# data[].attributes.body
C-This video was made July 8th, 2017..

R-The video goes in depth about why we don't necessarily need cursive as much as we did.

A-The producer of this video is David Pakman.

A-In the video David and a friend go back and forth talking about whether or not we need cursive and how, personally, it makes them feel.

P-I feel that the reason and or purpose this was made was to give viewers their personal opinion about whether or not we need cursive.

# data[].attributes.body
C-This video was made and posted on October 20th 2019.

R-I feel the purpose for this video is giving fourteen good reasons why kids should learn cursive such as it being easier to learn and the spelling is enhanced.

A-Carta Butorac is the producer.

A-She doesn't include any other sources or articles but she does go into depth about how each reason can benefit a student.

P-I feel the purpose of this video was to persuade readers ideas on why learning cursive is a good thing.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
14 Reasons Why You Should Teach Cursive Writing!

# data[].attributes.body
C- This article was written in --/--/2022.

R-I feel the authors of this article feel that this topic is immensely important, which is why they wrote it..

A-Resilient Educator is the author of this article.

A-The article also includes other links and such to give readers a better idea on how many people support the movement and or their opinion.

P-I think the purpose of this article is to try and persuade readers into agreeing that cursive should still be taught.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
5 Reasons Cursive Writing Should be Taught in School | Resilient Educator

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
While many school districts teach keyboard skills instead of cursive writing, there are still many reasons students should learn cursive writing.

# data[].attributes.body
C-This article was written March 10th, 2017.

R-The author of this article seems to feel that cursive is a big importance to young children around the world.

A-Tom Berger is the author of this article.

A-The article does include more articles to further their claim/opinion.

P-I feel the author's purpose is to show readers that, in their eyes, we need cursive.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Should cursive writing still be taught in our schools? The old debate is back with a vengeance as schools shift resources from the intricate, painstakingly rendered script to keyboard skills.

The Common Core State Standards, adopted by 42 states and the District of Columbia, call for handwriting instruction in kindergarten and first grade only, and teaching in keyboard skills after that. The standards don't mention cursive. But 14 states require cursive instruction, and the skill inspires fierce loyalty, with some going so far as to argue that the founding fathers would disapprove of our abandonment of the script-students must learn cursive in order to decipher the intent of the original Constitution, for example-and others suggesting that our very identities are compromised when we can't create identifiable signatures.

That bill was signed into law by Gov. Robert Bentley, undoubtedly in a flourish of cursive, and went into effect in May 2016. But it was just one salvo in an old battle that is picking up a new head of steam. In the fall, for example, New York City's public schools-"the country's largest school district, with 1.1 million students-encouraged teaching cursive to elementary school students." And media outlets from The Economist and PBS NewsHour to The Huffington Post continue to write about the revival of cursive, as parents, teachers, and researchers have publicly-and volubly-questioned the wisdom of killing it off.

Cursive was historically associated with good character and virtue-it was widely taught in the 19th century as " a Christian ideal... occasionally credited with disciplining the mind." But that was the high point, and the use of cursive declined throughout the 20th century as people shifted to typewriters -the first mass-market typewriter was the Signet, produced in the 1930s by Royal-and then to rudimentary computers and now, of course, to powerful smartphones.

Instruction in cursive has been declining since the 1970s, and many teacher education programs don't address handwriting instruction, thereby isolating the skill from its most natural advocates. But removing cursive from school curricula is part of an ongoing evolution, according to Anne Trubek, author of the 2016 book The History and Uncertain Future of Handwriting. New modes of communication and sense making have come and gone, she says, and "proclaiming the virtuousness of one way of forming a 'j' over others is a trope that occurs throughout handwriting's history."

Is it all just nostalgia, then? Are parents and teachers who are caught up in the controversy merely reliving old glories and trying to resurrect a useless relic? Is the battle over the future of cursive, in other words, really all about the past?

