When you sit down with pen and paper, how do you write? Do you write in cursive, block or do you cast aside all antiquated trappings and simply sit down to a computer and compose your prose? I was listening to a NPR story the other day on the subject. In recent weeks, Indiana has passed a law allowing schools to no longer focus on the teaching of cursive. The state determined that the prevalence of computers and e-books have made the teaching of cursive superfluous and therefore, not needed. This law takes effect during the upcoming school year. As an educator, I would challenge such an assertion as the state of Indiana would make and would suggest that the long term implications of such a move are underappreciated and possibly dangerous.
Now, it might strike the casual reader as a bit absurd to criticize the state of Indiana’s measure while typing on a computer. However, modernizations should not be allowed to impede upon classical and fundamental skills. Mohandas Gandhi once wrote that bad handwriting was the sign of an incomplete education. At its most basic level, the art of cursive handwriting is an exercise of fine motor skills which, if lost, might prove detrimental for the student. On a broader scope, cursive writing is not just an exercise in writing but in thinking as well. Cursive requires an economy of thought and intellect. Writing on a computer is so easy that the art of concise and cogent argument is lost because time is no longer a restriction. When one considers the notion of texting and Facebook messaging, writing as a form of communication is no longer viable. If you write but don’t say anything, is it still communication?
Another advantage of cursive is the discipline to write. The ability of the student to focus and stay on task on a subject for long periods of time is dwindling. Acquiescing to the world of texts and messaging, along with similar education moves in other fields, is creating a collective ADD complex among our students and gradually, our adults as well. The key to knowledge and enlightenment is to be able concentrate and focus long enough to understand. Throughout society, various agents provide stimuli that encourage a lack of focus and stamina. As social commentator Neil Postman once said, schools must provide what the students do not have – in this case, endurance in study.
Lastly, cursive instruction will not only teach our students to write it but to read it as well. Once cursive writing becomes esoteric, what will happen to Americans’ understanding of the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution? Will their understanding be at the mercy of the few who can still comprehend cursive and translate it to typed text? This might sound a bit overzealous and perhaps paranoid, however, this is where the line of thinking goes. And it is easy to write off as paranoia what is not universally held today. As with education, most thinking today is short-sighted with little to no thought of the long term. There is a danger there.
If it is true that the role of schools is to provide what students do not have, then students do not need more instruction on typing but rather, they need the skill of cursive. They need the stamina and intellectual endurance that cursive instruction could provide. This approach is applicable and needs to be seen in all fields of study in American schools. Teachers and education specialists should never say, “we are getting rid of this” or “we are changing that” because it takes too long or it is too hard. We must, as educators, hold the line and hold high the standard. That is not done by acquiescing to what is easier.
Students should still be required to learn how to read cursive hand writing. How else will they be able to read old census records or the love letters written during WWII? However, I do tend to agree that the time has come to allow cursive handwriting instruction to become an elective course. Perhaps students could be tested on how to "translate" cursive writing into print and once mastered, the student can move on to more pressing subjects, such as the history behind the Treaty on Open Skies
ReplyDeleteBeing able to write neatly is an important skill, a craft perhaps even that should not be lost. Whilst it is so much easier to sit behind a computer and just type whatever springs into mind, this is - in my opinion - exactly one of the reasons people relying on computers to communicate tend to forget there's a human being on the other end of the line. Rude, thoughtless comments, impolite remarks, lack of respect; it seems common. Much more common than when I left school in the early '90s.
ReplyDeleteUsing a pen - preferably a decent fountain pen because it improves the quality of writing - makes the writer think more about what he or she wants to tell the other party. A neat, legible handwriting always comes in useful and is - in my experience at least - always appreciated. In the early 20th century, a good deal of people were unable to write but would love to be able to. Now, some hundred years later, learning to write is seen as a burden - by many. We're rapidly decending to a stage where few people have actual skills anymore, becoming increasingly reliant of modern technology. Without it, we're lost.