My high school senior nephew cannot read or write cursive

[Orrex]

155. Good. It's a worthless skill on which no class time should be wasted.

There is simply no convincing argument in favor of teaching cursive, beyond the ability to sign one's own name.

Here are some popular rationalizations in favor of that wholly obsolete and anachronistic skill:

1. They won't be able to read old correspondence or letters.

2. It's better for neurodevelopment than manuscript

3. It teaches discipline and manual dexterity

4. It teaches them to write "by the word" rather than "by the letter."

My intent here is not to create a strawman; if someone can offer a more compelling argument in favor of teaching cursive writing, please do so.

And here are the simplest refutations of those:

1. Certainly they will, because cursive is just another font. Any nine-year-old kid who's been online has been exposed to more fonts than any Boomer or Gen-Xer saw in the first two decades of life.

2. There is no convincing evidence to support this. More specifically, nothing indicates that cursive is better for brain development than any of a million other skills that might be taught in its place.

3. A wide range of skills also teach mental discipline and manual dexterity, and they have greater real world application than cursive writing.

4. Absolute nonsense. Except in a few rare cases when I am taking dictation letter-by-letter, I have never started to write a word in manuscript without knowing what that would would be at the end.

In the 25+ years since I graduated from high school, I have used cursive exactly ZERO times except to sign my name. I don't think I've even seen any handwritten piece of modern writing of longer than a few words that was written in cursive.


It's an utterly worthless skill whose time has gone. Your nephew's school did him a great service by opting not to waste his time by teaching it.