San Francisco’s board of education wanted to let students with failing grades graduate. That is, before fierce opposition made them backtrack. On Tuesday, the city proposed the “Grading for Equity” method. In an effort to promote “bias-resistant and motivational” grading practices, this program sought to eliminate assignments, attendance, or class participation from the grading structure. Instead, students’ marks would be determined solely by final examinations, of which there would only be one per semester. Students could retake the test as many times as necessary to get a score they’re satisfied with. The program also lowered what constituted a passing grade. For example, an A currently requires a minimum score of 90%, and a D is set at 61%. Under the revised scale, students can earn an A with a score as low as 80%, which usually translates to a B-. Furthermore, a D can have a score as low as 21%, which would traditionally be an F. San Francisco Unified School District Superintendent Maria Su implemented these changes without board approval—a decision affecting approximately 10,000 students across 14 high schools in California’s Bay Area. The proposal surfaced almost unnoticed, as Voice of San Francisco noted: “It is buried in a three-word phrase on the last page of a PowerPoint presentation embedded in the school board meeting’s 25-page agenda.” The plan might have quietly passed if not for an alert school board member who demanded further details, triggering widespread public scrutiny and backlash. Voice of San Francisco highlighted how the “Grading for Equity de-emphasizes the importance of timely performance, completion of assignments, and consistent attendance.” Parents and educators, from both sides of the aisle, echoed this in their protests. They argued the plan undermines accountability and academic rigor. California State Representative Kevin Kiley, a Republican, claimed this proposal was “a brilliant solution for [the state’s] failing schools.” But many couldn’t help but wonder: How could students drowning in failing grades be expected to stay afloat in the real world? San Francisco Mayor Daniel Lurie, a Democrat, also weighed in on X, stating, “We owe our young people an education that prepares them to succeed. The proposed changes to grading at SFUSD would not accomplish that.” He expressed hope for a better approach, adding, “We are optimistic that there is a better path forward for our kids and their future.” Faced with mounting opposition, the school board reversed its stance, shelving the proposal. The controversy has sparked a broader conversation about balancing equity with academic standards, leaving stakeholders to grapple with how best to prepare students for a competitive future while addressing systemic challenges in education. And that’s where we’re at now. As San Francisco wrestles with its educational policies, the flaws in its recent “Grading for Equity” proposal reveal a troubling misstep in addressing the broader crisis of academic underperformance in America. This crisis—marked by declining student achievement and disengagement—is undeniably real and demands urgent, thoughtful solutions. However, approaches like the one proposed in California miss the mark by failing to tackle the root causes of educational struggles, instead opting for superficial fixes that risk entrenching failure. The heart of the issue is a misdirected focus. Rather than investing in high-quality teacher training to better equip educators or developing rigorous, engaging lesson plans that inspire learning, many so-called solutions prioritize ideology—or even just sheer laziness—over academic excellence. Schools pushing these initiatives often sidestep accountability, refusing to acknowledge that an overemphasis on non-academic agendas may be undermining student success. The San Francisco proposal, which would have lowered passing thresholds and eliminated accountability for homework, attendance, and participation, exemplifies this trend to a T. The point is simple: By reducing standards to accommodate failure, such policies normalize minimal effort and erode the foundation of meaningful achievement. The importance of hard work cannot be overstated. It’s a timeless principle that yields results. Yet, in our technologically advanced, dopamine-driven society, the value of sustained effort is increasingly overshadowed by a desire for instant gratification. Social media’s endless scroll lulls users into passive consumption, often replacing critical thinking with algorithm-fed content. Similarly, the convenience of delivery services—while not inherently harmful—has conditioned many to expect immediate results with minimal exertion. A few taps on a smartphone can summon nearly anything to one’s doorstep, fostering a culture where ease trumps perseverance. And now, it’s becoming increasingly evident how this shift in societal values has profound implications for education. Young people, in particular, need role models and systems that champion diligence and high standards. Programs like “Grading for Equity” send the opposite message. Instead of inspiring students with, “This is the standard, and I’ll support you to meet or surpass it,” such initiatives seem to say, “That standard’s too tough? Let’s just get rid of it!” Lowering the bar robs students of the opportunity to develop resilience, discipline, and the satisfaction of earned success—qualities essential for thriving in college, careers, and all of life. Sure, not everyone has succumbed to the allure of shortcuts, and the desire for ease is not universal. However, when educational policies prioritize leniency over accountability, they fail to set the positive examples young people need to navigate an increasingly complex world. True equity in education means giving students a hand up through support, high expectations, and robust resources—not dismantling standards to mask systemic shortcomings. As San Francisco’s reversal of this policy demonstrates, communities recognize that lowering the bar is no solution. The path forward lies in fostering a culture that celebrates effort, invests in effective teaching, and equips students to rise to challenges, not sidestep them. Originally published by The Washington Stand. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post Equity or Excuse? San Francisco’s Misguided Plan to Pass Failing Students appeared first on The Daily Signal.

