|
|
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
States fight to keep cursive handwriting in the classroom
Quote:
__________________
1983 123.133 California - GreaseCar Veg System |
#2
|
||||
|
||||
As long as we have digital communication, script is an anachronism.
|
#3
|
||||
|
||||
Some out there have the aim of resurrecting X as a signature.
__________________
1985 300D 198K sold 1982 300D 202K 1989 300E 125K 1992 940T "If you dont have time to do it safely, you dont have time to do it" "The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not." |
#4
|
||||
|
||||
They could teach it as calligraphy in the art class . . . Art class . . . Oh dear . . .
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
you are missing the most important part...Common Core.....do some research.
|
#6
|
||||
|
||||
Question. Do you prefer I print my writing or write cursive if it is on your prescription? Cursive reflects a personal style. I might not read your style well and suddenly you find yourself not taking the proper dose. I think a signature is a personal thing and you don't need to be writing cursive to sign something. But so what if it is printed? Those were the things developed for the past in the past. I look at it this way. Whoresmanship is a good think to know but highly unnecessary in the light of the automobiles we have today.
__________________
01 Ford Excursion Powerstroke 99 E300 Turbodiesel 91 Vette with 383 motor 05 Polaris Sportsman 800 EFI 06 Polaris Sportsman 500 EFI 03 SeaDoo GTX SC Red 03 SeaDoo GTX SC Yellow 04 Tailgator 21 ft Toy Hauler 11 Harley Davidson 883 SuperLow |
#7
|
||||
|
||||
PRINT please!
Far more legible
__________________
Mike Murrell 1991 300-SEL - Model 126 M103 - SOHC "Fräulein" |
#8
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
CCSS is designed to be a basic framework upon which the individual states can build. It doesn't specifically exclude penmanship or any other curriculum. This is a made up issue. Good grief. I clipped this tidbit out of a copy of the CCSS for K-2 that I happen to be using for reference on a consult I'm doing: The Standards should be recognized for what they are not as well as what they are. The most important intentional design limitations are as follows: 1. The Standards define what all students are expected to know and be able to do, not how teachers should teach. For instance, the use of play with young children is not specified by the Standards, but it is welcome as a valuable activity in its own right and as a way to help students meet the expectations in this document. Furthermore, while the Standards make references to some particular forms of content, including mythology, foundational U.S. documents, and Shakespeare, they do not—indeed, cannot—enumerate all or even most of the content that students should learn. The Standards must therefore be complemented by a well‐developed, content‐rich curriculum consistent with the expectations laid out in this document. 2. While the Standards focus on what is most essential, they do not describe all that can or should be taught. A great deal is left to the discretion of teachers and curriculum developers. The aim of the Standards is to articulate the fundamentals, not to set out an exhaustive list or a set of restrictions that limits what can be taught beyond what is specified herein. 3. The Standards do not define the nature of advanced work for students who meet the Standards prior to the end of high school. For those students, advanced work in such areas as literature, composition, language, and journalism should be available. This work should provide the next logical step up from the college and career readiness baseline established here. 4. The Standards set grade‐specific standards but do not define the intervention methods or materials necessary to support students who are well below or well above grade‐level expectations. No set of grade‐specific standards can fully reflect the great variety in abilities, needs, learning rates, and achievement levels of students in any given classroom. However, the Standards do provide clear signposts along the way to the goal of college and career readiness for all students. 5. It is also beyond the scope of the Standards to define the full range of supports appropriate for English language learners and for students with special needs. At the same time, all students must have the opportunity to learn and meet the same high standards if they are to access the knowledge and skills necessary in their post‐high school lives. 6. Each grade will include students who are still acquiring English. For those students, it is possible to meet the standards in reading, writing, speaking, and listening without displaying native‐like control of conventions and vocabulary. 7. The Standards should also be read as allowing for the widest possible range of students to participate fully from the outset and as permitting appropriate accommodations to ensure maximum participation of students with special education needs. For example, for students with disabilities reading should allow for the use of Braille, screen‐reader technology, or other assistive devices, while writing should include the use of a scribe, computer, or speech‐to‐text technology. In a similar vein, speaking and listening should be interpreted broadly to include sign language. 8. While the ELA and content area literacy components described herein are critical to college and career readiness, they do not define the whole of such readiness. Students require a wide‐ranging, rigorous academic preparation and, particularly in the early grades, attention to such matters as social, emotional, and physical development and approaches to learning. Similarly, the Standards define literacy expectations in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects, but literacy standards in other areas, such as mathematics and health education, modeled on those in this document are strongly encouraged to facilitate a comprehensive, school wide literacy program.
__________________
You're a daisy if you do. __________________________________ 84 Euro 240D 4spd. 220.5k sold 04 Honda Element AWD 1985 F150 XLT 4x4, 351W with 270k miles, hay hauler 1997 Suzuki Sidekick 4x4 1993 Toyota 4wd Pickup 226K and counting |
#9
|
||||
|
||||
I dont know guys, I know an awful lot of people who have poor penmanship even in non-cursive writing. Down right horrible stuff.
There are an awful lot of things that are taught in school that are not 100% relevant to the student however the practice of learning those items is relevant.
__________________
Cruise Control not working? Send me PM or email (jamesdean59@gmail.com). I might be able to help out. Check here for compatibility, diagnostics, and availability! (4/11/2020: Hi Everyone! I am still taking orders and replying to emails/PMs/etc, I appreciate your patience in these crazy times. Stay safe and healthy!) 82 300SD 145k 89 420SEL 210k 89 560SEL 118k 90 300SE 262k RIP 5/25/2010 90 560SEL 154k 91 300D 2.5 Turbo. 241k 93 190E 3.0 235k 93 300E 195k |
Bookmarks |
|
|