Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It makes no sense, you cannot be adept at science unless you are highly literate, learning cursive helps improve literacy; verbal, reading, and writing) proficiency. That is scientific fact. How can one be so proSTEM and anti-science at the same time??

Could you post some links to some of this research that learning cursive, specifically, helps improve literacy and verbal proficiency? Not handwriting in general - specifically cursive. For children without particular special needs.

Yes, please because all I have is anecdata that shows the opposite: two highly literate kids who can't write English cursive.

Sure here you both go.

The first is a chapter from a textbook on writing developmental theory. I was above to find a link to pdf version of the chapter which is listed directly below it:

http://sk.sagepub.com/reference/hdbk_writingdev/n20.xml

https://schools.utah.gov/file/8e185248-724f-4c01-a9a3-15d7442a10e8

Here is a NYT article covering similar material:

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/03/science/whats-lost-as-handwriting-fades.html

Those are are about handwriting, not specifically about cursive. Handwriting includes printing.

Also, the Times article specifically mentions that the research supports that cursive may offer different benefits. In particular this quote:

"In alexia, or impaired reading ability, some individuals who are unable to process print can still read cursive, and vice versa — suggesting that the two writing modes activate separate brain networks and engage more cognitive resources than would be the case with a single approach."

So, perhaps you should be a less dismissive of PP's suggestion, particularly as you have added no scholarly publication or contrary evidence.

In other words, in some cases with people with special needs, print might be useful where cursive isn't, or cursive might be useful where print isn't. I don't think of that as a good reason why all children must learn cursive in school.

See bold. I don't believe that this establishes the disputed premise- that cursive increases literacy or language proficiency more broadly. However, it definitely establishes a basis for future research and evidentiary support for the conclusion. Given that, at least in this thread, there is no evidence suggesting that making this educational policy change will not have a detrimental effect, it seems a bit saucy to demand evidence, not examine the evidence presented, and claim that it is relevant anyway.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It makes no sense, you cannot be adept at science unless you are highly literate, learning cursive helps improve literacy; verbal, reading, and writing) proficiency. That is scientific fact. How can one be so proSTEM and anti-science at the same time??

Could you post some links to some of this research that learning cursive, specifically, helps improve literacy and verbal proficiency? Not handwriting in general - specifically cursive. For children without particular special needs.

Yes, please because all I have is anecdata that shows the opposite: two highly literate kids who can't write English cursive.

Sure here you both go.

The first is a chapter from a textbook on writing developmental theory. I was above to find a link to pdf version of the chapter which is listed directly below it:

http://sk.sagepub.com/reference/hdbk_writingdev/n20.xml

https://schools.utah.gov/file/8e185248-724f-4c01-a9a3-15d7442a10e8

Here is a NYT article covering similar material:

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/03/science/whats-lost-as-handwriting-fades.html

Those are are about handwriting, not specifically about cursive. Handwriting includes printing.

Also, the Times article specifically mentions that the research supports that cursive may offer different benefits. In particular this quote:

"In alexia, or impaired reading ability, some individuals who are unable to process print can still read cursive, and vice versa — suggesting that the two writing modes activate separate brain networks and engage more cognitive resources than would be the case with a single approach."

So, perhaps you should be a less dismissive of PP's suggestion, particularly as you have added no scholarly publication or contrary evidence.

In other words, in some cases with people with special needs, print might be useful where cursive isn't, or cursive might be useful where print isn't. I don't think of that as a good reason why all children must learn cursive in school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It makes no sense, you cannot be adept at science unless you are highly literate, learning cursive helps improve literacy; verbal, reading, and writing) proficiency. That is scientific fact. How can one be so proSTEM and anti-science at the same time??

Could you post some links to some of this research that learning cursive, specifically, helps improve literacy and verbal proficiency? Not handwriting in general - specifically cursive. For children without particular special needs.

Yes, please because all I have is anecdata that shows the opposite: two highly literate kids who can't write English cursive.

Sure here you both go.

