a bad argument for cursive

 

This has to be one of the worst arguments for teaching cursive. There are lots of good reasons kids should learn it (mainly having to do with perception and neurons and memory), but ... historic documents? 

Most historic documents aren't in your language to begin with. So, you read them ... translated ... in a ... printed book.

But how about the ones in your language? The Declaration of Independence, for instance? 

OK, then, the Declaration of Independence.  I'm wondering if I ever have read it in the original cursive. I don't think I have! I've certainly *seen* it, and even think I have a copy. But when would I have ever had to decipher Jefferson's handwriting? I've read it dozens of times in print, which is something I have in common with the global audience of 1776.

Only a moment's reflection shows the colonists read it first in print, not cursive: it was distributed by broadsheet. All literate colonists would have been able to read cursive —– but one who didn't would nonetheless have had no problem. Before the age of facsimile reproduction, most Americans lived their whole lives knowing the Declaration but never having seen it in cursive.

Kids (and adults) who can't read cursive handwriting *can* read historic documents just as well as the people who were there. 

Again, there are good reasons to learn cursive. But goodness! how about showing there are good reasons to learn critical thinking as well.