How Cursive Writing Is Taught Outside of The United States
This will be the first of several posts examining cursive writing, and the value of continuing to teach it. I want to write a brief post for my American readers explaining how cursive is taught in much of the rest of the world, and explain to my non-American readers how it is taught differently in The United States of America.
First, I’d like to give you some background on handwriting in this society. Here, students aren’t taught to print at all. Starting at age five, they are taught to form cursive letters in very tiny script (about half the height of a typical adult’s handwriting size in America). The lined paper normally used here in this country (and, as far as I am aware, throughout most of Europe, as well as South America). Each major line is eight millimeters of space apart (similar to college-ruled paper in the United States). Each of those lines has three more horizontal lines passing through each large space, dividing the paper into two-millimeter increments. Five-year-old students here (and in Europe and South America, as far as I am aware) are taught to form their small letters no taller than two millimeters (about 1/16″ high).
Furthermore, children are required to start using fountain pens only (no ballpoints allowed) at age five. Yes, they do get it all over their hands and all over their clothes. The feeling here is that “ball points are not real pens.” (This may be true in Europe and South America, as well.)
The method used to teach letters is that the teacher puts a letter on the board, and tells students to copy it. But, she doesn’t tell them how to copy it, or where to start, and what direction to proceed. The result is that each student develops their own method of letter formation, and there is no standardization of formation (except in size) throughout the society. The further result is that the handwriting of most adults is highly illegible. How illegible am I talking about? Most doctors in America have better writing than most adults here. But it’s mostly the method of teaching that is at fault.
For those unfamiliar with the American method, here is a brief description. Americans are very precise in teaching the strokes inside a letter, where to start, which direction to proceed, where to lift the pencil, and where not to. The connections between cursive letters are very precise. American cursive is quite different from British “joined-together” writing. Furthermore, American writing must have a forward slant to be correct. We accomplish this be requiring the paper to be turned on approximately a 45-degree angle. To help my beginning students, I tape a red line right on their desk (as was done for me as a child) which the child can use as a guide for the bottom of his paper on the desk, until he has developed the proper habit. Also, we start young students on much wider-spaced paper, only moving to adult-ruled paper after several years.
If I have made any incorrect statements regarding European or South American methods of teaching cursive, I would appreciate my readers correcting me in the comments section (and I will revise my post, if there are corrections to be made) . When traveling in Bolivia, France, and Spain, I found all of them using the same paper commonly used in my Middle Eastern country.
My next post will deal with different cursive slants in different countries.
Eileen
August 27, 2007 at 2:16 pm
Canadians learn using the American method. In the Netherlands, however, my son (who was four at the time) was introduced to the methods you describe. It has taken several years of hard work for his handwriting to achieve legibility after that first year of tiny cursive.
One problem with the North American method has been left-handers. With pencils and ball-point pens it’s less of an issue, but people like me educated in the late 1950s-early 1960s who were left-handed wrote with fountain pens. Their handwriting has an unusual left-slant caused by trying to hold their hand high enough on the pen to keep it from dragging through newly-written wet ink. There are other people who write right-handed but with that back-slant and a particular style of rounding in their cursive that suggests correction from left-handedness to right-handedness in their elementary years: my mother, educated in the late 1930s-early 1940s, is one such. (As a result, I was not surprised when my son turned out to be left-handed.)
Interesting article. Thank you for this.
August 27, 2007 at 6:07 pm
And what about us poor left-handers!? As the only left-handed student in my primary school, writing cursive was an excessive and individualized pain. But I got my Palmer Method awards every year.
I also stopped writing cursive as soon as I got into high school. I found that I could type faster, more legibly, and far less painfully than I could write.
August 27, 2007 at 6:23 pm
This is so interesting, Eileen. You know, I’ve noticed that kids today (5 or 6-year-olds) can already read and write cursive. I wasn’t taught how to write in cursive until the first grade. We were taught to write in print first. I guess times are a-changing.
August 27, 2007 at 8:40 pm
[...] From Dedicated Elementary Teacher Overseas: This will be the first of several posts examining cursive writing, and the value of continuing to teach it. I want to write a brief post for my American readers explaining how cursive is taught in much of the rest of the world, and explain to my non-American readers how it is taught differently in The United States of America. [...]
