Policymakers, researchers, and activists in the child welfare field frequently point to racial disparities within the system, as evidence of the systemic bias. But what are the true causes of these disparities? And how should governmental bodies tasked with protecting civil rights understand this issue?

This week, Naomi and Ian are joined by Rafael Mangual, Nick Ohnell Fellow at the Manhattan Institute, to discuss his recent resignation from the New York State Advisory Committee to the US Commission on Civil Rights after it conducted an investigation of racial disparities in the child welfare system. Rafael discusses the report published by the committee, which includes recommendations that would significantly diminish the power of the child welfare system. He includes data from his own research that challenges the findings of the committee and expresses concern that other state committees are going to engage in the same kind of work that is thin on evidence and heavy on ideology.

Resources

-Kids In Jeopardy | Rafael Mangual

-The Radical Push to Dismantle Child Protective Services | Naomi Schaefer Riley and Rafael Mangual

-Advisory Committees | US Commission on Civil Rights

Show Notes

04:00 What are the disparities in the child welfare system, and what are the potential explanations for them? How did the committee go about gathering information to answer that question?

11:30 How do committee members respond when alternative data is presented that suggests other causes for disparities besides systemic racism?

20:48 How would you respond to the claim that cash payments to families involved in child welfare will effectively address issues of abuse or neglect, and what do activists believe will be accomplished by this idea?

In 1996, Rev. W.C. Martin and his wife partnered with 22 families in their 100-person congregation to adopt 77 of the most difficult-to-place children in the Texas foster care system. A recent film, Sound of Hope: The Story of Possum Trot, tells the stories of these families and the inspiring results of their efforts.

This week, Naomi and Ian are joined by Joe Knittig, CEO of Care Portal and executive producer of Possum Trot. As leader of an organization designed to connect caretakers and resources in local communities to children in need, Joe was already well-versed in bringing communities together to support vulnerable kids. As executive producer of Possum Trot he hopes to broaden these efforts, encouraging faith communities across the nation to step up for kids in foster care.

Resources

-Sound of Hope: The Story of Possum Trot | Angel Studios

-How Churches Can Make a Difference in the Lives of Children Who Need Foster Care | Naomi Schaefer Riley

Show Notes

-00:40 | Tell us about your background and how it led to your involvement in the film?

-02:15 | How does Care Portal connect caretakers with children in need?

-05:49 | What is the story behind the Possum Trot? What are you hoping to accomplish through the film?

-08:03 | When the Martin family approached the state about adopting the most difficult-to-place children, what was the initial response?

-10:20 | The story of Possum Trot takes place in a historically black church community. How does this story contribute to the conversation around race in the child welfare system?

-13:55 | How could the film catalyze churches and faith-based organizations to become more involved in child welfare and the foster care system?

-16:17 | The film highlights the real struggles of fostering children. Is that part of the story resonating with audiences?

-19:04 | How can listeners see the film?

-20:18 | You are showing screenings of the film in church communities—what impact are you seeing?

-21:48 | How are the original families doing?

Why are Americans having fewer children? And why do younger Americans seem resistant to the idea of having children at all?

In this episode, Naomi and Ian are joined by Tim Carney, a senior fellow at AEI focusing on family, religion, and civil society in America. Tim discusses his upcoming book, “Family Unfriendly: How Our Culture Made Raising Kids Much Harder than It Needs to Be.” Tim unpacks all the ways parenting has become harder--from the expectation that parents must provide children with every extracurricular opportunity, to the collapse of marriage and the lack of neighborhoods where kids can walk places. He also argues for a return to the idea that children are inherently valuable—not just vehicles for accomplishments. To conclude, Tim makes recommendations for how coaches, local legislators, educators, and parents can encourage younger people to prioritize getting married and starting a family as they are building their lives.

Resources

Family Unfriendly: How Our Culture Made Raising Kids Much Harder Than It Needs to Be | Tim Carney

Civilizational Sadness: We Are Becoming Sad and Afraid, and So We Are Making Fewer Babies | Tim Carney

Show Notes

- 0:00:45 | What prompted you to write the book?

- 0:04:21 | Are there any ways we can make culture more family-friendly through public policy?

- 0:06:56 | What makes you different that allows you to see the problems here? What can we do to cultivate more individuals who value family and children?

- 0:09:35 | Do you need an underlying religious belief in order to see family differently?

- 0:13:52 | How is all of this affecting the trend of young people who are delaying marriage?

- 0:23:00 | How can we use research like Raj Chetty’s around upward mobility to strengthen the case for families?

How does family structure impact the social, educational, and economic outcomes of kids? Is the nuclear family really just a myth constructed in the 1950s? Can stable families advance the cause of social justice? On this episode of “Are You Kidding Me?” Ian and Naomi are joined by AEI Visiting Scholar and UVA sociologist W. […]

The post Going Nuclear appeared first on American Enterprise Institute - AEI.

Ian and Naomi discuss how parents can balance caretaking with teleworking and how teachers can ensure that students' living rooms are productive classrooms.

The post Pandemic parenting appeared first on American Enterprise Institute - AEI.

Child pornography is both illegal and immoral, yet it continues to proliferate throughout cyberspace. Ian and Naomi discuss what, if anything, the government and private tech companies can do to stop it. Later, they discuss the potential of predictive analytics to avoid tragedies like the murder of 6-year-old Zymere Perkins. Show Notes: – Explosion of […]

The post Moneyball for child welfare appeared first on American Enterprise Institute - AEI.

Spence-Chapin CEO Kate Trambitskaya joins Ian and Naomi to discuss routes to adoption, attitudes to birth-family contact, and ways to promote fostering kids

The post Changing the culture of adoption appeared first on American Enterprise Institute - AEI.

Children entering the foster care system have often experienced serious trauma, but there is nothing inevitable about their life’s trajectories. In this episode, Naomi and Ian discuss what happens to youth aging out of foster care, how the child welfare system can increase the recruitment and retention of foster parents, and the difference between child […]

The post ‘Musical Beds’ and the shortage of foster parents appeared first on American Enterprise Institute - AEI.

