Alt text:
๐ ๐ฝ๐ฑ๐ฒ๐ท๐ด ๐ฌ๐ช๐น๐ฒ๐ฝ๐ช๐ต ๐ ๐ฒ๐ผ ๐น๐ป๐ธ๐ซ๐ช๐ซ๐ต๐ ๐ฝ๐ฑ๐ฎ ๐ถ๐ธ๐ผ๐ฝ ๐ฏ๐พ๐ท ๐ฝ๐ธ ๐๐ป๐ฒ๐ฝ๐ฎ, ๐ฝ๐ฑ๐ธ๐พ๐ฐ๐ฑ ๐ต๐ธ๐๐ฎ๐ป๐ฌ๐ช๐ผ๐ฎ ๐บ ๐ฒ๐ผ ๐ช๐ต๐ผ๐ธ ๐ช ๐ผ๐ฝ๐ป๐ธ๐ท๐ฐ ๐ฌ๐ธ๐ท๐ฝ๐ฎ๐ท๐ญ๐ฎ๐ป.
I would argue shorthand is probably more valuable than cursive for this.
I don't disagree with that! Maybe we should start learning shorthand.
I do think it is valuable to read cursive though, for historical study. I joined an informal LGBT history study group and we got to spend a lot of time reading love letters people sent each other. Not everything is transcribed, so I'm glad I was taught to read cursive.
You could argue that only historians should learn it, but I think that historical research is something that should be widely accessible, and also it's easier for young kids to learn language skills. I don't think there is any harm in teaching cursive.
Reading cursive should be a thing, I think with kids being so digital centric you could probably just teach it to them as a font? It is, after all, supposed to be English text written in the Latin alphabet, just all joined up.