The advantage in cursive isn't in the strokes making the individual letter... but rather how you can flow from one letter to the next without having to life the pen (or pencil) from the page. That's where the speed comes... printing an individual letter is no more or less complicated really via cursive or traditional print. I don't write that much... and when I do, I agree it is mostly in places where I need to print, except when signing my name. Of course, as long as we sign our names... people will need to be able to sign their own name AND read other people's names... so I don't see why we wouldn't keep teaching this in schools. It really shouldn't take much time to teach cursive, so I don't know what all the time/effort they are talking about really is. I mean... once a kid can read and write (printing)... all you have to do is say "there are other ways to make the same letters"... I mean, even if they go to computers and never write again, there are hundreds of thousands of fonts out there... probably thousands in regular every-day use... so kids need to grasp early-on the concept that there are many styles to make the same letter... font-recognition... so I don't even see why there is any consideration of dropping cursive. I would argue in fact... they should really expand it and instead of just being cursive... expand it to a more encompassing study of calligraphy.