Ian and Naomi discuss the impact of family structure on black children's outcomes and how the Indian Child Welfare Act made a "separate but unequal" system

The post Family structure isn’t everything — it’s the only thing appeared first on American Enterprise Institute - AEI.

Ian Rowe and Naomi Schaefer Riley discuss debates over the Federal Charter Schools Program, as well as the tense relationships between communities and Child Protective Services.

The post Hey, Democrats — how about some power to the parents? appeared first on American Enterprise Institute - AEI.

Hosts Ian and Naomi discuss chronic absenteeism in foster children, one judge's view on the disparate impact theory, and how IWCA aided in a child's death

The post Why we offer less protection to minority kids appeared first on American Enterprise Institute - AEI.

Join Naomi Schaefer Riley and Ian Rowe as they introduce AEI's newest podcast on child welfare and education: "Are You Kidding Me?"

The post Welcome to: Are You Kidding Me? appeared first on American Enterprise Institute - AEI.

New York City public schools have long struggled with abysmally low literacy rates among their students. Will adopting a more evidence-based reading curriculum be enough to create improvement?

This week, Naomi and Ian are joined by Robert Pondiscio, Senior Fellow at AEI and scholar of K-12 education, to discuss the science of reading. A former 5th grade teacher himself, Robert recounts his experience with the whole language curriculum in New York City schools, memorably dubbed “vibes-based” literacy by the New York. It centers a student’s interest in reading over the building blocks of literacy themselves. Robert discusses a recent announcement that New York schools would be switching to one of three new scientifically-backed reading programs, explaining both the hope and potential challenges that come with adopting the new framework.

Resources

- Getting Reading Right | Robert Pondiscio

- What Do Parents Need to Know About the Science of Reading? | Robert Pondiscio

Show Notes

0:01:00 | What is the science of reading and why should we be glad education leaders are embracing it?

0:04:03 | What have teachers been taught about literacy in the past, and what is the truth being rediscovered now?

0:08:57 | How difficult will it be to re-train teachers on these new curricula?

0:11:30 | How can we help teachers understand that knowledge-building must be a part of teaching reading?

0:16:21 | Can anything be done for students who have already missed the early years of proper literacy teaching?

0:19:37 | How long will it take to start seeing improvement in test scores and performance?

0:28:59 | Do you have hopes for the introduction of AI into teaching and education?

How can we ensure young Americans understand civics? Our K-12 schools have seen a significant loss in the both the quality and quantity of history and civics requirements. Is there any way reverse this trend?

In this episode, Naomi and Ian are joined by Chris Sinacola, director of communications and media relations at Pioneer Institute and co-editor of Restoring the City on a Hill: U.S. History & Civics in America’s Schools. Chris discusses his new book and outlines what is behind the steady decline of history and civics education, what testing standards and results indicate about the quality of civics education in schools, the importance of connecting students with the roots of the American nation, and what it will take to preserve American tradition and history. Chris also mentions that although some of the data looks bleak, there are upward trends and ways that parents have been mobilizing to protect and improve their children’s education.

Resources

• Restoring the City on a Hill: U.S. History & Civics in America’s Schools | Chris Sinacola, Jamie Gass
• “I’m Afraid of the Kids We’re Leaving Our Country.” A Conversation with Civics Educator Jack Miller | Naomi Schaefer Riley

Show Notes

• 0:46 | What inspired the title, Restoring the City on a Hill?
• 3:08 | Where are we getting civics education right?
• 6:26 | How much do our students really know, and what motivated the need to study this issue?
• 10:35 | When did the decline in teaching U.S. history really start?
• 14:57 | How can primary documents become more of the focal point in class?
• 17:04 | How has reception of the book been, and what is the action plan?
• 20:17 | What role do states play in determining civics curriculum and what benchmarks students should meet?

(Note to listener: This episode contains mention of child abuse and child fatalities.)

When children who are already on the radar of their child protection agency die from abuse, it is essential to ask whether and how this death could have been avoided. In particular, could the agency have prevented the death by doing something differently?

In this episode, Naomi and Ian are joined by Marie Cohen, a child welfare policy analyst, researcher, and former Washington, DC social worker. Marie authors a blog, Child Welfare Monitor, where she recently released a report analyzing the deaths of 16 children in Washington, DC in which the death was the result of child abuse, or in which child abuse could not be ruled out as a cause of death. Marie discusses her observations from working within DC’s Child and Family Services Agency and participating in a Child Fatality Review Panel in the district, noting the ways social workers were trained to focus on strengths in the families they were working with and the agency’s attempts to prevent a “savior” mentality. She also shares her experience trying to obtain data on these fatalities from the Child and Family Services Agency, noting that the lack of transparency and available data makes it difficult to determine how these deaths could be prevented in the future.

Resources:

• We Are Not Here to Save Children: Abuse and Neglect Deaths after Contact with Child Welfare Services in the District of Columbia, 2019-2021 | Marie Cohen
• Putting the Kids First: A Child Welfare System That Works | Naomi Schaefer Riley

Show Notes:

• 1:07 | How did Child Welfare Monitor originate, and what work are you doing with DC in particular?
• 3:50 | What was involved in your work with the DC Child Fatality Review panel?
• 7:09 | What were your top-line findings when investigated the stories of the 16 children who died in DC?
• 8:48 | How do such blatant deaths of children occur after the child protection system is already involved?
• 13:27 | What should states be doing to be more transparent?
• 15:24 | What would the response of the DC child welfare leadership be if they read this report?
• 19:08 | What are your recommendations for greater transparency from child welfare agencies and ways to help prevents deaths like these in the future?

Discussions about the child welfare system are plagued by two false narratives. The first is that cases where children are neglected are simply instances of poverty and can be solved just by providing more material resources to the family. The second is that racial disparities in the system mean that it is plagued by systemic bias and that authorities should stop intervening so frequently in the lives of black families.

This episode features a conversation between Naomi and Ian that took place at FREE Forum Denver this past November, a conference hosted by Ian as part of the FREE (family, religion, education, entrepreneurship) Initiative. In the episode, Naomi shares an overview of the child welfare system, including misconceptions about child maltreatment, and analyzes different policy approaches. She and Ian then discuss the societal trends contributing to the problems, and what steps can be taken toward reform.

