The Right to Write: Abigail Walthausen on Learning Cursive

Now that cursive writing has been eliminated from the curriculum of many schools, only those with the means to learn it can write a love note in script or sign their names in style. Has cursive become a status symbol? Writer and high-school English teacher Abigail Walthausen argues that it has in this December 2013 article from The Atlantic.

Read it here: Walthausen, "Learning cursive is a basic right"

 

 

1. Although Walthausen’s article addresses the teaching (or not) of cursive writing, her concluding sentence makes reference to standardized tests. Is her conclusion relevant and congruent with her principal argument? Why or why not? Point to examples in the text to support your response.
2. How does Walthausen establish her authority on the topic she is addressing? Has she given adequate evidence of her authority? Why do you think so?
3. Read (or re-read) the George and George article about cursive writing that was posted on this blog in October 2013. That article and Walthausen’s both argue for keeping cursive writing in the curriculum, but they take different rhetorical stances and use different types of evidence to support their arguments. Summarize briefly the evidence in each and point out the differences. Which article do you find most persuasive and why? Explain your reasoning.
4. Write an essay in which you address Walthausen’s argument: do you agree that learning cursive writing is important for schoolchildren in the United States? To support your essay, reflect on the following questions: How, if at all, do people use cursive writing in everyday life? Signing checks and contracts? Writing personal messages to others? Keeping private notes? Signing autographs for fans? To what extent do you consider cursive a practical life skill now? What about ten years from now? How do you personally feel about your handwriting and your signature? To what extent might your handwriting and signature affect your future?

Comments

[Ronald Buyna]

I do believe the handwriting should be re-instituted and made a mandatory part of the learning process; not only is cursive a good for styling the way you would write your name, but it also allows one to creatively express yourself in there writing, other than a compelling argument. Also what of the people that generally write in cursive, if I were to write this whole thing out in cursive would I be able to get my point across? Would the younger generation even be able to read this?

[Dorothy Carter]

I think that every child should learn cursive. It teaches them how to sign documents, if I hadn't learned I wouldn't be able to have a “signature”. It gives a sense of professionalism when someone writes in cursive. As for the topic of writing love letters in cursive, I agree no one wants to read a love not in print, it’s just not that personal. If someone takes the time to write in cursive it shows they care.

[Juliet Stephens]

Before reading this article, I wasn’t aware that cursive isn’t being taught in schools as often as it used to. It’s an important thing to learn not just for writing quickly or prettily, but for understanding documents and letters from history. Also, being able to have your own signature is important because it’s a piece of one’s individuality, and it is required for a lot of things.

[Nadia]

Cursive is a very important part of our society. When I was in elementary school, I had it drilled into my head. As I went into high school is became less and less important. When taking a standardized test I remember a bunch of fellow students saying the hardest part was writing the oath in cursive and signing it. Being able to write in cursive opens a lot of opportunities especially since it's more professional and is needed to sign a legal document.

[Nadine Gaffney]

This article has a very valid point. I attended a numerous private schools as a child and at each one had lessons on cursive writing. When I got to high school (which was a public school) I was surprised to find that hardly any of the other kids wrote in cursive, and the majority of them did not know how to or only knew how to write their name in cursive. I think cursive is an important thing to learn. It has a very professional look to it, and can be found in many historical documents. I think it is something that everyone could benefit from learning. It's not something that should be left in the past.

[Allison Broschart]

In “Learning Cursive is a Basic Right,” Abigail Walthausen claims that cursive should be a basic skill that all children learn in school. She explains that cursive writing can boost a student’s confidence and adds speed to writing. Walthausen goes on to suggest that cursive writing is a status marker that even students recognize. She reflects on her owns experiences and describes how students she has taught from Catholic elementary schools have beautiful cursive handwriting, but those from public elementary schools do not. She believes that the Common Core is failing children in the public school system and that cursive writing should be taught until it is completely obsolete.

Although I disagree with much that Walthausen says, I fully endorse her final conclusion that cursive should be a basic skill that children learn in school. Cursive writing is a useful tool to have, especially being able to sign one’s own name, but I do not believe it to be so important that it must be a stressed skill. In my elementary school, we were taught cursive for one year, if that long. I can confidently sign my own name, as well as read things written in cursive. I believe that being able to read it and sign one’s own name is about as useful as cursive is in our society. Walthausen claims that it is a status marker, but in reality, cursive is not used enough for anyone to be bothered by who can and cannot write in beautiful cursive.

