argument top image

Should cursive be taught in schools?
Back to question

Making unnecessary skills mandatory is unreasonable

There are plenty of other ways children can establish basic printing skills, and requiring antiquated skills in the modern era sends a bad message to students.
< (1 of 1)

The Argument

The inclination to enforce an outdated practice like cursive is a mere reaction against the progression of newer skills in the digital age. Typing practice would be a far better use of resources to prepare children for the rest of their academic careers and to enter the workforce with appropriate experience.[1] Cursive is also harder for many students to learn, so the value in teaching an antiquated skill is further diminished by the fact that it creates an unequal playing ground for kids.[2] Any skills that cursive provides do not translate to typing or digital practices, so the transference of knowledge between modern and outdated forms is extremely limited--and typing is simply more efficient.[3] There is already so much information children fail to learn in school. Cutting out inessential elements like cursive should be an encouraging step in the right direction for fixing our education systems, rather than insisting on obsolete practices for the sake of maintaining an elitist standard.[4]

Counter arguments

Cursive lettering specifically activates parts of the brain that are not frequently used for print writing or typing. It is also useful for students with dyslexia because the letters are more distinct. Cursive may be an outdated skill, but the reason it is still relevant is because it appeals to a unique part of the brain, as well as to kids who may be left behind otherwise.



Rejecting the premises


This page was last edited on Sunday, 8 Nov 2020 at 05:51 UTC