I don't see this is a bad thing, personally. Cursive education is pretty much a waste of time in my opinion, since I don't use it at all, even for my signature. Print is simpler to write, more easily legible, and if you only teach print you only have to teach kids how to write once.
Seriously though, how does writing in cursive make it any more of a binding signature? If anything, it should be less useful since there's no handwriting match.
Same thing happened for me on the PSAT a few weeks ago. The whole school's worth of sophomores (only around 100 for me, but still) was struggling on that. It took at least 10 minutes for everyone to crap out something that sort of looked like cursive.blah_ducks said:B-But if they get rid of cursive no one in Kansas can take the SAT!
Seriously it was kind of awful/ hilarious seeing a room full of juniors (myself included) struggle to remember our cursive to write the "I will not cheat yadda yadda" before we started the test. Of course they couldn't possibly change that to have the option of writing in print. You can lie if you write in print, it has to be cursive.
Yes I'm still bitter.
Seriously though, how does writing in cursive make it any more of a binding signature? If anything, it should be less useful since there's no handwriting match.