August 27, 2007 at 11:07 pm
Dear Bruce and John,
Thanks for addressing the left-handed issue. I think I will do an entire post just on left-handers learning cursive. I appreciate your bringing up the issue.
Lizzie,
I forgot to mention in the above post that in America, and in American schools, we teach ONLY printing until sometime in Grade 3, when we start cursive. I teach it intensively, and we make the switch to cursive about three months after beginning to learn it. By the end of Grade 3, nearly every student is very competent. However, in America, it continues to be taught and refined in Grades 4 and 5. In our school, we sometimes have non-American teachers in Grades 4 and 5, and a shortage of time in the curriculum, since students are studying two languages from Grade 1, and three languages from Grade 5. So that’s why I really hit it hard in Grade 3, and make sure students are competent when they get out of my class–in BOTH printing and cursive, as they may never get it taught to them again.
Eileen
August 28, 2007 at 1:14 am
BTW, in the US State Dept., there is a very high representation of left-handers in the Middle East. We joke it’s all because of Arabic, so we can write without getting inky cuffs for the first times in our lives. I’ve been at some posts were over 60% of the officers were lefties!
August 28, 2007 at 8:37 am
Dear John,
That’s very interesting about the State Department and all the lefties. Just recently I either read an article, or saw a documentary about left-handers, that indicated they tend to be extremely intelligent, more so than the general population. So, I guess that means we have intelligent people running our foreign policy! Very reassuring.
Best regards,
Eileen
September 18, 2007 at 8:28 pm
I’m US-raised, live in the UK, and owing to the curse of “continuous cursive”, found that after two years my son couldn’t write *at all*. Thankfully, my mother, with 40+ years of classroom experience and an MA thesis she wrote at the University of Chicago (”Kinesthetic, auditory, and visual cues in learning letter formation”) taught him to print in 1 hour and 40 minutes of instruction (5 x 20 minutes, using a set of auditory cues she developed, used, and has taught to many other teachers over the years) and I continued helping him practice over the summer. Now he is trying to write in cursive – which i can teach him as soon as the motor methods for manuscript are automatic – but the IDIOTS here now think – wrongly – that (a) you have to “unlearn” printing to do cursive and (b) it doesn’t matter if an otherwise able and literate child can’t write, “it will come”.
The damage done to countless kids – especially to boys – by teaching cursive at age 5 is really quite inexcusable, and it has come about because some faddish fool thought that if cursive was helpful for *some* dyslexic kids it would be good for all children. Like crutches for people who don’t have broken legs. I despair.
Nobody really needs cursive; most adults write in semi-cursive; it’s an absurdity to teach it at 5.
December 2, 2007 at 2:05 pm
I’m US-raised and living in the UK as well. Your article has given me a lot to think about, as my two daughters just started in a British school this year. So far, I have not seen any tiny-lined paper, but you are right about the way they join letters. It is nothing like the cursive I was taught, and my year 3 daughter has forgotten a lot of what she learned. I spoke with the teacher briefly because I think my girls will need to learn cursive in order to return to US elementary school. She agreed to support her instruction, but after reading your article I’m going to be much more watchful, supplementing at home if needful.
Thanks for bringing this to my attention.
June 2, 2008 at 5:45 pm
[...] in very tiny script about …. I wasn??t taught how to write in cursive until the first grade. …http://elementaryteacher.wordpress.com/2007/08/27/how-cursive-writing-is-taught-outside-of-the-unite…CNN.com – Students shirk cursive as keyboard rules in third grade … … at home, says she&aposd [...]
August 25, 2008 at 10:49 pm
Here in Poland we don’t use fountain pens in a classroom, but at first pencils (to erase wrong strokes easily), then in the further years of learning everyone writes as he/she likes – with any kind of pen. Only red pens are reserved to teachers to correct errors. And we start to learning alphabet at schools at age 6 (or 7). We start to learn using the lined paper, but in the later years we write usually on grid-paper.
September 2, 2008 at 4:07 am
You may want to familiarize yourselves, your children, and your children’s teachers with the research showing that the fastest and clearest handwriters
/a/ join SOME (*not* all) of the letters — making the very easiest joins, and skipping the rest –
and
/b/ use print-like letter-shapes for those letters whose printed and cursive letter-shapes seriously “disagree.”