Resources

• The Relationship Between Child Maltreatment and Poverty | Naomi Schaefer Riley
• The Relationship Between Substance Abuse and Child Welfare | Naomi Schaefer Riley
• Fixing Our Child Welfare System to Help America’s Most Vulnerable Kids | Naomi Schaefer Riley

Show Notes

• 0:01:50 | Naomi’s remarks begin
• 0:02:58 | Misconceptions around neglect
• 0:07:22 | Misconceptions around racial disparities
• 0:13:55 | Conversation with Ian begins
• 0:14:13 | What were the roles of faith-based organizations before a public child welfare system was created?
• 0:17:48 | What prevents people from acknowledging that substance abuse plays a major role in child maltreatment?
• 0:19:12 | How does the fear of stigmatizing perversely create worse outcomes for children in unsafe situations?
• 0:21:29 | What is the role of adoption in these situations?
• 0:24:35 | What is the ideology behind those who oppose interracial adoption?
• 0:28:25 | What are some examples of policies or strategies that are working successfully?

Even as many parents grow increasingly dissatisfied with their local public schools, finding another option for their children is not always easy – or affordable. Publicly-funded school choice programs aim to bridge this gap, but they have faced enormous political opposition. As the education system rebuilds itself post-pandemic, is there hope that school-choice programs will gain more traction?

In this episode, Naomi and Ian are joined by Darla Romfo, president and CEO of the Children’s Scholarship Fund, a nonprofit dedicated to providing scholarships for low-income students to attend private schools. Darla discusses the opportunities that have opened up around school choice in recent years, the rise of homeschooling and church-based schooling, and how Education Savings Accounts (ESAs) can serve as a vehicle to help more parents gain access to educational options. She also points out that though school choice programs face opposition from some corners, support remains high among parents, Republicans, and even the majority of Democrats.

Resources

• Home Schooling’s Rise from Fringe to Fastest-Growing Form of Education | The Washington Post
• Let Parents Choose Their Kids Schools | Darla Romfo
• Why We Must Eliminate Barriers to School Choice Nationwide | Ian Rowe
• The Death of Public School’ Review: Find a Place to Learn | Naomi Schaefer Riley

Show Notes

• 0:00:48 | What is the current climate around Educations Savings Accounts and what is the potential for growth?
• 0:06:56 | What is the rationale behind opposition to school choice programs?
• 0:08:27 | To what degree are finances a barrier for families considering homeschooling?
• 0:12:06 | What are the trends among Catholic schools with the rise of ESAs?
• 0:16:51 | How will states respond to the backlash against public school policies?
• 0:18:24 | How do organizations like CSF grow and how can listeners support school choice programs in their states?

New research shows students in 2023 are making less progress in reading and math than their counterparts were prior to the pandemic. Rather than catching up after the return to in-person schooling, students fell even further behind. How can this be and what can we do about it?

In this episode, Naomi and Ian are joined by Michael J. Petrilli, president of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute and visiting fellow at Stanford’s Hoover Institution. Mike identifies contributing factors to the issue, such as chronic absenteeism and the lowering or elimination of assessment benchmarks. He argues that along with the need to place high expectations on students, we must learn to hold teachers and parents accountable for ensuring students learn. Lastly, Mike discusses bipartisan efforts to get America’s students back on track.

Resources

• We Can Fight Learning Loss Only With Accountability and Action | Michael J. Petrilli
• Unlocking the Future | Ian Rowe, Robert Pondiscio, Jessica Schurz, John Bailey

Show Notes

• 00:41 | Do we have to accept the reality that students are behind due to the pandemic?
• 03:43 | Why is it that students are moving backwards?
• 06:32 | Are policy leaders, parents, and educators paying attention to this issue?
• 10:59 | Do state-takeovers of education systems help with accountability?
• 13:35 | How do you strengthen teachers’ abilities to hold students’ accountable?
• 16:09 | What is the political landscape around education reform? Are there any bipartisan efforts happening?
• 22:29 | Are states mirroring other states’ policies or is there tunnel-vision when it comes to education reform?

Single-parent households are more common in the U.S. than in any other country. Can we afford to ignore this reality when discussing issues of poverty and economic mobility?

This week, Naomi and Ian are joined by Melissa Kearney, Professor of Economics at the University of Maryland and author of the new book “The Two-Parent Privilege: How Americans Stopped Getting Married and Started Falling Behind.” Melissa makes a data-driven case for why the decline of marriage is a major driving factor of unequal outcomes for kids, particularly since children in two-parent households are more likely to achieve higher levels of education.

She argues that while there are legitimate concerns about marriage in certain situations, the reluctance to acknowledge the importance of family structure by some scholars is counterproductive. Far from avoiding the subject, we should be collecting more data on family structure, along with race, income, and other highly studied factors, in order to more fully understand how to improve children’s outcomes. Even further, Melissa states we must re-establish the social norm of marriage, even as we seek out evidence-based policies that encourage two-parent households.

Resources

• The Two-Parent Privilege | Melissa Kearney

• A Driver of Inequality That Not Enough People Are Talking About | Melissa Kearney

• No Culture Wars, Please, We’re Academics | Naomi Schaefer Riley

• The Privilege Hiding in Plain Sight | Ian Rowe

Show Notes

• 0:00:38 | what inspired you to write this book, as an economist?

• 0:06:25 | why do you think results showing the importance of two-parent families often get buried?

• 0:16:10 | how do we elevate family structure as a discussion point when addressing child outcomes?

• 0:20:02 | what proposals do you have for encouraging two-parent families? How skeptical are you of the solutions that have already been put forward?

• 0:25:35 | is adoption a viable pathway to help build stable families?

• 0:27:46 | can public dollars drive solutions for an issue that is deeply rooted in the culture?

• 0:32:26 | how can your book be a catalyst for creating more unity on this issue?

