Is cursive an end in itself, apart from handwriting?
Research shows: the fastest, most legible writers join some letters, not all making the easiest joins, skipping the rest, using print-like shapes for letters whose cursive and printed shapes disagree.
(Citations:
jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/27542168.pdf
and jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/27542188.pdf )
Reading cursive still matters it takes just 30-60 minutes to learn, and can be taught to 5- or 6-year-olds. Needing to read cursive is therefore no mandate for writing it.
Further: cursive signatures have no special validity over other signatures.(Don't take my word: ask any attorney.)
Of course, some claim that cursive has magic powers not shared by any other handwriting. They seldom cite research that they claim exists: when they do, it turns out to be misquoted or misrepresented.
Read the actual studies: the mental benefits ascribed to cursive are in _all_ styles of handwriting. They are not limited to cursive.(I leave it to misquoters and their disciples to ponder why the misquoting is done and why it is uncritically accepted. There is neither law, not fact, to support the idolatry of cursive.)

Yours for better letters,
Kate Gladstone -
Handwriting Repair/Handwriting That Works
and World Handwriting Contest
HandwritingThatWorks.com