A Loopy Debate

There may be legitimate beefs with the Common Core State Standards Initiative, but elimination of instruction in cursive writing is not one of them. Cursive has been left on the cutting room floor because it's an increasingly anachronistic skill in the digital age, while typing skills ramp up in relevance. But predictably, a conservative faction is mobilizing to decry the elimination of cursive, linking it to a decrease in literacy and an impediment to a comprehensive understanding of history. 

Michael Leclerc's article on the Huffington Post blog waxes patriotic in its lament for the loss of cursive:

...one of the rites of passage in youth is usually a school trip to Washington, D.C. One of the most impressive stops was to the National Archives, waiting in line to walk through the rotunda holding the Charters of Freedom. The awe one feels when approaching the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is indescribable. These are the documents that we live by. Nowadays, you can even look at the originals on the National Archives website. Unfortunately, this experience is one that future generations will never have. Reading those documents is as foreign to them as reading documents in 15th-century Secretary Hand to older folks. They will only be able to read transcriptions of the original.

Washington Post

This argument is akin to saying that kids can't truly understand the life of Abraham Lincoln without learning to build a split rail fence. Granted, some Waldorf-style experiential curricula might have students doing just that, but with huge achievement gaps in math and science to be closed, such quaint expeditions to the past through anachronistic materials and techniques should be supplementary at best. Rather, more classroom time should be dedicated to the keyboarding skills essential to communicating in the digital age. 

Stephen Colbert had some fun recently with the "War on Cursive."

What the dialogue on both sides of this issue lacks is an understanding of the origins of cursive script: it developed as a writing style to accommodate the limitations of quill pens. 

Still from Shakespeare in Love

Yes, Quill pens.  Used by Shakespeare, the Founding Fathers and Bilbo Baggins, but not so much by writers today. The scratchy nib and limited ink supply of quills (and later steel nibs) encouraged the linkage of individual letters - completing a word before you had to reload. Now, consider the fact that the technology of writing instruments has come a long way since John Hancock's name became synonymous with a flourish of penmanship, and the argument for preserving cursive writing has another ink blot on it.  

There's a reason that no one born after World War II is familiar with the operation of a rocker blotter. For that matter, a plethora of script fonts are available today, allowing cursive fans to reproduce the elegant look of handwritten script without parchment and quill. 

I can't help but scoff at the "War on Cursive" because it's a prime example of educational ideology that's inherently anti-intellectual. It ignores an important historical and technological footnote in favor of preserving a once-practical style for nostalgia's sake. 

Note that with zero users and a small handful of guests on its website, the Campaign for Cursive doesn't seem to be gaining much traction in getting its message out in cyberspace. Perhaps that website is just too newfangled.