For resources and more information, visit http://www.HandwritingRepair.info or http://www.HandwritingThatWorks.com
September 4, 2008 at 12:43 pm
You sound pretty clueless on how writing is taught in Europe (Netherlands in my case). I can’t remember the specifics, but I seem to remember there are some sound arguments for using fountain pens. I learned to write in the mid 70’s and my handwriting is horrible now, but that’s not because I was taught wrong, but merely because I hardly write (I type, many times faster than anyone can write).
From your article, you make it sound like the “American way” is the right way (where did we hear that before?) but having just returned from a six week trip through the US, I never noticed that Americans have better handwriting. Just like pretty much anywhere else, the MD I met had horrible writing skills. For the rest of the people that wrote stuff down for me: I could read it, but there wasn’t a single moment where I thought: “wow that’s great cursive writing”.
Furthermore, you sound like a very traditional teacher (45 angle slant, red tape) whereas elementary writing methods are currently being updated to more modern-day requirements. I know, because I work for an educational publishing company that has been very succesful over the last couple of years with a writing method that takes a totally new approach to teaching the basic letter shapes. They have a hard time fighting the kind of traditionalism you seem to adhere, but are gaining more and more ground once teachers see the true benefits of their approach.
September 7, 2008 at 9:58 pm
Well as someone who is always evaluating new methods and open to trying them, I have yet to hear one good argument for using fountain pens! They even have terrible aesthetics (in my opinion). Please share some good reasons for them if you know any!
You might be interested to know that I have a sample of pre-WWII French cursive up on my wall as an example to parents and students of the standard I expect when my students get out of Grade III. It looks nearly identical to American cursive. What is interesting is that the POST-WWII handwriting of the French has changed, from a forward slant to a vertical slant, indicating quite an emotional change in the French culture, a more reserved culture than it was pre-WWII. As you may know, the term in French for the style of French cursive I am speaking of is l’écriture incliné.
I have a feeling that you are speaking of D’Nelean which I do not like. It is much harder to teach than the traditional approach. The difference, for uninformed people, is that traditional cursive teaches lead-in strokes to letters, whereas D’Nelean doesn’t–instead, it teaches TAILS on the end of letters (which later become the lead-in stroke to the next letter, when they are connected). However, the RESULT of teaching D’Nelean printing is not nearly as good as with traditional printing, as very few students get the SLANT of D’Nelean, which is sort of the whole point. What happens is that students often end up with the TAILS and without the SLANT. So it appears that small l’s look like capitals in the middle of the words, such as in “maLLet” and many other similar problems. I can see that you have never TAUGHT this yourself (in spite of promoting this new system for the publishing company), therefore you are not AWARE of these problems. I vote for the traditional approach to teaching cursive any day!
I do not know ONE other person who is as much of an expert at teaching handwriting as I am. I would be happy to debate these points with you any time, any where.
Sorry for my strong feelings on this subject. Thank you for reading and commenting.
Eileen
September 30, 2008 at 4:27 pm
Our oldest 3 children were taught printing, then they learned cursive. Two of them are lefthanded.
During the years in between, I did some research and found that printing was not taught to children even in the 40s-here in the USA. This piqued my curiosity. Upon a more in depth look, I learned that it is actually easier to children to learn cursive first, according to the resources I found, due to the fact that children enjoy making curvy, squiggly lines (mimicry of their parents writitng), and it is considered a more natural movement.
When it was time to begin teaching my younger 3 to write, we went straight to cursive. They have learned, on their own, to print beautifully. The hard part is that I have another left hander which is a challenge that I am just beginning to understand needs special instructions.
My 3 oldest have graduated high school, and were homeschooled only. All 3 have diplomas issued by our home state.
http://www.donnayoung.org has cursive animations that are helpful.
Thanks for letting me comment. And I never realized prior to your article that handwritng was taught so differently.
October 7, 2008 at 8:25 pm
For some current research and examples of the wide variety of school handwriting models and styles around the world (including examples of how they have changed in recent decades), visit the Manuscribe Research Project site at http://www.florian.hardwig.com/manuscribe .
If you contact the researcher who owns the site — Florian Hardwig at hardwig@kaune.hardwig.com — you can find how much he currently charges for such things as his poster of school handwriting styles around the world. (I forget how much I paid for mine, almost a year ago, but it came to somewhere between 10 and 15 dollars.) Tell Florian that Kate Gladstone referred you to him!
