Why do primary schools insist on cursive writing?

[Soubriquet]

It’s rarely used in secondary school and I’ve not seen anyone use it as an adult. Both of my dc’s writing is illegible half the time due to cursive. If they use printed, it’s lovely, yet the teachers keep insisting on cursive.

Why?

You've not seen anyone as an adult write with cursive?!!

Come oooon, OP!! Cursive is just joined-up letters. As if all adults write like 5 year olds with all seperate block letters!

Every adult I know writes with joined-up writing. It's not unusual in the slightest.

I'd honestly assume someone was dyslexic or struggled to read and write if they didn't write with cursive.

I was thinking about this this week in a workshop watching one guy taking his notes printing his letters in his notepad. It was so sloooooow and interupted the flow with looong pauses to let him take his note before continuing with the item being discussed . Others just quickly, smoothly, wrote what they needed - as others have said muscle memory.

Sure technology is there but there, but you wont always have a device in these situations and there is still a significant need to be taught to handwrite efficently.

"...maintain legibility in joined handwriting when writing at speed"
Due to dyspraxia and hypermobility in his hands and wrists, DS has never reached this target and never will. I feel that if he had been allowed to separate his letters, his writing would at least be legible, if slow. Thankfully his primary school taught him touch-typing, and he typed his answers for some of his GCSE exams.
He is now in his fourth (and final) year of a course where nearly all of the assessment is written exams. The time pressure is intense and the answers include functions and equations so cannot be typed.

Hand Writing, as far as I am concerned, should focus entirely on legibility, there is no value in beautifully swirly illegible bollocks that may as well be written in Esperanto because no fucker can read it.

A legible printed style note that clearly states:
'Susan album party for 4' is much better than the illegible version that needs deciphering.. susanalbumpartyfor4

It seems to make writing so much harder to write and read, my children's writing isn't helped by it. We were taught joined up writing and it seems much better in both ways.

I still write every day and joined up handwriting is easier and faster.

Children learn to spell, and even read, more easily when they learn how to physically write and form the letters than when they type.

Writing notes with pen and paper in a lecture helps students remember what they've learned better than writing typed notes. Yes, typing is faster, but that means you're more likely to simply copy the lecture word for word rather than shortening and rephrasing it when hand writing them.

Because joined up handwriting is on the primary national curriculum in England and Wales (not sure about Scotland and Northern Ireland) for English.

This isn't true.

Cursive isn't taught in secondary as it is assumed to be a skill secured in primary BUT written work is expected to be written neatly and, yes, in a more adult way than with block letters! I didn't teach English but absolutely spent a lot of time addressing poor writing, spelling and grammar.

Yes, lots of kids have messy writing, but it's a skill they just need to accept is essential, not least because it's so much faster.

Lots of GCSE/A level/higher ed exams require long-answer questions that will be marked as incorrect if illegible. There is absolutely not enough time for block letter writing in an exam!

Hand Writing, as far as I am concerned, should focus entirely on legibility

Speed comes into it and cannot be discounted, printing at speed is very difficult, more difficult than making joined up legible. If you cant write at speed you are at a significant disadvantage in school, exams and the workplace.

Cursive IS joined-up writing. They just teach it a certain way to show kids how it's easiest to attach letters together.

The problem is that SATs, and therefore schools, prioritise the use of cursive, but not the teaching of cursive.

When I was taught cursive in the 70s we were required to sit tucked in at our tables and we always wrote in lined notebooks positioned at a slight angle in front of us. Before we even got to that stage we were explicitly taught how to hold our pencils and corrected/supported to change our grip.

In the 21st century all my children were taught handwriting seated cross-legged on the floor, writing on plain whiteboards on their laps. 2-3 times a week they got 10min handwriting practice in lined notebooks at their tables. If there was time for it. No mention of how the books should be positioned. No explicit teaching how to hold their pencils. The tables were often hexagonal, or, if square, with children working on both sides of the corner, so there was no space to angle their books. How can children be expected to learn clear writing under these conditions? At primary school children write nearly as much as they did 50y ago. There is still the opportunity to write and establish a clear hand.

And don't get me started on this ghastly version of precursive they now use. Instead of every letter leading out, they all must now lead in as well. So the children are taught to begin and finish every letter on the writing line. Fair enough. Until you have to write something like frog. What they end up writing is fnag. Because they then have to unlearn r and o.

When my left handed dc was in KS1, I kept explaining to the teachers that he needed to angle his work to the right, and at a steeper angle than right handers do. It made no difference. They even made excuse that there wasn't space at the tables to allow him to angle his book! By end KS2 his writing was entrenched, and the stress of the school finally trying to change it (for the SATs!) was too much. Unsurprisingly, ds's handwriting is illegible. So much so, that he has to do his GCSEs on a laptop.

Because it's what the government want and expect a child to be able to do in order to meet expected standards.
I work with children and it's fucking pointless, especially since 99% of the secondary schools don't give a shit as long as it's legible.

Years and hours spent on extra practice , reminders, feedback, nagging . Having to tell a kid who produced a beautiful,well written piece of work "This is great but...". Having to nag the kid that struggles . Having to nag the kids who use print and their writing is ok , but their cursive is awful. The fucking snobbery of it all. No it's not prettier. Even if it was, it's not relevant.All the "benefits" are mostly bullshit and don't just apply to cursive , it's literally just a box to tick.

Primary cursive isn't 'curly wurly' at all. It just shows the kids the easiest places to join letters.

Typed is still handwriting, just not joined up.

Just going to leave this here...

Because education is a one size fits all exercise. Some children will benefit from cursive but many won’t. Why they spend zero time learning touch typing is beyond me. Must people type terribly and do it everyday.

The 'curly wurly stuff' is what when I was learning it (1960s) was called copperplate. Teacher would write the letters on the blackboard and we'd copy them in our books to learn how to form the letters, and as another poster said, we were required to sit tucked in at our tables and we always wrote in lined notebooks positioned at a slight angle in front of us. Before we even got to that stage we were explicitly taught how to hold our pencils and corrected/supported to change our grip.

Once we'd learned to form the letters we went on to sentences and developed our own handwriting. Incidentally, I still write some letters in the way I was taught when I was seven, and handwriting is a lot quicker than typing unless you're a fast typist.

Every adult I know uses cursive handwriting. It's quicker for one thing.
Unfortunately many children are not taught how to hold a pen or pencil correctly. They seem to twist themselves into all sorts of positions to write.
As another poster said, let's keep at least some standards in this country.

Teachers insist in on it at a classroom level because it'll be apart of their school's handwriting policy.

Actually, for children for whom writing (cursive or typed/printed) there are touch typing interventions and practice in place , or at least it should be. If the children have the ability to produce the work, but not the means , they should be encouraged to type . They can practice touch typing while other children are practicing normal handwriting.

As I said... snobbery.

It helps with muscle memory which helps hugely with spelling.

Because the Uk education system is a good 30 years behind the curve. Exams in secondary should be typed. If you want to teach primary school children something useful, teach them to type quickly and accurately.

@StaunchMomma as I have said - at my daughter's primary (which she only left 5 years ago) it was that "curly wurly" style.

It is harder to learn at first, but it becomes second nature with practise. Children on the continent have beautiful writing by the time they are 10. Here, the majority looks like illiterate scrawl. And yes, I know I'm going to get flamed for saying that.

My child was taught cursive from day one and I have to say I have always thought it to be a great thing. She has immaculate, confident, flowing handwriting now. Yes it was tough at first but once it clicked it was great and I think it’s a valuable skill.