Proponents of the script clearly don't think so. In the case of cursive-and more broadly, handwriting in general-there's plenty of evidence of cognitive and academic benefits. Brain scans reveal neural circuitry lighting up when young children first print letters and then read them. The same effect is not apparent when the letters are typed or traced. Intriguingly, according to reporting in The New York Times, "block printing, cursive, and typing each elicit distinctive neurological patterns," implying a deep, underlying sensitivity in the brain to even minor changes in the way letters are rendered on the page. When reading and writing, we appear to be hardwired for versatility.

I think your cursive writing identifies you as much as your physical features do.

Virginia Berninger, a psychologist at the University of Washington, confirms that point, arguing that it's not a case of either/or-there are good reasons to teach handwriting, cursive, and keyboard skills. " In one recent study, she and her coauthors reported that cursive in particular had measurable positive effects on older children's spelling and composition skills"-because cursive is faster than print (though the speed argument is itself a disputed point). And there is some evidence that cursive helps students with dyslexia learn to read and write because it "integrates hand-eye coordination, fine motor skills, and other brain and memory functions." Other studies broaden the benefits to handwriting generally while suggesting limitations to computer-based literacy, concluding that "teaching handwriting improves students' composition, reading comprehension, brain function, and motor skills," and that students who take notes by hand instead of on a laptop process the information better.

If these findings are accurate, they form a powerful argument for continuing to teach handwriting, though not necessarily cursive. But digital technology has clearly emerged as a powerful democratizing force, knocking down barriers to access for students with special needs. If some studies show that cursive helps dyslexic students learn to read, for example, others-like a study from the Yale Center for Dyslexia and Creativity-conclude that students with dyslexia will be " big winners" from a switch to keyboarding because that skill helps them improve on the volume of words used, written clarity, spelling, and editing. And there's another benefit, according to Steve Graham, an education professor who has studied writing instruction for three decades: When "teachers rate multiple versions of the same paper differing only in terms of legibility, they assign higher grades to neatly written versions of the paper." Keyboards render that deeply unfair bias moot.

The continued pace of technological change doesn't bode well for the future of handwriting-the assault on all forms of manual writing is likely to continue. Artificial intelligence and language recognition are rapidly growing fields, putting powerful, marvelously simple communication tools in the hands of millions of consumers. But given all of the compelling research on handwriting, and the deep cultural and historical meaning of the practice, we should ask whether the Common Core has abandoned the teaching of handwriting and cursive too hastily. As Anne Trubek notes in her book, "We will lose something as we print and write in cursive less and less, but loss is inevitable." So the question remains: What precisely are we losing-and what is it worth?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What We Lose With the Decline of Cursive

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Technology is gradually replacing cursive instruction-but have we taken stock of what we're losing?

# data[].attributes.body
C-This was published January 6th, 2018.

R-The article gives the benefits of learning cursive/attempts to persuade you on why you should learn cursive.

A-The producer is unknown.

A-The article does include other links and sites that side with their claim, which is why and how cursive benefits us.

P-The purpose of this is to convince others we need cursive and it does have benefits.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Developing an attractive, legible cursive handwriting style certainly has great aesthetic value, but it also has numerous mental, physical, social, and practical benefits. Here are the Top 10 reasons to learn cursive!

1. Improved neural connections. Cursive handwriting stimulates the brain in ways that typing cannot. It improves the dynamic interplay of the left and right cerebral hemispheres, helps build neural pathways, and increases mental effectiveness. According to Virginia Berninge r, a researcher and professor at the University of Washington, "Pictures of brain activity have illustrated that sequential finger movements used in handwriting activated massive regions of the brain involved in thinking, language, and working memory. Handwriting differs from typing because it requires executing sequential finger strokes to form a letter, whereas keyboarding only involves touching a key."

2. Improved ability to read cursive. When individuals cannot read cursive, they are cursively illiterate in their own language. The ability to read cursive is required in many settings.

3. Increased writing speed. The connectivity of a simple cursive style is faster to write than the stop and-start strokes of printing. Speed has been shown to increase attention span during writing. This increases continuity and fluidity in writing, which in turn encourages greater amounts of writing.