June 1 marks the 100th anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark parental rights decision in Pierce v. Society of Sisters. That historic opinion recognized “the liberty of parents and guardians to direct the upbringing and education of children under their control.” It also famously declared that “the child is not the mere creature of the State; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations.”Sadly, despite that—and even now—many federal programs continue to encroach on parental rights.Though parents have a fundamental right to raise and educate their children, and America’s history and tradition recognize the integrity of the family and parents’ rightful role as their children’s primary decision-makers, many courts have failed to properly treat parental rights as constitutionally protected. Instead, they have eroded parents’ rights by not applying the highest level of legal protection. That has contributed to the problems that still exist with many federal programs.For example, the Department of Defense Education Activity educates more than 69,000 American children worldwide. Staff training “advises teachers to build special relationships with students, and even to keep information from parents.” Schools should never keep secrets from parents.The Defense Department schools push gender ideology on American military kids and have secretly “socially transitioned” students without parents’ knowledge or consent. Schools should never exclude parents from critical decisions regarding their child’s education or health.Military parents have limited online access to their minor children’s medical records through the military’s online health portal once their kids turn 13. Parents should never be denied access to medical information needed to fulfill their duty to care for their children.4-H policy, which the Department of Agriculture’s Cooperative Extension System administers, requires minors to be treated “according to their gender identity, even if [their] own guardian raises objections.” Parents should never be excluded from critical decisions, like whether their daughter is treated as a boy.The Teen Connection Project (funded by the National Institutes of Health) pays 14- to 17-year-olds to participate in a program that pairs them with “transgender” and “other gender minority adults based on shared social identities and interests.” The consent form (now password protected since exposed) states that minors “do not have to get [their] caregivers’/parents’ permission to be part of this project.” Deceiving parents should never be the official policy of the federal government. Medicaid funds support school-based health centers. These clinics are an open door for students to access mental health and reproductive services without their parents’ knowledge. Some (like ones in California) offer students as young as 12 both contraceptives and the Plan B abortion pill. Vulnerable kids need their parents to navigate complex issues involving mental and reproductive health.These federal programs violate parents’ fundamental right to direct their children’s upbringing, education, and health care. The government should help—not hinder—loving parents in fulfilling their “high duty.” Including parents helps. Keeping secrets hinders.Fortunately, Congress has the authority—and the opportunity—to protect parental rights from federal government overreach by passing the Families’ Rights and Responsibilities Act.This act recognizes that parents’ fundamental rights are entitled to the highest level of constitutional protection. It requires courts to apply the proper standard of judicial review—“strict scrutiny”—to federal violations of parental rights.This is the same standard the Supreme Court has applied to safeguard other fundamental rights—like free speech and free exercise of religion. Congress is well within its constitutional authority to ensure that federal programs properly respect parental authority.The Families’ Rights and Responsibilities Act aligns with the principles (accountability, choice, and transparency) for protecting parental rights outlined in the Promise to America’s Parents, which is supported by a diverse coalition of more than 50 policy and grassroots organizations working to protect families and preserve parental rights.Under the act, parents can hold the government accountable for overstepping its proper bounds. Parents will have choices about their child’s education and health. And parents will be guaranteed access to education and medical records, ensuring needed transparency for important decision-making. Parents—not politicians—know what’s best for their kids. Families—not government—form our country’s foundation.From the lunchbox to the life plan, parents have the right to raise and educate their children. Children are not “mere creatures of the state.” They are gifts from God entrusted to their parents, who know and love them best. The Families’ Rights and Responsibilities Act affirms this truth and strengthens families. Pierce’s 100th anniversary is a great reminder: Strong families build a strong America. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post 100 Years After Landmark Case, Federal Programs Continue to Violate Parents’ Constitutional Rights appeared first on The Daily Signal.

