I was in third and fourth grade in the late 1960s, back when learning cursive was a rite of passage. We practiced loops and swirls on lined paper, filled pages with capital Qs that looked like 2s, and took pride when our handwriting looked “grown up.” It was part of being educated, part of becoming someone who could write a letter, sign a check, or leave a note your mother could actually read.
Fast forward several decades. I became a certified elementary teacher in 2001 in Virginia. By that point, the teaching landscape had completely changed. Teacher certification programs, the equivalent of a bachelor’s or master’s degree in elementary education, no longer included handwriting instruction. Not manuscript, and certainly not cursive.
From 2002 through 2019, not a single public school I worked in required cursive writing or provided any materials or curriculum for it. None. Teachers who began their careers after 2001 were never taught how to teach cursive. Many of the younger teachers I worked alongside didn’t know how to write in cursive themselves. So even when cursive was mentioned as something “nice to bring back,” it simply wasn’t possible. You cannot teach a skill you do not have.
Now, several states, including Florida, have reintroduced cursive into their standards. On paper, it sounds traditional and wholesome, a nod to the “good old days.” But there is a major problem no one seems to be addressing: who is going to teach it?
The majority of teachers currently in second through fourth grade classrooms never learned cursive formally. They never practiced the proper strokes, letter connections, or spacing. They have spent their careers teaching literacy through keyboards, tablets, and typed text. Simply placing “cursive writing” back into the curriculum does not magically equip teachers with the skills or time to teach it.
And the most common argument for bringing cursive back, so that students can “read historical documents like the U.S. Constitution,” does not hold up to scrutiny.
Why the “Historical Documents” Argument Falls Short
When people argue that students must learn cursive so they can read historical documents, they usually mean a small handful of famous ones. The Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, and the Bill of Rights are almost always at the top of that list. Sometimes people also mention the Federalist Papers, the Gettysburg Address, or Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation.
There is no doubt these documents are important, but the argument falls apart when you look at them closely. All of these were written with quills in the late 1700s or mid-1800s, using elaborate handwriting styles that no longer exist. The letter shapes, spacing, and flourishes look beautiful, but they bear little resemblance to the Palmer, Zaner-Bloser, or D’Nealian cursive styles taught in 20th-century classrooms. Many of the letters are formed differently, and some are no longer in use. The “long s,” for example, looks like an “f” and appears throughout the Declaration of Independence.
Even most adults who learned cursive would struggle to read those documents fluently without a transcription beside them. Museums, archives, and textbooks do not expect visitors or students to read the original versions. They provide typed, printed, or digital transcriptions so the words can be understood clearly.
In truth, the ability to read historical documents depends far more on historical literacy than on handwriting style. Understanding the context, purpose, and ideas behind those writings is what matters most. And for the rare cases when someone truly needs to see the original script, modern technology can instantly translate cursive text into print. A quick photo on a phone can produce a clean, readable version within seconds.
So while the idea of reading the Constitution in its original cursive form might sound noble, it is not realistic. What we really need to teach students is how to understand what those words meant, why they were written, and how they continue to shape the world they live in today.
There is another practical reason the argument for cursive no longer makes sense. We no longer live in a world that requires a cursive signature. There was a time when your signature was a personal stamp, a mark of identity that proved who you were. You needed it for checks, contracts, and anything official. Today, most financial and legal documents are handled electronically. We sign digitally with a mouse, a fingertip, or an auto-generated font. Even when a physical signature is required, it does not have to be written in cursive. You can print your name, or make a simple squiggle, and it is still legally valid. The idea that students need cursive in order to sign their names no longer matches reality. The world has changed, and the way we write has changed with it.
That does not mean handwriting itself is unimportant. Writing by hand helps with memory, fine motor skills, and even creativity. But insisting that cursive return to classrooms without training, time, or relevance does not bring us back to the “good old days.” It only adds another unrealistic expectation to already overburdened teachers.
The truth is, cursive is not coming back. Not really. What is coming back is the idea of cursive, the nostalgia of it, in a world that has long since moved on from fountain pens and lined practice sheets. And for those of us who once filled pages with careful loops and curls, that realization is both a little sad and entirely understandable.
Postnote: Why Printing Must Come First
Before schools rush to reintroduce cursive writing, it is worth asking a simple question: have students truly mastered printing?
In many classrooms, the answer is no. When students struggle with letter formation, spacing, or directionality in print, moving to cursive only adds frustration and confusion. To understand why so many students reach upper elementary grades without legible and fluent printing, and what schools can do to fix it, read my companion piece, “Illegible Printing and Why Early Printing Instruction Matters” at https://janmariet.com/illegible-printing-and-why-early-printing-instruction-matters/
Author’s Note:
Jan Mariet is a veteran teacher and writer who spent nearly two decades in public education before turning her focus to writing about teaching, disability, and social change. Her work explores how classrooms, communities, and expectations have evolved, and what we have gained and lost along the way.
One thought on “Bringing Cursive Back Sounds Nice, But Is It Really Worth It?”