Michigan lawmaker introduces bill to require cursive to be taught in schools
State Rep. Brenda Carter, D-Pontiac, last month. It was referred to the State House Committee on Education and Workforce.
Sign up for the News 8 daily newsletter
Carter, who has introduced a similar bill in each of her three prior terms, believes knowing cursive helps students connect to historical culture.
'Many children today are not being taught how to read or write in cursive — a foundational skill that not only enables them to sign their own name, but also gives them access to important historical documents, including many of our nation's founding texts,' .
According to Carter, her passed out of the House with bipartisan support but never advanced out of committee in the Senate. Carter says she continues to support the bill because she believes it is 'important.'
'This is a commonsense step to help ensure our students aren't left behind when it comes to a skill that connects them to both practical tasks and our shared history and culture,' she said.
If passed, the bill would require the Michigan Department of Education to develop a series of lesson plans for teaching how to read and write cursive script no later than June 1, 2027. It would be required to be taught starting with the 2027-28 school year.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Solve the daily Crossword
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
5 minutes ago
- USA Today
NCAA settlement for college sports already facing challenges. Was this the plan all along?
There are only two possible explanations for what's happened during the first couple weeks of college sports' new pay-for-play rules: Either the power conferences got duped by signing off on the House vs. NCAA settlement or they built it to fail intentionally. You can make pretty good arguments for both. Here's the basic recap: Last week, the new Collegiate Sports Commission sent a memo to schools explaining that some name, image and likeness deals were being denied because they come from booster collectives rather than regular businesses. The CSC is the group appointed by the power conferences and tasked with enforcing the $20.5 million revenue sharing cap and NIL rules that came out of the settlement. The plaintiff's attorneys in the House case, led by Jeffrey Kessler and Steve Berman, responded by demanding a retraction of that memo and suggesting that the CSC must treat collectives like other businesses – or else it's off to court again. And now on Wednesday, Yahoo! Sports reported that power conference are back in negotiation over this issue, with SEC commissioner Greg Sankey acknowledging there could be 'a much softer cap' if booster collectives are put in the same category as other businesses. Folks, we're 17 days in – and it's already a (expletive) show. Are we really supposed to believe that after years of negotiating this settlement to build the so-called guardrails schools wanted around NIL – a settlement, by the way, that will cost $2.8 billion in damages over the next 10 years – that they didn't have clarity on the key element in whether it has a chance of working? From the very beginning, everyone (including the schools who signed off on the settlement) understood the new system would face lawsuits almost immediately on two different fronts: Whether it complies with Title IX and whether it's legal for the CSC to determine what constitutes fair market value. OFF GUARD: College leaders unaware of Trump's NIL executive order plan In other words, if some rich business owners wants to pay Johnny Linebacker $750,000 to play for their favorite school while doing some autograph signings and local TV commercials, can a third-party enforcement group really deny that payment because the money attached is far bigger than comparable endorsement deals? It's an interesting question, one that will undoubtedly face legal scrutiny. But if college administrators want to live in a world that is different from the one they were living in over the past four years of sham booster deals being disguised as NIL, they have no choice but to go to the wall in protecting the authority they believe they gained through the settlement process. And that authority includes the CSC's ability to deny deals that don't meet the standard of a 'Valid Business Purpose.' Here's the crux of the issue, though. The CSC has defined Valid Business Purpose as 'Evidence of using the student-athletes NIL to promote a good or service being offered to the public for profit' while also staking a position that 'An entity with a business purpose of providing payments or benefits to student-athletes or institutions, rather than providing goods or services to the general public for profit, does not satisfy the valid business purpose requirement set forth in NCAA Rule 22.1.3.' In other words, if a collective is being used as a third-party marketing agency to facilitate endorsement deals, that's allowable. But the CSC says collectives that exist to move money from boosters to athletes so that schools can circumvent the revenue sharing cap will have their deals denied regardless of the amount involved or what the athlete is required to do for the money. In other words, the CSC – which, again, is implementing the will of the power conferences who approved the settlement – is saying that collectives can't operate the way they've been operating. And that makes perfect sense if the goal was to truly rein in NIL and stop the flow of booster money. But Kessler, according to a person familiar with his thinking who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to do so, was surprised the CSC took that position and believes the language in the agreement is targeted at the transaction itself, not the organization facilitating the transaction. I'm surprised that he's surprised. Because why else would schools have settled with him in the first place? What we have here, essentially, are high-priced lawyers on two different sides who spent months coming to an agreement and now disagree on how arguably the most important issue