The Cursive Writing Handwriting Debate

     I first learned about the cursive handwriting debate when I read a story about the Trayvon Martin case.  One of the witnesses at the trail was asked to read a letter.  The nineteen-year-old confessed she couldn't because she is unable to read cursive handwriting.  She could only read printing (or manuscript, as it is sometimes called).  Many people under the age of twenty have not been taught cursive handwriting.  They have been schooled only in printing and keyboarding.  Many people under the age of thirty say they never use the handwriting skills to which they were briefly exposed in the third grade, except to sign their names.  These same people say it's an effort to decipher letters written in cursive.
     Those on the cursive-is-dead side of the issue say learning and practicing "script" is a waste of time for students.  Technology skills are required to be employed, so typing should replace cursive handwriting lessons.  One smart aleck even suggests a good speech to text app eliminates the need for reading and writing skills.
     The arguments in favor of retaining cursive handwriting are numerous.  The usual arguments for the benefits of cursive handwriting are that it improves fine motor skills, increases the ability to read, and improves spelling abilities.  It's a form of self discipline.  It's faster than printing.  Maybe the most basic argument for cursive is that everybody needs a distinct signature.  Signatures are almost like fingerprints.  They are a mark of our individuality and uniqueness.  We should all hone our autographs - just for the sake of it.  More practically speaking, signatures are harder to forge than printed block letters.  That's valuable when we sign checks and contracts.  Cursive style writing has actual therapeutic value for dyslexics.  Many people with learning disabilities can finally master reading and writing when the letters are strung together.  Cursive turns those separate hieroglyphs into words and sentences.  Some point out that the ability to read historical documents, like the Declaration of Independence, will be lost if people can't read script.  What is sadder, I think, is that today's teens won't be able to read letters and diaries from their grandparents if they only know how to print.
     Since there is no nationwide uniformity in school curricula, the ability to read and write using cursive is just one more difference between the classes.  The lower income school districts bypass cursive handwriting.  The upper income districts throw money into the budget to teach it.  New Jersey's Core Curriculum Content Standards were set in 2004 for grades K-12.  http://www.state.nj.us/education/cccs/  The goal for children at the end of the second grade is that they be able to "write legibly  to meet district standards."  This changes to being able to "write legibly in manuscript or cursive to meet district standards" by the end of the third grade.  The option to use manuscript or cursive continues through the twelfth grade.  I don't know how much time and effort is put into the cursive side of the equation these days at Hainesport School once kids hit the third grade.  When I attended  Hainesport School I was graded on penmanship through the eighth grade.  I still have the report cards to prove it.  Penmanship was the only C grade on a document filled with mostly A's and a few B's!
     Things come and go.  Times change.  Sometimes the pendulum swings back and things are reborn.  My grandparents spoke in German when they didn't want my mother to know what they were discussing.  My mother left notes around the house written in shorthand because she didn't want me to know the contents of her "messages to self."  All I have to do to keep information out of a teenager's hands is write it in cursive.  It's a hoot to think the children of today's teenagers might write their diary entries in cursive to foil their script illiterate parent's attempts to pry.