Why Paying Women To Have Babies Is A Terrible Idea — And What To Do Instead
Paying for babies doesn't work. But government could certainly stop making raising kids so expensive and undesirable.Paying for babies doesn't work. But government could certainly stop making raising kids so expensive and undesirable.How California’s crisis could lead to a big political shift
California’s wide range of problems — including declining schools, widening inequality, rising housing prices, and a weak job market — shows the urgent need for reform. The larger question is whether there exists a will to change.
Although the state’s remarkable entrepreneurial economy has kept it afloat, a growing number of residents are concluding that the progressive agenda, pushed by public unions and their well-heeled allies, is failing. Most Californians have an exceptional lack of faith in the state’s direction. Only 40% of California voters approve of the legislature, and almost two-thirds have told pollsters the state is heading in the wrong direction. That helps explain why California residents — including about 1.1 million since 2021 — have been fleeing to other states.
California needs a movement that can stitch together a coalition of conservatives, independents, and, most critically, moderate Democrats.
Unhappiness with the one-party state is particularly intense in the inland areas, which are the only locales now growing and may prove critical to any resurgence. More troubling still, over 70% of California parents feel their children will do less well than they did. Four in 10 are considering an exit. By contrast, seniors, thought to be leaving en masse, are the least likely to express a desire to leave.
In some ways, discontent actually erodes potential support for reform. Conservative voters, notes a recent study, are far more likely to express a desire to move out of the state; the most liberal are the least likely. “Texas is taking away my voters,” laments Shawn Steel, California’s Republican National Committee member.
New awakenings
Given the demographic realities, a successful drive for reform cannot be driven by a marginalized GOP. Instead, what’s needed is a movement that can stitch together a coalition of conservatives, independents (now the state’s second-largest political grouping), and, most critically, moderate Democrats.
Remarkably, this shift has already begun in an unlikely place: the ultra-liberal, overwhelmingly Democratic Bay Area. For years, its most influential residents — billionaires, venture capitalists, and well-paid tech workers — have abetted or tolerated an increasingly ineffective and corrupt regime. Not only was the area poorly governed, but the streets of San Francisco, Oakland, San Jose, and other cities have become scenes of almost Dickensian squalor.
Over the past two years, tech entrepreneurs and professionals concerned about homelessness and crime worked to get rid of progressive prosecutor Chesa Boudin. Last year, they helped elect Dan Lurie, scion of the Levi Strauss fortune, as mayor, as well as some more moderate members to the board of supervisors. Lurie, of course, faces a major challenge to restore San Francisco’s luster against entrenched progressives and their allies in the media, academia, and the state’s bureaucracy.
Similar pushbacks are evident elsewhere. Californians, by large majorities, recently passed bills to strengthen law enforcement, ditching liberalized sentencing laws passed by Democratic lawmakers and defended by Gov. Gavin Newsom (D). Progressive Democrats have been recalled not only in San Francisco but also in Oakland (Alameda County) and Los Angeles, with voters blaming ideology-driven law enforcement for increasing rates of crime and disorder.
Critically, the liberal elites are not the only ones breaking ranks. Pressure for change is also coming from increasingly conservative Asian voters and Jews — who number more than 1 million in the state and largely are revolted by the anti-Semitism rife among some on the progressive left. Protecting property and economic growth is particularly critical to Latino and Asian immigrants — California is home to five of the 10 American counties with the most immigrants — who are more likely to start businesses than native-born Americans.
These minority entrepreneurs and those working for them are unlikely to share the view of progressive intellectuals, who see crime as an expression of injustice and who often excused or even celebrated looting during the summer of 2020. After all, it was largely people from “communities of color” who have borne the brunt of violent crime in cities such as Los Angeles, Oakland, and San Francisco. Minorities also face special challenges doing business here due to regulations that are especially burdensome on smaller, less capitalized businesses. According to the Small Business Regulation Index, California has the worst business climate for small firms in the nation.