4. Improved fine motor skills. "Cursive handwriting naturally develops sensory skills. Through repetition the children begin to understand how much force needs to be applied to the pencil and paper, the positioning of the pencil to paper at the correct angle, and motor planning to form each letter in fluid motion from left to right. This physical and spatial awareness allows them to write, but more importantly, builds the neural foundation of sensory skills needed for a myriad of everyday tasks such as buttoning, fastening, tying shoes, picking up objects, copying words from blackboards, and most importantly, reading." ( Cutting Cursive, The Real Cost. Candace Meyer, CEO, Minds-in-Motion, Inc.)

5. Increased retention. The act of taking notes by hand instead of on a computer encourages a student to process the content and reframe it, which leads to better understanding and retention. Studies indicate that college students remembered information better one week later when they transcribed a paragraph in cursive than when they printed it or used a keyboard.

6. Ease of learning. Printing is more difficult than cursive due to the frequent stop-and-start motion when forming letters. In addition, some printed letters look similar and are easily reversed, like the b and d, which is often confusing to children. Cursive is of particular value to children with learning challenges such as dyslexia, dysgraphia, and difficulties with attention.

7. Improved legibility and spelling ability. Cursive requires children to write from left to right so that the letters will join in proper sequence and with proper spacing, making their writing easier to read. It also aids with spelling through muscle memory, as the hand acquires memory of spelling patterns through fluid movements that are used repeatedly. This is the same phenomenon that occurs when pianists learn patterns of hand movements through continued repetition.

8. Increased self-discipline. Cursive handwriting is complex, and is inherently associated with the development of fine-motor skills and hand-eye coordination. Learning cursive prompts children to also develop self-discipline, which is a useful skill in all areas of life.

9. Higher quality signature. Cursive handwriting will improve the attractiveness, legibility, and fluidity of one's signature.

10. Increased self-respect. The ability to master the skill of writing clearly and fluidly improves the students' confidence to communicate freely with the written word. Handwriting is a vital life skill.

Top 10 Reasons to Learn Cursive by Iris Hatfield, author of New American Cursive

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Top 10 Reasons to Learn Cursive - Memoria Press

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Developing an attractive, legible cursive handwriting style certainly has great aesthetic value, but it also has numerous mental, physical, social, and practical benefits. Here are the Top 10 reasons to learn cursive! 1. Improved neural connections. Cursive handwriting stimulates the brain in ways that typing cannot.

# data[].attributes.body
C-This was posted May 1st, 2013.

R-I feel this was made to make a point that cursive should not be taught anymore as it's already dying.

A-Morgan Polikoff is the creator.

A-The author does not include other articles and or sites that support his opinion.

P-I feel the reason this was made is to persuade others that cursive isn't as needed as others think it is.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Morgan Polikoff is an assistant professor of education at the University of Southern California's Rossier School of Education, where he researches the design and effects of standards, assessment and accountability policies.

Districts and states should not mandate the teaching of cursive. Cursive should be allowed to die. In fact, it's already dying, despite having been taught for decades. Very small proportions of adults use cursive for their day-to-day writing. Much of our communication is done on a keyboard, and the rest is done with print.

Educators and policymakers should resist the urge to add more skills to the Common Core because doing so undermines the strength of the standards.

Additionally, there is little compelling research to suggest the teaching of cursive positively affects other student skills enough to merit its teaching. While both research and common sense indicate students should be taught some form of penmanship, there is simply no need to teach students both print and cursive.

The Common Core standards are well constructed and full of the essential skills students need to succeed in reading and writing. The architects of the standards certainly weighed the inclusion of cursive and believed there was no need to include it. Thus, educators and policymakers should resist the urge to add more skills. Doing so would simply result in a crowded, less-focused curriculum, undermining the strength of the standards.

Given these realities, teachers would be better off focusing on the skills and knowledge that will impact student success in the future. These include printing and typing, but not cursive. As we have done with the abacus and the slide rule, it is time to retire the teaching of cursive. The writing is on the wall.

