I can't find the damn paper, but I know there's research that indicates that children learn to write faster if they write in print than if they write in cursive. If the argument is perhaps that this is a tradition worth preserving, i think it's already preserved in old documents and papers. Tradition is hardly a good reason for keed doing something. Kate Gladstone, in the NYT: [...] Mandating cursive to preserve handwriting resembles mandating stovepipe hats and crinolines to preserve the art of tailoring. http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/04/30/should-schoo...Adults increasingly abandon cursive. In 2012, handwriting teachers were surveyed at a conference hosted by Zaner-Bloser, a publisher of cursive textbooks. Only 37 percent wrote in cursive; another 8 percent printed. The majority, 55 percent, wrote a hybrid: some elements resembling print-writing, others resembling cursive. When most handwriting teachers shun cursive, why mandate it?