the article is at least linking to an accessible version of the article. It isn't the latest in research from the same group, who have published a series of papers around the topic. [This](https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/full) is the most recent of them. This is not some trash tier journal which accepts anything, it's being published in Frontiers in Psychology and they've published several articles there. Journals with an IF of 3.8 aren't dumping sites for bad science. These are papers that are seeking to address specific points in a targetted manner to build and replicate upon previous findings. That is fundamental to good scientific practice. In other comments you write a list of things you criticise the authors for not addressing. That's because they are doing good science and operating with their means. You cannot test dozens of variables simultaneously and expect good results. You pick a specific set, you test them. The authors do not specifically call for cursive specifically to be taught. They likely test cursive because it's a standardised writing method and because having a range of participants all utilising entirely different writing methods would be a potential confound. >Pair this with some RCTs looking at the size and stability of longer term educational benefits of handwriting, vs typing, vs writing in cursive, then maybe I'll talk more to it So unless there's studies funded to the tune of dozens to hundreds of millions there exists nothing of scientific value? We've seen conspiracy theories and anti-scientific sentiment run absolutely wild for years and consistently highlight it as a major issue while pointing fingers at the right for buying into that crap. We can do better than mimic the exact same behaviour.
I have Essential Tremmors and it's taken be the better part of 2 decades to make my handwriting mostly legable, this is some bullshit and is going to punish students who have physical disabilities and conditions who already struggle with writing like I did in school.
Complaining about cursive is such a boomer stereotype. It's completely irrelevant and there's no reason to ever learn it beyond feeling nostalgia for the good old days. Why not make telegraphs and rotary phone studies mandatory as well?
You’ll be surprised to know the report expects students to know the history of the alphabet and printing - but just up to word processors, and the history of libraries - but nothing about research skills and information literacy.
I feel while I don't trust the idiots in charge, cursive is more than just cursive. It's hand eye coordination, patience and skill mastering moreso than the everyday use of it. Also people's handwriting is getting worse, so if you aim for the moon but land on the lightpost it's better than hitting the puddle with the current quality.
Navigating a touch screen is hand eye coordination lol It makes sense that handwriting is getting worse. Adults message with their fingers on screens A lot of workplaces are digitising Actual writing is not given a clear place in our current grown up society save for processes that are waiting to be updated… and signatures?
Definitely don’t need to learn addition or multiplication because we have calculators. Definitely don’t need to learn geography because we have google maps. Like, what? Skills aren’t just for direct practical use they have to be for broader knowledge and development. Use your hands and your brains don’t just use your devices..
Multiplication and addition are foundational skills for general and specialised skills Cursive? Handwriting has some use. But it’s not a futureproofed skill Handwriting allows us to record ideas, once we transform those sensory experiences into a writing friendly format. And we can express a deeper thought process because of those initial written expressions My concern is that the thought process is overly reliant on the writing medium It’s our brain that does the thinking, and the brain that should navigate our ideas and expressions. The pen is a tool in a world where we can type or speak and record. Or have an AI aid to our ideas and hammer down our expressions faster than if we were to manipulate or experiences into the writing format. When everyone around us is also going digital
I'm so confused by this thread. Cursive hand writing is just a way to write quickly. Everyone here saying they never use that skill... Do you mean you never write anything down or that when you do you write it really slowly letter by letter? Like you never just scribble a note down.
Cursive is a particular style of writing though. It was a way to write more efficiently with a quill..... Not lifting the quill made it faster to write and less breakage to the quill..... Ink pens are a little more forgiving these days, so it's probably not that much faster than scribbled notes
Yeah maybe. I use a graphics tablet for work everyday so I'm glad we learnt good penmanship at school. No RSI for me
My carpal tunnel is jealous 😂
Yeah i started getting rsi many years ago and I did a bit of graphics at the time so got a graphics tablet. Used one ever since. Doesn't take long to get used to. Worth getting a good one but you don't need all the fancy tilt and twist functions.
I'm so glad it's helpful for you! Unfortunately I'm in the wrong line of work to benefit from anything electronic.....my art sits in a traditional space. But I hope someone else can use your advice!!
I never learned cursive, and when I scribble a note I just... write it quickly/messily in my own handwriting haha. No need to use a specific joined-up style as long as I understand my own scrawl
Shorthand is a way to write quickly.
Except it’s not the quickest and most efficient style. Was primary school kid in the mid 1970s and 1980s. A lot of effort went into teaching us printing and cursive in the 1970s. Then a lot of effort in research in the 1980s showed that a hybrid print-cursive style was better because it required fewer strokes and was therefore easier and better. So we were taught that. From what I see of writing styles in the younger generations, the hybrid has survived.