The shift among minority voters could prove a critical game-changer, both within the Democratic Party and the still-weak GOP. In Oakland, for example, many minorities backed the removal of Mayor Sheng Thao (D), a progressive committed to lenient policing in what is now California’s most troubled, if not failed, major city.
Latinos, already the state’s largest ethnic group, constituting about 37.7% of the workforce, with expectations of further growth by 2030, seem to be heading toward the right. In the last presidential election, Trump did well in the heavily Latino inland counties and won the “Inland Empire” — the metropolitan area bordering Los Angeles and Orange Counties – the first time a GOP presidential candidate has achieved this in two decades.
Back to basics
After a generation of relentless virtue-signaling, California’s government needs to focus on the basic needs of its citizens: education, energy, housing, water supply, and public safety. As a widely distributed editorial by a small business owner noted, Californians, especially after highly publicized fire response failures in Los Angeles earlier this year, are increasingly willing to demand competent “basic governance” backed by a “ruthless examination of results” to ensure that their government supports “modest aspirations” for a better life.
California once excelled in basic governance, especially in the 1950s and '60s under Democratic Gov. Edmund G. “Pat” Brown. The state managed to cultivate growth while meeting key environmental challenges, starting in the late 1960s, most notably chronic air pollution. In what is justifiably hailed as a “major success,” California helped pioneer clean air regulatory approaches that have vastly reduced most automotive tailpipe emissions as well as eliminated lead and dramatically cut sulfur levels.
All of this starkly contrasts with the poor planning, execution, and catastrophist science evoked to justify the state’s climate agenda. Even Pat Brown’s son, former Gov. Jerry Brown (D), recognized that California has little effect on climate. Given the global nature of the challenge, reducing one state’s emissions by cutting back on industrial activities accomplishes little if those activities move elsewhere, often to locations with fewer restrictions such as China and India.
Rather than focusing on “climate leadership,” Sacramento needs to tackle the immediate causes of record out-migration, including sluggish economic growth and the nation’s highest levels of poverty and homelessness. The great challenges are not combatting global temperature rises but the housing crisis and the need to diversify the economy and improve the failing education system. As these problems have often been worsened by climate policies, there seems little reason for other states and countries to adopt California’s approach as a model.
Fixing housing
California now has the nation’s second-lowest home ownership rate at 55.9%, slightly above New York (55.4%). High interest rates that have helped push home sales to the lowest level in three decades across the country are particularly burdensome in coastal California metros, where prices have risen to nearly 400% above the national average. The government almost owned up to its role in creating the state’s housing crisis — especially through excessive housing regulations and lawfare on developers — earlier this year when Newsom moved to cut red tape so homes could be rebuilt after the Los Angeles fires.
Current state policy — embraced by Yes in My Backyard activists, the greens, and unions — focuses on dense urban development. Projects are held up, for example, for creating too many vehicle miles traveled, even though barely 3.1% of Californians in 2023 took public transit to work, according to the American Community Survey. As a result, much “affordable” development is being steered to densely built areas that have the highest land prices. This is made worse with mandates associated with new projects, such as green building codes and union labor, that raise the price per unit to $1 million or more.
A far more enlightened approach would allow new growth to take place primarily outside city centers in interior areas where land costs are lower and where lower-cost, moderate-density new developments could flourish. These include areas like Riverside/San Bernardino, Yolo County (adjacent to Sacramento), and Solano County, east of San Francisco Bay. This approach would align with the behavior of residents who are already flocking to these areas because they provide lower-income households, often younger black and Latino, with the most favorable home ownership opportunities in the state.Over 71% of all housing units in the Inland Empire are single-family homes, and the aggregate ownership rate is over 63%, far above the state’s dismal 45.8% level.
Without change, the state is socially, fiscally, and economically unsustainable. California needs to return to attracting the young, talented, and ambitious, not just be a magnet for the wealthy or super-educated few.
More than anything, California needs a housing policy that syncs with the needs and preferences of its people, particularly young families. Rather than being consigned to apartments, 70% of Californians prefer single-family residences. The vast majority oppose legislation written by Yes in My Backyard hero Democratic state Sen. Scott Wiener banning single-family zoning in much of the state.