Join Opinion on Facebook and follow updates on twitter.com/roomfordebate.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Morgan Polikoff is an assistant professor of education at the University of Southern California's Rossier School of Education, where he researches the design and effects of standards, assessment and accountability policies. Districts and states should not mandate the teaching of cursive. Cursive should be allowed to die.

# data[].attributes.body
C-The article was written December 30th, 2019.

R-The author feels that cursive is of little to no importance.

A-Written by Ben Stenger.

A-He does admit that others make good arguments on why we should learn cursive but he sticks to his claim.

P-The purpose of this article is to argue why we don't need cursive.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
American schools are slowly phasing out cursive handwriting, which is an unambiguously good move. Cursive is an archaic form of communication-one best left to history.

Let's take a look at some common arguments for teaching cursive in schools, and why they don't hold up.

Note: In February 2015, former author Justin Pot wrote an opinion article titled Cursive Writing Is Obsolete; Schools Should Teach Programming Instead. Then, in August 2015, he wrote this follow-up article to respond to some of the most common arguments.

The article needed an update, so we've brought it up to modern standards. While the author performing the update agrees with the sentiment that cursive writing is not worth teaching in schools today, we've preserved as much of the content and tone of Justin's original article as possible.

Defining Cursive Writing

To be clear, when we talk about "cursive handwriting" we speak mostly of the Palmer Method, a simplified form of script popularized in the early 20th century. It was designed specifically with speed in mind (in part to better compete with typewriters).

This kind of writing is, in our humble opinion:

Slower than typing.

Harder to learn and read than print handwriting.

Ugly when compared to more stylized scripts.

There's literally no reason for schools to teach the Palmer Method, outside of nostalgia. While we feel that cursive should not be taught in schools, we want to respond to the other side who thinks cursive is far from pointless.

Many Made Good Arguments in the Comments

Plenty of educators agreed with some of the original premise and critiqued the finer points. We welcome these conversations.

We can concede some of the arguments for why teaching cursive writing makes sense. For example:

Feel free to disagree with us on these or other reasoned points-we invite the conversation. But what we won't invite is any variation of the following arguments, which are pretty much complete gibberish.

There is a sense of accomplishment that comes with learning cursive.
While this is true, we think teaching a beautiful, pre-Palmer script in art class is a better way for kids to get that feeling. Let's stop pretending this is a practical skill.

Being able to read old letters from relatives is extremely valuable.
Of course, but you can learn to read documents like this without spending dozens of hours learning to write an obsolete script yourself. It's still English, even if it takes a little longer to decipher.

1. Kids Will Be Cut Off From History!

A number of people claimed that not teaching cursive cuts people off from their history. The typical comment goes like this:

Some went a little bit further, submitting speculative fiction for our consideration:

Ridiculous as this might seem, there is a certain logic here. Learning to write cursive means you can also read it, meaning you can better understand documents like this:

You probably know this as the original version of the Declaration of Independence, right? Surprise: that's not what most people read at the time. Most historians agree that this engrossed copy of the declaration was signed in August of 1776, a month after the document was famously ratified on July 4th, 1776.

The first published copies of the document, known as the Dunlap broadsides, looked like this:

That's right: in July of 1776, Congress approved the original Declaration and people immediately started reading it in print. This shouldn't be surprising; the Declaration of Independence was signed in 1776, over three hundred years after Gutenberg's printing press.

Kids not taught cursive would have no trouble reading this. If you want to argue that Americans in July of 1776 were less connected to history than someone who read a cursive version later on, we don't know what to say to you. The fact is that printed copies of America's founding documents are widely available today, just as they were in the 1700s-in many cases before the handwritten "originals" we know today.

In addition, none of these documents were written using the hideous Palmer Method, which wasn't popularized until the early 20th century. Go ahead and dig through some old newspapers, and you'll see the difference.

One does not need to learn cursive in order to read America's founding documents. It wasn't the case in the 1700s and certainly is not now. Consider that most people alive today cannot read religious texts or other historical documents in their original languages, either.

