New way of forming letters - Is it a pile of cr*p or am I missing something?

[Manictigger]

Last week I went to dd's parents' evening and the teacher (Y1) explained to us about how the children are learning about a new way of forming their letters. Apparently you have a 'flick' at the start of some letters and it is supposed to help them with joined up writing. Teacher rolled eyes as she explained it and said she was having to relearn to write along with the children. I'm baffled by it frankly because in reception the children learnt that most letters start at the top (now they mostly appear to start at the bottom) and I thought that with joined up writing you tended to start the new letter according to where the one before finished (IYSWIM)!

Mrz, anyone, please help, am I being really stupid here?

s and r are very strange, and a looks like a round headed girl with a 50s/60s hair style. How they're supposed to recognise letters in printed material is beyond me. No wonder older people think the new generations are illiterate!

(I realise I am not entirely rational on this point )

Jux, I think I am far more irrational than you over all this . I am starting to wonder why schools are so obsessed with children learning joined up writing so young when 99.9 % of what they will read is never joined up. I thought joined up writing was done just to make writing quicker but it seems not. If our school starts introducing it at the reception stage, god knows what they will do with all the Jolly Phonic resources that they've invested in.

Anyway, thanks everyone for your input.

Oh god, tell me about it. DS has started that style this year, they're changing it across the school apparently. He was only just learning to write as it is, so this has confused him totally. Plus they are making him use pen and he just is not ready. So now we have the ridiculous situation of DS doing what he did before - ie incorrectly for any style - and then putting a flick at the start of the latter as an afterthought . I'm getting nowhere with him and getting very very cross with the school for ruining his emerging writing.

letter, even

It's all pointless.
All secondary DCs scribble as fast as possible and all adults type.

We learnt to write (many moons ago) with the flick at the start and / or on the end of a letter. I am sure it was called the Nelson style IIRC.

We used to have handwriting books and set times each week to do handwriting practise.

I hate cursive and I especially hate it with the entrance/exit flick.

My 16 yr old DS did it from reception and his writing is still atrocious. If he writes non cursive its ok.

Cursive writing is faster than non cursive Startailoforangeandgold because you aren't lifting your pen so often stopping and starting after each letter ... and not all secondary pupils scribble just as not all adults type.
Having said that I think the youngest pupils need single letters before they learn cursive.
We don't start cursive until the children can form letters correctly (so end of Y1 fir some and Y2 for others) and all our pupils have amazing handwriting.

Mrz do you think that everyone can have good handwriting? Dd1 is yr 3 and still isn't writing an a correctly (more like an alpha). It ends up as an approximation to the desired product and her teacher hadn't noticed (the new one - she has had extra support previously for handwriting), but I doubt it will ever be beautiful.

They have started using RWI and even as she says the patter she writes the letter incorrectly, so she will say 'round the apple, down the leaf' as she writes an alpha. Generally her handwriting is poor across most letters (though more legible than her father!), and not as clear as dd2 in yr1. Do ALL your students get it, or is it that the majority of students have amazing handwriting?

I think the only obstacle to good handwriting is poor teaching. When I say ALL I mean just that. We have children with CP, hyper-mobility and other physical problems who all have beautiful handwriting.

MAZ: our neighbour's DD started in Y2 and the mother said it was a complete nightmare. The girl hated having to start all over again and the writing was less good and thefore more difficult to read so she lost interest in doing her little stories she previously loved doing. Her brother now started the same school and does cursive from start, his writing made leaps compared to the pre school one.

Learning to read is no problem with a different style of writing. I think the older generation didn't do printed letters.

Hmmmm, yes DS is being taught the flick at the beginning now. He's Y1 . His writing is pretty good for his age, but I still think it's a bit early, especially as he often needs to ask which way b's and d's go (and often chooses to use a capital to avoid this problem!!). He was writing out the alphabet today with the flicks, got to j and asked me.... I wasn't much help, I guess it's just a flick like the others, well that's what I did.

Both my son's learnt cursive, and wrote in joined up writing, from reception. Ds1, stopped joined up writing in yr 7, as his teachers said he had poor presentation, ds2 has terrible writing (unless he tries really hard).

Ds1 has never had a problem with spelling (one of the reasons I think they used cursive), ds2 has a lot of problems with spelling.

But I'm pleased that it was consistent throughout primary, and there was no re learning of handwriting.

Tgger the lead in stroke should help with b d confusion.
noramum I suppose it depends on the style writing the child is originally taught. If it's traditional ball and stick which is what older generations learnt before moving onto joined handwriting then it's a bigger change than if they are taught modern semi cursive styles most schools use.

Why is joined up writing so important?

I never managed to do it and still print - on the plus side, examiners loved it, I am endlessly complimented on my beautiful handwriting and I'm often asked to write leaflets etc yet not a joined up letter in sight.

generally joined handwriting is faster and looks more "adult" to the reader. Of course print has a place as it is easier to read for things like leaflets and notices.

My dd is learning this in reception. The school sent home examples of what the letters look like. I found little videos on youtube on how to write the letters and then showed dd. (I'm left handed so its a bit harder for me to show a right handed child how to write). Anyway dd has really mastered the joined up writing, and I think it looks really neat. So I think writing in this style is a pretty good idea.

Surely legible is the most important thing?

My school tried to teach us cursive - I spent ages writing it in English classes and then printed in every other subject (I was at a private school with different teachers for different subjects so no-one noticed).

Is it not similar to being left or right-handed? Or is it something that everyone can be taught in a way that it feels normal and comfortable?

Oh, by leaflets I mean the kind of ones that political parties send out that are 'handwritten' so they look as if they are personal to the recipient - not the kind of thing advertising Halloween parties etc.

My ds1 and now ds2 learnt and is learning leading in stroke and out flick in nursery! Crazy, especially as they hear first and last instructions but miss the bit in the middle. Makes it very difficult to figure out what they are writing. Ds1 is now in year 1 and is better but I personally think it's too young to learn this

It doesn't matter whether they are political or religious or entertaining they are easier to read if printed. If you were word processing them it would be silly to use a fancy font because it would make it more difficult to read just as handwriting is more difficult.

mrz - if that is the case then why on earth teach cursive - surely the main point of writing is to communicate and the best way to do that is by being legible and easy to read?

My brother and husband have completely illegible handwriting - but it is I understand cursive in there somewhere...

Mrz - my DS2's school have always (well, the 8 years I have had DC's there) taught cursive from YR. DS2 has Hypermobility syndrome to the point that he has to wear wrist splints as his thumbs sublux (dislocate) when holding a pencil.

They gave up on teaching him cursive at the end of Y2, when he still couldn't form his own name. Within two weeks of being taught how to print single letters, he could write legibly.

It just DOESN'T work for everyone.

I can write cursive, but it looks like a spider has spilt an inkwell, and then tottered all over the page. I print.

DD's handwriting was improved massively by moving to this school at the start of Y2 and going straight into cursive. She also has Hypermobility syndrome. DS2 didn't get the hang of cursive after 3 full years of teaching.

that's interesting mrz, can't quite see how that works re helping the confusion? ah well, if it helps that's gotta be good .

I think it is legible Pyrrah. Thinking about it, teaching dd has actually improved my handwriting. I used to write in that weird hand bent over way that lots of left handers do. After doing cursive writing with dd, my hand writing has got quite neat and I don't smear ink accross the page anymore.