Yes, rote memory is discredited. Actually, Jensen in his early works on "g" found that rote memory made children more competitive in the class room. Sort of a "if you fake it you will make it" dynamic.
Learning who to read and write is probably attainable to all those with an IQ of 70 and above. This means that 90% of children (not handicapped and developmentally disabled) who go to school.
I note that in some schools in Minnesota children are taught block printing and not cursive writing at all. Ditto for mathematics--they are taught to use calculators. In actual fact, in a fair system, they should be able to sue for educational non feasance. They are seriously handicapped vis a vis a child that can cursively write and calculate without a calculator.
http://www.cepr.net/publications/Congressional_Districts/education_by_state-NAEPstates.pdf
education_by_state-NAEPstates.pdf (application/pdf Object)
The 2005 NAEP statistics, a flawed test but all we have for comparison purposes in this country, tell us that 30% of kids, on average, are proficient at math or reading. By definition then, 70% are at a basic level or below.
If you look at the statistics even further, only 3-6% are "advanced".
Personally, I question what their definition of "proficient" and "advanced" really mean. I know they say it is a performance at grade level or above, but since grade level work has been so dumbed down, I question what they think is "grade level".
The only interactions I have ever had with cursive in the real world have involved cursing the person who decied to write that way as I tried to decipher it. The days of the fountain pen are over.