October 21, 2008 at 6:34 am
Very interesting as an American parent overseas (Middle East) dealing with school systems teaching only “connected writing” a la the British National Curriculum. They don’t even TEACH cursive. For my kids, I’ll be ensuring they can do both. One issue I have with these “connected” letters is that if you have to fill out a form in the US, you’re going to have a hard time. My daughter started learning this form of writing at age 4. But, as you said, they showed them what to write not how. As a result, her small As were like two half moons. I’m now RETRAINING her so that she understands that letters should be written without lifting the pen unless it’s a necessity. Otherwise, what’s the point of the connecting. And let me tell you, I find the American system I was taught far easier. We started handwriting at age 6 in first grade and cursive at age 8 in 3rd. My daughter started “connected writing at age 4 and I think she’s 2 more years from being vaguely proficient. It’s quite frustrating. While America has it’s share of faults, teaching writing seems much easier back in the US.
November 10, 2008 at 11:33 pm
WHAT!!!????
November 17, 2008 at 8:22 pm
It’s all in the article below:
http://web.me.com/viccharlton/Reading_and_Literacy/Understanding_Reading/Entries/2007/11/20_Writing_Wrongs.html
November 21, 2008 at 5:42 pm
Dear Vic,
I checked out the link you provided above. I think you’ve got quite an interesting article here, but having read it, have to vehemently disagree.
Your article does not address the most important reasons for learning cursive:
1) Cursive easily DOUBLES or TRIPLES the handwriting speed over printing.
Don’t forget students need to take notes for many years in lecture courses! In many classes, laptops are forbidden to take notes on (even if students have them, and I’m speaking primarily of middle school and high school) because so many students are doing other things on them than taking notes while the teacher is talking, AND some of them are talking on line to each other–a form of electronic note-passing.
2) Cursive clears up handwriting problems for most students with dyslexia, or similar problems. Students who have trouble reversing letters, and sometimes writing them upside down (b and p for example, or b and d) benefit from cursive.
3) Cursive can be easily mastered (if it’s taught correctly and intensively) in four months, along with other subjects.
Most teachers who are opposed to cursive have never successfully mastered it themselves, and certainly don’t don’t know how to teach it. I am now seeing this with many of the elementary teachers in their 20’s and early 30’s–they were only taught the basics, and never taken through to a correct level of mastery themselves. I’m starting to think that within a generation or two it may become a lost art. However, without exception, all my students and parents are SO PROUD of their new handwriting. (I am curious–how well have you mastered cursive?)
4) Nearly EVERYONE still has occasions when they use handwritten communication with others. In some cases, the quality of the writing makes no difference, but in other cases, it’s nice to be able to write without being embarrassed. For example, one might wish to write a love letter, a personal invitation, or a handwritten note to one’s boss (if the computer isn’t working, for example). Also, handwritten thank-you notes are still far better manners than typed e-mail.
Regards,
Eileen
December 4, 2008 at 1:00 am
Hi Eileen,
Thank you for taking the time to read my article and to respond (and for your interest both my printing and my cursive hand–but not so much my hunt-and-peck typing–are, as I blush, exemplary).
Addressing your points in order:
1. Paraphrasing what I wrote, if we practice printing for 12 years we would become very good and very fast at printing. Printing is as fast as cursive writing; and, need I say, is likely more legible.
2. Dyslexia, as a neurological, not teaching-induced problem is extremely rare (yes, I know, popular belief is that it ranges up to 20% of the population); therefore it makes no sense to use this as a reason to teach the cursive hand. Further, continued encouragement in printing would actually facilitate those learners suffering from “Dysteachia”.
3. But why waste four months…to what purpose, for what end? There is no intrinsic value to cursive writing.
4. Handwritten communication is still handwritten in a printed hand. A beautifully printed letter to your lover, boss or a beautifully printed invitation is…still beautiful. There is no embarrassment in printing; rather, it’s more likely (I blush again) to be complimented.
Let cursive writing be placed along with calligraphy as an options course.
Perhaps it had a place when lifting the quill caused blots on the paper. But Mr. Biro took care of that.
My best wishes,
Vic
January 14, 2009 at 2:23 am
I remember my brother struggling to learn D’nealean (mid 1980’s) after he had already learned cursive the traditional way. They graded him on his handwriting and needless to say he failed. Handwriting is as unique as a fingerprint and I don’t think we should force children to write a certain way. As long as it’s legible of course.