The first is a chapter from a textbook on writing developmental theory. I was above to find a link to pdf version of the chapter which is listed directly below it:

http://sk.sagepub.com/reference/hdbk_writingdev/n20.xml

https://schools.utah.gov/file/8e185248-724f-4c01-a9a3-15d7442a10e8

Here is a NYT article covering similar material:

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/03/science/whats-lost-as-handwriting-fades.html

Those are are about handwriting, not specifically about cursive. Handwriting includes printing.

Also, the Times article specifically mentions that the research supports that cursive may offer different benefits. In particular this quote:

"In alexia, or impaired reading ability, some individuals who are unable to process print can still read cursive, and vice versa — suggesting that the two writing modes activate separate brain networks and engage more cognitive resources than would be the case with a single approach."

So, perhaps you should be a less dismissive of PP's suggestion, particularly as you have added no scholarly publication or contrary evidence.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How many of you all use cursive in your everyday life? I'm in my 30s and cannot remember the last time I had to write something in cursive aside from my signature on a receipt. I was in MCPS ES 20+ years ago and they made us write in cursive because "all your middle and high school teachers will expect this and you'll need it later in life." No, they didn't, and no, I didn't. MCPS has a lot of problems but I don't see this as one of them.

I do -- it's not perfect 'cursive' -- kind of a hybrid --but it's so much faster to use cursive than to print. I take notes all the time at work, etc. in cursive (but without the fancy upper case letters etc). It's just so much easier.

My kid isn't in MoCo, but at a DC charter. Has significant fine motor issues. Cursive is SO MUCH easier -- is doing it in OT. All the letters connected -- less up/down. anyway FYI.

Same here, I use cursive everyday writing things on a notepad. I'm a lawyer. Sometimes I'm interviewing witnesses or clients and have to try and get as many notes down as possible quickly, cursive is much faster.

Do other people not have to take notes at meetings anymore?

Sure do.
Some weeks, I speak with people on diligence trips 3-5 hours a day (every C-level 45 mins a pop). No way anyone gets out a laptop and clickety clack types up the discussion. That would really break the conversation flow. Handwriting - and your own shorthand frankly, in order to write faster - sure helps. Notebook industry is doing just fine, esp high end, BTW.

~Private equity

I’m in banking and I whip out my laptop or iPad with a keyboard all the time during high level meetings. And often we bring a junior staff member along to take notes on their laptop. Plus there’s voice to text transcription software if the meeting can be recorded that is improving every year. Handwriting is low tech. I wonder how much my child will use printing in life-cursive has already gone the way of the dinosaurs.

Would you do that at a 1 on 1 conversation with a CEO and Head of Sales?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It makes no sense, you cannot be adept at science unless you are highly literate, learning cursive helps improve literacy; verbal, reading, and writing) proficiency. That is scientific fact. How can one be so proSTEM and anti-science at the same time??

Could you post some links to some of this research that learning cursive, specifically, helps improve literacy and verbal proficiency? Not handwriting in general - specifically cursive. For children without particular special needs.

Yes, please because all I have is anecdata that shows the opposite: two highly literate kids who can't write English cursive.

Sure here you both go.

The first is a chapter from a textbook on writing developmental theory. I was above to find a link to pdf version of the chapter which is listed directly below it:

http://sk.sagepub.com/reference/hdbk_writingdev/n20.xml

https://schools.utah.gov/file/8e185248-724f-4c01-a9a3-15d7442a10e8

Here is a NYT article covering similar material:

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/03/science/whats-lost-as-handwriting-fades.html

Those are are about handwriting, not specifically about cursive. Handwriting includes printing.

Generally speaking, ‘handwriting’ Implies cursive.

handwriting noun
hand·writ·ing | \?hand-?r?-ti? \
Definition of handwriting
1 : writing done by hand
especially : the form of writing peculiar to a particular person
2 : something written by hand

19:08, there are many tools that can be put in our kids toolbox. I'd rather they spend more time on art and music and STEM than cursive. I personally think that with the advances in voice recognition software, handwriting in general will become less and less important. (If you look at the medical profession, many doctors are dictating their notes and they get transcribed later.) YMMV.

19:08 here.

I feel like people are interpreting my post in ways that I didn't mean, so I want to apologize for not being clearer.

I was not trying to be alarmist. I was in fact troubled by the tenor the conversation had taken and was trying to return to a middle ground.