“I’m not happy with what [Russian President Vladimir] Putin is doing. He’s killing a lot of people, and I don’t know what the hell happened to Putin,” said President Donald Trump on Truth Social over the holiday weekend. “I’ve always had a very good relationship with Vladimir Putin of Russia, but something has happened to him. He has gone absolutely CRAZY! He is needlessly killing a lot of people, and I’m not just talking about soldiers. Missiles and drones are being shot into cities in Ukraine, for no reason whatsoever.” Trump is not the only president who has stressed the importance of personal relationships with other nations’ leaders. But even the most sympathetic relationships have been frayed by national interests rooted in history. Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan had rough patches over the Falklands and Grenada. It seems possible that Reagan and inconceivable that Trump read Harvard historian Richard Pipes’ volumes on Russian history, showing how the rulers of tiny Muscovy, starting with Ivan the Terrible, constantly expanded their domain over the featureless north European and Ukrainian plains, seeking ever more land and peoples as a buffer for those they already held. Reagan appointed Pipes to his National Security Council and, as a close but secret follower of geopolitics (the movie magazines wouldn’t have understood), observed Josef Stalin’s postwar expansion of Russian military suzerainty westward. When asked why he was bent on heading toward the Rhine, Stalin supposedly answered that Tsar Alexander I, after defeating Napoleon, took the Russian army all the way to Paris. So Putin’s assault on Ukraine, Russian territory from the time of Catherine the Great (Alexander’s grandmother) to the fall of Mikhail Gorbachev, was an expression of a historic national impulse likely popular among his nation’s ethnic Russian majority. Trump’s seeming astonishment that Putin “is needlessly killing a lot of people … for no reason whatsoever” shows a reassuring horror at mass slaughter but also an innocence of knowledge about Putin’s career. In his 2004 book “Darkness at Dawn” and in later writings as well, Russian expert David Satter has written that Putin, the former KGB agent and aide to St. Petersburg mayor Anatoly Sobchak, arranged the 1999 bombing of four apartment buildings, killing 300 people, and blamed them on Chechen rebels. To attack them, Boris Yeltsin appointed Putin prime minister and then resigned in return for pardons for him and his family. Putin promptly won the first of several elections from a wary electorate (which I observed briefly as a reporter in Moscow) that hoped he would be the “strong hand” that many have traditionally believed Russia needs. That such a man would lodge the war’s largest drone attack on Kyiv and Ukraine last weekend should not have come as a shock. Yet Trump is not the first American president who has seen Putin as just another politician whose not unreasonable concerns could be appeased. George W. Bush was impressed by the cross Putin wore and his profession of religious faith, and admitted this misjudgment in his short memoir. Barack Obama sent Hillary Clinton out with a (mistranslated) reset button to the multilingual Russian foreign minister. Candidate Trump in 2016 admired Putin as a strong leader, which provided ammunition for the propagators of the Russia collusion hoax. Joe Biden declined to oppose the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, which provided cheap natural gas (and dependence on Russia) to Germany and lots of euros to Putin. In each case, American solipsism—assuming that others are much like us—that in tourists can be dismissed as a childish and charming innocence, has been the basis of a flawed and unsuccessful foreign policy. An evidently unprepared Obama administration made no serious protest of Putin’s seizure of Crimea and occupation of part of the industrial Donetsk in February 2014. The Biden administration, expecting Russia’s tanks to quickly take Kyiv, ordered American diplomats evacuated in February 2022. Trump states, correctly, that Putin launched no similar attacks while he was president. Whether that was from fear he would not similarly acquiesce or for unrelated reasons is and may always be unknowable. But last weekend’s attacks may have opened Trump’s eyes to Putin’s true nature and undermined his disdain for Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelenskyy. That disdain, and the dislike shown by JD Vance in the Feb. 28 Oval Office meeting, seems to have roots in the admiration of some cultural conservatives for Putin’s repudiations of “woke” attitudes, a sense that he is a Christian protector of traditional values dismissed as bigotry by Western European and American coastal elites. It may also be the case of some on the Right taking the same view of Ukraine’s leaders that some on the Left took of Chiang Kai-shek and of South Vietnamese leaders in the Cold War. In this view, foreign authoritarians steeped in corruption are demanding that young Americans die to preserve their hold on power. Such views are on vivid display in 1960s bestsellers like Barbara Tuchman’s “Stilwell and the American Experience in China” and David Halberstam’s “The Making of a Quagmire.” We await a similar depiction of the Ukrainian regime. For all the deficiencies of America’s allies in those earlier conflicts, it would clearly have been better for the people of China and Vietnam had the Communists not prevailed. And for all the deficiencies of those America and Europe have been backing in Ukraine, Putin’s cold-blooded prosecution of the war seems to have made it clear at last