Investment in the interior is critical for recreating the old California dream for millions of aspiring households, particularly among minorities who are being driven out of the home ownership market in the coastal metropolitan areas. The only California metropolitan area ranked by the National Association of Realtors as a top 10 pick for Millennials was not hip San Francisco or glamorous Los Angeles, but the more affordable historically “redneck” valley community of Bakersfield.
The numerous housing bills passed by Sacramento have not improved the situation. From 2010 to 2023, permits for single-family homes in California fell to a monthly average of 3,957 units from 8,529 during 1993-2006. California’s housing stock rose by just 7.9% between 2010 and 2023, lower than the national increase (10.3%) and well below housing growth in Arizona (13.8%), Nevada (14.7%), Texas (24%), and Florida (16.2%).
A more successful model can be seen in Texas, which generally advances market-oriented policies that have generated prodigious growth in both single-family and multi-family housing. This has helped the Lone Star State meet the housing needs of its far faster-growing population. A building boom has slowed, and there’s been some healthy decrease in prices in hot markets like Austin. Opening up leased grazing land in state and federal parks — roughly half the state land is owned by governments — could also relieve pressure on land prices. Until California allows for housing that people prefer, high prices and out-migration will continue into the foreseeable future.
Ultimately, California has room to grow, despite the suggestions by some academics that the state is largely “built out.”In reality, California is not “land short,” either in its cities or across its vast interior. Urbanization covers only 5.3% of the state, according to U.S. Census Bureau data, while parks, agricultural land, deserts, and forests make up the bulk of the area.
Diversifying the economy
Even Jerry Brown has remarked that the “Johnny one note” tech economy the state’s tax base depends on could stumble. This would reduce the huge returns on capital gains from the top 1% of filers, who now account for roughly half of all state income tax revenues. This overreliance may be particularly troublesome in the era of artificial intelligence, where tech companies may continue to expand but have less need for people. Indeed, San Francisco County, which boasts many tech jobs, experienced the nation’s largest drop in average weekly wages, 22.6%, between 2021 and 2022.
To expand opportunity and, hence, its tax base, California has to make more of the state attractive to employers. The best prospects, again, will be in inland areas.Today, when firms want to build spaceships, a clear growth industry where California retains significant leadership, as well as battery plants and high-tech and food processing facilities, they often opt to go to Nevada, Arizona, Tennessee, and Texas. Given lower land and housing costs, San Bernardino and Riverside Counties, as well as spots on the Central Coast, should be ideally situated to compete for those jobs.
The current economic pattern creates a situation where AI developers, elite engineers, and venture capitalists may enjoy unprecedented profits, but relatively little trickles down to the mass of Californians. Not all Californians have wealthy parents to subsidize their lifestyle, and few are likely to thrive as AI engineers. To address the dilemmas facing the next generation of Californians, the state needs to focus not just on ephemera, software, and entertainment but on bringing back some of the basic industries that once forged the California dream. In this way, President Trump’s policies could actually help the state, particularly in fields like high-tech defense and space.
In the 1940s, California played a key role in the American “arsenal of democracy.” Today, it could do the same, not so much by producing planes and Liberty ships, but drones, rockets, and space-based defense systems. Indeed, there are now discussions of reviving the state’s once-vaunted shipbuilding industry that buoyed the economy of Solano County — something sure to inspire the ire of the Bay Area’s rich and powerful environmental lobby.
Improving education
Climate and environmentalism are not the only barriers to California’s revival. No problem is more pressing and consequential than the state’s failure to educate California’s 5.9 million public school children. In fiscal year 2023-2024, California will spend about $128 billion on K-12 public education — an amount exceeding the entire budget of every other state except New York. Despite this level of spending, about 75% of California students lack proficiency in core subject areas based on federal education standards.