[Kevin Zanger]

1) I do believe that her conclusion is relevant and congruent with her principal argument. This is evident when she talks at the beginning of her article and says, "The signature, the ability to sign one’s own name with grace and confidence, has long been an essential marker of society". 2) She establishes her authority on the topic she is addressing by giving direct and exact examples of different things. She makes the reader think of the past in which cursive was used more frequently. I believe she has given adequate evidence of her authority. This is evident when she gives her readers example after example of things that required cursive, for she not only gives examples but also going into detail talking about each. 3) In this article, Walthausen talked about how signatures are in our past. She then talks about how penmanship is different between Catholic and public schools. After that, the topic of standardized tests are brought up, and how they require cursive. In the George and George article, the topic is fully on cursive and how being raised in which you learned cursive was a must. The differences between the two are that one is explaining cursive while the other is giving examples of where cursive occurs. I find Walthausen's article to be more persuasive because of how she makes exact examples of where cursive is and how it should not get lost in our society today. 4) I do believe that learning cursive is important for schoolchildren because it occurs on standardized tests, contracts and autigraphs. Writing private letters can be written in print and will soon be mainly over the computer, but the closing thing of the letter should always be the person's signature at the bottom. Contracts need to always be written in cursive to keep ones word. Autographs are unique to everyone and should be written in cursive as well.

[Patrick Kelly]

1. I believe that Walthausen's concluding statement is relevant to her argument because she gives other valid reasoning as to why cursive should not be eliminated from grade school curriculum. In addition to the standardized test reasoning, her other main point was that cursive adds "intimacy of the personal mark." 2. To establish her authority, Walthausen gives a personal example of one of her ninth grade students. She says that she believes his handwriting would have been a confidence booster. I do not believe she has given enough evidence of her authority because I would have liked to have heard more examples of her as a teacher. If she would have given more insight from her teaching perspective, it might have persuaded me to believe that she had more authority. 3. In the George and George article, the point made was that cursive was almost mandatory to learn as children grew older. In Walthausen's article, she takes a different route. She gives examples as to why she believes cursive handwriting is important. Her main points focused on the SAT cursive handwritten section, as well as her own encounters as a teacher. I would say Walthausen's is more persuasive because she is a teacher herself and she gives multiple reasons as to why learning cursive handwriting is beneficial. 4. I do believe that learning how to write in cursive is important for children because a large portion of our society knows how. Learning how to write in cursive will only be beneficial to them, it would not hurt for them to learn. Personally, the only time I write in cursive is when I sign my signature, however, I feel as if I read a good amount of text in cursive.

[Miranda Lippolt]

1. I believe that Walthausen's conclusion statement is relevant because she is giving us more evidence as to why we need cursive. Her main point is that cursive adds "intimacy of a personal mark" and she uses her standardized test reasoning argument as another main objective.
2. Walthausen establishes her authority by letting the audience know that she is an English teacher and giving examples of her students. She explains that this particular student lacked confidence, and she believed that learning cursive would have been a confidence building opportunity. Another way she establishes authority is by giving exact examples on the many ways a student will need cursive. I believe she establishes authority, but I would've like to know more of her personal observations as a teacher.
3. In Walthausens' article she gives examples that back up her argument on why cursive is important. Her main points focused on cursive from a teaching perspective, SAT examples and encounters as a teacher. However, in the George and George article the main objective was how cursive is almost mandatory as students get older. I would say that Walthausens' article is more convincing because she is giving first hand knowledge on the situation with her experience. In addition to the multiple reasons as to why cursive is important.
4.I believe that cursive is a very important skill to know. Upon graduating high school, it is absolutely necessary to have a signature and fraud is more likely to happen to you if you do not have a unique signature. Working at a bank, signatures are very important and crucial when doing any business. I, personally, like my signature and have put time into perfecting my mark.

[Carolyn Street]

After acknowledging that cursive writing is no longer part of the curriculum for many schools, I had a few questions. One of my questions is simply, why? I don’t understand why such a vital part of education was eliminated. It may not be as vital as math or English, however it’s used just as often, if not more. Another question I had was what are students going to do when they’re required to copy the oath on a standardized test? How are they supposed to do that in cursive if they’ve never been taught cursive writing? In my opinion, it would be stressful to have to worry about the fact that you can’t write the oath due to your writing abilities, or lack of, before taking an already stressful test. I strongly believe that as children begin to learn how to write, they should also be taught basic cursive writing.

