IBJNews

Indiana Senate backs cursive writing requirement

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana's schools would be required to teach cursive writing under a bill approved by the state Senate.

Senators voted 36-13 Tuesday in favor of the proposal despite arguments from some senators that it represents an unwarranted mandate from the state on local school districts.

Bill sponsor Sen. Jean Leising of Oldenburg says she believes it's important that all children learn cursive writing even though the Indiana Department of Education in 2011 dropped it as a requirement in favor of one on student proficiency in keyboard use.

Leising says five other state legislatures have adopted similar cursive writing requirements.

The bill now goes to the House, which didn't act last year on a similar proposal that the Senate approved.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • foot shot
    Cursive is a COMPLETE waste of time. Even when we write on tablet devices they will not recognize cursive but can recognize printed handwriting. I hope the House is wiser.
  • Time for some in Indiana to Evolve
    Indiana government is filled with dinosaurs. Only they would care about this issue. Well them and maybe Grandmas. I guess, in celebration 1000 Grandmas probably rejoiced & then slowly wrote a check in the express lane somewhere.
  • What are the other states?
    I wonder what the five other states are? Let me take a wild guess....Mississippi, Alabama, West Virginia, Arkansas & South Carolina.
  • We don't need no stinkin' cursive...
    Does this mean I can begin signing my name with an "X" instead of a real signature???
  • Jumping off a cliff
    "Leising says five other state legislatures have adopted similar cursive writing requirements." That settles it! If others are doing it we should too. I would like to hear a rational argument made as to what benefit this is to a child in the 21st century (other than signing your name).
  • Permanence
    With the exception of adding new pavement at every opportunity, everything must remain exactly the same as it always has been. All other change is an implicit and unacceptable criticism of the past.

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. How can any company that has the cash and other assets be allowed to simply foreclose and not pay the debt? Simon, pay the debt and sell the property yourself. Don't just stiff the bank with the loan and require them to find a buyer.

  2. If you only knew....

  3. The proposal is structured in such a way that a private company (who has competitors in the marketplace) has struck a deal to get "financing" through utility ratepayers via IPL. Competitors to BlueIndy are at disadvantage now. The story isn't "how green can we be" but how creative "financing" through captive ratepayers benefits a company whose proposal should sink or float in the competitive marketplace without customer funding. If it was a great idea there would be financing available. IBJ needs to be doing a story on the utility ratemaking piece of this (which is pretty complicated) but instead it suggests that folks are whining about paying for being green.

  4. The facts contained in your post make your position so much more credible than those based on sheer emotion. Thanks for enlightening us.

  5. Please consider a couple of economic realities: First, retail is more consolidated now than it was when malls like this were built. There used to be many department stores. Now, in essence, there is one--Macy's. Right off, you've eliminated the need for multiple anchor stores in malls. And in-line retailers have consolidated or folded or have stopped building new stores because so much of their business is now online. The Limited, for example, Next, malls are closing all over the country, even some of the former gems are now derelict.Times change. And finally, as the income level of any particular area declines, so do the retail offerings. Sad, but true.

ADVERTISEMENT