Two out of three California students do not meet math standards, and more than half do not meet English standards on state assessments. Overall, less than half of California public school students performed at or above grade level for English language arts (reading, writing, etc.), while only 34.62% met or exceeded the math standard on the Smarter Balanced 2023 tests. The failures are particularly clear among minority students. According to the latest California testing results, only 36.08% of Latino students met or exceeded proficiency standards for English language arts. Only 22.69% met or exceeded proficiency standards in math. Latino students, for example, in Florida and Texas do somewhat better in both math and English, even though both states spend less per capita on education than California.
Not surprisingly, many parents object to a system where half of the state’s high school students barely read at grade level. One illustration of discontent has been the growth of the charter school movement. Today, one in nine California schoolchildren attend charter schools (including my younger daughter). The state’s largest school district, the heavily union-dominated Los Angeles Unified School District, has lost roughly 40% of its enrollment over two decades, while the number of students in charters grew from 140,000 in 2010 to 207,000 in 2022.
In addition to removing obstacles to charters, homeschoolers are part of the solution. California homeschool enrollment jumped by 78% in the five-year period before the pandemic and in the Los Angeles Unified School District by 89%. Equally important, some public districts and associated community colleges, as in Long Beach, have already shifted toward a more skills-based approach. Public officials understand that to keep a competitive edge, they need to supply industrial employers with skilled workers. This is all the more crucial as the aerospace workforce is aging — as much as 50% of Boeing’s workforce will be eligible for retirement in five years. In its quest for relevance, Long Beach’s educational partnership addresses the needs of the city’s industrial and trade sectors.
This approach contrasts with the state’s big push to make students take an ethnic studies course designed to promote a progressive and somewhat anti-capitalist, multicultural agenda. They will also be required to embrace the ideology of man-made climate change even if their grasp of basic science is minimal. A “woke” consciousness or deeper ethnic affiliations will not lead to student success later in life. What will count for the students and for California’s economy is gaining the skills that are in demand. You cannot run a high-tech lathe, manage logistics, or design programs for space vehicles with ideology.
More to come
Conventional wisdom on the right considers California to be on the road to inexorable decline. Progressives, not surprisingly, embrace the Golden State as a model while ignoring the regressive, ineffective policies that have driven the state toward a feudal future.
Yet both sides are wrong. California’s current progressive policies have failed, but if the state were governed correctly, it could resurge in ways that would astound the rest of the country and the world. Change is not impossible. As recent elections showed, Californians do not reflexively vote for progressives if they feel their safety or economic interests are on the line.
If change is to come in California, it may not be primarily driven by libertarian or conservative ideologies but by stark realities. Over two-thirds of California cities do not have any funds set aside for retiree health care and other expenses. Twelve of the state’s 15 large cities are in the red, and for many, it is only getting worse. The state overall suffers $1 trillion in pension debt, notes former Democratic state Rep. Joe Nation. U.S. News and World Report places California, despite the tech boom, 42nd in fiscal health among the states. This pension shortfall makes paying for infrastructure, or even teacher salaries, extraordinarily difficult at the state and local levels.
Without change, the state is socially, fiscally, and economically unsustainable, even if a handful of people get very rich and the older homeowners, public employees, and high-end professionals thrive. California needs to return to attracting the young, talented, and ambitious, not just be a magnet for the wealthy or super-educated few.
This can only happen if the state unleashes the animal spirits that long drove its ascendancy. The other alternative may be a more racial, class-based radicalism promoted by the Democratic Socialists of America and their allies. They have their own “cure” for California’s ills. We see this in debates over rebuilding Los Angeles, with progressives pushing for heavily subsidized housing, as with the case of the redevelopment of the Jordan Downs public housing complex, while seeking to densify and expand subsidized housing to once solidly affluent areas like the Palisades.
California has survived past crises — earthquakes and the defense and dot-com busts — and always has managed to reinvent itself. The key elements for success — its astounding physical environment, mild climate, and a tradition for relentless innovation — remain in place, ready to be released once the political constraints are loosened.
Fifty years ago, in her song “California,” Canada-reared Joni Mitchell captured the universal appeal of our remarkable state, not just its sunshine, mountains, and beaches, but also how it gave its residents an unprecedented chance to meet their fondest aspirations. Contrasting her adopted home with the sheer grayness of life elsewhere, she wrote, “My heart cried out for you, California / Oh California, I’m coming home.”
