Melissa, aren't your kids still pretty young, your oldest is 6yo? It makes sense that they aren't learning cursive yet, but they might in years/grades to come. It's taught in third grade here.
lol yes-I'm aware that they dont teach cursive in kindy. It's not taught in my district and has pretty much been abandoned in the tri state area.
Recent articles suggest that the national rates are a lot higher than that. I have a hard time imagining one of the most densely populated areas in the nation has gotten to a level that could be described as abandonment.
Survey shows cursive, on the decline, is taught in many classrooms nationwide - Washington Post
okay...so.....anyway. Yeah cursive. I think i would feel better about them not teaching it at all when i felt like it was completely dead. In my original message i said that i felt that the school where my kids are...was trying to teach it so that they could handle it when they encountered it, not to encourage its use. Which i think is the right way to go. Although after reading a couple of articles on the subject, it seems that they will unlikely retain the information unless they spend more time on it. So in that case its not very useful.
So i don't know...i guess its not very useful to teach it if they won't even retain it....which leaves me a little more undecided. I don't want to spend tons of time focused on the subject, but too little is pointless. But i think back to my days learning cursive...i don't really think that we spent that much time learning it for it to stick.
I was out, so forgive my brief reply, but I don't really know how to argue that our curriculum is what it is if you simply don't believe me. And the stats from the article you posted weren't so compelling as to make me look like a liar (what on earth do I have to gain from lying???) IMO. If it isn't part of the curriculum but teachers have some heartfelt desire or longing to teach cursive so spend some cursory amount of time on it........what is that really achieving, at the end of the day? And maybe its bad parenting of me to be concerned with the effectiveness of my kids education for the future, but I do. I'm okay with that. I agree with this comment from the article you posted. My print is also linked like they describe in this comment, I write that way MUCH faster than if I tried to go back to cursive and remember cursive capital G's and S's and whatnot. My mom used to be a secretary and still knows how to write in shorthand. I don't see that being taught today (is it?) ~ and that is okay too. I'm very pro innovation. I fully trust that the same fine motor skills and neural pathways and all that are being met in a myriad of ways that may be different, but no less worthy, than good old cursive writing. I personally think that studying for a spelling bee without learning the meaning of the words is stupid. Likewise I think that spending time learning to write in a script that few children are learning to write in and few parents use on a regular basis is not time well spent. Thats all. If people want to invest a lot of time on it ~ GO FOR IT! I think that is great. Just like I think that its great that we don't. I'm a big believer that we don't all have to be the same.
Handwriting matters — but does cursive matter? The fastest, clearest handwriters join only some letters: making the easiest joins, skipping others, using print-like forms of letters whose cursive and printed forms disagree. (Sources on request.)
Reading cursive matters, but even children can be taught to read writing that they are not taught to produce. Reading cursive can be taught in just 30 to 60 minutes — even to five- or six-year-olds, once they read ordinary print. Why not teach children to read cursive, along with teaching other vital skills, including a handwriting style typical of effective handwriters?
Adults increasingly abandon cursive. In 2012, handwriting teachers were surveyed at a conference hosted by Zaner-Bloser, a publisher of cursive textbooks. Only 37 percent wrote in cursive; another 8 percent printed. The majority, 55 percent, wrote a hybrid: some elements resembling print-writing, others resembling cursive. When most handwriting teachers shun cursive, why mandate it?
Cursive's cheerleaders sometimes allege that cursive makes you smarter, makes you graceful, or confers other blessings no more prevalent among cursive users than elsewhere. Some claim research support, citing studies that consistently prove to have been misquoted or otherwise misrepresented by the claimant.
What about signatures? In state and federal law, cursive signatures have no special legal validity over any other kind. (Hard to believe? Ask any attorney!)
All writing, not just cursive, is individual — just as all writing involves fine motor skills. That is why, six months into the school year, any first-grade teacher can immediately identify (from print-writing on unsigned work) which student produced it.
Mandating cursive to preserve handwriting resembles mandating stovepipe hats and crinolines to preserve the art of tailoring.