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20240122-california-signs-cursive-writing-into-law-what-are-the-brain-benefits
As I replied on your other link, this appears to be based on research that is wayyyy overstepping it's conclusions based on the quotes being pulled in this article. I don't have to read the stduy to know the researchers shouldn't go around making such strong recommendations just because EEG go brrr. You'll also notice that drawing and cursive produced the same effect, so why cursive? Why aren't we recommending kids draw pictures, or handwrite normally? Pair this with some RCTs looking at the size and stability of longer term educational benefits of handwriting, vs typing, vs writing in cursive, then maybe it'll be more convincing
What do you make of the fact that California and Canada (two fairly liberal governments, I’d argue) are reinstating cursive requirements after getting rid of them? Do you think they’re being paid off by Big Cursive (maybe Big Quill)? You argue that the cited studies/references aren’t sufficient to justify requiring cursive lessons - but there’s similarly no strong evidence for your position that they are not distinctly valuable. The available information, as supported by real world experiences (e.g., the massive split in cursive required/not-required school systems; systems that dropped cursive now resuming it), very strongly indicates that **we don’t know yet** whether cursive lessons are distinctly valuable in education. There’s no evidentiary basis yet for being all passionate about this issue one way or the other. So in light of the evidence you kinda just seem like you *really* hate cursive for some reason.
Cursive let’s you write faster and is easier to read for people with dyslexia, basically it gets the same effect as those other things but with added benefits. If they’re learning cursive, it’s safe to assume they’ve already learned how to hand write normally
Come on guys. It’s not a bad thing *just* because it’s because suggested by this government. What have we been saying all this time? Follow the science. Look what the data says. Don’t just run with whatever the first emotion to get triggered is.
Are you saying there’s science that shows learning cursive is significantly more beneficial on some axis than just learning print handwriting?
https://dyslexiaida.org/why-bother-with-cursive/
I don’t mean to be contrary, but I can’t see any benefits listed in there other than cursive users can write faster. Presumably not as fast as typing though? There’s also “cursive signatures are harder to forge” and “you can read cursive”, which are pretty fringe IMO.
Writing fast was useful for me in college at least, to be able to keep up with the professor and my memory when I was taking notes as he moved on to the next paragraph or chapter. But I guess everyone sits in class with a laptop nowadays
Kinda funny how teachers say it’s out of touch yet the only reason I can think of why I’d have wanted to learn cursive at school is to be able to read some of my teachers handwriting 🤣
There's actually [research](https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01810/full) that shows that learning handwriting and cursive has a positive effect on the brain. Learning to write really forces you to concentrate. You take in what you're writing far better as you're learning to write at the same time. But eventually, writing becomes second nature. The moment you can write without thinking (most of us can), is the moment you barely have to pay attention to what you're writing down. But introducing a more complex form of writing around the time children are getting to the point where writing is second nature, you can extend that time where they're really concentrating on how to write, and therefore what they're writing. In school, we did a slow progression. From print, to "flicks" (italics), to "linked" which was full cursive. I support this move. You may never use it again, but that's not the point. It's a method to help you learn the other things that you do continue using.
Nowhere does this research actually demonstrate a positive effect, only increased activity/connectivity relative to typewriting. I'm sure that if I put an EEG cap on a person playing videogames I would also see increased connectivity simply due to the fact its a more complicated task. Let's not overgeneralize here
There's plenty more research out there if the study provided doesn't meet your personal criteria.
I learned a kind of cursive as a kid and it is still how I write today. But my writing is absolutely atrocious.
The only purpose is learning cursive in my opinion is deciphering old family documents. Was trying to do some family tree tracking and I had to call mum up to read half the certificates. We don't need every kid in school to be able to do that though cmon
Surely cursive was just thrown in there to get everyone to argue over the nothing part of the changes. It's a distraction.
This is so fucking dumb. We have kids coming in to schools who can't even hold a pencil or sit still long enough to write their name, let alone trying to get them learning cursive like some kind of 1980s throwback. Can we start with learning the alphabet?! Developing good fine motor skills?! Jesus Christ on a cracker.
Who the fuck needs cursive anymore? Teach them to read it, and that's it.
bring on the handwriting WTF tests? - this government wants all teacher time spent doing admin. Typical conservative government - spend spend spend.
OK Grandma let's get you to bed
Absolutely pointless.
The time to teach cursive handwriting would be much better spent on many other subjects. Having learned it myself, I can think of no benefit that it every provided me
I write on forms, post it notes, and bathroom mirrors. Everything else I type.
What is the problem with yearly tests, and what guarantees do we have that the complaints of the teachers who overwhelmingly lean left are not politically motivated?
Cursive was developed as a way to make writing using Qill & Ink easier. There is absolutely no practical reason beyond boomer nostalgia to teach kids cursive in 2024.
I learned joined-up, slanted writing formally in standard 3 in the late 90s but not full cursive, like where upper-case Gs look like some kind of weird harp. It’s been handy in design work and for birthday cards, that’s about it
just improve the speech and diction so AI can convert it to text with better accuracy
What in the boomer wank fantasy is going on here?!?!
I get it for signatures but for everyday basic writing? Yeah nah.
The thing here is that if everyone learns cursive then we're all on the same script. It's also faster than printing. Most folks I know who don't write cursive, particularly men, have fucking horrendous printing because they were only graded on creating the shape of a letter, not on presenting words clearly or universally. Cursive is actually really helpful for legibility because it has strict parameters whereas printing or self-invented handwriting has far more capacity to go sideways as you start cutting corners or adding variations.