If red states can’t deliver DOGE promises, what can they deliver?



The DOGE revolution has identified federal waste, forced Washington politicians to rethink their spending habits, and exposed the decades-long crusade by Democrats to funnel taxpayer money into activism. In a state like North Dakota — a deep-red stronghold — you’d expect Republicans to seize November’s America First mandate and gut bloated budgets.

Think again. Too many unprincipled legislators are choking on the swamp’s fumes, betraying the voters who rejected the status quo. It’s time to call them out.

Politicians care more about re-election and climbing the ladder than they do about your wallet. They’ll dodge tough cuts to keep their seats, leaving taxpayers to foot the bill.

North Dakota’s Legislative Task Force on Government Efficiency — a state-level DOGE — was established by House Bill 1442 to tackle the state’s $20.3 billion 2025-27 budget. The mission: Slash waste, end duplication, and put taxpayers first.

For fiscal conservatives, it looked like a dream come true. But after its first meeting July 30, conservatives are sounding the alarm. This committee is packed with spendaholics who will keep the gravy train rolling for as long as they can.

If we want real cuts, we need to stop coddling politicians and start fighting in Republican primaries.

Some get it; some don’t

Credit where it’s due: the leadership is solid. Chairman Rep. Nathan Toman (R-Mandan) is a budget hawk. Vice Chairman Sen. Chuck Walen (R-New Town) has a good record with his conservative base. Both men understand that North Dakota’s budget bloat calls for a chainsaw, not a Band-Aid.

But their grit is drowned out by a committee built to fail — thanks to GOP leaders afraid of losing votes by cutting unnecessary funds. Legislative Management appointed Senate Minority Leader Kathy Hogan (D-Fargo), a Democrat who has never met a spending bill she didn’t love, especially in human services and health care. Her role is to protect the status quo, not shrink it.

RELATED: Don’t let rural America become the next New York City

Photo by StanRohrer via Getty Images

Then there are Republican Reps. Glenn Bosch and Robin Weisz — appropriations loyalists who rubber-stamped 99% of the state budget. They are not reformers. Expecting them to cut waste is like asking a fox to guard the henhouse.

State problem, national roots

This isn’t just North Dakota’s mess — it’s politics everywhere. Red-state Republicans talk tough about fiscal discipline but crumble when the time comes to act. Why? Cutting spending risks votes, dries up PAC money for re-election, and alienates lobbyists.

It’s why North Dakota GOP leaders play nice with Hogan. It’s why Bosch and Weisz keep the spending spigot open. And it’s why our $36.2 trillion national debt keeps climbing.

Politicians care more about re-election and climbing the ladder than they do about your wallet. They’ll dodge tough cuts to keep their seats, leaving taxpayers to foot the bill.

The only fix: Primaries

The DOGE is a great idea. But across red states, task forces like North Dakota's stall when Republicans fear backlash more than they fear waste. Without legislators willing to fight, this will become another powerless committee generating reports nobody reads.

The fix? Get serious in Republican primaries.

In North Dakota, Citizens Alliance is backing challengers to big spenders like Bosch, Weisz, and their allies. In Pennsylvania, the group has added more than 55,000 GOP voters — 250 per day — because primaries are the contact sport that scares RINOs straight. In Idaho, Citizens Alliance helped oust Senate President Pro Tempore Chuck Winder in 2024 and backs more than 40 lawmakers with proven conservative records.

North Dakota needs that same fire if it wants the state task force on government efficiency to roar instead of roll over. Republicans who dodge the DOGE mandate aren’t just failing — they’re betraying voters who demanded lasting reform. If they can’t bring a bulldozer to budget bloat, they don’t belong in leadership.

Sex offenders can’t adopt. But they can buy a baby?



Last week, a gay couple — Logan Riley and Brandon Mitchell — went viral for posting photos of the baby boy they acquired through surrogacy. What began as a celebration quickly unraveled after it emerged that one of the men is a convicted sex offender.