[Pierre Francois]

1-I believe Abigail's argument is relevant towards standardized testing. Every student should be able to learn to write in cursive, its a deep and meaningful way to express your feelings and it teaches you how to sign documents.
2-I believe she gives adequate authority to her audience, she states that cursive is a way of expressing yourself in your writing. I agree with her because in elementary school all of us students ad to write in cursive, its a way of expressing yourself and your feelings in your writing. Every student and child should learn to write in cursive.
3-I find Walthausen's article to be more persuasive because she explains how we shouldn't let cursive writing get lost and also how we need it in our society. George is mainly telling his audience what cursive is and how it was important in our society to all of us.
4-Yes I believe writing in cursive is important to our school children because everyone had to learn it, by not showing our students how to do it will be a miss opportunity for them. It also might be too late for them, trying to learn cursive at an older age when the people that knew more about it wont be around anymore to tell them how to do it.I feel that everyone needs to write their handwriting in cursive, its formal and proper to a lot of elders in our society now. That's what our elders grew up on writing therefore I believe we should keep the trend going.

[Lyndi Saccaro]

1. I do believe that it is relevant to what she is saying because she states that it adds a sense of intimacy with your writing when you do so in cursive. 2. She establishes her authority through explaining how she believes that students that write in curse are more confident and also shows it by giving examples of how they might use it. 3. In Waulthausen's article she gives many examples as to why she think that cursive writing she be kept in the curriculum, which tends to be more persuasive for me. In George's article he merely explains how it is important and should be kept around, but doe not give strong support to back it up. 4. Yes, I believe one hundred percent that cursive writing should remain a skill that should be learned. As listed above it shows how often you use it like signing checks and contracts. Those are two very common things, especially in society today. I do consider cursive writing as a practical skill. I believe it should be learned, but at the same time I do not agree that everything should be written in it. In my personal opinion it should be used for things that you want to be intimate to, as Waulthausen stated. Something like a handwritten letter, journal, or a signature would definitely fall under this category. In 10 years from now I can guarantee that everything will be digital and the things I have said before will be a thing of the past, but to understand the past you must learn it. So even ten years from now I would still like to see cursive being taught at schools. This plays into my future as well, seeing as I would like to be a teacher it would be very nice to see it still being taught within schools, as well as teaching it to my students.

[Mitch]

1. Her conclusion is relevant to her essay, because students need to posses a good writing skills and style in order to achieve a good score on a test. The author is trying to convinced her readers that it is important to perform well without the usage of technology. Cursive writing gives students an ability and confidence while writing. Her argument is valid, because our generations need to stay away from technology.

[Antonio Marti Polo]

1) Walthausen’s article does not present a really relevant conclusion because she does not state clearly her main argument, her thesis. 2) I do not think she gives adequate evidence of her authority because she does not present her self, and the reader can’t know the knowledge of the writer about the topic she is talking about. 3) Both argue for the same think, and in reality both have the same reasons to defend their topics, but George and George article has more quoting and authority arguments that make the article more persuasive. 4) Writing cursive is not a thing that will help you or that you will need in your daily life. But at long term it can help you in your study habits, your ability for taking notes and therefore, probably, in your test scores. Professors always prefer to read a beautiful and organized calligraphy.

[sharmaine blackwelder]

I believe that cursive is a right some people who know how to write in cursive prefer to write as they have learned others who have learned cursive still choose to write in print. For some people their hand writing is more legible for people to read as print, others is better read as cursive. I think it all depends on who the person is and what and how they choose to write.

[Marlisa Lopez]

Although the article is well written, I disagree with what Abigail Walthausen is attempting to express. I have never encountered a child that enjoyed learning to write in cursive. Thinking back to when I was in middle school learning cursive was not on any bodies to do list. Cursive was not a skill that many young students went out of their way to acquire. I myself did not learn how to write in cursive until I was well into my high school education. It never squandered my ability to sign my own name because my name was basically made up of two squiggly lines. Studying History students learned that a signature was writing ones name to let others know that they read, understood, or agreed with whatever it was that they were signing. For example, everyone in America knows what signing their John Handcock means. I also disagree with what Abigail wrote regarding standardized tests. Whether subjects are pushed out of the curriculum or introduced to it, standardized tests will soon follow suit to meet updated requirements. These tests are created to fairly asses the students as well as the schools. This data is compiled to show where students need help and maintain records of the schools overall performance. Testing that purposely dictates the student fail will hinder the rates of the school. It is my assertion that because Abigail is a teacher of a traditional private school that is supported by the church that she may hold bias to her train of thought. I imagine cursive to an old-fashioned teacher would hold more importance than to modern day teachers. Likewise I believe that parents of students as well as the students themselves are not directly impacted by the lack of knowing how to write in cursive. Most common form of writing today is a combination of print and cursive that is not written purposely.

