THE HANDWRITING OF TO-DAY

Evening Post, Volume CVII, Issue 143, 18 June 1924, Page 3

THE HANDWRITING OF TO-DAY

VARIOUS VIEWS 10 THE EDITOR. Sir,—l would like through your paper to draw Mr. Mourant's attention to a few points:— 1. A firm in London recently appointed out of twenty-five applicants, the only one who answered their advertisement in print writing. ■ 2. As _ far as I know print-writing is taught in every school in Scotland—the forerunner of all countries in State education. 3. I have been teaching for thirty-two years, i.e., since the days of the more exclusive teaching of the "three R's," and business men have always complain- j ed of the writing and arithmetic of the State school child. 4. The "Three R's" are not the basis of a good education. Probably reading, singing, and drawing are the most necessary subjects to teach. 5. The good writing alluded to was probably due to a natural gift.. 6. Any child, can learn to sign his own name even if he uses print writing. 7. The deficiencies alluded to are due to large classes, inferiority and shortage of good material, broken time (e.g.. visit of fleet, carnivals, concerts, etc., to raise money for necessary school equipment, living flags, etc.),"lack of intelligent training of child in early years (3-5 years), etc.' • 8. Writing is of no use to any human being until he has something in his mind to express in that form. A child of school age can express himself at any time in modelling. 9. Education has wider aims than that of preventing forgeries from being committed; 99 per cent, of our school children will never commit a forgery, even ?nll^7 Writing is tauSht in the schools. 10. Where are there two men who will agree to what is "a reasonable style of writing"? No two headmasters can, or do. ■ 11. If more time is given to writing there will be more time spent in "crouching and unhealthy attitudes" unless desks are scrapped, more elbow room is given to children, larger floor spaces provided, and the number of pupils reduced in,order to get the blackboards in better positions for all the children to see easily and well. Finally, what we all need is more intelligence, more imagination, and more vision. These will not be attained through spending more time in writin". —I am, etc., ° 16th June.

TO TUB EDITOR. Sir, —I was not surprised to observe m your issue of Saturday a letter from Air. H. A. Parkinson, secretary of the i\w Zealand Educational Institute, in reply to mine of the 9th instant. He has evidently considered it his duty to take up the cudgels on behalf of the teachers of our State primary schools, whom I have maintained are largely responsible for the poor quality of the handwriting of the present day. While Mr. Parkinson takes me to' task (rather uuconvincingly) for certain statements I have made, I am glad to note that he agrees in the main with me in my complaint against the teaching of print writing in the schools. That being so, I trust he will do what he can to arouse the educational authorities and the members of his institute to a sense of the inadvisability of inflicting upon the community a system of writing that is unwanted and fraught with dangerous possibilities. ' Mr. Parkinson questions my statement that "the basis of a good education' is the 'three R's'—reading, writing, and arithmetic." In fact, he says "these are not now regarded as the basis of a good education." He styles these subjects "essential tools of education." He changes the simile, from "basis" to ''tools," but still agrees that the subjects mentioned are "essential." That being so, should they not be taught thoroughly? Often this is not the case, and particularly so with handwriting. Let us keep to the subject of handwriting. ■

My friend may rest assured of this : that the complaint is Tery general, that' too many of the boys and girls that pass through our schools to-day are sadly deficient in good penmanship, and compare most unfavourably, with those of past generations. Can Mr. Parkinson give a satisfactory reason why? He has not done so yet. I can assure my critic that the statement made concerning the paucity of instruction iv handwriting given mv son at one of our public schools is quite correct, and not as he would like to think ''greatly exaggerated." I did not require the evidence of "the record of two or three term examinations, and the inspector's report" to justify my complaint. My own eyes were sufficient. Mr. Parkinson suggests that I should go to some of- the school and there find disproof of my'criticism that pupils are allowed to adopt a crouching and unhealthy attitude when engaged in writing. Well! A few years back I was tutor of a considerable-sized class composed of senior scholars drawn from different schools, and I was struck with the large number whose backs had the shape of a bow when they bent themselves to the task of writing. Reverting to print writing. It is being taught in some of our schools, not all. "Why some and not all ? ' Who is responsible for deciding what kind of writing is to be taugHt? Is there not the probability that boys and girls instructed in print writing will he unable to read and write in the script form? Have the risks of forgery that are attendant on print writing been carefully considered by its exponents? These are some of the questions that call for reply. The object of my appearance in your columns is not to enga?e in ' contriversy but to promote, if possible, an investigation into the quality and the teaching of one of the most important subjects in the education of our children. The position at -present is most unsatisfactory. It should be put right.—l am. etc.. H. P. MOURANT.

10 THE EDITOR. Sir, —Would you kindly allow me a small space to enlarge on the old saying that "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing." In Saturday's edition ''New Chum" goes so .far as to give ns his valuable opinion—and opinions like that are so very valuable. As for 2tlr. llouriuit, his article surprises me. Might 1 answer or rather prove idle the charges against this admirable and scientifically sound method of handwriting, known as script printing :— (1) "Individuality is impossible with script writing." .. . This, to anyone who has studied the pscholngy of handwriting is absurd. I have seen thousands of samples of print script, and have not seen two which are alike. It is a physical impossibility for any two individuals to do the simplest act without showing individuality. As a matter of fact, the old copper plate style, "delightful to the eye and easy to read," as stated by "New Chum," had as its chief aim uniformity of style. When uniformity is partially reached (and yet without" destroying or being able to destroy mdi venality) ignoramuses object, * They

clearly do not think what is the real meaning to their objections. (2) As for beauty, no one who has seen, for example, Standard III..: cursive handwriting and Standard 111. script writing will say that the ordinary handwriting is more beautiful. That would be contrary to obvious fact. Script writing: is both logically and psychologically sound. It simplies the extreme difficult process of reading, writing, and spelling for the young child, ihe writing, reading, and spelling symbol is identical. ... It develops into a free cursive hand with little or "o difficulty by natural joining of letters —not the artificial method of cursive writing. I might enlarge, ad libitum, on this very important subject. In the matter ot definite writing instruction, Mr. Mourant is absurdly wrong. At the present time the children are trained to write* well in_ all subjects, not merely during the writing lesson with that wretched invention, the copy-book. Finally, I should like to say'that mere opinions are worthless in any realm. Facts dominate the world— not opinions. H has been _ proved by experiment at Home and in America and. elsewhere that script writmg in every way is equal to and often surpasses the old method ot the cursive hand.-—I am, etc B. C. ROBERTSON. 16th June.