Editor’s note: This article was originally published by RealClearInvestigations and made available via RealClearWire.
The Rich Control Their Kids’ Education — The Middle Class And Poor Deserve That Choice, Too
Without allowing education funding to follow the child, only parents who can afford to pay a premium are permitted to direct their child’s education, but every parent deserves this freedom.Texas House passes school choice bill, priming pump for a national option: 'Texas government school monopoly has fallen'
After trying over the course of decades to surmount obstacles laid before them by Democrats and opponents in their own party, Texas Republicans proved successful Thursday in passing universal school choice legislation in a 86-63 vote.
The passage of Texas Senate Bill 2 — which came despite the opposition of nominal Republican state Reps. Dade Phelan and Gary VanDeaver, and after 11 hours of debate — is a major victory for parents statewide, as well as for Republican Gov. Greg Abbott, who indicated earlier this year that school choice was his top priority for the 89th Legislature. It may also help set the stage for a similar victory at the national level.
"Today, the Texas House took the final step to advance Senate Bill 2, the largest day-one school choice launch in the nation," Abbott, who intends to ratify the legislation after its likely adoption by the Senate, said in a statement. "This is an unprecedented victory for families, students, and the future of our great state."
According to the Texas Tribune, this is the first time since 1957 that the Texas House has approved legislation permitting state funds to be made available for families to use on their kids' private education.
Lieutenant Gov. Dan Patrick noted that in both his current capacity and while serving as president of the state Senate, he has observed the Texas Senate pass school choice six times: "The first five bills died in the Texas House, but we never quit."
'I'm almost getting tired of winning.'
Patrick lauded the persistence of his colleagues and gave a nod to the last-minute boost provided by President Donald Trump, who reportedly told state lawmakers on a conference Wednesday, "This is a big vote today," and that he hoped they would "vote in a positive manner."
Corey DeAngelis, a senior fellow at the American Culture Project and a visiting fellow at the American Institute for Economic Research, told Blaze News that while Texas "wasn't the first to the party" — 15 other states have passed universal school choice in the past four years — this "is the biggest day-one school choice victory in U.S. history."
"The Texas win is a big deal," said DeAngelis. "With Texas joining the club, about 40% of America's school-age population now lives in states that have passed universal school choice policies. The number is up from 0% in 2021. The momentum for education freedom is almost unbelievable."
DeAngelis joked, "We're winning so much, I'm almost getting tired of winning."
The aim of Senate Bill 2, filed by state Sen. Brandon Creighton, is twofold: first, to "provide additional educational options to assist families in this state in exercising the right to direct the educational needs of their children"; and second, to "achieve a general diffusion of knowledge."
If ultimately enacted, the bill would direct $1 billion in state funds to create education savings accounts — vouchers that families in the Lone Star State could use to pay for private school tuition and school-related expenses.
Qualifying students under the program who attend a private school would receive $10,000 annually; disabled students would receive up to $30,000 annually; and homeschooled students would receive $2,000.
The Tribune noted that the legislation tethers the voucher program's per-student dollars to public education funding so that increases or decreases in public school funding would be reflected in the amounts received by students participating in the program.
While this marks a decisive battle won for school choice, DeAngelis told Blaze News, "The fight isn't over."
"I expect more than 100,000 students will want to use the school choice program in Texas. Once that demand is shown, the Texas Legislature will need to go back and get rid of the cap on the number of scholarships like they did in states like Arizona and Florida once demand was illustrated," said the school choice advocate. "I have confidence Texas Republicans will listen to that demand from parents."
'We will look back on this day as one of the darkest in Texas history.'
In the meantime, should demand outstrip supply where the program is concerned, poor families and Texas students with disabilities will receive priority.
Despite their support for choice on other matters, state Democrats — particularly those who have cozied up with public teachers' unions — are enraged over the promise of an affordable option when it comes to Texas kids' education.
"This bill is everything that is wrong with politics. It's the interest of big money over everyday Texans," said state Rep. Gina Hinojosa, a Democrat endorsed by the Texas State Teachers Association and the Texas American Federation of Teachers.