Social media users raised obvious concerns. Was this arrangement in the best interest of the child? What risks come with separating a baby from his mother and placing him with unrelated adult males, one of whom has a record of sex crimes? Critics asked these questions and were met, as usual, with accusations of bigotry from gay activists. But once the facts surfaced, the activists who rushed to defend the couple fell silent.

Children are not accessories. Women are not rental space. And no one should be allowed to buy a baby — least of all someone who wouldn’t be permitted to adopt one.

The pattern is familiar. Critics of surrogacy are smeared until reality breaks through the narrative. By then, the damage is done — and the child is the one who suffers.

From fallback to moral imperative

The original case for gay adoption was flimsy. It presented same-sex couples as a last resort, a solution for children who would otherwise languish in the foster system. Even its advocates admitted that two men raising a child could not replicate the contributions of a mother and father. The goal was to offer love and stability in the absence of better alternatives.

That framing has since disappeared. As the LGBTQ movement moved from acceptance to dominance, the rhetoric shifted. Gay adoption was no longer a concession. It was equal to heterosexual couples adopting, then it was superior. Religious adoption agencies that prioritized married mothers and fathers were accused of discrimination and extremism. State governments and national organizations began steering children toward same-sex households, now presented as the cultural ideal.

Once equality became unquestionable dogma, the conversation shifted again. Adoption was no longer enough. Activists turned to surrogacy — not to rescue unwanted children, but to commission biologically related ones. The moral justification evaporated. This wasn’t about saving lives so much as satisfying adult desires.

Adoption and surrogacy are not the same

Surrogacy is sometimes described as a form of adoption. That’s misleading. Adoption involves accepting responsibility for a life that already exists, often in difficult circumstances. Surrogacy deliberately creates a child to be separated from his mother and sold to strangers.

The physical and emotional toll on the mother is severe. Surrogates are often poor, vulnerable, and pressured into contracts they don’t fully understand. Children are ordered like designer fashion accessories. There are cases of forced abortions, abandoned babies, and severe trauma — all downstream from the commodification of life.

This is not a rare byproduct. It is built into the practice.

The risk to children is real

Children raised by unrelated adults face increased risks of abuse. One study found that preschool-aged children are 40 times more likely to be abused in a household with a stepparent than in one with both biological parents. The data is not absolute, but the trend is clear: Adults, especially men, are far more likely to abuse children to whom they are not biologically related.

This should alarm anyone watching the rise of surrogacy arrangements, particularly those involving male couples. These are homes where the child has no biological connection to either adult. And in some cases, as with Riley and Mitchell, one of the men has a criminal record that would disqualify him from adopting under state law.

RELATED: Trump moves to defund hospitals mutilating kids for money

chrupka via iStock/Getty Images

In Pennsylvania, sex offenders are barred from adopting. But surrogacy remains unrestricted. The child in this case remains in the custody of a man the law has deemed unfit to parent.

This is not some oversight. It is a structural and legal failure.

The moral inversion is complete

We are told that the buying and selling of human beings was one of history’s greatest evils. Our education system and popular culture treat slavery as the ultimate moral horror. Yet, in the name of equality and inclusion, we now celebrate the legal sale of children — so long as it occurs under the banner of LGBTQ rights.

And so we have elevated identity above accountability. In any other context, a convicted sex offender taking custody of a newborn would be a national scandal. But when the arrangement involves a same-sex couple, basic standards are suspended. The child becomes secondary to the cultural narrative.

Enough of this

Surrogacy did not enter the mainstream through a national debate or democratic vote. It arrived through the back door, marketed as compassionate and modern. Most people didn’t understand the process. They didn’t consider the ethical costs. That time has passed. Ignorance no longer justifies our complacence.

We now see surrogacy for what it is: a commercial industry that exploits vulnerable women and treats children as consumer goods. The law must catch up with the reality.

This is not just a problem for gay couples. Surrogacy as a practice should be banned for everyone. No adult has a right to manufacture a child for personal fulfillment. No amount of wealth, influence, or legal maneuvering justifies the creation of human life as a transaction.

Children are not accessories. Women are not rental space. And no one should be allowed to buy a baby — least of all someone who wouldn’t be permitted to adopt one.

