Cursive? Old-fashioned or worth reviving? (A Response to Alex's Post)

Alex's post (In the Know(ledge): Miscellaneous Mesopotamia) got me thinking about different forms of handwriting and the devolution of handwriting in the United States. Our letters haven't changed, but the style in which we write them has changed. Think back to the formality of the calligraphy used to write the Declaration of Independence and John Hancock's classic, lavish signature. . . Now think of your own signature. . . Are they of the same quality? Probably not, but does it matter?


Cursive handwriting is like a simpler version of calligraphy as the letters are still connected together and was developed as a speedy method for writing. In fact, the word cursive is derived from Latin curro, currere, cucurri, cursum, which means "to run, hasten" (Source).

Did you learn cursive in elementary school? If so, how often do you use it today? I use cursive every time I sign my name and for fun every once and a while when I know it's okay if my handwriting is borderline illegible. My cursive is so pathetic, that my mom even made me practice my cursive signature before she would let me sign my drivers license. . . (Embarrassing)

I began learning cursive in elementary school where teachers told us that we would only be able to use cursive handwriting in middle school. . . Then I got to middle school, where only one teacher made me use cursive. To my dismay, She decided half-way through the year that all students should write in cursive. . . That was the last and only time I ever had to and/or chose to use my meager cursive skills as my primary form of writing in class. Thankfully, I am not the only one not using cursive. . . 

Many schools–approximately 41 states–throughout the nation have eliminated cursive from their curriculum. A few states have chosen to keep teaching cursive. This is a result of the new  Common Core State Standards for English set by the US National Government, which does not include cursive in the curriculum. I learned about this from a report on the debate of cursive in schools on ABC News  entitled: The end of cursive?  Many argue that it is no longer necessary, because as the world becomes more tech savvy, typing is more useful to students. Also, it's not tested as part of No Child Left Behind, so why spend the time teaching it? (Another interesting question: Should schools teach towards tests? Based on our classes philosophy, I would say no.)


Much research still supports learning cursive in schools. Research shows that students who handwrite material learn it better than those who type it. Learning cursive also helps students develop fine motor skills and provides another outlet for developing one's artistic abilities. However, this article does not answer one of my lingering questions: I wonder what if there are significant differences in cognition and retention skills between learning how to write well in cursive verses print handwriting?


Another possible problem brought up in this article is students having inept signatures. How significant is a signature anyway? What happens if a student can't sign their name in cursive? I would imagine it would be okay to just print one's name. However, no matter what, you just can't replace the personal touch of aesthetically pleasing handwriting.