Democratic state Rep. John Bucy III, who was also endorsed by the Texas AFT, said, "The history books will remember who gutted public education. We will look back on this day as one of the darkest in Texas history."
State Rep. Alma Allen (D), a former public school administrator, suggested the "harmful voucher scam" would somehow send the state backward.
Lt. Gov. Patrick recommended the Texas Senate concur with Senate Bill 2 Friday afternoon, and Gov. Abbott reiterated he was "ready to sign this bill into law."
Sen. Brandon Creighton noted, "Parents, lawmakers, and education advocates across Texas are finally seeing real momentum to deliver education freedom."
The success in Texas might have national implications.
"The Texas government school monopoly has fallen. More dominoes are likely to fall with Texas leading the way. The dam is breaking, and there's nothing Randi Weingarten and the teachers' unions can do about it," said DeAngelis. "This school choice momentum is sure to fuel the battle for nationwide school choice. President Trump campaigned on the issue and ultimately won the parent vote by 9 points. That's a national mandate for education freedom."
'It's time to get nationwide school choice across the finish line.'
Earlier this year, Republican Reps. Adrian Smith (Neb.) and Burgess Owens (Utah) and Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) introduced legislation that would amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide a charitable donation incentive for individuals and businesses to bankroll scholarship awards for students to cover expenses related to K-12 public and private education.
"The Educational Choice for Children Act is a top priority for the 119th Congress because it puts power where it belongs — in the hands of families, not bureaucracies," Owens said in a statement. "The days of tolerating a one-size-fits-all system that traps students in mediocrity are over."
The scholarships under the proposed legislation would be dealt out to students as a voucher. Most families would be eligible so long as their household incomes are not 300% greater than their region's median income.
The New York Times noted that the national bill could be included in a budget reconciliation bill this summer. Accordingly, Republicans would need only 51 votes in the U.S. Senate to seal the deal.
"The Educational Choice for Children Act passed out of the House Ways and Means committee last year, and it is already co-sponsored by most Republicans in Congress," noted DeAngelis. "President Trump said he would sign it, and the legislation is supported by Speaker Mike Johnson and Senate Majority Leader John Thune. It's time to get nationwide school choice across the finish line."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
To Think Bigger About Catholic Education, Start Thinking Smaller
The parish school is not the only way to deliver Catholic education, just as an assigned public school is not the only way to deliver non-Catholic education.The Education Bureaucrats Are Still Coming For America’s Children
Eliminating the Department of Education is only the first step in breaking the chokehold that the educational establishment has on American families.The stabbing in Frisco was a tragedy everyone saw coming
A high school student fatally stabbed another student last week during a track meet in Frisco, Texas, not far from where I teach. The story gained national attention when details emerged: the alleged killer is a black delinquent, and the victim, Austin Metcalf, was a white all-star athlete, top student, and professed Christian. Initial reports indicate the conflict began when the suspect sat in the wrong area, although new information suggests he may have been rummaging through other people’s belongings.
This tragedy has reignited tough conversations about racial violence among youth, school security, and the role of discipline. Yet raising these issues often prompts accusations of racism rather than honest discussion.
In this case, as in so many others before, district administrators will continue with the same disciplinary policies that failed to prevent the violence.
In response, proposed solutions once again focus on broad, institution-wide measures — calls for increased security and metal detectors at track meets — rather than targeted discipline. This mirrors the post-9/11 approach, when the newly formed TSA frisked elderly women for bombs rather than focus on military-age Middle Eastern or South Asian men.
None of this should be controversial. Schools have a basic duty to keep students safe. At a minimum, institutions should remove students with a history of rule-breaking, harassment, or lack of self-control — especially if they display a pattern. That’s not exclusion; it’s responsible stewardship of public safety.
This only becomes controversial because, as most people know, the great majority of students who fall into this category are black males. For whatever reason (lack of fathers, rap culture, the soft bigotry of low expectations, etc.), young black men are far more likely to exhibit aggressive, antisocial behavior that is incompatible with a safe environment. To be clear, this is no preliminary judgment against black people. It’s simply the outcome of enforcing one standard of conduct for everyone.
