Unfortunately, Tim’s analysis isn’t nearly as persuasive as his handwriting is beautiful. Let me first offer a general critique of Tim’s argument.
Tim claims “So if I understand Josh’s whole argument correctly, he wants schools to limit to a greater extent the time they spend teaching handwriting” and proceeds to list an array of negative consequences that flow from reduced basic handwriting skills. The problem with this is Tim offers no analysis whatsoever of how much handwriting instruction needs to be reduced for children to reach such a level of handwriting ineptitude that all of these negative consequences result. Is 70 minutes per week not enough: if not, why? While I probably favor the elimination of cursive instruction, I certainly never advocated the complete elimination of handwriting instruction; given that fact, it’s not clear at all to me that after 25 minutes per week in class, for example, the marginal benefit of additional handwriting instruction is particularly high. Tim needs to argue that it is if he wants to justifiably claim all of the benefits that he’s claiming.