Over the summer, the California State Board of Education proposed its new math framework, a nearly 1,000 page document that has generated considerable controversy. While some are criticizing the overt political content within the framework, the more important question is: Will the framework actually help students learn math?

This week, Naomi and Ian are joined by Brian Conrad, mathematics professor and the director of undergraduate mathematics studies at Stanford University, to discuss the new framework. Brian focuses on the framework’s pitch for schools to offer “data science” courses as an alternative to Algebra II. Brian explains that not only are these data science courses much lighter in math content, but they also have the potential to steer students off track from being able to study actual Data Science at the college level.

He argues that the framework’s proposals center on optics, or “fake equity,” as opposed to changes that would actually serve disadvantaged students. As other proposals emerge in other states, without any clarity on the long term consequences for students, Brian notes that parents and university professors need to push back.

Resources

California’s Math Misadventure Is About to Go National | Brian Conrad | The Atlantic

Public Comments on the CMF | Brian Conrad

Show Notes

1:04 | What about the proposed California Math Framework was so concerning to you?

3:34 | What is data science as a field of study at the college level, and how would you describe the content of data science courses being advocated for at the high school level?

6:54 | What is the best progression of math from 8th grade through high school to ensure that students are best prepared for college?

10:00 | What response did you receive when you released your public comment?

11:45 | What happened in the San Francisco experiment with the new CMF?

13:28 | What do you think about CalTech’s decision to create an alternative pathway to admission for students that don’t have access to upper level courses in math and science?

18:08 | Do you think the tide is turning against “fake equity” proposals or will more of the country follow California’s footsteps?

20:20 | Is the concern behind some of these new proposals that allowing certain students to excel will cause inequity? Is that concern valid?

24:28 | What happens now that the new framework has passed?

On October 2nd, England’s Department of Education announced it will back all head teachers who ban smartphone use in schools, even during break times. According to data from the National Center for Education Statistics, during the 2019-20 school year, 77% of public schools in the U.S. said they did not allow phone use during school hours, yet many schools still struggle to enforce such policies. What can educators do to ensure distraction-free environments where students can focus on learning?

Naomi and Ian are back after a few months’ hiatus and joined by Katharine Birbalsingh, founder and head teacher of Michael Community School, a free school established in 2014 in Wembley Park, London. Katharine explains Michaela’s “if we see it, if we hear it, we take it” policy on phone use in school, along with the remarkable results she has seen in student performance and behavior during the school day. Consistency in messaging and enforcement, she explains, is the key to creating a culture where teachers, parents, and even students, are in support of a phone-free environment.

Beyond just banning phones, Michaela seeks to instill in students the principles of personal responsibility, self-discipline, and resilience. Katharine outlines how she applies these principles to specific issues like assigning homework, encouraging all students to see themselves as “British,” not just members of a particular racial or ethnic group, and teaching children “knowledge” over “skills.”

Resources

Finally, We’re All Wising up About the Dangers of Screen Time for Kids – Naomi Schaefer Riley, The Los Angeles Times

The Power of Culture: The Michaela Way – book by Katharine Birbalsingh

Katharine Birbalsingh on Michaela – The Report Card with Nat Malkus

Show Notes

0:00:50 – What is Michaela’s approach to devices in school?

0:06:47 – How do you gain consistency among your team regarding phone use?

0:15:14 – How replicable are Michaela’s policies, and is anyone attempting to replicate them?

0:19:31 – How does a free school in England compare to a charter school in America?

0:24:42 – is the success of the Michaela model garnering attention from policymakers and leaders in education?

0:28:04 – how does E.D. Hirsch’s book, The Making of Americans, influence your educational philosophy and practice at Michaela?

As the school choice movement has gained momentum in recent years, parents have become a political force to be reckoned with.

This week, Naomi and Ian are joined by Corey DeAngelis, senior fellow at the American Federation for Children and a visiting fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, to discuss his recent book, The Parent Revolution: Rescuing Your Kids from the Radicals Ruining Our Schools. The book highlights the key contributors to school choice’s spread across the country, the wealth of research on ways educational freedom benefits all children, and what is required to continue to advance educational freedom in the US. In this episode, Corey explains the important role of parents in the fight for school choice—particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic—the benefits of school choice for low-income communities, and the ongoing political shift towards school choice at the local, state, and federal levels.

Resources

-The Parent Revolution: Rescuing Your Kids from the Radicals Ruining Our Schools | Corey DeAngelis

-Why We Must Eliminate Barriers to School Choice Nationwide | Ian Rowe

-‘The Death of Public School’ Review: Find a Place to Learn | Naomi Schaefer Riley

-When Parents Do Know Best: Darla Romfo on the Viability of School Choice Programs | Naomi Schaefer Riley and Ian Rowe

Show Notes

-0:00:45 | What was your purpose in writing the book?

-0:03:24 | How did school closures and parents’ awareness of course content during the COVID-19 pandemic accelerate the school choice movement?

-0:07:13 | What does research reveal about the impact of school choice on upward mobility, and are “school choice alliances” growing in low-income communities?

-0:10:10 | Should school choice waivers apply to all institutions, or should there be limitations?

-0:14:08 | Which states are the “next frontiers” for school choice?

-0:16:57 | How does school choice help ensure high quality education options?

-0:20:36 | Would abolishing the Department of Education benefit or harm school choice?

75 percent of 10 year-old black children are not at grade-level proficiency in math or reading. How is this possible?

In this episode, Naomi and Ian are joined by Robert Cherry, adjunct fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and author of the new book The State of the Black Family: Sixty Years of Tragedies and Failures—and New Initiatives Offering Hope. As an economist and journalist, Robert documents how unstable family structures are contributing to the problems plaguing black communities today, including gun violence and underperformance in the classroom.

Robert explains that marriage rates are significantly lower for blacks than whites, which means fewer black children are being born into two-parent families. Multi-partner fertility—having kids with multiple people—is also disproportionately high among black women.

Instead of government-based solutions that try to substitute for the family, such as universal preschool, Robert advocates for policies that focus on helping the family, like home visiting programs to increase caregiver capacity. To address racial gaps in education, Robert argues for establishing stackable certificate programs to compensate vocational workers for experience, along with extending Pell Grant eligibility for apprenticeships.