in the agreement was worded. And now they're negotiating again to see if they need to go court to resolve this dispute. Whoops? But if there's engagement with Kessler that could create a 'much softer cap" in Sankey's words, it would essentially be green light for collectives to go back to operating exactly the way they were over the last few years. Which means schools would have accomplished nothing except moving the money around a little bit. It's actually mind-blowing that, 17 days in, this is even in question. So is it merely bad lawyering, or are there certain groups who are actually fine with the settlement effectively falling apart and returning to the status quo where the real salary cap was what their collectives could raise rather than the $20.5 million? When you think about who runs the show these days, and who might benefit the most from a cap that isn't really a cap, it's the usual suspects. The SEC and Big Ten. Heck, at SEC media days this week, Ole Miss coach Lane Kiffin said it was 'obvious' that rival schools were ignoring the cap in recruiting this cycle. Let's put it this way: Nobody who thinks they have a chance to win a national title over the next five years is planning to spend as little as $20.5 million for their football team, let alone their entire athletic department. And in full disclosure, over the course of the settlement drama, I spoke with a number of people in both leagues who thought it was a mistake to settle for this very reason: There was simply no ironclad way to contain the money and no long-term legal protection without an antitrust exemption from Congress. While the NIL environment over the last few years was annoying from a coaching lifestyle perspective, it certainly didn't hurt the SEC or Big Ten competitively. If the settlement becomes a sham, those schools are going to be fine because of the vast amount of television revenue they bring in. Most everyone else, though, will be back to the grind of begging boosters to give them millions on top of the revenue sharing cap – a battle they are destined to lose. Given what has transpired over the last week, doubts about the settlement are more than legitimate. To go through this entire process and still not be able to answer definitively whether collectives can operate as they did before is perhaps the dumbest in a long line of dumb legal situations that college sports has found itself in over the last decade. The only question is whether they got there by malice or incompetence.
Politico
6 minutes ago
- Politico
Senate appropriators salvage Commerce-Justice-Science funding bill after bypassing Trump rebuke
Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Vought isn't interested in giving assurances to lawmakers on Capitol Hill that the White House will abide by any bipartisan spending agreements made this year. 'The appropriations process has to be less bipartisan,' Vought told reporters at a Christian Science Monitor breakfast Thursday. With Republicans in full control of government, he said now is the time for reining in spending, even without input from Democrats on Capitol Hill. He did not lay out a legislative path for partisan spending bills to clear the Senate, where 60 votes are required to pass legislation. Vought said he's looking to 'change the paradigm' of the way appropriations has worked, pointing to the continued use of stopgap spending bills. 'It's not going to keep me up at night, and I think will lead to better results, by having the appropriations process be a little bit partisan, and I don't think it's necessarily leading to a shutdown,' he added. Majority Leader John Thune, however, said Vought's assertion 'runs contrary' to the Senate's mathematical reality that Republicans need Democratic support to avoid a shutdown when the current stopgap funding bill expires on Sept. 30. 'It's going to take 60 [votes] to fund the government,' said Thune, adding, 'we plan to move [appropriations] bills that will have cooperation from the Democrats.' Yet Vought, when specifically asked if he would reassure Democratic appropriators that the White House would abide by bipartisan spending agreements or commit to not using rescissions on future appropriations bills, he simply said he would not. 'There is no voter in the country that went to the polls and said, 'I'm voting for a bipartisan appropriations process,'' Vought said. 'That may be the view of something that appropriators want to maintain.' His comments on the appropriations process come as the White House is on the precipice of a major win with the first partisan rescissions package expected to pass the House this week. 'We are willing to send up additional rescissions. I think if this continues to pass, we're likely to send up another rescissions package that would come soon, and we'll be working on that to try to get that across the finish line,' Vought said. Democrats were incensed. 'Russ Vought is boasting about how he isn't interested in following the laws Congress passes and, of course, vowing to send up another rescissions package soon,' said Sen. Patty Murray of Washington, the top Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Committee, panel in a statement. 'It is past time that Republicans stand up for Congress as a co-equal branch of government.' Vought said he was 'willing to work with Democrat appropriators if they conduct themselves with decorum' but that he's seeking 'a great relationship with' Republicans on the House and Senate spending panels. He did acknowledge that federal spending power lies with Congress, even as he seeks to override their final spending decisions, while adding, 'It is one of the most constitutional foundational principles, but that power of the purse does not mean — It's a ceiling. It is not a floor.' Vought also reiterated his view, and that of President Donald Trump, that the 51-year-old Impoundment Control Act, which bars the president from withholding congressional-approved funds without asking Congress, is unconstitutional. Jordain Carney and Cassandra Dumay contributed to this report.
