to think that teaching joined up writing to 5 years is counter-productive?

[rhetorician]

DD is 5, will be 6 in Jan, and in her second year at primary school. We live in Ireland, so the curriculum is very different - they do two years of (I guess) reception type work, junior and senior infants. So phonics, letter formation, sets, number patterns etc alongside all the other social/PE etc. DD is at a very good school and had a superb teacher last year, and made very good progress (she isn't the keenest of learners). Anyhow, a new Principal arrived january last and decided that all Junior Infants were to learn cursive writing (previously they had done this in first class, so around 7-8). Now, there's a few kids in each of the SI classes for whom this seems fine, but for the vast majority it seems like a complete waste of time. Instead of learning how to express themselves (spelling phonetically etc), all they are really doing is making patterns, tracing letters over and over, copying out words. DD finds it boring, pointless and difficult (and she is not alone in this) and it's totally put her off any kind of writing. I know there is research that suggests that cursive writing is good for the brain, but surely not when most them actually cannot write. DD is even reluctant to write her name now (it is a long name, tricky to write joined up). The teachers, whilst they are tactful, also clearly have serious reservations about this policy. AIBU?

that book looks great meglet - she'd like that I think. Thanks for the suggestion

I think it is well established practice.All my Dc (the eldest is nearly 20) learned cursive from the very beginning.

My dd has just gone into year 1 and they have now switched to cursive. Dd's handwriting was not good at all last year but in the last few weeks of being in year 1 it's improved dramatically (although we were told by the teacher it might get worse due to learning cursive).

I mean get worse before it gets better again.

It's very useful for teaching children to write words and spaces between words, too, as you wouldn't join two words together so you are forced to leave a "finger space".

I agree with envious.

I've never yet seen any evidence that teaching children starting to read and write using a cursive script has benefits over using a printed script. IME as a teacher it hampers many children initially - they find it very difficult to copy the patterns and the words are much more difficult to read back. I can't stand the split cursive letters some schools have in Reception - they are difficult to read and produce and just look messy.

There is evidence that cursive handwriting helps the brain to retain word patterns and the shape of words but that is with older children and it can be introduced at a later date - once children are more confident readers and writers. I was taught a fancy cursive script at school from the age of 9 and we had regular handwriting tests. I do sit write in a cursive style but not using all the 'correct' joins anymore unless I'm doing my teacher handwriting.

IMO schools should be spending more time on teaching touch typing rather than worrying about how cursive or not children's writing is.

so fairly evenly divided opinion - I'm a bit at a loss as DD just doesn't want to write using cursive and I'd rather that she could write using printed letters than not write at all. But I also don't want to go against what she's learning at school either. She just messes around when she is asked to write, scribbles, doing "pretend" writing, but not actually forming letters at all, even though she could do this perfectly well a year ago

Surely by the time today's five-year-olds are old enough to be taking notes in class (GCSE age?) they will all be doing so on tablet computers or whatever supercedes them?

I'm sure it will be okay, but I will admit to irritation because ds2's school was teaching them printing letters last year in reception, and he really struggled (dyslexia). Now this year, new head, new decision to start everyone doing joined up writing. So now they're telling him what he learned last year is wrong and he needs to do it a new way. He's so frustrated he's refusing to do the handwriting at all when it's homework. And I'm trying slowly to encourage him to try it, but he just is shutting down.

YANBU. Our school also wastes time on this starting age 5. I hate it. In Grade 4 they learn to type and are given laptops; Grade 6 they get iPads. Cursive is nice but hardly a necessity and it really irritates me that so much time is spent on that which could be spent on reading, numeracy etc.

I haven't actually used cursive since I was about 13 and don't know anyone who uses it. Oh, except my 70-year-old mother, when she writes thank-you notes, except she mostly sends thank-you emails now.

The key thing is to be able to write legibly. Dd spent years being told off for her messy handwriting and had to redo her hw. When I finally put my foot down and insisted that her writing could be more print like you could actually read what she was writing (teacher begrudgingly admitted that cursive in this case wasn't always best). Once they have a style that works for them then speed will not be an issue.

Dd was taught cursive from reception. Aged 8 and she has beautiful joined up hand writing. I was amazed they thought they'd be capable of it tbh but most of them were. I am totally for it right from the start.

My ds wasn't taught cursive and his writing is appalling. Dd was taught cursive from the off and has beautiful writing. So in my massive survey of two, it works!

i suppose there's also another dimension to all of this which is how much it really matters to have either "appalling" or "beautiful" handwriting. Legibility is a different issue I think (as the possessor of legendarily illegible handwriting!) - I think that I'd rather that a child could express him or herself well than the s/he had aesthetically pleasing handwriting - which is rather a subjective judgement anyway

It is yet something else that is "in" then "out" then "in" again.
I used to love teaching little ones all those swirly patterns and entry/exit strokes. It certainly seems to make writing a quicker process for lots of children.

They do this at DCs school from the day they start. The rationale given was that if you do it first, they don't have to relearn to write at a later stage. Ultimately it is neater than separate letters. When under stress, ie exam conditions, you revert to the basic writing you first learnt. Therefore you write quicker in exams and so get more work done.

All works fine for us. My DS had the worst writing imaginable at 5. Beautiful at 10.

What happened to the days where your handwriting was individual and unique. As long as its readable. I do not understand the speed issue as when you are in a position to write at that sort of speed you are using a keyboard eg work/further study etc.

When I say appalling hand writing, it's not just messy, it's illegible. Dd writes nearly, legible and much quicker.

I didn't mean it in only superficial ways.

* neatly, legibly*

Bloody spell check!

I remember being taught to finger-space and found it eternally frustrating. I remember my mum teaching me to write my own name so I think I must have progressed to cursive at home with her. I find it very easy to write cursively and remember told off for not printing and finger spacing, much to my annoyance.

OH was only taught to print letters and really struggles with handwriting and has to put effort into writing neatly. We both touch type equally well though.

ludways I agree that legibility is important (I did say this!) but I'm not that fussed about aesthetics

I'm on the fence about when to teach cursive, but it should be taught. Those up thread who see it, and handwriting in general as outmoded are missing a valuable point about handwriting: the research shows greater cognitive engagement when words are handwritten, any kind of handwriting.

I increasingly find students cannot read my handwriting on feedback, they find it hard to read cursive script. Some even want all written feedback read to them. I used to comply, but now I tell them to read it at home, come back and tell me the words they can't read. I email their parents to say I'm doing this, and why. Children are in danger of becoming de-skilled.

Here's a question; are children at private schools having handwriting downgraded in favour of typing? I'd be very surprised if the answer was yes.

I don't have a problem with them teaching cursive, but I do have an issue with them barely getting a grasp on printed letters in reception and then told within the first month of year 1 that the way they were doing it is wrong (printing) and they must now do it a completely different way. Ds2 is floundering unbelievably, especially when added to all the other new things they're expected to take in.

I was disappointed to find that DD's school (she's now year 1) don't teach cursive from the beginning. She won't let me teach her anything!

I teach in a school that does, and the benefits are clear and have been outlined above (and ignored by anyone who doesn't like it!).

Until recently, I've always pushed for touch typing in schools. Now I think it's unnecessary and will be outdated, even obsolete, soon. Most children/ teens can type with two thumbs quicker than any of us could ever write. Voice recognition software is already almost perfect.