Resources

• The State of the Black Family: Sixty Years of Tragedies and Failures—and New Initiatives Offering Hope | Robert Cherry

• Distance to 100: An Alternative to Racial Achievement Gaps | Ian Rowe

Show Notes

• 02:20 | Dynamics in the black family

• 04:06 | The state of the black family 60 years ago

• 05:10 | Vulnerabilities in the black community

• 09:03 | Policy recommendations to support the family

• 16:50 | Renewed approach to vocational training

In Bernalillo County, New Mexico, 68 children under the age of one overdosed on fentanyl in 2022 alone. How did this happen? And how can we fix it?

In this episode, Naomi and Ian are joined by Maralyn Beck, founder and executive director of the New Mexico Child First Network. Maralyn explains how New Mexico’s “public health approach” to babies born substance-exposed is leading more children be left in dangerous home environments with no supports or accountability.

Under (CARA), the federal government made states responsible for implementing ‘plans of care’ for mothers and children who test positive for drugs at birth. New Mexico took a non-punitive public health approach: A 2019 law that barred medical professionals from referring families to Child Protective Services (CPS) solely because of parental drug use or infant drug exposure.

Maralyn tells the story of a nurse whose report was ignored by CPS after ra baby’s parents were caught smoking fentanyl twice in the hospital. To address this crisis, Maralyn advocates universal screening of infants for substance exposure.. Drug use makes parenting harder, and now is the time for policymakers to provide parents with a path out of addiction and into family stability.

Resources:

• Parenting While High | Naomi Schaefer Riley | City Journal

• Child Welfare’s Ideological Enforcer | Naomi Schaefer Riley | City Journal

Show Notes:

• 03:50 | A failing public health approach to CARA

• 10:08 | Estimating the number of newborns in New Mexico born drug exposed

• 11:01 | Child Protective Services ignoring reports from hospitals

• 15:00 | Who is legally responsible for these drug-addicted infants?

• 16:07 | Comparing approaches to CARA

Are black children over-reported and over-represented in the child welfare system? Are their cases more likely to be substantiated than those of white children? Are black children placed in foster care at a higher rate?

In this episode, Naomi and Ian are joined by Brett Drake, Professor of Data Science for the Social Good in Practice at the Washington University in St. Louis. Brett and a team of researchers recently published a paper examining these questions by analyzing reports of child maltreatment from 2005-2019. While it is impossible to know exactly how many children are maltreated each year, they found that black children are 2-3 times more likely to live in poverty and live in single parent households. Teen birth rates and low high school graduation rates are also 2-3 times higher in the black community. All of these factors are associated with maltreatment. Yet according to Drake’s analysis, black children are reported for maltreatment only about 1.8 times as often as white children.

Once children are in the system, they discovered that black children’s cases are less likely to be substantiated and they are less likely to be placed in foster care than white children.

These findings dispel the popular narrative in child welfare that racial disparities are merely the result of systemic bias. Policymakers cannot be afraid to say that black and white children often grow up in different circumstances in our society and that child protection must respond accordingly.

Resources:

• Racial/Ethnic Differences in Child Protective Services Reporting | Brett Drake

• Children Are Dead Because Activists Say It’s Racist for ACS to Act | Naomi Schaefer Riley | New York Post

Show notes:

• 01:29 | Does racism explain racial disparities?

• 04:51 | Estimating child maltreatment

• 08:33 | An equitable response to differential risk

• 16:50 | Blaming the problem is not blaming the victim

Can government child welfare agencies demand that foster parents adhere to certain ideological viewpoints, even if they are in opposition to those parents’ religious or personal beliefs? In Oregon, this remains to be seen.

In this episode, Naomi and Ian are joined by Jonathan Scruggs, Senior Counsel and director of the Center for Conscience Initiatives with Alliance Defending Freedom. Jonathan is representing Jessica Bates, a single mother of five who filed a federal lawsuit against Oregon’s Department of Human Services after she was denied the opportunity to adopt a child out of foster care. Contrary to the department’s policy, she would not agree (hypothetically) to take a child to receive hormone shots. Jessica also would not agree to avoid religious services that did not support a (hypothetical, again) gender transition.

Jonathan explains that the state of Oregon requires every parent to agree to these conditions, and failure to do so makes you ineligible to adopt any child in need of a home.

Eliminating the ability for some parents to adopt because of their religious beliefs shrinks an already small pool of people who are willing and able to do this hard work.

Resources:

• Closing Young Minds | Naomi Schaefer Riley | City Journal

• Bureaucrats Are Ripping Foster Families Apart | Naomi Schaefer Riley | National Review

Why does it take so long for some states to find safe, permanent homes for foster children?

In this episode, Naomi and Ian are joined by Sarah Font, Associate Professor of Sociology at Penn State University. Sarah recently published a report card for AEI, ranking states based on how long children wait in the foster care system to find a permanent home. The measures from the report card are taken from the Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA), which says that states should petition for a termination of parental rights if a child has been in foster care for 15 of the last 22 months.

Sarah explains that states regularly disregard these guidelines, in part out of sympathy for biological parents who lose custody of their children. But decades of research show that 20-40% of children who are reunified end up re-entering foster care due to repeated instances of abuse or neglect.

Utah is the top-ranked state in the report because its policies clearly indicate how caseworkers and courts are supposed to implement ASFA. In contrast, child welfare administrators in Illinois, which ranks last, admit that they do not consider ASFA as part of their decision-making when evaluating child protection cases.

States should look toward Utah as a model to make sure they are following federal guidelines and work to recruit more foster families to ensure children do not languish for years in foster care.

Resources:

• Timely Permanency Report Cards | Sarah Font | American Enterprise Institute

• Foster Kids Need Permanent Homes | Sarah Font and Naomi Schaefer Riley | Wall Street Journal

• The Government Is Uprooting Children From Loving Homes Because of Woke Views on Race | Sarah Font and Naomi Schaefer Riley | Newsweek

• How Long Do Children in Foster Care Wait for Permanent Families? | AEI Website

Show Notes:

• 01:00 | What does it mean for children in the foster care system to achieve permanency?