AI faces death by a thousand state regulations



Florida Republican Governor Ron DeSantis' recent hostility toward artificial intelligence — and his promise of regulatory action — stands in stark contrast to the Trump administration’s apparent embrace of the technology.

While President Trump celebrates multibillion-dollar private-sector investments in AI and frames it as essential in the technological race against China, DeSantis warns that AI is “very dangerous” and insists that policymakers must control it through regulation.

Limiting AI regulation to the federal level is the only way the administration can make space for a vibrant and innovative American AI industry.

As states continue to pass legislation that either conflicts with or adds tension to federal efforts, the path forward for the American AI industry grows murkier. Innovators and consumers alike deserve a unified national framework that reduces costs and legal uncertainty.

One solution, already floated during reconciliation discussions over the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, would be an AI regulatory moratorium. This kind of pause could help eliminate conflicting or redundant state and federal policies, allowing Congress to actively shape a coherent regulatory landscape.

In the coming days, Trump is expected to announce a new White House AI plan, one that will likely cast the AI race as central to America’s power competition with China. The plan is also expected to reaffirm the administration’s belief that a light-touch regulatory approach is essential for U.S. dominance.

“You cannot regulate your way to winning the AI race,” AI and crypto czar David Sacks said in an interview with CNBC — a clear sign of the administration's deregulatory approach.

States going rogue

State governments, however, are not following suit. More than 1,000 state-level AI-related bills have been introduced in 2025 alone. This wave of state legislation fosters uncertainty and risk, not only due to contradictions in the laws themselves but also because of redundancy and compliance overload.

Take, for example, SB 1213 in Pennsylvania, which outlaws the use of AI in the production of nonconsensual sexual imagery. Fine, but Congress already passed and President Trump signed the Take It Down Act earlier this year. The federal law prohibits the publication of nonconsensual imagery — including content generated with AI. Companies are now forced to navigate two separate statutes covering the same issue. For smaller AI startups, this patchwork is a regulatory nightmare.

RELATED: The AI takeover isn’t coming — it’s already here

Photo by BlackJack3D via Getty Images

With the sheer volume of state-level AI laws, this situation will only grow more dire, tackling everything from copyright and user safety to privacy and data security. Even in cases where Congress and the states agree on the policy response, creating two differing statutes leads to legal uncertainty for both consumers and businesses.

A threat to innovation

As with earlier waves of digital innovation, the spread of state-level rules threatens to undermine the Trump administration’s efforts to establish a light-touch regulatory approach. Whether state laws contradict or merely duplicate federal ones, each additional statute brings new compliance demands — and new barriers to entry.

If the Trump administration is serious about its pro-AI agenda and promoting innovation and development, it must push for an AI regulatory moratorium. Without it, states have the power to water down — or outright defeat — federal efforts to foster growth.

Limiting AI regulation to the federal level is the only way this administration can make space for a vibrant and innovative American AI industry.

Trump Scores Big SCOTUS Victory Over Department Of Education

Trump’s attorney in the High Court, the Missourian John Sauer, has set a record for quickly and repeatedly prevailing.

Exclusive: 18 States Are Still Letting Dudes Dominate Girls’ Sports, Compliance Tracker Shows

'While young female athletes and students are forced to share single-sex spaces with biological males, leaders in states like California and Maine continue to play politics at the expense of women’s rights.'

Trump delivers on education, but activist judges stand in the way



President Donald Trump on Thursday signed an executive order aimed at abolishing the Department of Education and returning most of its resources to the state level, delivering on one of his biggest campaign promises. While the order is a step in the right direction, Trump alone can’t dismantle the department. Jimmy Carter first created the agency, and later, Congress cemented it into law, meaning only Congress can dismantle it. The president can’t just wave a magic wand and make it disappear.

Democrats would have you believe that Trump’s executive order is a constitutional crisis — that education is, and always was intended to be, under the jurisdiction of the federal government. This simply is not the case.

Today, the Department of Education operates beyond its charter, and activist judges make law from the bench.

