Kingston Cursive Handwriting - Any research?

(21 Posts)

Just been informed that DD's Reception class is now going to be learning Kingston Cursive this coming term in preparation for September when the school will be adopting this approach fully.

Im not happy about it, my understanding is that learning capitals then lowercase in print form is much more in line developmentally, rather than confusing them with all this loopy stuff. My DD is just getting the hang of all the letters, and caps are more easy than lower case.

I would like to know if anyone has looked into research on this method? I couldnt find anything by googling.

spanieleyes Sat 24-May-14 11:11:31

Cursive from the start in my school.

OnlyOnSundays Sat 24-May-14 13:14:58

Capitals then lower case? That will really hinder children initially with reading, as not much is just written in capitals.

OnlyOnSundays Sat 24-May-14 13:20:31
AnimalsAreMyFriends Sat 24-May-14 13:20:57

Teaching them to write in capitals, is a dreadful approach - one which primary teachers ultimately can spend years trying to undo.

We teach cursive from the word go - yes, it is more difficult than the old fashioned 'ball & stick' method, but by the time children are in Y1 / Y2 it pays dividends. Much more fluent writing style, with spelling patterns having been taught from the word go (e.g. -igh, -ear, -air...)

Look at the Sassoon writing - she has done lots of research. But honestly, please, please do not teach your child to write in capital letters.

RafaIsTheKingOfClay Sat 24-May-14 13:30:35

Capitals and then lowercase is a terrible idea and does hold lots of children back and cause them problems later. Ideally they should be taught both from the start.

I agree that print then cursive is probably easier than straight into cursive, but I don't know if that's just personal choice, rather than any evidence based reason for doing it that way.

merlottime Sat 24-May-14 13:51:01

I thought cursive from the start had been standard for years in state primaries - it certainly was when my DS (now Yr 8) was in reception. The jolly phonics books that encourage you to trace the letters use a cursive script (if I've remembered that far back!). Teaching capitals first sounds quite Victorian.

iMN Sat 24-May-14 14:03:42

It's cursive from the start in my dc's school and I'm fine with that. Anything that means they end up with presentable handwriting, which IMO has been lost a bit over a couple of generations.

Does anyone know about helping left handed dc with cursive? My ds in reception is struggling a bit with it, my thoughts being that he has to keep lifting his hand to check what he has already written.

RafaIsTheKingOfClay Sat 24-May-14 15:01:00

The jolly phonics books use pre-cursive not cursive.

There isn't really a 'standard'. It's up to schools what they use. Some join from the start, some teach a cursive script but unjoined, most IME probably use some form of pre-cursive.

mrz Sat 24-May-14 19:07:51

Doesn't Kingston start with teaching separate letters before joining (pre cursive)? Personally I don't like the open b/p or z/f in Kingston as they very different to style children will encounter in print

turdfairynomore Sat 24-May-14 19:49:40

I teach p1 (yr R) and it takes a whole year to undo names that have been taught in capitals! I know that ANNA or JAKE is much easier but I'd really rather they couldn't write anything at all than have to "unteach" it! My school does pre cursive first- in letter "families". Cursive isn't taught until p4 ish.

Thank you all for your views. I do not come from an educational background so forgive my ignorance but I still don't really get why there is a need to un teach capitals. Don't the children and parents get frustrated if they cannot write until yr 2? What happens if your child does not get on with the Kingston method? Surely capitals then lower case, then cursive is developmentally led?

canatavia Sat 24-May-14 22:57:42

We do print then cursive. Cursive is combined with a few calligraphy lessons to develop child's own personal style of cursive

RafaIsTheKingOfClay Sat 24-May-14 23:08:39

Children can write long before year 2 if they are taught lower case. I'm not quite sure why you would think they couldn't.

The reason you have to unteach it is because if you teach them to write words all in capitals it can get a bit engrained for some children. So you end up with year 2/3/4 children chucking capitals in everywhere e.g. The cAt saT on THE Mat, rather that 'The cat sat on the mat.'

In reception I'd teach upper and lower case representations of each sound, with words written in lower case and capitals used for the beginning of sentences, name and the word 'I'.

itiswhatitiswhatitis Sat 24-May-14 23:21:10

Cursive from the beginning in our school too. Although when ds1 was in reception they learnt print first. I think teaching cursive from the start makes sense as I know there are children in ds1's class (yr5) who still struggle with cursive and continue to print.

Personally I don't see the point in teaching them one way and then getting them to relearn a whole new way of writing

mrz Sun 25-May-14 07:42:52

piemashandliquer if a child is taught to write in capitals they often struggle to move onto writing conventions - by that I mean only using capitals for names and starting new sentences so it is usual for children in reception to be taught both upper and lower case letters together. Some schools have made the decision to teach joined handwriting from the start - theory is that they only need to learn one style rather than learn "unjoined" then joined. IMHE I don't think children have a problem moving from a precursive style to fully joined handwriting and that separate letters first helps when learning to decode and encode.

EatDessertFirst Sun 25-May-14 07:58:34

Cursive from the start at our school as well. My DD (5.5) has very legible writing, and can distinguish between upper and lower case. I can't imagine how difficult and frustrating it must be (for teachers and pupils) to unlearn a style of writing.

hiccupgirl Sun 25-May-14 08:22:03

Def do not teach to write in capitals first! It is a nightmare to unteach children who have learnt to do this with their names etc. Children need to learn to read and write with lower case letters primarily as this is what they encounter most in books. Of course they need capitals alongside especially with typing but no-one writes solely in capitals. Capitals also don't encourage flow when writing.

My only reservation with teaching just cursive writing in Reception is that it can be very difficult for any child with motor difficulties or other SEN such as a visual impairment to learn. In these cases printed lower case is generally easier.

CalamitouslyWrong Sun 25-May-14 08:56:03

I'm not sure how capitals first could be 'developmentally led'. There's no part of child development that says capitals, then lower case, then cursive. The issue if capitals/lower case and printing/cursive are quite separate. And, if you were going to pick one, you'd probably choose lower case before capitals because that's what we use to write most often. Capitals aren't any easier to write than lower case letters.

Meglet Sun 25-May-14 09:10:19

Cursive from reception at the DC's school.

There isn't any undue pressure on those that take a while to crack it though. 5yo DD is left handed and has some creative handwriting, but the basics of cursive are all there (entry and exit strokes, just not joined up), she'll get there in a year or two.

7yo DS can do it just fine now. Apparently they can write faster once they've mastered it.

MissWimpyDimple Sun 25-May-14 18:22:45

Yup cursive from the start here too. DD had good legible handwriting from end of reception and decent neat writing, very similar to mine actually blush, at age 7...

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now