• 03:40 | What are the guidelines for the Adoption and Safe Families Act?

• 07:30 | Why are child welfare agencies and family courts reluctant to sever parental rights?

• 10:15 | What states are doing well and what are the patterns with racial disparities?

In the fall of 2020, the school board of Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology unanimously voted to eliminate its merit-based, race-blind admissions process. The school principal then went on record saying that she wanted more brown and black children despite minorities representing 80 percent of the school’s students.

In this episode, Naomi and Ian are joined by Asra Nomani, author of Woke Army: The Red-Green Alliance That Is Destroying America’s Freedom. Asra created the Coalition for TJ—a group of Thomas Jefferson parents, students, and alumni—which filed a legal challenge against the new admissions process in 2021. In February 2022, a federal judge ruled it was unconstitutional because the process discriminates against Asian American applicants.

Asra describes how the movement of “racial balancing” at TJ has since infiltrated schools and workplaces around the country. The effort to prioritize equity over equality of opportunity has not only harmed children of underprivileged immigrant families, it also threatens to undermine the ability of American students to compete globally. Parents have rallied to preserve merit and individual achievement, and Asra believes that the next step is to galvanize the parents’ movement toward greater political engagement on the local and national level.

Resources:

• Woke Army: The Red-Green Alliance That Is Destroying America's Freedom | Asra Nomani

• Here’s Why All Students Need Agency Rather Than Equity | Ian Rowe | New York Post

Show Notes:

• 01:23 | What’s been happening at Thomas Jefferson High School?

• 07:10 | Where do things stand at TJ now?

• 09:45 | How do we fall short at communicating that we want to create and expand opportunities for children of all races?

• 12:42 | Where is public opinion on this nationwide?

• 24:00 | What should parents be looking out for next?

How has woke ideology transformed schools and other institutions for young children, and what can parents do about it?

In this episode, Naomi and Ian are joined by Karol Markowicz, columnist at the New York Post and co-author of the new book, Stolen Youth: How Radicals Are Erasing Innocence and Indoctrinating a Generation. Karol compares the current progressive attempts at indoctrination of young people to education in the Soviet Union (where she was born and lived the early years of her life). There, she notes, forced conformity led to the end of merit and individual achievement. And she sees the same thing happening here. Wokeism has spread beyond just education however, and it differs from “old leftism” in that it does not allow for any deviation from orthodoxy. Professionals in once-trusted institutions are now afraid of public disagreement for fear of losing their jobs. Wokeism will not die out naturally. Karol suggests that parents should speak up about these matters, have honest discussions about politics with their children, and consider running for school board positions.

Resources:

• Stolen Youth: How Radicals Are Erasing Innocence and Indoctrinating a Generation | Karol Markowicz, Bethany Mandel | DW Books

• Here’s Why All Students Need Agency Rather Than Equity | Ian Rowe | New York Post

Show Notes:

• 02:55 | What are some examples of wokeism being imposed on children?

• 05:09 |Comparing wokiesm to the Soviet Union

• 11:06 | Equality vs. Equity

• 18:47 | Will wokeism die out on its own?

• 20:31 | This isn’t just a blue state problem

In this episode, Naomi and Ian are joined by Richard Gehrman, the executive director of Safe Passage for Children of Minnesota. A new report from Safe Passage examines 88 child maltreatment fatalities in Minnesota from 2014-2022. Racial disparities in the data were evident. Black children represented 28 percent of the fatalities, but they only make up 18 percent of children in the state. Substance abuse was also a factor in almost a third of the fatalities, and about half of the deaths were tied to a non-biological parent.

Richard explains that these deaths were preventable—child protection agencies, law enforcement, and mental health professionals had been alerted that these children were in danger. But little or no corrective action was taken because agencies were understaffed and workers are concerned that too much intervention will perpetuate what they see as structural bias in the system.

The report from Safe Passage has received attention from public policy researchers who seem interested in producing similar reports in other states. The challenge is to persuade elected officials to prioritize meaningful legislation in response to the report’s findings.

Resources:

• Minnesota Child Fatalities from Maltreatment: 2014-2022 | Safe Passage for Children of Minnesota

• Dangerous Illusions | Naomi Schaefer Riley | City Journal

Show Notes:

01:00 | What is Safe Passage for Children of Minnesota?

02:15 | How was Safe Passage able to put together this report?

05:20 | Breaking down the findings in the report

10:50 | Why do these cases get marked as low risk by the system?

14:15 | Racial disparities and substance abuse were prevalent

17:30 | The need for better communication between all professionals involved in domestic violence cases

The latest artificial intelligence chatbot, ChatGPT, is capable of writing entire essays in a matter of seconds. Just two months after its release, over 30% of college students admit to using it for some of their work. How will ChatGPT affect education, and what can educators do about it?

In this episode, Naomi and Ian are joined by Rick Hess, a senior fellow and the director of education policy studies at AEI. Rick describes how ChatGPT can mimic human writing convincingly, making it easier for students to avoid completing generic high school papers. But he hopes that this could lead teachers to assign more in-class writing, and teach the students how to approach each step of the writing process. ChatGPT can provide valuable shortcuts to students and employees alike, but the challenge is to ensure that it does not replace the development of core skills.

Resources:

• Will ChatGPT Unflip the Classroom? | Rick Hess | Education Week

• AI, Your College Student, and the End of Individual Achievement | Naomi Schaefer Riley | Deseret News

Show Notes:

• 0:47 | How does ChatGPT threaten the flipped classroom?

• 4:31 | How to measure individual achievement?

• 8:40 | What about ethics?

• 10:08 | ChatGPT will force educators to teach students more effectively

• 20:50 | What are ChatGPT’s benefits to the workplace?

What is a teacher’s role in the classroom and how do students learn best?

In this episode, Naomi and Ian are joined by Daniel Buck, teacher, Senior Visiting Fellow at the Fordham Institute, and author of the new book, “What Is Wrong with Our Schools?” Daniel describes the philosophy of education, beginning with the classical view that teachers are the authorities in the classroom and their primary role is to transmit knowledge to their students. Starting in the 1960s, though, progressive educators Henry Giroux and Paulo Freire popularized the idea that teachers are merely guides, helping students on a path of self-discovery.