2. When the Apocalypse Comes, We'll Need It!

Some of the silliest comments revolved around what would happen if someone took out the electrical grid, such as this one:

The obvious counters for this argument are as follows:

3. Kids Need to Have a Signature!

One subject came up again and again: everyone in today's society needs to have a signature.

This seems like a good point, but we don't think it holds up. Here are some of the reasons why:

4. Technology Is Destroying Something Real

Print handwriting works just fine without electricity.

Assuming we're going to make surviving post-apocalyptic scenarios part of the curriculum, we should probably prioritize trapping, fishing, farming, and log cabin construction over letters with loops.

A number of comments made nostalgic arguments, saying that something real is being lost in this transition. This one, left under an article on Justin Pot's personal website, represents this argument best:

We respect what this person has said, but think these arguments miss a key point. Comments like this imply that cursive handwriting is some innate part of being human, but it isn't. It's an invention.

Cursive writing is a technology.

There's nothing natural about handwriting: it's a tool that we used for a particular period of time to communicate. Today people are using it less and less because they've deemed the alternatives as better.

In a sense, that's too bad-something is lost every time a technology is replaced. The compass meant fewer people learned how to navigate using the stars, while GPS has resulted in fewer people knowing how to use a compass.

But this doesn't mean we should give up on the GPS, or teach everyone how to navigate by the stars. Some people will pursue this knowledge for fun, or because it's been passed down by their family, but mandating everyone learns it just isn't realistic.

The fact that people use cursive writing less often today isn't because schools have stopped teaching it. The opposite is true: schools aren't teaching cursive because students don't use that skill later in life. Many haven't been for decades.

Ours isn't the activist argument. The other side wants to keep something irrelevant in the school systems out of nostalgia, while that time could be used for teaching something productive. We're not the one who needs to leave well enough alone.

But hey, maybe we're just lazy and uncoordinated.

Better Uses of Time Than Teaching Cursive Writing

We close with a few ideas on what students could learn that's a more productive use of time than antiquated cursive writing. While some schools may teach the following, they're not as ingrained in the schooling system as cursive writing has been:

Should Cursive Still Be Taught in Schools?

Progress takes place over centuries, meaning something that seems like part of the natural order when you're a kid was alien to prior generations.

The Palmer Method was harshly criticized and resisted in its early days, but its speed meant it ultimately won out over better-looking scripts. Over one hundred years later, this method is on the way out, because the alternatives are better.

Making predictions about technology is impossible, but so is trying to prevent an obsolete technology from sticking around. And that's exactly what anyone trying to keep cursive handwriting in the school curriculum is trying to do. Why dedicate so much time to something most people barely use anymore? You'd be hard-pressed to find a job interviewer who finds handwriting at all relevant.

But this, of course, is our opinion. We'd like to hear yours too. And if this has inspired a drive to return to cursive for you, check out the best resources to improve your handwriting How to Improve Your Handwriting: 8 Resources for Better Penmanship Believe it or not, legible handwriting is still important today. Start practicing your handwriting today! Read More .

Affiliate Disclosure: By buying the products we recommend, you help keep the site alive. Read more.

Computer programming. The ubiquitous nature of computers today means that learning a bit about how to program them is extremely useful. Learning to code also teaches logical thinking.

Civics. A 2019 study from the Annenberg Public Policy Center found that 22% of sampled Americans cannot name a single branch of the government. This is, frankly, pathetic-any country would do well to educate its citizens on how the government actually works.

Personal finance. Many kids graduate from school not understanding basic financial principles, like how interest rates work or how to save for retirement. WalletHub found that some 10 percent of people think it's worth going into debt for a new iPhone. Surely learning to manage money, which is something you use every day, is more important than writing letters in a certain style.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The 4 Worst Arguments for Teaching Cursive in Schools

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
American schools are slowly phasing out cursive handwriting, which is an unambiguously good move. Cursive is an archaic form of communication-one best left to history. Let's take a look at some common arguments for teaching cursive in schools, and why they don't hold up.