According to the Department of Education Organization Act, the federal government never intended to usurp state and local governments' authority over education:

It is the intention of the Congress in the establishment of the Department to protect the rights of State and local governments and public and private educational institutions in the areas of educational policies and administration of programs and to strengthen and improve the control of such governments and institutions over their own educational programs and policies.

The ED has metastasized into the opposite of its original intention. Instead of protecting local control, the agency has become a federal behemoth dictating curriculum, policy, and administration at every level — a total inversion of its founding purpose.

Moreover, the founding document states that “the establishment of the Department of Education shall not increase the authority of the federal government over education.”

That didn’t age well, did it? Today, the federal government wields tremendous authority over what schools teach, how they operate, and who gets funding. It’s a bureaucratic monstrosity that Congress never intended to exist in its current form.

This pattern of government action straying away from its original intention is nothing new. In recent memory, the authors of the Patriot Act have bemoaned how the government currently uses the Act to broaden federal authority beyond its indented scope. However, one lesson from history always holds true: Once you give the government an inch, it takes a mile — every single time. America’s founders knew this, and that’s why they designed a system of checks and balances.

Overreach spreads to the courts

The left’s backlash against Trump’s actions on the Department of Education highlights a broader issue: government institutions, particularly the courts, overstepping their authority. Judges are increasingly issuing rulings based on ideology rather than law, using injunctions as a tool to block Trump’s policies with little to no recourse for appeal.

This is judicial activism. Judges are supposed to interpret the law, not write it. Imagine a football referee deciding that a touchdown is suddenly worth 10 points instead of six — just because he feels like it. That’s exactly what activist judges are doing — changing the rules mid-game to fit their agenda.

The Constitution’s framers foresaw the potential for activist judges and offered solutions to keep them in check. In Federalist 78, Alexander Hamilton states that judges should not have life tenure unless they maintain “good behavior,” meaning they can be removed if they step out of line. In Federalist 81, Hamilton goes farther, making it clear that judges can be impeached if they abuse their power.

History has since established precedent. In the 1832 case Worcester v. Georgia, the Supreme Court ruled that Georgia had to stop interfering with Cherokee land. Georgia ignored it. The judge could rule about the legality of the case, but ultimately, he lacked the final authority to enforce the law.

I’m not suggesting that we ignore the courts entirely. However, we must recognize that the judiciary was never meant to be the ultimate authority. It was designed to be the weakest branch of government — it has no army, no budget, and no enforcement power beyond its rulings. Congress holds the purse strings, and the president commands the military.

Time to restore balance

The president’s move to cut the Department of Education, along with his other major checks against our unhinged federal bureaucracy, is a step in the right direction. But it’s not enough to just trim it — we need to restore it to its original purpose or dismantle it entirely.

Likewise, we need to rein in the courts. Judges should not be legislators in robes, and it’s this unchecked power that has enabled the federal bureaucracy to mutate into its current form today. Congress has the power to check them, and it’s time that lawmakers use it.

Our founders designed a system where no single branch could dominate the others. But today, the Department of Education operates beyond its charter, and activist judges make law from the bench. We have strayed far from the system of government America’s founders envisioned.

Want more from Glenn Beck? Get Glenn's FREE email newsletter with his latest insights, top stories, show prep, and more delivered to your inbox.

CBS Claims Southern States Are Too Poor, Incompetent To Handle Disaster Recovery

While interviewing VP J.D. Vance, CBS's Margaret Brennan claimed southern states are too poor and incompetent to handle disaster recovery.

3 Million ‘Temporary’ Migrants Will Now Sway Congressional Seats Thanks To Census Bureau Change

A Census Bureau change enables blue states to keep congressional seats because their population is propped up with illegal aliens.

Schoolhouse limbo: How low will educators go to ‘better’ grades?



Maryland’s new education chief, Carey Wright, an old-school champion of rigorous standards, is pushing back against efforts in other states to boost test scores by essentially lowering their expectations of students.

States, including Oklahoma and Wisconsin, are making it easier for students to demonstrate on annual assessments that they are proficient in math and English after a decade of declining test scores nationwide. By redesigning the assessments and lowering the so-called “cut scores” that separate achievement levels such as basic, proficient, and advanced, several states have recently posted dramatic increases in proficiency, a key indicator of school quality.