Prejudice ... or protection?
Enforcing consistent discipline should not be seen as targeting, but as a necessary step to ensure safety and fairness. If a student’s behavioral record indicates a higher risk of disruption or violence, schools should take appropriate precautions, especially during events with large crowds such as assemblies, athletic competitions, or pep rallies.
Unfortunately, common-sense safety measures are often mistaken for prejudice. But bias involves acting on assumptions without evidence. When schools act on documented behavioral patterns — not stereotypes — they’re not discriminating; they’re fulfilling their duty to protect students and staff.
By contrast, society often treats certain groups differently under far less justification. For example, young white males are sometimes portrayed in media and politics as inherently dangerous or extremist, even when statistical evidence does not support such claims. That kind of unfair generalization undermines trust and distracts from real issues in school discipline and public safety.
Unfortunately, such precautions are confused with prejudice. Yet to qualify as prejudice, a policy needs to be based on a biased assumption, not extensive data.
This kind of prejudice often targets young white men. Despite minimal evidence supporting the claim that they are more prone to radicalization or violence, popular shows like “Adolescence” promote this view. Many on the political left continue to promote the lie that white supremacy among young white males represents a widespread threat.
Schools must take student misconduct seriously and intervene early — especially when patterns of aggression or rule-breaking emerge.
Missed warning signs
Based on my experience working in education, I have seen many similar cases in which students with cases of misbehavior were not disciplined and know where it leads.
Despite warning signs, young men with behavior problems are allowed to remain in class, play football, and attend track meets. Administrators, coaches, and teachers may hesitate to discipline them out of fear of being accused of racism. That kind of reluctance enables escalation. In this case, it may have allowed the student to bring a knife to the track meet, rifle through bags, and start fights without fearing the consequences.
It’s hard not to wonder how different things might have been had someone intervened earlier. A timely response to the accused’s possible first offenses might have steered him toward accountability — or, if necessary, removed him from settings where he posed a risk.
At the very least, staff should have monitored him more closely on the day of the incident. Instead, he was left unsupervised, and a promising young student lost his life. The community is now left to mourn a tragedy that might possibly have been prevented.
To be clear, this is not about race. Many have argued that schools should take steps to intervene with students who fit the behavioral profile often associated with school shooters. If a student shows signs of suicidal ideation, acts suspiciously, and has a documented history of serious mental illness, he should receive intervention — and if necessary, be removed from the campus to ensure safety for others.
Instead, many mentally disturbed white school shooters and hyped-up black wannabe thugs are neglected and could go off at any moment. In this case, as in so many others before, the district will likely respond by spending millions on added security, legal counsel, and public relations efforts. But administrators will continue with the same disciplinary policies that may have failed to prevent the violence.
Emerging alternatives
That might frustrate families who understand this death could have been avoided — and who know that many underlying problems still haven’t been addressed. Yet most have no alternative but to send their children back to the same schools, hoping for change that never comes.
That may no longer be the case. With new alternatives emerging — such as charter schools and the potential expansion of Education Savings Accounts — families concerned about safety and discipline in the Frisco Independent School District may have more options. FISD has long been seen as one of the top public school districts in the Dallas-Fort Worth area, but clearly the district has a problem with safety and discipline.
District leaders should feel urgency to address these problems directly. Failure to act will risk greater reputational damage and an accelerating decline in enrollment — which is already under way.
Something needs to change. Not only for the safety of students and staff who deserve better support and protection, but also for the memory of those who paid the price for a system too cowardly to act for fear of being tarred as biased and bigoted.
How States Can Help President Trump Make America Great Again
A great nation is not built simply on low marginal tax rates. Republicans need to start thinking a lot bigger and a lot deeper.Why School Choice Is Not A Leftist Plot To Take Over Private Education
Since before the founding of our country, Americans have taxed ourselves to pay for public K-12 education.Today's top stories
www.theblaze.com