This morning while I was listening to NewsTalk ZB to Justin Du Fresne, I heard that the Ministry of Education had decreed that handwriting is no longer to be taught in NZ schools.
I can well imagine the logic would go something like this: Children today are being taught to use the computer to express themselves. During this age of increasing computerisation the art of writing on paper will no longer be necessary in the future as everything will be done electronically, even if there is still some need to write legibly now. So, in order to prepare for this bright future and save teachers time (to teach the very necessary new green social sciences and socialist values) we need to cut out handwriting altogether.
Last year, when my children were still at school, I was amazed that my older child's new teacher's solution to his inability to write legibly was to suggest that he do a touch typing programme at home so he could do all his work on the computer.
Now, more than a year later his handwriting has dramatically improved. Since pulling both my children out of school last year, handwriting has been one of the staples of our daily routine. Just a bit of time every day on a focused handwriting programme was all it took to improve the legibility and speed of my son's writing.
We don't do any work on the computer, as I believe strongly that the less barriers to learning there are, the better. The computer is a barrier. If you need a computer in order to learn because you are used to only writing on a computer, then you are at a severe disadvantage.
For myself, the physical act of writing can put information into my head in a way that I can't duplicate in any other way. I used to find that studying by writing an incredibly effective way of memorising. This is also how I memorise my shopping lists - writing them out puts them in my memory, then I go off shopping and leave the list at home.
A child who has learned to work with a pencil and paper will not be limited by lack of electricity or finances in order to write. But a child that has only worked on a computer may not even get it into their head he could take notes on paper.
In other words, if we take away competency with very simple materials and replace those materials with an electrical tool that requires a great deal before it can be written on, then we create a barrier.
Not a huge deal in itself, but you add that to the serious mangling of language that is going on right now (such as partner = wife, de facto, person sharing your bed this week), it seems to me that the removal of handwriting as a skill and a tool will add to a massive learning and communication breakdown in the future.
Maybe we'll even go back to the age where people could only sign their name with an 'X'.
I can well imagine the logic would go something like this: Children today are being taught to use the computer to express themselves. During this age of increasing computerisation the art of writing on paper will no longer be necessary in the future as everything will be done electronically, even if there is still some need to write legibly now. So, in order to prepare for this bright future and save teachers time (to teach the very necessary new green social sciences and socialist values) we need to cut out handwriting altogether.
Last year, when my children were still at school, I was amazed that my older child's new teacher's solution to his inability to write legibly was to suggest that he do a touch typing programme at home so he could do all his work on the computer.
Now, more than a year later his handwriting has dramatically improved. Since pulling both my children out of school last year, handwriting has been one of the staples of our daily routine. Just a bit of time every day on a focused handwriting programme was all it took to improve the legibility and speed of my son's writing.
We don't do any work on the computer, as I believe strongly that the less barriers to learning there are, the better. The computer is a barrier. If you need a computer in order to learn because you are used to only writing on a computer, then you are at a severe disadvantage.
For myself, the physical act of writing can put information into my head in a way that I can't duplicate in any other way. I used to find that studying by writing an incredibly effective way of memorising. This is also how I memorise my shopping lists - writing them out puts them in my memory, then I go off shopping and leave the list at home.
A child who has learned to work with a pencil and paper will not be limited by lack of electricity or finances in order to write. But a child that has only worked on a computer may not even get it into their head he could take notes on paper.
In other words, if we take away competency with very simple materials and replace those materials with an electrical tool that requires a great deal before it can be written on, then we create a barrier.
Not a huge deal in itself, but you add that to the serious mangling of language that is going on right now (such as partner = wife, de facto, person sharing your bed this week), it seems to me that the removal of handwriting as a skill and a tool will add to a massive learning and communication breakdown in the future.
Maybe we'll even go back to the age where people could only sign their name with an 'X'.
Hehe - already at the 'sign with an X' stage in NZ, Lucyna!