Freire’s philosophy is dominant in K-12 education today, with teachers and administrators seeing teaching as a fundamentally oppressive task. This has led to innovations liked “project-based learning” or the “flipped classroom” where the student is encouraged to explore what already interests them. Not only do these strategies fail to impart important information to students, they also leave many students frustrated. Evidence suggests that students need structure, guidance, and a knowledge-based approach in order to succeed academically.

Resources:

• What Is Wrong With Our Schools? The ideology impoverishing education in America and how we can do better for our students | Daniel Buck | John Catt Educational

• Teach for America Needs to Focus on Teaching | Naomi Schaefer Riley | Deseret News

Show Notes:

• 01:30 | How was the flipped classroom supposed to help kids?

• 05:00 | What is wrong with our schools?

• 07:30 | Is educating someone an oppressive task?

• 15:30 | Student-centered learning advantages affluent children

• 17:10 | What are the empowering alternatives?

The country’s youth mental health crisis continues to increase demand for psychiatric beds. Yet, the availability of residential treatment facilities, reserved for youth with severe emotional disturbances, is on the decline. What impact does this have on youth—including those in foster care--with high levels of need, and how do we ensure access to treatment for the children who need it most?

This week, Naomi and Ian are joined by Scott Dziengelski, a consultant at King and Spalding LLP and former director of policy and regulatory affairs at the National Association for Behavioral Healthcare, to discuss his recent report, “Deinstitutionalization Redux: The Decline in Residential Mental Health Treatment for Youth.” The report highlights the concerning shortage of residential treatment facilities and bed space for youth who need care. In this episode, Scott explains the current move toward deinstitutionalization, the effect of negative media messaging around residential treatment centers, and the crucial policy and cultural changes needed to ensure youth with severe challenges receive the care they need.

Resources

-Deinstitutionalization Redux: The Decline in Residential Mental Health Treatment for Youth | Scott Dziengelski

-How Foster Kids Are Being Damaged by a Lack of Home Care Facilities | Naomi Schaefer Riley

-Why Foster Children Are Sleeping in Offices and What We Can Do About It | Sean Hughes et al.

Show Notes

-00:58 | How did you get involved in children’s mental health policy?

-02:20 | What does the spectrum of need look like for children’s mental health, and which children are served by residential treatment facilities?

-05:26 | How do you interpret the data around the rise in children’s mental health challenges?

-07:34 | What led to the decrease in availability of residential treatment facilities?

-10:34 | Why are people advocating for the deinstitutionalization of residential treatment facilities?

-13:23 | Two congressional hearings on residential treatment recently took place. What impact will these have on the availability of residential treatment?

-16:55 | How does tying educational funds to children help when residential treatment is needed?

-21:18 | What is your recommendation on Medicaid dollars following children in care? How do we shift the narrative on residential treatment facilities?

-25:37 | Which states are doing the best in regard to residential treatment facilities?

In the summer of 2020 in Kenosha, Wisconsin, a cell phone captured video of a white police officer shooting a black man. The viral clip sparked mass protests and violent riots, culminating in Kyle Rittenhouse, a white teenager, going to Kenosha to defend it against the protestors. The media portrayed these incidents as another example of racism in law enforcement and irresponsible gun ownership. But is there more to the story?

In this episode, Naomi and Ian are joined by Rob Montz, CEO of Good Kid Productions and creator of the documentary “The Broken Boys of Kenosha: Jacob Blake, Kyle Rittenhouse, and the Lies We Still Live By.” Rob dispels some of the common myths surrounding the shooting and reveals how partisan media coverage failed to report the underlying cause of these events. Each main character in this story lacked a present and loving father in their lives. Having a fatherless childhood has profound negative effects on boys, and Rob explains that policymakers and society need to start seeing fatherlessness as a morally urgent issue that matters for the future of the country.

Resources:

• The Broken Boys of Kenosha: Jacob Blake, Kyle Rittenhouse, and the Lies We Still Live By | Rob Montz | Good Kid Productions

• The Power of Personal Agency | Ian Rowe | Wall Street Journal

Show Notes:

• 02:00 | Kenosha is an excellent case study of systemic corruption in the media environment

• 05:30 | Recapping the shooting of Jacob Blake and the aftermath

• 08:30 | Fatherlessness tied everyone together

• 17:55 | People in Kenosha understood the impact of fatherlessness

• 22:00 | Fatherlessness is a phenomenon that affects all races and can only be fixed by culture and individual agency

The last few decades have seen a huge growth in scientific research on early brain development, showing that the earliest years in a child’s life are pivotal in laying the foundation for long-term success. Funding for early childhood policy has mostly focused on non-parental care, in the form of daycare, universal pre-K, and Head Start. Are there alternative policy solutions to help parents with young children?

In this episode, Naomi and Ian are joined by Katharine B. Stevens, former resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and founder and CEO of the new think tank, the Center on Child and Family Policy (CCFP). CCFP is prioritizing research on family and health, with a special focus on improving outcomes for children born to single parents.

With over 40 percent of babies born to parents who are on Medicaid, Katharine argues we should look to organizations like the Centering HealthCare Institute, which has created more affordable group pre-natal and post-natal care. Katharine also argues for subsidizing the wages of one parent while also allowing the other parent to take an advance on their child tax credit. This will help ensure that parents who want to have the ability to stay home and raise their new child.

Resources:

• Why I’m Founding CCFP | Katharine B. Stevens | Center on Child and Family Policy

• Improving Early Childhood Development by Allowing Advanced Child Tax Credits | Katharine B. Stevens and Matt Weidinger | Tax Notes Federal

Show Notes:

• 02:00 | Research shows the earliest years of brain development are the most critical

• 04:30 | Focusing exclusively on child care, universal pre-K, and head start excludes better policy interventions

• 12:35 | We should be ensuring quality access to pre-natal health and focusing on strengthening the family

• 21:00 | The success of the Centering Institute

• 26:30 | How can DC think tanks work to shape culture along with policy?

