The Case for Cursive: Brain-Based Literacy for Every Learner
In today’s standards-driven classrooms, cursive writing is often seen as a relic of the past—an obsolete skill displaced by keyboarding and touchscreen proficiency. It’s frequently dismissed as nonessential or worse, categorized as “busy work.” But cursive writing, when implemented with intention and equity, is neither obsolete nor trivial. It is a powerful, brain-based practice with measurable cognitive, emotional, and motor benefits—particularly for students navigating sensory overload, trauma, and exceptional learning needs.
This is not a nostalgic defense of penmanship. It is a call for educators, administrators, and curriculum developers to reconsider cursive as a research-supported tool for whole-brain learning and literacy development.
The Neuroscience of Cursive Writing
Cursive writing engages multiple regions of the brain at once, fostering complex neural integration that is not replicated by either printing or typing. Functional MRI (fMRI) studies reveal that cursive activates:
The left and right hemispheres of the brain, through the corpus callosum
The premotor cortex, responsible for planning motor actions
The parietal lobe, involved in spatial processing and proprioception
The cerebellum, critical for motor coordination
The fusiform gyrus, implicated in word recognition and reading fluency
The prefrontal cortex, which supports working memory and executive function
This multisensory, cross-hemispheric activation supports deeper learning, longer retention, and more fluent idea generation—particularly for young writers.
“Handwriting, and especially cursive, recruits neural systems that underlie letter perception, phonological processing, and motor planning more robustly than keyboarding or block printing.”
— James & Engelhardt, 2012, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience
Cursive as Cognitive and Emotional Regulation
Beyond cognitive activation, cursive writing contributes meaningfully to emotional regulation. The repetitive, flowing nature of cursive handwriting offers a sensory rhythm that can help dysregulated students return to a state of focus and calm. For many students—particularly those in overstimulating classroom environments—cursive writing provides a reprieve: a moment of quiet engagement, control, and somatic re-centering.
As an educator with experience teaching elementary, middle, and high school students, I’ve consistently observed that students across age groups are deeply interested in cursive writing. For younger students, it often feels closer to drawing—a creative, non-threatening space to practice literacy. For older students, particularly those in high school, cursive becomes an anchor. It gives them a tactile, embodied alternative to constant digital input.
In classroom settings, I’ve regularly used cursive writing as a cool-down activity following challenging tasks. Roughly four out of every five students are ready to return to academic work after just a few minutes of cursive writing. Others become deeply immersed in the process, using it as an extended moment of emotional regulation. These students aren’t avoiding work—they are self-soothing through literacy. This is especially important for students with trauma histories or executive function challenges.
Older Students Need Cursive, Too
One of the most practical issues I’ve encountered, particularly with high school seniors, is the lack of a personal signature. Many students reach graduation without having developed a consistent, legible signature. This is more than an inconvenience—it’s a form of literacy erosion with legal and professional consequences. The inability to sign one’s name reflects a larger issue: we have deprioritized analog literacy to the point that some students cannot claim authorship of their own identities on paper.
Cursive instruction is a corrective. It restores the power of the signature—not as a decorative flourish, but as a functional tool of adulthood, self-determination, and credibility. For older students, the process of developing a signature often becomes a rite of passage, approached with pride and ownership.
Benefits for Students with Exceptionalities
Cursive writing also holds unique potential for students with dyslexia, dysgraphia, and ADHD, when taught in flexible, non-punitive ways.
For Students with Dyslexia:
Cursive’s connected letters provide visual continuity that reduces letter reversals.
The movement patterns reinforce muscle memory, which supports phoneme-grapheme connections.
Each letter has a distinct entry and exit, which minimizes visual confusion.
“Students with dyslexia benefit from the multisensory and sequential aspects of cursive, which strengthen letter-sound associations.”
— Berninger et al., 2006, Developmental Neuropsychology
For Students with Dysgraphia:
Cursive can reduce the physical strain of writing by eliminating the stop-start motion of printing.
Flowing movements may support greater legibility and ease, depending on the student’s motor profile.
For Students with ADHD:
Cursive may provide a structured, predictable activity that allows for self-regulation.
The sensory engagement of cursive can help maintain focus and reduce fidgeting.
These benefits are not theoretical—they are echoed in the real-world experiences of educators who witness cursive’s impact on diverse learners every day.
Against Perfectionism: A Trauma-Informed Approach
What cursive should not become is a battleground for compliance, aesthetics, or control. Too often, cursive is taught with punitive expectations of perfection—letter slant, uniformity, or spacing—that can shame or exclude students with motor or neurological challenges.
As a trauma-informed educator, I advocate for a functional, flexible approach to cursive instruction. Cursive should be introduced as a tool for expression, not a gatekeeper of academic worth. Letter formation can be taught with visual modeling, scaffolded practice, and culturally responsive content—such as signature design, affirmations, or ancestral scripts that resonate with students’ identities.
In the Burgeoning Scholars Innovation Labs, we integrate cursive into STEAM journaling, poetry, and diagramming—where flow matters more than form. This not only preserves student dignity but expands the definition of what “successful writing” looks like.
Best Practices for Integrating Cursive
Teach cursive as a process, not a product—emphasizing fluency over formality
Integrate cursive into multimodal literacy: affirmations, labeling diagrams, reflection journals
Allow for adaptive tools such as larger paper, pencil grips, or alternative writing surfaces
Celebrate cultural variations in script and allow for self-directed stylization
Avoid handwriting drills as punishment or remediation
Embed cursive into real-world and creative tasks, rather than isolated worksheets
Conclusion: Cursive as Equity Practice
Teaching cursive is not about returning to the past—it’s about reclaiming a deeply embodied, neurologically rich form of expression that students of all ages still crave. For learners who need tactile connection, regulation, and meaning in their work, cursive offers something far more than nostalgia. It offers flow. It offers dignity. It offers access.
It is not busy work.
It is best practice.
And it belongs to every learner.
References
Berninger, V. W., Richards, T., Stock, P., Abbott, R. D., Trivedi, P., Altemeier, L., & Hayes, J. (2006). Brain evidence for intervention efficacy in dysgraphia. Written Language & Literacy, 9(2), 183–219. https://doi.org/10.1075/wll.9.2.06ber
James, K. H., & Engelhardt, L. (2012). The effects of handwriting experience on functional brain development in pre-literate children. Trends in Neuroscience and Education, 1(1), 32–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tine.2012.08.001
Mueller, P. A., & Oppenheimer, D. M. (2014). The pen is mightier than the keyboard: Advantages of longhand over laptop note taking. Psychological Science, 25(6), 1159–1168. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614524581
Zuber, K. A., & Kosslyn, S. M. (2017). The Cognitive Neuroscience of Handwriting: Implications for Educational Practice. Mind, Brain, and Education, 11(4), 215–225. https://doi.org/10.1111/mbe.12160
Montessori, M. (1967). The Absorbent Mind. Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
(Used here to support pedagogical theory about multisensory engagement in early childhood.)
Stevenson, N. C., & Just, C. (2014). In early education, handwriting is more than just penmanship. Early Childhood Education Journal, 42(1), 49–56. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-013-0587-6
Berninger, V. W. (2012). Strengthening the mind’s eye: The case for ongoing handwriting instruction in the 21st century. Council for Learning Disabilities Annual Conference.
Yolanda Rebecca Whitted is the founder of Burgeoning Scholars and creator of JUNi™ VillageConnect, a trauma-informed, culturally grounded AI and literacy framework that centers STEAM learning for marginalized children. She has taught across elementary, middle, and high school levels, and advocates for brain-based pedagogy, experiential learning, and educational justice.