'If you don’t set high expectations, you’re never going to achieve the kinds of goals that you want to achieve. And in our business, it’s called student learning.'

Wright warns that lowering the bar on proficiency can create the public impression that schools are improving and students are learning more when, in fact, that’s not the case.

“You can make yourself look better to the public by lowering your cut scores,” Wright, the Maryland state superintendent of schools, told RealClearInvestigations in an interview. “But then you are not really measuring proficiency. My position is no, no, no. Parents and teachers need to know if their children are proficient or not.”

As most public schools continue to deal with the related crises of learning loss and chronic absenteeism years after COVID-19, Wright says now is the worst time to lower expectations of students, which can stifle the impetus to improve. In other moves to accommodate struggling students, districts and states have reduced graduation requirements and inflated grades with policies that ban failing marks. The best evidence comes from studies in Washington and North Carolina showing that grades have held steady at their pre-pandemic levels even though students are learning much less.

“With grades and assessments, the education system seems to be sleepwalking into a policy of ratcheting expectations down to better reflect what today’s students can do, rather than doubling efforts to help get students to where they need to be,” said Michael Petrilli, president of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, which argues for high academic standards.

Wright, who took over Maryland schools this summer, is refusing to backpedal on standards in a state that plunged from the top to the bottom in U.S. performance over the last decade. The superintendent says she aims to improve Maryland’s declining proficiency rates the hard way by making academic standards more rigorous in all content areas. As students learn more in class, the theory goes, they should become more proficient on state tests.

But a strategy that asks more of teachers and students is never an easy lift in districts that often resist top-down calls for change. Without direct control over school districts run by local boards, state superintendents like Wright must depend on the ability to inspire principals and teachers to follow their lead and meet inconvenient truths head-on.

Wright has done it before. As the state superintendent in Mississippi a decade ago, she collaborated closely with districts in lifting content standards and provided support to completely revamp literacy instruction in what was the worst-performing state in the union. Student proficiency soared without lowering cut scores. Educators called it the “Mississippi Miracle.”

“If you set the bar low, that’s all you are going to get,” Wright said. “But if you set the bar high for students, and support teachers and leaders, it’s doable.”

Lowering cut scores, boosting proficiency

Each state controls its own definition of proficiency and how students can achieve the all-important marker of academic success. The state sets its own content standards that detail what students need to know in each grade, writes its own tests to determine if they are proficient, and devises its own cut scores.

The undertaking is more art than science. There is no accepted single definition of what makes a student proficient. States mostly aim for grade-level proficiency, or what the average student can do, based on their own content standards. A handful of states shoot higher, approaching a more rigorous definition of proficiency spelled out by the National Assessment of Educational Progress, commonly known as the Nation’s Report Card.

By moving the bar on tests and cut scores, education officials have instantly raised or lowered proficiency rates. Over the years, some states have added enough rigor to allow only a third of students to show proficiency while others have reduced it to ensure that the vast majority perform well, Marianne Perie, who has helped more than a dozen states develop assessment methods, told the New York Board of Regents last year.

Today, states are lowering the bar and lifting proficiency rates. “Oklahoma just lowered their cut scores and Wisconsin is another one that ended up with less rigorous cut scores,” Perie told RCI. “If more kids are proficient this year compared with the previous years, it indicates that cut scores are less rigorous or that kids learned a lot more over the last year.”

High standards fall in Wisconsin

Wisconsin, like most states, has experienced a big drop in proficiency. In 2017, 44% of public school students were deemed proficient in English. That percentage fell in 2018 and 2019 and then plunged in the early years of the pandemic before recovering a bit to 39% in 2023.

This year, Wisconsin rolled out its new test and cut scores. State Superintendent Jill Underly was transparent about the changes, explaining in October that the redesign was meant to fix a problem created a decade ago when Wisconsin and other states aligned their cut scores to an “extremely high” level used by NAEP, reducing Wisconsin’s proficiency rate in the years that followed. Underly wrote that Wisconsin’s new grade-level cut scores better reflect the actual proficiency of students, making results easier for families to understand.