Yahoo
9 minutes ago
- Yahoo
House to vote on historic crypto bill after right-wing rebellion
Washington — The House is expected to vote Thursday on a landmark piece of legislation to regulate cryptocurrency after its fate appeared in limbo when right-wing Republicans staged a rebellion that brought the floor to a standstill. The bill, known as the GENIUS Act, is set to become the first major crypto legislation ever passed by Congress. On Tuesday, a dozen conservatives sank a procedural vote to advance three crypto bills, including the GENIUS Act, which would establish a regulatory framework for the $250 billion market for stablecoins, a type of cryptocurrency tied to the value of an asset like the U.S. dollar. House Speaker Mike Johnson, a Louisiana Republican, abruptly canceled the remaining floor votes and the holdouts went to the White House to meet President Trump, who later announced that they "have all agreed" to fall in line. But drama unfolded during Wednesday's procedural vote when a few holdouts initially voted against moving forward before dropping their opposition, which was short-lived. The next procedural vote to set up debate on the spate of bills was held open for nearly 10 hours as the holdouts sought to merge a broader market structure bill with legislation to ban a central bank digital currency. Republican Rep. Andy Harris of Maryland, who leads the conservative House Freedom Caucus, said holdouts had made a deal with Mr. Trump to package the two digital asset measures. The plan ran into opposition from those who wrote the legislation and upended what House Republicans had termed "crypto week." House Republicans had originally wanted the GENIUS Act to be married with the CLARITY Act, a broader bill that would set rules for when a digital asset is considered a commodity or security. Combining the crypto bills would have sent the legislation back to the Senate and slowed the process. Mr. Trump had pressed Congress to quickly pass the GENIUS Act as a standalone bill, saying it would make the U.S. a leader in digital assets. This week, conservatives pushed to tie the CLARITY Act with the controversial Anti-Central Bank Digital Currency Surveillance State Act, which would prohibit the Federal Reserve from issuing a central bank digital currency. Conservatives said the Senate's stablecoin bill and the broader market structure legislation were insufficient because it would allow for a central bank digital currency, which they opposed. "We feel like we need to be dealing with all this at once," said Republican Rep. Chip Roy of Texas, who helped stall the bill. A deal was ultimately made late Wednesday to tie the ban on a central bank digital currency with the must-pass annual defense reauthorization bill, and holdouts again flipped their votes to allow the legislative process to move on. The Senate approved the bipartisan stablecoin bill last month after experiencing hiccups caused by a Democratic revolt over concerns about the Trump family's business ventures involving crypto and the potential that they could make the president vulnerable to foreign influence. The Trump family's crypto investments have increased their wealth by billions of dollars in recent months as the administration continues to loosen the federal government's regulatory approach to the digital currency industry as a whole. The White House has denied that there are any conflicts of interest and said Mr. Trump's assets are in a trust managed by his children. Democratic critics were also worried that the legislation did not contain strong enough provisions to protect consumers, the financial system and national security. It's faced similar criticism from House Democrats. "By passing this bill, Congress will be telling the world that Congress is OK with corruption, OK with foreign companies buying influence," Rep. Maxine Waters of California, the top Democrat on the House Financial Services Committee, said Thursday. Democrats who back the legislation have argued that regulations are long overdue, even if the measure is imperfect. "The question is, do you want some rules of the road or no rules of the road?" Democratic Rep. Josh Gottheimer of New Jersey said during floor debate. Son of man who was violently detained by ICE reacts after release Mike Johnson breaks from Trump, calls on DOJ to release Epstein files 7.3 magnitude earthquake hits southern Alaska Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
