The most compelling discussion revolved around the reintroduction of cursive handwriting in schools, following the proposal of a resolution supporting legislation by Senator Angela McKnight. This legislation aims to bring cursive writing back into the curriculum, a practice removed in 2010. The dialogue revealed mixed feelings among board members and participants about the necessity and implications of this educational change. Concerns were raised about the effectiveness of state mandates and the potential burden without accompanying funding. Some board members and educators expressed concerns about further mandates being added to an already crowded curriculum. One educator noted the impact of not teaching cursive, highlighting that students who only print often spend excessive time writing, hindering their engagement in deeper learning activities. This argument emphasized the potential benefits of cursive writing in improving fluidity and critical thinking skills.

Conversely, other participants supported reintegrating cursive, stressing the importance of local decision-making over state-imposed mandates. This perspective emphasized allowing district administrators and curriculum planners to devise the best approach for their schools. Participants shared personal anecdotes about teaching children to write signatures.

The conversation also ventured into broader implications of technology on handwriting skills, with observations about the disappearance of cursive writing and typing programs in schools. Concerns were voiced about the increasing reliance on digital communication, which might lead to handwriting becoming obsolete. A participant even suggested that as technology evolves, typing itself could eventually be replaced by voice recognition.

The mixed sentiments culminated in a roll call vote on the resolution supporting the cursive instruction legislation. The vote revealed a divided board, with some members favoring the resolution and others opposing further state mandates without corresponding funding.

In addition to the cursive writing debate, the meeting covered updates from the finance committee concerning the bond refinancing from 2015, which is projected to save the district approximately $700,000. This financial maneuver was likened to mortgage refinancing, where favorable terms lead to lower payments. A detailed presentation on the refinancing is scheduled for the March 13 meeting. The board also discussed the budget for the 2025-2026 school year, noting a 2% expected annual revenue increase and assessing rising costs in health, prescription, and dental benefits.

Another aspect of the meeting involved the Student Safety Data System (SSD) presentation by Dr. Sutter and Mrs. Cory Waza. Mrs. Waza, the district’s anti-bullying coordinator, outlined the district’s reporting of 64 incidents of violence, vandalism, substance abuse, and weapon-related offenses from September to December 2024. She detailed ongoing efforts to foster a positive school climate, including training programs and initiatives like the “No Place for Hate” program and restorative practices. The presentation emphasized the importance of improving relationships and understanding among students, particularly between general education and special needs populations.

The board also received reports from various committees and events, including the finance committee’s discussion on excess funds from the Child Nutrition program, which will support equipment replacements. The Educational Services Commission of Morris County shared updates on support services provided to schools, and board members recounted attending a Muslim Heritage Month celebration and a Morris County virtual meeting.

In new business, the board discussed the governance document revision, with a suggestion to extend the deadline for voting on the governance program adoption. This extension would allow the issues committee more time for review. The meeting also marked the beginning of the superintendent search process, with plans to select a search consultant to provide a timeline and expectations outlined on the district’s website for transparency.