Cursive is popular among policymakers because it's educational nostalgia and it doesn't cost them anything to promote
Just read this post about "cursive clubs" popping up and how kids love the script and the evidence shows it's good for kids' brains and that helps explain why lawmakers are mandating the practice in elementary schools. A few things:
1. Yeah some kids love it, a lot more of us hated it
2. The evidence supporting cursive is good! And also isn't isolated to one particular script. As in: learning good penmanship helps kids internalize things but cursive isn't necessary.
3. Lawmakers support is not the same as good policy. Even if lawmakers across the ideological spectrum are promoting something. One thing you have to know about education policy is that folks who care about schools are DESPERATE for policies that are well-regarded and cheap. Cell phone bans are a good example here. There's room for a healthy debate on the role of cell phones in school but evidence did not push lawmakers to embrace cell phone bans. It's a way to promote a proactive view of public education without costing lawmakers a penny.
Cursive is education nostalgia. It's a way to RETVRN without engaging with the fact that all curricular decisions come with a cost. Think of the time spent teaching students this particular way of writing, and then consider all the topics that must be sacrificed because of lack of hours in the day. The history of curriculum sequencing is filled with issues that are good but can't fit into the schedule.
The one interesting thing about this debate is the research that suggests that cursive makes a comeback during periods of societal upheaval. It's a comfort food for those of us who see the world around us and feel like things are changing faster than we're ready for. Besides this work I tire of this debate where people treat the decision as a no-brainer when no decision about curriculum is devoid of costs. I personally do not think cursive is worth it.
Comments
Post a Comment