For the purpose of clarity let me bluntly state:

- I think students printing AP tests can get top marks.

- I do not think using cursive on an AP test will cause a higher score.

I did not raise the topic of AP exams (although I did talk in earlier posts about my daughter havng difficulty finishing high school tests requiring essays because she was printing. I was, in fact, not referring to APs but classroom tests).

My purpose for posting my 19:08 post was to try to get away from the binary thinking. Just as I think kids can do well on APs without cursive, I think that cursive can make it easier for some kids (possibly, but not necessarily yours) to do well. Just as somebody else finding cursive useful, shouldn't require your kids to take an AP test in cursive, your children's success printing their AP test shouldn't be seen as evidence that cursive won't be useful for somebody else.

It is a tool for the toolbox. Once they have the tool, they can choose rather or not to use it. Anybody can and should decide what tool works best for them to complete any given task at any given time. There are tasks that I choose to print. There are tasks that I choose to type (a skill my mother forced me to learn against my will in junior high, but which I've been thanking her for ever since). I'm glad I have all three choices in my repertoire. I don't expect others to choose the same way I do, but I want them to have the choice to make.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It makes no sense, you cannot be adept at science unless you are highly literate, learning cursive helps improve literacy; verbal, reading, and writing) proficiency. That is scientific fact. How can one be so proSTEM and anti-science at the same time??

Could you post some links to some of this research that learning cursive, specifically, helps improve literacy and verbal proficiency? Not handwriting in general - specifically cursive. For children without particular special needs.

Yes, please because all I have is anecdata that shows the opposite: two highly literate kids who can't write English cursive.

How well will they do on an AP exam which requires responding to complex, timed questions? Being able to read is one thing. Quickly responding in writing to Qs about complex texts is another.

How well will they do?????

They are doing great on their AP exams, thanks.

Nobody is saying that kids without cursive are doomed to failure.

Cursive is a useful tool. Like most tools it presents easier ways of doing things that could be done in other ways.

Today, most professional writers probably use computers to write their novels/plays, etc. A generation ago, writers used typewriters. For much of history, writers used a quill pen. Clearly, great literature was created with less effective tools.

I'm not suggesting that cursive is the ideal tool for all jobs, but for cases like taking essay tests when computer usage isn't an option, or in note-taking, I think it is the best tool for the task.

While I think it's wonderful that your kid well on the AP test, a mastery of cursive might have made it easier for them to do well. It would have meant less time during the test devoted to the mechanics of writing. It also would have made it easier for them to take lecture notes to study the material which the test covers.

I think you overstated the case, and probably freaked out some parents in a sensationalist way that was potentially harmful. I'm not against cursive; I tried to teach it my kids, and they did learn it, but they don't use it. I felt it important to provide my counterpoint. You think it might have been easier for my kids to do well if they used the cursive they learned, but my point is that the achievement wasn't hard in the first place, so how they took notes and wrote essays was up to them and style was irrelevant as long as the grader could read the final product. Everyone develops their own most comfortable grip, even if experts say it isn't the "optimal" grip for most humans. Similarly, every writer settles into their own fastest and easiest-for-them penmanship style, and no two people's style of writing is identical. No one would borrow my law school notes, because no one could decipher my style of note taking. What mattered is that my style worked for me. You wouldn't like my kids' penmanship, my oldest's printed letters aren't even formed in the typical way, but it doesn't slow them down or hold them back.

For the record, I do think schools should still teach it; but I don't think kids who didn't learn it are at the disadvantage you suggest.

Cursive is not going to "improve" your kid's AP exam scores. I printed on my AP exams, and got all 5s and have two Ivy League degrees. This was decades ago, and I learned cursive in school and still opted to print because my printing is neater and I wanted the reader/grader to be able to understand my writing. Cursive doesn't get you a high score on an AP exam. And all the people talking about the "scientific evidence" that cursive improves learning, are pointing to articles about the link between handwriting and learning. Handwriting=printing+cursive.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It makes no sense, you cannot be adept at science unless you are highly literate, learning cursive helps improve literacy; verbal, reading, and writing) proficiency. That is scientific fact. How can one be so proSTEM and anti-science at the same time??

