Teaching uniform printing skills in elementary school is correlated with higher literacy
Printing skills are connected with numerous literacy markers, and the practice of those skills can only benefit students in their education. Cursive has many noted uses beyond just enforcing mandatory student exercises.
(1 of 1) Next argument >
Teaching cursive is not so much about making sure all students are master calligraphers but rather to establish a baseline of printing practices that encourages literacy skills from a young age. Writing is an advancement of fine motor skills, and when children simply study classic print writing, their handwriting is frequently less legible than those who study cursive. This is because cursive shows children how to follow set patterns and write with a lighter hand, rather than instinctually scrawling whatever feels most convenient. With the decline in cursive practice, handwriting has often been overlooked in young children in favor of encouraging typing. While it is true that typing is the equivalent to handwriting in the digital age, handwriting is not yet obsolete, and studies have shown that taking handwritten notes in class serves the memory far better than typing. In addition, creating a signature is accomplished almost exclusively through learning cursive, and signatures are still relevant even in modern documentation. Cursive lettering is beneficial for dyslexic students because of its differentiation. The flow of the writing can actually be faster and facilitate more left-to-right reading and writing synchronization than even print handwriting. The everyday use of cursive is changing, but the skills it provides remain the same.
Most of these skills could be supplemented through more modern and relevant practices, rather than just continuing to enforce a skill that prevents newer skills like typing from taking their rightful place as the developing motor skills of the digital era.
Rejecting the premises