ReplyDeleteIt is ridiculous to remove handwriting from the syllabus, and the officials responsible should be sacked. There is no excuse for such shameful dishonesty.
Why dishonesty? Because I think you'll find the reason they want to ditch writing, is because it exposes a myriad of failings in the education sector - inability to spell, compose sentences (text speak seems more acceptable on computers somehow), and inability to physically form letters as well.
Much of this seems to stem from the poor discipline of many students - teachers have to encourage students to enjoy doing tasks, but cannot just tell them (they refuse, or vanish out the door, or get aggressive, etc).
Oh well, pass the inkpad, I'll sign off with an 'X'...
Absolutely right, this is disgraceful.
ReplyDeleteThis sort of thing did start while I was at school however. I learnt long division at primary school. Once I hit high school we did everything on a calculator. Never once was long division ever mentioned. But the skill of doing division on paper, even though I use it rarely nowadays, has been extremely handy when I have not had access to a calculator or computer.
It is easy to fall into this trap. I have poor handwriting - I can write fine but it doesn't look that pretty. I dealt with this by moving to using a computer myself for anything important once I left school. Fortunately I had years of having writing drummed into me at school so it isn't that bad. If this is being suggested as a serious solution for children before they have been taught to write properly, they will never learn to write properly.
Nor will they learn the fine motor skills associated with holding and using a pen, instead they will get RSI from using a keyboard.
Nor will they learn to spell as the spell-checker will fix everything (probably to US spelling).
Yet another example of the dumbing down of our educational curriculum.
"Education MUST provide children with competence in reading, writing and arithmetic."
http://www.familyparty.org.nz/policy/education
I remember back when I was primary school - a small country school, I had some really bad teachers for a year or two. A new teacher joined the staff and he was shocked that we knew so little of the basics.
ReplyDeleteI was in Standard 3 or 4 at the time and I remember him putting some sums on the blackboard that he wanted us to work out - some addition and subtraction of 3 digit numbers.
He was horrified to find out that most of us couldn't subtract one 3 digit number from another. I don't remember the numbers of course, but it was one of those numbers where in one of the columns the number on the bottom is bigger that the number on the top ie, 3 - 6. No one knew about putting a '1' in the top column and adding a '1' to a bottom of the next column. Kids were putting the result of 6 - 3 etc.
After that he really got things moving. We had also, up to the stage of standard 3 that I was in, never learned cursive handwriting - at all. That was put back into all the classes.
It really would be a shame to remove it. I've seen kids coming through now that have really nice printing, but not the cursive handwriting.
ps, Lucyna, if you don't subscribe to TGIF, you might not have seen that your post on teaching children Latin was in last week's 'Best of the Blogs' page of that e-magazine, and that there is a response in the letters sidebar in this week's issue from someone in Australia. I hope Ian doesn't mind if I reprint it below -
ReplyDelete---snip---
Lucyna Maria, even though she’s obviously a trendy mod-
ernist who talks of kids instead of children, and uses “stu-
dents” rather than pupils in reference to primary and sec-
ondary children, makes a very valid point about the learning
of Latin at a young age.
The bottom line is that Latin, “dead” language though it
may be, has such close connections to English that it is an
invaluable teaching aid for boys who might be a bit slow in
learning our native language.
Take the infinitive ambulare; straight away a lad will spot
a root for amble, ambulance and ambulatory. Faced with
the word perambulator, he might balk – but he should get
a root with per (for or on behalf of) ambulator (again the
walking bit, with the significant ator sufixation).
So it goes: marina – sailor, agricola – farmer, mensa
– table, etc.
Mrs Maria manages to make a turgid pseudo-intellectual
discourse of her blog, but essentially she’s right. Latin is an
invaluable teaching tool for lads who struggle with English.
As, however, it is patently clear that “teachers” these days
have a nefarious agenda, through dumbing down, to turn
out a younger generation of sub-literate proles, we’ll cer-
tainly never see the teaching of Latin in place again beyond
the home-schooling regimen.
John Adeane, Queensland, Australia