Could you post some links to some of this research that learning cursive, specifically, helps improve literacy and verbal proficiency? Not handwriting in general - specifically cursive. For children without particular special needs.

Yes, please because all I have is anecdata that shows the opposite: two highly literate kids who can't write English cursive.

How well will they do on an AP exam which requires responding to complex, timed questions? Being able to read is one thing. Quickly responding in writing to Qs about complex texts is another.

How well will they do?????

They are doing great on their AP exams, thanks.

Nobody is saying that kids without cursive are doomed to failure.

Cursive is a useful tool. Like most tools it presents easier ways of doing things that could be done in other ways.

Today, most professional writers probably use computers to write their novels/plays, etc. A generation ago, writers used typewriters. For much of history, writers used a quill pen. Clearly, great literature was created with less effective tools.

I'm not suggesting that cursive is the ideal tool for all jobs, but for cases like taking essay tests when computer usage isn't an option, or in note-taking, I think it is the best tool for the task.

While I think it's wonderful that your kid well on the AP test, a mastery of cursive might have made it easier for them to do well. It would have meant less time during the test devoted to the mechanics of writing. It also would have made it easier for them to take lecture notes to study the material which the test covers.

I think you overstated the case, and probably freaked out some parents in a sensationalist way that was potentially harmful. I'm not against cursive; I tried to teach it my kids, and they did learn it, but they don't use it. I felt it important to provide my counterpoint. You think it might have been easier for my kids to do well if they used the cursive they learned, but my point is that the achievement wasn't hard in the first place, so how they took notes and wrote essays was up to them and style was irrelevant as long as the grader could read the final product. Everyone develops their own most comfortable grip, even if experts say it isn't the "optimal" grip for most humans. Similarly, every writer settles into their own fastest and easiest-for-them penmanship style, and no two people's style of writing is identical. No one would borrow my law school notes, because no one could decipher my style of note taking. What mattered is that my style worked for me. You wouldn't like my kids' penmanship, my oldest's printed letters aren't even formed in the typical way, but it doesn't slow them down or hold them back.

For the record, I do think schools should still teach it; but I don't think kids who didn't learn it are at the disadvantage you suggest.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How many of you all use cursive in your everyday life? I'm in my 30s and cannot remember the last time I had to write something in cursive aside from my signature on a receipt. I was in MCPS ES 20+ years ago and they made us write in cursive because "all your middle and high school teachers will expect this and you'll need it later in life." No, they didn't, and no, I didn't. MCPS has a lot of problems but I don't see this as one of them.

I do -- it's not perfect 'cursive' -- kind of a hybrid --but it's so much faster to use cursive than to print. I take notes all the time at work, etc. in cursive (but without the fancy upper case letters etc). It's just so much easier.

My kid isn't in MoCo, but at a DC charter. Has significant fine motor issues. Cursive is SO MUCH easier -- is doing it in OT. All the letters connected -- less up/down. anyway FYI.

Same here, I use cursive everyday writing things on a notepad. I'm a lawyer. Sometimes I'm interviewing witnesses or clients and have to try and get as many notes down as possible quickly, cursive is much faster.

Do other people not have to take notes at meetings anymore?

Sure do.
Some weeks, I speak with people on diligence trips 3-5 hours a day (every C-level 45 mins a pop). No way anyone gets out a laptop and clickety clack types up the discussion. That would really break the conversation flow. Handwriting - and your own shorthand frankly, in order to write faster - sure helps. Notebook industry is doing just fine, esp high end, BTW.

~Private equity

I’m in banking and I whip out my laptop or iPad with a keyboard all the time during high level meetings. And often we bring a junior staff member along to take notes on their laptop. Plus there’s voice to text transcription software if the meeting can be recorded that is improving every year. Handwriting is low tech. I wonder how much my child will use printing in life-cursive has already gone the way of the dinosaurs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It makes no sense, you cannot be adept at science unless you are highly literate, learning cursive helps improve literacy; verbal, reading, and writing) proficiency. That is scientific fact. How can one be so proSTEM and anti-science at the same time??

Could you post some links to some of this research that learning cursive, specifically, helps improve literacy and verbal proficiency? Not handwriting in general - specifically cursive. For children without particular special needs.

