Cursive writing - being old doesn't mean it has to die!

I'm trying to send this link to as many teachers as I can contact. If you aren't a teacher, then surely you know a teacher. The value in this article below is that a vast body of history will be unavailable to many studious people if their quest for knowledge depends solely on reading documents that are only available in printed or digitized text.
The counter-action to this deprivation would be to inform school board trustees about articles such as are in this link so they might realize their lack of foresight in directing the school curriculum for which they are responsible.
If you have received this from me, please consider passing it on to someone else who might make a difference to what is happening to our youth's comprehension of the world's past.
Sadly, I am unable to pass this message any further than to my English speaking and writing friends!

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/shunned-computer-age-cursive-makes-comeback-california-2024-01-27/?user_email=fc89f8ef4936989ae13d4f442226bc6df204063776de74f998644cde7cc08a46

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

ViciDraco · 41-45, M

I don't think it is at any risk of dying. Rather it is becoming a specialized skill. People are going to be able to learn it. It is just going to be optional. Scholars, and especially historical scholars are still going to be learning it. Historical scholars translate all kinds of languages to make history readily accessible for the layman. They can do so for cursive writing as well. Nothing is really at risk of being lost here.

JollyRoger · 70-79, M

@ViciDraco But.... If you can't read it? My grandchildren can't read it! And... are you a 'dependent' person? Do you want to depend on others to do what you don't want to do?
As I said in one response: Should a scholar 100 years from now need to be a linguistic archeologist in order to understand the written form of the language they speak daily?

ViciDraco · 41-45, M

@JollyRoger we have a broadly known written form for the language we speak daily. Not only is it the form most used by native speakers, it is the form non-native speakers learn and interact with in modern society. Why do we need more than one written form? If anything, that only makes learning to read and write English more challenging for non-native speakers. The whole 'dependent' person thing is a bit silly. We don't teach Latin. We don't teach sanskrit. Hell, we don't even teach old English.

For the record, I was not only taught cursive, it was mandatory to write with it when i was in grades 3 to 5. The only time I ever use it in my adult life is for a signature and that's honestly kind of silly.

I'm all for letting people learn it as an elective. I think it should be an elective in schools. But mandatory instruction is pointlessly holding on to the past. It's an exercise in past generations fighting against progress. And in this case, progress represents the standardization of English in the written form, both analog and digital. Print is just superior for computers, for press, and for general legibility. There's no good reason to make cursive part of mandatory primary or secondary education. But again, it makes a great elective. Kind of like an art elective, if I had to categorize it.