The Myth and Reality of Cursive Writing in Modern Education

Why do people still cling to the notion that only cursive writing can be considered real writing? This article delves into the reasons behind this persistent belief and explores the broader implications of handwriting instruction in today's educational landscape.

Nostalgia and Tradition

The attachment to cursive writing is often rooted in nostalgia. People who learned cursive through their formative years pass on this preference without questioning its efficacy. For them, cursive is not just a form of writing; it is a cherished tradition that carries sentimental value. This nostalgia leads to a mindset where they believe that everyone should experience the same joy and frustration they did when learning cursive. This idea is perpetuated by a lack of critical evaluation and a reliance on personal experiences.

Common Misconceptions

Similar to other common misconceptions, such as the myth that Columbus discovered America or that not wearing a jacket will cause one to catch a cold, the idea that cursive is the only legitimate form of writing is often perpetuated without scrutiny. When foundational beliefs are repeated enough, they become accepted as objective truths. This is why it is crucial to critically assess the validity of these claims, especially in the realm of education.

Legibility and Personal Preference

The argument for teaching cursive writing often overlooks the primary goal of writing: legibility. What matters most is the ability to convey one's thoughts clearly and precisely. It is ultimately a matter of personal preference and functional legibility. For instance, the author has been trained in Copperplate cursive and has experimented with different handwriting styles. Copperplate is found to be round and relaxing, while italics are more challenging. This illustrates that individual preferences play a significant role in determining the most suitable handwriting style.

The Business of Cursive Promotion

Beyond personal preferences, there is a more insidious aspect to the promotion of cursive writing. Certain organizations have emerged that actively promote cursive writing as a more effective form of handwriting. These organizations often use exaggerated claims and misrepresentations of research studies to support their cause. This phenomenon is not unlike the religious zealots who misquote and misrepresent sacred texts to build a case for their beliefs.

A notable example is the testimonies provided by lobbyists for cursive promotion organizations. When questioned about the veracity of the claims made in their promotional materials, these lobbyists often misrepresent the findings of studies that do not support the superiority of cursive writing. For instance, some studies cited in their promotional materials were not even about handwriting but rather related to other research entirely. The lobbyists misquoting these studies underscores the importance of critical evaluation and transparency in educational advocacy.

Conclusion

The debate over the value of cursive writing in modern education is, at its core, a reflection of broader issues related to tradition, personal preference, and the influence of advocacy groups. While cursive writing holds a special place in many hearts, it is important to consider the practical implications of teaching handwriting. The ultimate goal is to enable students to express themselves clearly and legibly, rather than adhere to a specific form of writing. As society evolves, so too must our methods of teaching and learning.