to Trump that the people of Ukraine and, arguably, Russia will be better off if he does not succeed. What, if anything, Trump will do to end the war he promised to end is unclear. On his Truth Social post attacking Putin’s actions, he also attacked Zelenskyy for “talking the way he does.” As Walter Russell Mead wrote in his Wall Street Journal column this week, “President Trump sometimes does the right thing.” Sometimes. Now? COPYRIGHT 2025 CREATORS.COM We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post Trump’s Eyes Opened on Putin. Now What Will He Do? appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Do taxpayers have a constitutional duty to bankroll Harvard University? On MSNBC, David French argued that the Trump administration’s defunding of Harvard is little more than “political retaliation.” In the United States, we don’t sentence people before hearing the verdict, the New York Times columnist said. Ignoring due process is “directly contrary to our constitutional principles.” French might not be aware that in addition to the joint-government task force’s claim that Harvard leadership failed to meaningfully confront pervasive insults, physical assault, and intimidation of Jewish students, there’s also a blistering internal university task force report that maintains that Harvard allowed antisemitism to permeate “coursework, social life, the hiring of some faculty members and the worldview of certain academic programs.” Harvard concedes, “members of the Jewish and Israeli communities at Harvard reported treatment that was vicious and reprehensible.” The verdict is in. But, I suppose, I’d pose the situation in another way: If a government investigation and internal review both found that white supremacists on Harvard campus were terrorizing black students and engaging in racist marchers and that their violent beliefs had found favor in the school’s curriculums and in social life, would anyone on MSNBC argue that the government had an obligation to keep funding this school until a civil lawsuit worked its way through the courts? One suspects not. Now, I’m not accusing French of being blind to the struggles of Jewish students. I am accusing him of being blinded by the presence of President Donald Trump. Are the president’s motivations political? Probably. So what? So are those of Harvard’s defenders. Harvard, a private institution, can do as it likes. There’s nothing illegal about coddling extremists or pumping out credentialed pseudointellectuals. If the Trump administration failed to follow a bureaucratic process before freezing funds to the university, fine. Get it done. But what “constitutional principle” dictates that the federal government must provide this specific institution with $3 billion in federal contracts and grants? Giving it to them was a policy decision made by the executive branch. Withdrawing the funding is the same. French reasons that the administration should, at the very least, “target the entity and individuals responsible” for the bad behavior. Defund the Middle Eastern studies department, rather than, say, the pediatric cancer research department. I’m sympathetic to this idea. But funding, as we all understand, is fungible. Targeting one department will do nothing to change the culture. Moreover, leadership is responsible for the culture. It allowed, nay, nurtured, a Middle East studies department staffed by a slew of nutjobs. It’s not the only department. Think about it this way: There is a far higher likelihood of finding an apologist of Islamic terrorism than a Christian conservative on the Harvard faculty. Less than 3% of the Harvard faculty identify as conservative. There are real-world consequences for Harvard’s radicalism, as their grads are staffing newsrooms, influential law firms, and government agencies without ever hearing a dissenting view. Anyway, if the school values its pediatric cancer research efforts so highly, why does it sacrifice grants and prestige by allowing bigoted bullies to run around campus targeting Jews? That’s a choice. As far as I can tell, not one student was expelled, much less suspended, for antisemitism in the two years since Oct. 7, 2023. If your answer is that the school feels a profound obligation to defend free expression, I suggest you speak to some pro-Israeli or pro-capitalist or pro-American or social conservative students on campus and see how comfortable they feel about airing opinions. Harvard finished last for the second year running in the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression’s “College Free Speech Rankings” in 2024, along with Columbia University and New York University. The only speech Harvard values is the extremist variety. We should feel no patriotic imperative to fund speech we dislike, which is very different from the imperative of protecting speech we dislike. This distinction seems to be lost on many. Harvard, along with many left-wingers, argues that Trump’s funding freeze violates its First Amendment rights. Who knows what the courts will say? If they force the funding to continue, something is seriously wrong. Anyway, perhaps Harvard should dip into the $53 billion hedge fund it runs to backfill some of the funding. Or maybe it can hit up the Islamic sheiks of Qatar for some more cash. How about those Chicom apparatchiks? Maybe they can chip in. But taxpayers shouldn’t be compelled to subsidize an institution that almost exclusively teaches students to hate their values. COPYRIGHT 2025 CREATORS.COM We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post We Have No Constitutional or Moral Duty to Subsidize Harvard appeared first on The Daily Signal.