[Anita Banning-Harris]

Since the beginning of time, cursive was frequently used to write important documents and letters. The curly swoop of letters is known as an elegant form of writing. Walthausen wrote an article proving the significance of cursive over the years and in the present. Sadly, cursive isn’t enforced as hard as it was in the past. Many other curriculum have proved of much more importance. I agree with the idea that schoolchildren should learn how to read and write cursive. Children should keep cursive as a skill for the rest of their lives, as it improves a student’s intelligence and follows them for the rest of their life.
Walthausen describes students that acquired the skill of writing in cursive, improve in penmanship and take better notes. Cursive is used more frequently than people realize. People read cursive fonts at fancy restaurants, on signs, when reviewing documents, and much more. It’s also used to sign official documents, checks and contracts. Cursive adds an elegance and sophisticated look to many signs and papers. Many famous people use cursive to sign autographs to fans. Cursive provides uniqueness to how a person writes or signs a paper. It “adds the intimacy of the personal mark to the writing process and adds interest for students who are artistically inclined or visual learners”(Walthausen). Once it’s learned and mastered upon a person it follows and helps them for the rest of their life. Some students even enjoy learning a new form of writing. Students that don’t learn cursive feel of less intelligence when trying to read or write it. A prime example of this situation is signing up for the SAT. It’s required to recopy the oath in cursive. Many students struggle greatly over such a simple task and in the end, the penmanship comes out messy. In the end, cursive is a great way to add an education tool to life and confidence in school. Since cursive is called an “essential mark in society”, might as well continue that tradition.

[Jasun Choi]

"Cursive:a type of handwriting in which all the letters in a word are connected to each other" (Merriam-Webster 2015). The origins of cursive date back to hundreds of years ago; a foundation of writing that was once a common know-how. Abigail Walthausen, author of " Writing is a Basic Right", argues the importance of cursive stating how the significance is so vast that it is an essential preliminary step in order to take part in the SAT. I completely disagree with her views of cursive penmanship being a skill students should understand. Cursive is outdated and opposes our technologically advancing society. The world we live in now is immensely different from the time in which cursive flourished. As said by Walthausen herself, "students who struggle through a single sentence feel inadequate. They feel intimidated". Prior to taking such a high-stakes test as the SAT, students should not have to feel illiterate or shameful of not having had the opportunity to fully learn cursive. The pressures that accompany the SAT is already monstrous and the feeling of defeat just before taking the test has no benefits. The notion of "cursive has become a status marker", is antiquated considering a student that does not understand cursive is no less intelligent than a student who does fully comprehend cursive. Cursive is merely a writing style of the past which should by no means be a form of categorizing people's "status".

[Sara Hines]

I qualify with Abagail Walthalsen's position on cursive handwriting. I do agree that learning how to write in cursive should be reinstituted in schools, its an opportunity for students to learn something new. However, not learning how,isn't crippling. I am an example; I cannot write in cursive and I do not "feel intimidated" by my inabilty. I was taught in school but the lesson was short and left a lot of students who never grasped the concept. Although not knowing how,has never held me back from anything in life.

[Samantha Hackett]

I somewhat agree with Walthausen's argument. Cursive is fairly absent in today's school system. This is another example of how standardized testing is taking precedent over "all kinds of enrichment." Cursive is essential to life, to some degree. As Walthausen mentioned, the SAT requires students to write in cursive. If students are not taught how to do so, they can feel discouraged even before they begin the actual test.

However, Walthausen implies that knowing cursive or not is associated with intelligence. A student that knows cursive is no smarter than a student that does not know cursive. While cursive is somewhat essential to life, most of the time one will only need to write their name. Walthausen also argued that one cannot read their teacher's comments that are in script. A student can easily confront their teacher to get clarification on the comments made. Knowing cursive does not make someone more intelligent, or of higher status that someone that does not.

[M. Hobert]

Cursive is not a skill that should be taught in school. As someone who was taught cursive in third grade and now defaults to it when writing, it is almost pointless to learn it. Nobody my age can read my writing and many teachers struggle with it too. Maybe its illegibility is due to being sloppy cursive, but I'm sure bad print is much easier to read. Sure, it makes writing a little bit faster and there is an argument to be made about signatures, but kids could easily learn to sign their name and not bother with the rest of the alphabet. Or better yet, learn script outside of class. I think it is pretty simple to learn cursive, and with the internet and plenty of pages that could teach kids there is no point in teaching it in school. Cursive is pretty, but it is a dead language. If a student wants to learn it, let them figure it out outside of school.