What families saw was a dramatic boost in English proficiency to 48% this year — a nine percentage-point gain over 2023 — due to assessment changes that had nothing to do with classroom learning.

To be sure, the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction didn’t tout the 2024 results. It announced that they shouldn’t be compared to prior years since testing methods changed. Still, families who don’t follow the fine print of assessments may be left with the impression that Wisconsin schools are performing much better this year.

Paul Peterson, a prominent Harvard professor of education policy who has tracked changes to state proficiency levels, says politics seems to be a driver in the lowering of testing rigor.

“Student performance is falling so I would imagine the pressure on states to rethink standards must be considerable,” Peterson said. “Officials want to show that they are spending the public's dollar well, and that students are learning.”

No notice in Oklahoma

In Oklahoma, a similar assessment revamp unfolded this summer but with a controversial twist: State leaders in Oklahoma didn’t inform school districts or families that they had lowered the bar before releasing the test results in August, according to reports in the local media.

When school districts saw the results, principals and teachers were in disbelief over the huge increase in performance. In fourth grade English, for instance, 47% of students reached proficiency — an extraordinary 23% jump compared to 2023.

Later in August, State Superintendent Ryan Walters, a conservative who has been under fire for insisting that public schools teach the Bible, admitted that the state changed its assessment regime without publicly announcing it. Republican state lawmakers issued a statement criticizing Walters for “putting a false narrative out there” about a jump in test scores. Oklahoma’s Department of Education didn’t respond to a request from RCI for comment.

“I believe in transparency and communication,” said Perie, the testing expert. “Oklahoma was the only state where it seemed like they were hiding the changes.”

New York denies lower standards

As in Wisconsin and Oklahoma, New York’s retooled content standards, assessments, and scoring also produced higher proficiency rates.

A New York education official told RCI that the goal was to determine what should be expected of today’s students and how to evaluate their proficiency in various subjects using the new content standards. New York saw a dramatic 13% increase in math proficiency and a small boost in English in 2023, the year the changes were implemented.

Officials in New York and Wisconsin are adamant that the updated assessments don’t amount to a lowering of academic standards even though proficiency rates jumped. The New York official added that while several factors impact student achievement from year to year, instruction is one of the most highly related attributes.

“It is incorrect and irresponsible to derive from this that the standards have been lowered,” the official said in an email.

Petrilli of the Fordham Institute calls such explanations from state officials doublespeak. “By definition these states are lowering standards for proficiency because it’s easier for students to meet the standard than it was before,” he said.

Wright’s ‘Mississippi Miracle’

Education experts say Wright’s tenure as the state superintendent in Mississippi offers a lesson to states struggling with low proficiency rates today: Even in the worst of times, Wright showed, states can raise their expectations of students and get results.

When Wright took over Mississippi schools in 2013, they were at the very bottom in performance nationally. A mere 21% of fourth graders were proficient in reading, according to NAEP. Educators in the South would say, “At least we are not as bad as Mississippi.”

The decade before the pandemic was a time of rising expectations in public education. With Wright in charge, Mississippi joined half of the states in raising the bar for fourth grade reading proficiency between 2013 and 2019.

The lifting of expectations was relatively easy. It’s policymaking. The tough part for state superintendents was implementing changes in schools to reach those higher goals. For the most part, the higher bars didn’t translate into higher levels of proficiency by 2017, according to research by Daniel Hamlin at the University of Oklahoma and Harvard’s Peterson.

There are only theories as to why: After the Great Recession of 2009, school funding declined. The Obama administration relaxed federal accountability measures put in place by President George W. Bush’s No Child Left Behind reform of 2002. The advent of smartphones became a major distraction for students.

Mississippi was a notable exception. Its fourth grade reading proficiency jumped by 11 percentage points from 2013 to 2019, rising to a top-20 performer in the United States, according to NAEP. In math, the increase was equally impressive.

Wright got results the old-fashioned way, with a tenacious focus on improving proficiency for all students, including those living in poverty, says Washington Cole, then her chief of staff and now a district superintendent in Mississippi. To get there, Wright rolled out a literacy program that was backed by decades of research and, crucially, provided teachers and administrators with extensive training in the model and sent coaches into the lowest-performing schools. “The professional development was a huge part of it,” Wright said.