On Wednesday evening, the world’s wealthiest man announced that his sojourn in the nation’s capital is almost over. “As my scheduled time as a Special Government Employee comes to an end, I would like to thank President [Donald Trump] for the opportunity to reduce wasteful spending,” Elon Musk posted to X, the social media platform he owns. While Musk was quick to add that “the [Department of Government Efficiency] mission will only strengthen over time as it becomes a way of life throughout the government,” Musk’s departure will represent the effective end of DOGE as we know it. As The Wall Street Journal reported, “much of DOGE’s work will shift to the White House Office of Management and Budget,” which is headed by Russell Vought. The DOGE team claims it identified about $175 billion in total savings. Given the federal government spent $6.75 trillion in fiscal year 2024 alone, that may seem like a mere drop in the bucket. And given that Musk himself once vowed to identify taxpayer savings in the trillions of dollars—albeit without much of a timeline attached to that pronouncement—it certainly is a bit disappointing. But consider some of the specific outrageous spending outlays identified by Musk’s team as ripe for the cutting board: eye-opening domestic savings such as $382 million from alleged fraudulent unemployment benefits at the Department of Labor and astonishing extravagance on the foreign stage—for instance, $2 million for sex-change operations in Guatemala and $20 million for a “Sesame Street“-inspired early childhood initiative in Iraq. Such ideologically driven spending is emblematic of what Vought, in a Newsweek op-ed written two years ago during the Biden-era presidential interregnum, described as “the scourge of a woke and weaponized bureaucracy.” The brief DOGE experiment, which uncovered tens of thousands of combined government contract and grant terminations that would shock the conscience of most Americans with any inclination toward sound fiscal stewardship, is proof that such a “woke and weaponized bureaucracy” isn’t merely speculative—it really exists. There is probably a lot more, furthermore, where that $175 billion in flagged waste came from. And Vought, who has worked with Musk since last year, is the right man to continue the mission once Musk fully returns to the private sector. There are now at least two additional steps that must be taken—one pressing short-term item and one more difficult longer-term item. The so-called big, beautiful bill that passed the House of Representatives last week, and which is now pending before the Senate, did not incorporate the DOGE cuts. It seems there is a procedural reason for this: The DOGE cuts are technically post hoc rescissions of presently appropriated money, and rescissions of current outlays are typically subject to their own process. An obscure figure known as the Senate parliamentarian controls the process by which the annual reconciliation budget bill—a favored tool because it permits a Senate majority to bypass the chamber’s legislative filibuster—can pass muster. And Capitol Hill Republicans apparently fear that including the DOGE rescissions would endanger Trump’s desired bill. But without Congress actually enacting the DOGE cuts into law, history will show this entire exercise to have been largely futile. Accordingly, Vought and the White House’s OMB must, following the reconciliation bill’s passage and enactment into law, transmit a fresh rescission package to House Speaker Mike Johnson’s, R-La., desk. That should happen quickly after the reconciliation bill becomes the law of the land. It is extraordinarily important that the Trump administration and the Republican-led Congress demonstrate not merely that they can identify excessive spending but also that they are willing and able to cut it. The longer-term problem is thornier. While DOGE has served as a useful function, and while Vought’s OMB can probably identify a good amount more in the way of “woke and weaponized bureaucracy” cost-cutting measures, it is a matter of basic mathematics that something more will be needed to begin to rein in America’s soaring annual deficits and our shocking national debt. The Republican Party of Donald Trump has moved in a strongly populist direction on issues of political economy. On many fronts, such as antitrust and industrial policy efforts to reshore vital supply chains, such a shift is very much welcome. But at some point, both Republicans and Democrats alike are going to have to find some way to come together and put our 1960s-era entitlement programs—above all, Medicare and Social Security—on a long-term path to sustainability. The political optics of being perceived as “cutting” either of these programs are simply horrible, so any attempt at reform will not be easy. But it must be done anyway, as the recent Moody’s downgrade of the U.S. credit rating makes starkly clear. The longer we wait, the more credit downgrades and interest payment spikes we risk. Basic game theory suggests that neither party will want to blink first. Recall the 2012-era political ads accusing then-GOP vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan of throwing grandmothers off cliffs. The politics are nasty, divisive, and radioactive. But this must get done. So we’ll have to find some way to force everyone to do it together. And in the meantime, as a down payment, let’s just make sure DOGE’s crucial work was not done in vain. COPYRIGHT 2025 CREATORS.COM We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post Musk’s Worthy DOGE Spotlight and the Fiscal Path Forward appeared first on The Daily Signal.