Yes, please because all I have is anecdata that shows the opposite: two highly literate kids who can't write English cursive.

How well will they do on an AP exam which requires responding to complex, timed questions? Being able to read is one thing. Quickly responding in writing to Qs about complex texts is another.

How well will they do?????

They are doing great on their AP exams, thanks.

Nobody is saying that kids without cursive are doomed to failure.

Cursive is a useful tool. Like most tools it presents easier ways of doing things that could be done in other ways.

Today, most professional writers probably use computers to write their novels/plays, etc. A generation ago, writers used typewriters. For much of history, writers used a quill pen. Clearly, great literature was created with less effective tools.

I'm not suggesting that cursive is the ideal tool for all jobs, but for cases like taking essay tests when computer usage isn't an option, or in note-taking, I think it is the best tool for the task.

While I think it's wonderful that your kid well on the AP test, a mastery of cursive might have made it easier for them to do well. It would have meant less time during the test devoted to the mechanics of writing. It also would have made it easier for them to take lecture notes to study the material which the test covers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It makes no sense, you cannot be adept at science unless you are highly literate, learning cursive helps improve literacy; verbal, reading, and writing) proficiency. That is scientific fact. How can one be so proSTEM and anti-science at the same time??

Could you post some links to some of this research that learning cursive, specifically, helps improve literacy and verbal proficiency? Not handwriting in general - specifically cursive. For children without particular special needs.

Yes, please because all I have is anecdata that shows the opposite: two highly literate kids who can't write English cursive.

How well will they do on an AP exam which requires responding to complex, timed questions? Being able to read is one thing. Quickly responding in writing to Qs about complex texts is another.

How well will they do?????

They are doing great on their AP exams, thanks.

I'm sure they are, considering the exams are given in May. the grades of your brilliant cherubs? sophomores? juniors? seniors? the exams TAKEN? the scores?

Do share!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It makes no sense, you cannot be adept at science unless you are highly literate, learning cursive helps improve literacy; verbal, reading, and writing) proficiency. That is scientific fact. How can one be so proSTEM and anti-science at the same time??

Could you post some links to some of this research that learning cursive, specifically, helps improve literacy and verbal proficiency? Not handwriting in general - specifically cursive. For children without particular special needs.

Yes, please because all I have is anecdata that shows the opposite: two highly literate kids who can't write English cursive.

How well will they do on an AP exam which requires responding to complex, timed questions? Being able to read is one thing. Quickly responding in writing to Qs about complex texts is another.

How well will they do?????

They are doing great on their AP exams, thanks.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It makes no sense, you cannot be adept at science unless you are highly literate, learning cursive helps improve literacy; verbal, reading, and writing) proficiency. That is scientific fact. How can one be so proSTEM and anti-science at the same time??

Could you post some links to some of this research that learning cursive, specifically, helps improve literacy and verbal proficiency? Not handwriting in general - specifically cursive. For children without particular special needs.

Yes, please because all I have is anecdata that shows the opposite: two highly literate kids who can't write English cursive.

How well will they do on an AP exam which requires responding to complex, timed questions? Being able to read is one thing. Quickly responding in writing to Qs about complex texts is another.

How well will they do?????

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It makes no sense, you cannot be adept at science unless you are highly literate, learning cursive helps improve literacy; verbal, reading, and writing) proficiency. That is scientific fact. How can one be so proSTEM and anti-science at the same time??

Could you post some links to some of this research that learning cursive, specifically, helps improve literacy and verbal proficiency? Not handwriting in general - specifically cursive. For children without particular special needs.

Yes, please because all I have is anecdata that shows the opposite: two highly literate kids who can't write English cursive.

Sure here you both go.

The first is a chapter from a textbook on writing developmental theory. I was above to find a link to pdf version of the chapter which is listed directly below it:

http://sk.sagepub.com/reference/hdbk_writingdev/n20.xml

https://schools.utah.gov/file/8e185248-724f-4c01-a9a3-15d7442a10e8

Here is a NYT article covering similar material:

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/03/science/whats-lost-as-handwriting-fades.html

Those are are about handwriting, not specifically about cursive. Handwriting includes printing.

Generally speaking, ‘handwriting’ Implies cursive.