Wright also toughened the district grading system that provided public accountability. When districts earned an “A” for performance, they were publicly celebrated by community members and lawmakers, adding to the incentives for other districts to improve. Over a decade, Wright’s team transformed Mississippi into an unlikely national K-12 success story.

“Dr. Wright set high expectations and her hard work and determination were very infectious with everyone. She was amazing,” Cole said. “I have no doubt that she will do the same thing in Maryland.”

Maryland tries a turnaround

Wright has her work cut out for her. After a decade of decline in Maryland, 48% of students are proficient in English and 24% in math.

In Baltimore, where almost all students are black or Latino, the numbers are tragically low. Only 6% of middle and high schoolers are proficient in math. More than 40% of Baltimore students were chronically absent last year, according to a district estimate, well above the national average. Students can’t learn if they don’t show up.

None of this seems to faze Wright, who assumed permanent leadership of Maryland’s schools in July. In returning to her native state, where she earned her doctorate in education and began her career as a teacher and administrator, Wright has wasted no time in setting a very ambitious goal.

“In the next three years we are expecting a five-percentage point increase in proficiency each year in English and math,” she said.

To achieve that goal, Wright appointed a task force of teachers, leaders, experts, and parents to quickly recommend changes to the state’s accountability system, which she discovered painted a very rosy picture for the public. It was giving high marks to three-quarters of all schools despite their low proficiency scores. Wright wants the new system to provide school leaders with clearer measurements on a range of topics, such as the pace of student growth and graduation rates, so they can target their weak areas for improvement.

“Superintendents take a lot of pride in their ratings,” Wright said. “They want to be that district that gets recognized.”

Major changes are also coming to classrooms. Wright’s new early literacy policy, which won state board approval in October, details expectations for instruction based on the science of reading and teacher training in an attempt to lift test scores that have fallen to 41st in the country.

The biggest change in policy puts an end to social promotion. Districts with parental consent will be able to hold back third graders who don’t meet literacy standards rather than promote them to fourth grade, where they will continue to struggle to read, hampering their future performance. It’s the kind of bold change that Wright wasn’t hesitant to push despite opposition from some board members and families concerned about the impact on disadvantaged students.

It worked for Wright in Mississippi, producing a very large increase in reading performance by sixth grade, according to researchers.

“Putting a stake in the ground and saying we are not just going to move kids along if they haven’t learned to read by grade 3 is very powerful and much needed for our education system,” said Joan Dabrowski, the chief academic officer of Baltimore City Public Schools. “Dr. Wright is very clearly telling the districts they need to prioritize this policy and the state will be monitoring districts so there is a lot of accountability.”

Will the policy work? Dabrowski says it depends on the support teachers and principals receive from Wright to make the difficult changes over several years. “I like everything in the policy, but there are lots of points where implementation could go well or not go well,” she said.

Illinois next to lower cut scores

In June, Illinois made clear that it plans to boost proficiency, too, by following the approach of Wisconsin. Illinois Superintendent Tony Sanders said in a report that his state has one of the toughest definitions of proficiency in the nation. He said students who are on track for college could be mislabeled as not proficient, sending a wrong message to their families.

To fix this, Illinois is planning to adjust its assessment methods by 2025, which will likely boost the state’s proficiency rates.

If Wright fails in Maryland, would she consider following Illinois and other states in easing the rigor of assessments?

She scoffed at the idea.

“When you look over the last decade of dropping test scores, now is not the time to be lowering the bar,” she said. “If you don't set high expectations, you're never going to achieve the kinds of goals that you want to achieve. And in our business, it's called student learning.”

Editor’s note: This article was originally published by RealClearInvestigations and made available via RealClearWire.

Every Pro-Life State Enacted Support For Pregnant Women And Families Post-Dobbs

“‘Two Years After Dobbs’ underscores that while more needs to be done, states are taking the lead in enacting laws that both protect and meaningful support the unborn, their moms, and their families.”