January 20, 2009 at 8:50 pm
Quoting David Mehegan of The Boston Globe, in his article on handwriting, “However much you studied your Palmer, though, your “hand” was distinctive – as personal as your voice or laugh.”
His interesting complete article on the history of handwriting and where it is headed can be read at:
http://www.boston.com/ae/books/articles/2009/01/19/cursive_foiled_again/?s_campaign=8315
Eileen
March 13, 2009 at 11:50 pm
Is this method really taught in America? I find that hard to believe. Most Americans I know have atrocious writing. As do the majority of us Britons.
I know in most schools in England & Wales, handwriting is not taught to children, although in Scotland it is focused on more. (England and Scotland have completely different education systems). At school I was taught
joined-up writing which resembles printed letters with links. I tend to use a self-taught cursive style though when writing letters and I’m still improving my style. Most people in the English speaking world tend not to care too muh about how they write.
March 15, 2009 at 8:05 pm
Yes, this method has been taught in America for about two hundred years. If you are interested, see the book “Handwriting in America” which is a complete history of how and where cursive originated,and how it was taught, written by Tamara Platkins Thornton. It is available through Amazon, and I highly recommend it.
My whole point with this post is that indeed, handwriting is NOT taught in Britain; in fact children are left to develop their own handwriting, which causes a hodge-podge of styles. The reason for teaching cursive as a subject was that it makes everyone’s handwriting legible throughout the country.
I suspect if you know Americans with atrocious writing, one of three things is happening.
1) They are under 35-40 years old and never mastered cursive well themselves;
2) no one uses their best cursive all the time. If you saw my grocery lists, believe me, only I can read them, but then no one else has to. I even teach this to my kids at school. If your notes are only for yourself, there is no reason to take the time to use your best cursive. That is reserved for when we write for OTHERS.
3) Since President Bush came in and the “No Child Left Behind” Act has mandated many, many more hours of testing, the teaching of cursive has nearly fallen out of the American curriculum in the past decade. We are starting in fact to get many American teachers in their 20’s who don’t even know how to write in cursive (they may have studied a little bit in elementary school, but not enough to ever master it).
Being someone of the English-speaking world myself, I think you are entirely wrong to say that “most people in the English-speaking world tend not to care too much about how they write.” Many, many people DO care. I have found MANY, MANY adults who lament to me that they are still embarrassed about their handwriting, that they never mastered a good script. I don’t fault THEM, I fault their SCHOOLS and CURRICULUM! (Perhaps British don’t care about their handwriting, but don’t foist this idea off on the rest of the English-speaking world!!)
Now, since I never know IF anyone else will ever be able to perfect their handwriting, I just make sure it’s good enough to serve them as adults before they ever leave Grade 3. But when I go, I’m sure that will be the end of really mastering it in our school, too. I’m in my 50’s now, and I see that few people under 35 know anything about it, or wish to learn it.
Eileen
April 3, 2009 at 5:22 am
I am 26 years old, and attended a private Christian School in South Carolina, USA. We learned print in kindergarten, then started cursive in 3rd grade and we were pretty much required to use cursive through 6th grade. Today I can write both print and cursive fluently. When I take my time, both my print hand and cursive hand gets compliments. If rushed, they both look horrible. Today, my main handwriting consists of half print, half cursive…I tend to make my S, l, f, j, & g’s in cursive all the time with other letters in print. All of the girls I grew up with were fluent in cursive.
I had no idea about the trend to “not teach cursive” in American schools until a few years ago when I managed a group of 18-20 year olds at a call center. None of them knew anything about cursive writing and it shocked me and my older (over 25) co-workers. We all thought it was a shame too. Cursive is such a beautiful writing – flowing, curvy letters is an artform in itself which I love (I’ve also taken calligraphy). I intend to make sure my children are fluent in both print and cursive too…both have their places in the world.
April 4, 2009 at 10:59 am
Dear Lisa,
I so much appreciate your comments and enjoyed hearing from you what is going on with the cursive in America these days (I’ve been out of the United States since 1993).
I heard what seems to have tolled the death knell for cursive in America is the No Child Left Behind Act. With all the hours now devoted to mandated testing, and there only being so many hours in the school day, something had to be dropped out for the testing to take place. I heard that cursive was one of those things.
Eileen