Potte, L., & Eilts, S. (2011). Is cursive writing worth teaching?. Retrieved from http://www.iste.org/learn/publications/learning-and-leading/issues/Point_Counterpoint_Is_Cursive_Writing_Worth_Teaching.aspx
The article, "Is Cursive Writing Worth Teaching" discusses a contraversy between educators concerning the use of cursive and whether or not it is useful to students. Lee Anne Potter believes that cursive writing should remain in the curriculum at schools. She talks about a 6-year-old girl and her excitement to learn cursive and her idea that cursive is a "milestone to growing up." Potter believes that there is beaty in script writing and that learning cursive is an artistic skill. She emphazises the personality of hand-writing, that it refects attributes of the writer. Potter says that when you learn how yo write cursive, you learn how to read it. She believes that this skill is important because of the history of script writing in important documents such as The Constitution. Without the ability to read or write cursive, Potter believes that a portion of our collective past as Americans will "literally be inaccessable" to our future generations.
On the contrary, Sharon Eilts believes that cursive writing serves virtually no purpose in education. She makes a point that the ac of communication should be the focus in school, not necessarily the writing tool. Unlike Potter, Eilts says that some older skills should be laid to rest. She says, "fountain pens are novelty items." She talks about the time that she spent learning the loops and lifts of cursive and realizes that that time could have been spent mastering a more important skill. Eilts recognizes the beauty of cursive, but also recognizes modern education and cursive has no longer has a place in modern education. Because Eilts is a specal education teacher, she understands that not all students have the same capabilities. She mentions that some students are literally unable to write, and should not be penalized for that.
Q: How do you feel about cursive writing being taught in schools?
A: I chose this article specifically because I have wondered to myself on several occasionals what the benefit was to learning cursive. I too believe that cursive was a waste of time that could have been spent learning an alternative skill. Potter argues that a part of history will literally be unaccessable. That is laughable. Technology is so advanced even today, I cant imagine that future generations will be unable to learn about the constutution and other such scripts because they didnt learn cursive! I understand that she finds a creative aspect in script, and I do as well, but we can say the same about a persons handwriting. No ones writing style is the same, so I can argue that hand-writing itself is teaching creativity. In addition, cursive was never taught to be a creative thing, I recall tracing loops and turns in a book, with the assistance of dotted lines, no creativity about it, but rather, uniformity.
Q: What are the differences in education between the two writing article?
A: Lee Anne Potter is the director of education and volunteer programs at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) in Washington, D.C. Sharon Eilts teaches Middle School Special Education. She provides local assessment and training in technology in education. She is "an Adobe Education Leader, Apple Distinguished Educator, Google Certified Teacher, HP Teacher Mentor, and Intel Teach to the Future Master Teacher."
