Of course not, but some non-zero eventual utility is a desirable trait. There are a variety of actually beneficial things children could spend their time doing, which are currently being displaced by being forced to learn a useless handwriting style.

For that matter, I'd have zero issue with more classroom time spent on art, music, or other subjects of that type. But the fixation on an aesthetically pleasing copperplate writing style has about the same justification as universally teaching ancient Greek because it's part of a traditional Western upper class education.

> part of a traditional Western upper class education

Such reasons have actually started to become a bit compelling to me, and might lead me to learn Greek, though I might do Latin first. It places you next to others who have learnt the same things through the centuries. Joining the same learning tradition grounds you in a common language and a common literature. It helps you understand intellectual conversations from today and from past generations. So I imagine, at least; I'm still just an ἰδιώτης.

You are assuming that cursive is "useless" and lacks "some non-zero eventual utility". Practicing fine motor control seems like an excellent use of time to me.

I am not assuming. The article contains evidence that it is useless vis a vis block or custom handwriting.

No. But I'd have a hard time making a case that cursive specifically (as opposed to handwriting more broadly) is some important life skill that warrants careful teaching in grade school. Personally my Palmer cursive skills (such as they were) probably peaked in about sixth grade to the point where they're effectively non-existent today.

I recall when taking the SAT in ~2009, that you were asked to copy a paragraph (honesty statement) in cursive.

That took most people 20 minutes because no one could remember cursive. I recall giving up and writing print with little attaching lines.

I don't know anyone under 30 who recall how to write in it. I'm sure there's a few, but for 95% of people it was forgotten before the age of 18.

>immediate applicability

That's a strawman, nobody ever claimed it needed to have immediate applicability.

As for having eventual applicability? Children have finite learning time, and teaching something with zero eventual applicability means not teaching something that will eventually be useful.