[Elena McNiece]

Schools should not focus heavily on teaching their students cursive. In third grade, my teacher handed out cursive worksheets that the students worked on for about a week. The worksheets provided me with a foundation that allows me to write short, legible words in cursive. This fast activity provided all of the basic training I needed for my cursive writing career. At a young age, students should be quickly shown how to write in cursive, so they will be able to pursue it further if they wish. A teacher’s time needs to be spent teaching students more useful topics. Walthausen’s claim that students feel ashamed when they cannot write in immaculate cursive is absurd. We students understand that most people under the age of twenty cannot write great cursive. But we are reassured with the fact that we excel further than most adults in other areas like technology. The majority of students are willing to sacrifice pristine cursive writing for other knowledge. We live in the twenty-first century. All essays and schoolwork must by typed, standardized tests are taken online, and through my eleven years of schooling, never has a teacher needed their students to write in cursive. Cursive writing has become irrelevant. I predict that within fifty years, cursive writing will no longer be used. And within one hundred years, all of pencil-and-paper writing will cease to exist.

[Tanner Ropp]

I agree with Waulthausen that students deserve the right to learn and use cursive, otherwise known as script. The skill of writing in script not only bolsters the confidence of an individual, but also enhances their educational and academic experience. In my personal experience, I was never taught to write in script, but I wish I had because in my life, I see the benefits of script everywhere. Many important ordeals, such as receiving a driver’s license, committing to schools, or making large purchases require the use of script in the form of a signature. Signatures identify an individual, and the quality of the signature seems to reflect the quality of education and class of that individual. When a student feels unsure about their cursive skill they lose confidence in themselves. Being able to skillfully craft a symbol of your identity greatly increases confidence in oneself. A perfect, common example of the effect of being able to or not being able to write in cursive can be found in the oath at the beginning of the SAT. This oath requires the student copy it in script, even though many schools fail to teach their students the skill. Beginning this important assessment with a task many students feel uncomfortable with lowers the confidence of test takers before they even start the test.

Script helps boost student’s confidence, but most important it betters their educational experiences. In a personal context, teaching script helps students to write more quickly, efficiently, and elegantly. Writing in script keeps notes more organized, yet still allows for quick transcription as the teacher speaks. Some may argue that since many students cannot read script, learning to write in script would prove useless. Waulthausen counters this argument by asserting that script not only looks beautiful itself, but it drastically improves the quality of print as well. While this is beneficial, that one fact still hangs in the air: many students fail to proficiently read script. Some stubbornly state that script exists as an ancient art, not needed today, but this very point argues against itself. Learning to read in script gives students the ability to clearly read and comprehend important historical documents they see in school in school. In addition, many teachers reside from an older generation than students, one that still used script. Because of this, many teachers write in script on student assignments and during lectures. Students often struggle to read these notes and possessing the knowledge of script would greatly aid them in this situation. Schools need to re-implement the teaching of script into the core curriculum. The benefits are endless.

[Cat Allen]

Although learning cursive is an essential tool, it isn't necessary to the point where its mean to establish a person's status. She made a contrast between the Catholic school, which hold students that can write in script and a public school, that holds "failing" students that aren't able to write in script. This shows how the author figures that writing in script gives you a bigger status. Even though there are doctors, today, that can hardly write their own names in cursive. It's been stated that many deaths have been caused because of the slopiness of the doctor's writing. In fact,doctors appear to hold a higher status than almost anyone working, excluding the law majors. Referring back to what I aid before, learning cursive is an essential tool.
Not only is it essential in writing, but also being able to read it fluently. Some people forget that all cursive writing doesn't appear the same, for the simple fact that the person writing is committing SELF-expression. In elementary, we were all given the same exact worksheets with the alphabets in cursive and were forced to copy it the exact same way, or points would deducted. Now, apparently every student didn't write the same but some felt depressed throughout that lesson because of that. So forcing the basics of script in school can sometimes be a devastating thing. Given the point that it's more important to learn how to read it, than write it. It's a self expression stage, and if it wanted to be learned that badly, take the time out of school to learn.

[Tomiwa Onasoga]

1.) I do believe that Walthausen's stance on cursive writing is correct. Cursive is still relevant since it was used in the past 250 years and is still needed for signing.

2. She mentions about how script has been "forgotten" in people's minds due to Common Core. Yes, I think she is using good examples as to why cursive is still needed by mentioning the SAT as an example.

3.)I find Walthausen's article to be interesting since she mentions how cursive is still needed to teach people how to sign, but the other article makes a good defense about technology and handwriting.