Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is true. I do understand that the decision was university researcher influenced and curriculum based in many instances, but in others I believe it was a school decision.
Haven't spent much time in the public schools, have you?
In large city school districts, local school boards and administrations are largely populated by members of the education industry. If you haven't noticed, these people have to keep creating reasons to stay employed, which means every couple of years they have to come up with some "new revolutionary way" to teach children things that have been successfully taught using old techniques for generations. There's no income for the education industry in schools more or less doing things the same way for decades on end. Point in case: the cycle from teaching children how to read using the alphabet (you know, the tool that allowed millions of people to achieve literacy with minimum effort, by having letters map over to sounds), to "whole language reading" where sounding out words using the alphabet is forbidden, and instead children are supposed to learn English like it was Chinese or Japanese kanji or Egyptian hieroglyphics - then back to teaching the sound of the alphabet, only now that "new and revolutionary concept" is called "phonics".
If eliminating handwriting and replacing it with something else can be supported by enough school boards and administrations, the education industry can point to another justification for their existence.
And where the large local school boards and state boards of large states go, typically, so go the smaller entities.
Haven't spent much time in the public schools, have you?
In large city school districts, local school boards and administrations are largely populated by members of the education industry. If you haven't noticed, these people have to keep creating reasons to stay employed, which means every couple of years they have to come up with some "new revolutionary way" to teach children things that have been successfully taught using old techniques for generations. There's no income for the education industry in schools more or less doing things the same way for decades on end. Point in case: the cycle from teaching children how to read using the alphabet (you know, the tool that allowed millions of people to achieve literacy with minimum effort, by having letters map over to sounds), to "whole language reading" where sounding out words using the alphabet is forbidden, and instead children are supposed to learn English like it was Chinese or Japanese kanji or Egyptian hieroglyphics - then back to teaching the sound of the alphabet, only now that "new and revolutionary concept" is called "phonics".
If eliminating handwriting and replacing it with something else can be supported by enough school boards and administrations, the education industry can point to another justification for their existence.
And where the large local school boards and state boards of large states go, typically, so go the smaller entities.
I am aware of educators needing to redefine the profession of teaching every couple of years, always striving to solve some new problem that apparently could not be solved for the last couple of thousand years. I find it absurd. I have always found it interesting that education faculties have the lowest academic requirements of all faculties, and they are the first to lower standards. For example, for the longest time someone could not be admitted to a phd program without completing a thesis based master's degree. Education faculties are the first to lower that standard and accept course based master students to the phd program.
I agree with the comments posted earlier about education theorists experimenting with our children by omitting cursive writing from the curriculum only to realize that we now have a generation of children who do not know how to sign a legal document without printing. That decision backfired.
Status:
"I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out."
(set 2 days ago)
35,605 posts, read 17,935,039 times
Reputation: 50632
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lieneke
I am aware of educators needing to redefine the profession of teaching every couple of years, always striving to solve some new problem that apparently could not be solved for the last couple of thousand years. I find it absurd. I have always found it interesting that education faculties have the lowest academic requirements of all faculties, and they are the first to lower standards. For example, for the longest time someone could not be admitted to a phd program without completing a thesis based master's degree. Education faculties are the first to lower that standard and accept course based master students to the phd program.
I agree with the comments posted earlier about education theorists experimenting with our children by omitting cursive writing from the curriculum only to realize that we now have a generation of children who do not know how to sign a legal document without printing. That decision backfired.
You can print your signature. You can even write you signature by making weird squiggly nonsense.
In legal documents, under your squiggly signature you are often required to print your name legibly.
Although we are raising a generation of kids who can't read letters from their grandmother, it does seem kind of silly to do both printing and cursive. Can't we all just print? And then those who want to do archival research and read old documents can learn cursive - it's not that hard.
My kids use pencils all day long at school and my daughter was writing research papers in 3rd grade as well as typing them up afterwards and turning in both copies. Writing is still taught as well as cursive! Both my girls (4th & 6th grade) have to write everything in cursive. Keyboarding and basic computer skills iare also taught. Since technology is here in the present and continuing to grow, I’m glad this is being taught at a young age; however, basics of writing are still very much alive. At least in the Chicagoland area!
I agree, my 6 year old grandson could write his name and numbers 1-10 when he was 4. He's in kindergarten and can not only write full sentences but he can write coherent responses to questions like "what do you like best about Valentines day" Learning cursive is optional in this school district and left up to the teacher, but his teacher has taught the kids to write their name in cursive.
He reads at a 2nd grade level but part of his reading success is due to a computer program. Lexia Core 5 which he is required to work on for 20 minutes a night. As someone said earlier in this thread the problem is probably more due to parents not working with the kids before they start school than anything else. But with all that said he can't color worth a crap staying in the lines is not even an option for him, but he does well at drawing pictures and then cutting them out and playing with the pictures, go figure
You can print your signature. You can even write you signature by making weird squiggly nonsense.
In legal documents, under your squiggly signature you are often required to print your name legibly.
Although we are raising a generation of kids who can't read letters from their grandmother, it does seem kind of silly to do both printing and cursive. Can't we all just print? And then those who want to do archival research and read old documents can learn cursive - it's not that hard.
Longhand is far faster than printing.
Try to take notes in a college history or English literature course by laboriously printing every letter. Then take notes in longhand and see how much faster it is.
Anyway, all this discussion makes me want to hand write all my intraoffice communications just to annoy younger people.
Confused ... are you suggesting that the article about various states reintroducing cursive writing is discredited, or me?
"If it is really true in parts of our country then I am even happier my children were educated in one of the fine northern states (Minnesota). I am also happy that now my grandchildren are going to school (public) in Minnesota.
In Minnesota the children are taught the basics, like yours are in Indiana..."
This, not your post, is the comment I said is discredited.
You can print your signature. You can even write you signature by making weird squiggly nonsense.
In legal documents, under your squiggly signature you are often required to print your name legibly.
Although we are raising a generation of kids who can't read letters from their grandmother, it does seem kind of silly to do both printing and cursive. Can't we all just print? And then those who want to do archival research and read old documents can learn cursive - it's not that hard.
Cursive writing is faster. Printing is slower. Those who cannot write cursively are embarrassed when they are asked to write something.
If we must choose whether to drop printing or cursive, printing is the skill that should be dropped, but that's a problem because printing is the basic skill that is required prior to the advanced skill of cursive writing.
Try to take notes in a college history or English literature course by laboriously printing every letter. Then take notes in longhand and see how much faster it is.
Anyway, all this discussion makes me want to hand write all my intraoffice communications just to annoy younger people.
I taught post-secondary for a few years and wrote notes on the board using cursive. Students asked me to print because they were unable to read cursive. It was a time waste for me to have to print - felt a bit like I was dealing with elementary school children.
It's not only when printing notes that it is a problem, but also when completing exams that cannot be taken on computer.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
