Regarding Mike Maxwell and his plea for spelling our language more simply: I agree that the very odd spelling system of standard English could use an upgrade, but attaining that would take much more work than the equally urgent task of improving handwriting. Any one individual can improve his or her own handwriting, but it would take many people, working together, to agree on improving the spelling of English. (And even if we did improve the spelling of our language, no conceivable improvement could eliminate the need to write legibly in whatever sort of spelling we then had.)

I agree witht this line and I would go ever further to say that they are not just training them academically but teaching them specifically not to think independently, but to conform to the ideas and practices of the institution.

I think its interesting that many schools state that handwriting is not used/taught and is outdated because computers are now what is being used, yet keyboarding is not taught at the elementary level either.

This is part of the reason I don’t send my kids to school. There is too much wrong with the system to try and fix it.

> nowhere on Long Island at any grade level do we see a computer on every
> student’s desk. Even more importantly, lost is the understanding that
> handwriting is the integrative process that helps a learner connect
> the individual auditory sounds of language (phonemic awareness)
> with the letters that visually represent those sounds (phonics).

But none of the above is dependent on cursive, as opposed to printing. (And I mite point awt that fonics wuld be enhansed by reforming the spelling sistm, sumthing the awthr is dawtles agenst.)

> If in fact handwriting is of little consequence today, then why do we,
> the taxpayers, pay for an occupational therapist to work with a
> student who has poor handwriting?

Good question! Why indeed? Because we’ve always done it that way? (Actually, I was not aware that “we” do that. Perhaps some states do it, and others don’t?)

> The demise of handwriting is also a cognitive loss. The enhancement
> of neurological processes involved in the skill of writing is wide-ranging.

There’s an interesting shift from “handwriting” in the first sentence to “writing” in the second; it’s unclear to me whether in fact handwriting enhances the skill of writing (in the broad sense) more than printing does. (The next paragraph claims that SAT scores–the very standardized tests that you claim are faulty because they have as much to do with family income as with learning!–are higher for students who use cursive. This is addressed by a previous comment on this article. There’s also an issue here in distinguishing correlation from causation.)

In sum, whatever the merits of the rest of this article, the claim that not teaching cursive is a great loss makes about as much sense as the notion that it is a great loss that most of us can no longer make fire by rubbing two sticks together.

(Oh, and why are ‘LOL’ and ‘OMG’ any more preposterous than ‘Mr.’ or ‘Mrs.’?)

Kate Gladstone
Director, the World Handwriting Contest
Founder and CEO, Handwriting Repair/Handwriting That Works

Thanks for this essay.

As part of my practice, I work with 1st-5th graders who are struggling with written language.

My perspective is that

1. Handwriting is introduced too early. Children in preschoolers are commonly expected to be able to write their names and some common words before they have the motor skills to do so, and without being provided with explicit instruction in proper pencil grip OR proper letter formation. Some do pick it up naturally, and therefore the expectation is that all children can and should “write” without explicit and direct instruction and without explicit, guided and corrected practice. The process intensifies in kindergarten. By the middle of 1st grade, many children are struggling to keep up.

2. Manuscript letter formation is never, ever taught or practiced to mastery.

3. Cursive is introduced too soon.

4. Handwriting (whether manuscript (print) or cursive) is both a physical skill and a cognitive skill. Mastering a physical skill requires explicit, direct instruction in discrete subskills, with a lot of opportunity to practice these sub-skills to automaticity. Our American teacher-training programs routinely denigrate that kind of practice as “drill and kill”. Tell that to professional athletes, musicians, or pilots (for three examples) who routinely practice the sub-skills necessary for automaticity in their fields.

5. Many teachers rely upon the workbooks provided by their school’s chosen handwriting method. I’ve examined the workbooks for many of the handwriting curricula. At best, they are badly designed and do not offer adequate practice.

I agree with Nan Jay Barchowsky’s comment.