This fall, the US Supreme Court heard oral arguments challenging race-based admission policies at the University of North Carolina and Harvard. Despite previous rulings that have upheld constitutional preferences to achieve a racially diverse study body, the court is widely expected to rule against this form of affirmative action. How have American policies on children evolved politically and how has affirmative action come to reflect right versus left ideology today?

In this episode, Naomi and Ian are joined by Matthew Continetti, Senior Fellow and inaugural Patrick and Charlene Neal Chair in American Prosperity at the American Enterprise Institute. Matt outlines how race-based quotas introduced under President Richard Nixon were initially designed to help the social and economic advancement of the descendants of American slaves. However, the classification expanded over time as the left began to embrace the idea of color consciousness, and the notion that the presence of a racial disparity means there must be racism at work.

Matt argues that the conservative movement has been most successful in education policy because it acknowledged everyday Americans who are dissatisfied with overreach by the Left and are looking for substantive policy responses. Advocating for school choice, charter schools, and greater accountability from public schools has received widespread support from the American public, and conservatives should continue in this vein.

Resources:

• The End of Affirmative Action? | Matthew Continetti | Commentary

• Is It Time to Replace Race with Class in Affirmative Action? | Ian Rowe | Eduwonk

Show Notes:

• 02:00 | How did affirmative action divide the left and the right?

• 06:00 | The unintended consequences of government action

• 10:00 | Most Americans view each other as individuals, not members of groups

• 11:30 | The negative effects of race-based ideologies

• 16:15 | What is the future of the conservative movement?

Two weeks after three-year-old Shaquan Butler was found dead at a homeless shelter in Queens, two more young children were fatally stabbed by their mother inside a family shelter in the Bronx. There were plenty of warning signs in both cases, and even worse the, Administration for Children’s Services (ACS) had already been investigating the families prior to the murders. What keeps social workers from rescuing children in unsafe homes and how can child welfare agencies start putting kids’ safety first?

In this episode, Ian interviews Naomi on the failures of the child welfare system today, driven by the misguided belief that the existence of racial disparities is proof that the system is racist. While black children are investigated by child welfare agencies and in foster and congregate care at a higher rate than represented in the population, they are also twice as likely to experience abuse and neglect and three times as likely to die from child maltreatment.

Instead of prioritizing racial equity, ACS should acknowledge the role of family structure, substance abuse, and mental illness in these tragedies, and train caseworkers to understand that their primary goal is to protect children.

Resources:

• No Way to Treat a Child: How the Foster Care System, Family Courts, and Racial Activists Are Wrecking Young Lives | Naomi Schaefer Riley | Bombardier Books

• The City Knew Three-Year-Old Beaten to Death Was Being Abused—What Does It Take for Agencies to Act? | Naomi Schaefer Riley | New York Post

Show Notes:

• 01:20 | What is going on with ACS?

• 04:35 | Debunking the narrative that child welfare systems are racist because racial disparities exist

• 08:30 | Family structure is not distributed evenly in this country

• 09:35 | The tragedies of Shaquan, DeSean, and Octavius

• 21:00 | Child welfare agencies’ main equity is protecting children from harm, not racial equity

A century after the Supreme Court’s infamous ruling that children are “not mere creatures of the state,” there is a rising belief today that government is better suited than parents to decide what’s best for children. Increasingly, teachers and school administrators are making critical decisions about students’ upbringing without parental consent or even knowledge. How will this ideology affect the relationship between parents and teachers and how should parents respond?

In this episode, Naomi and Ian are joined by Robert Pondiscio, a former teacher and Senior Fellow in education policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute. Robert outlines the current legal lines that have been drawn between parents and schools. He expresses concern over states like New Jersey that are wrongfully using FERPA (Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act) as a legal basis for not notifying parents when children change their pronouns or gender. While these guidelines are intended to protect children, Robert argues that they only erode trust between parents and teachers.

With the latest NAEP (National Assessment of Educational Progress) report showing that a majority of students nationwide still cannot read and do math at grade level, parents should get involved in their local school districts to ensure that schools are focusing on academic performance above all else.

Resources:

• Schoolchildren Are Not ‘Mere Creatures of the State’ | Robert Pondiscio | American Enterprise Institute

• How to Educate an American | Ian Rowe, Naomi Schaefer Riley | Templeton Press

Show Notes:

• 00:40 | What does it mean that schoolchildren are not mere creatures of the state?

• 03:25 | Public education is assuming powers it doesn’t have

• 08:00 | Keeping secrets from parents violates FERPA

• 11:10 | There’s a cultural problem in education where we tend to distrust parents

• 15:55 | What are the political ramifications of this belief?

The Biden administration recently announced its decision to forgive $10,000 in student loans for borrowers making less than $125,000 per year and up to $20,000 for Pell Grant recipients. Is this policy the best way to help kids? Is it even legal?

In this episode, Naomi and Ian are joined by David French, senior editor at The Dispatch and columnist for The Atlantic. David explains that this $400 billion proposal is effectively financial relief given to one of society’s most privileged populations. Most of the taxpayers footing this bill aren’t college graduates, and it’s unreasonable to ask them to subsidize the education debt of people who stand to earn more money over the course of their lifetimes.

David also breaks down why this idea is on shaky legal ground, in part because the administration has to demonstrate that this relief is tied to an actual emergency. After Biden declared, “the pandemic is over,” that argument is harder to make.

Resources:

• Why Biden’s Debt-Relief Plan ‘Pings Our Sense of Unfairness’ | David French | The Atlantic

• Biden’s Student Loan Announcement Is a Regressive, Expensive Mistake | The Washington Post Editorial Board

Show Notes:

• 01:21 | How the relief program benefits the most economically advantaged classes of people

• 06:37 | A discouraging message to frugal and hardworking students

• 08:30 | Legal landscape: the concept of standing

• 13:06 | Legal landscape: the program's unconstitutionality

• 17:35 | What is the political calculus behind student debt relief?

• 21:15 | Prioritizing policies that support young people on finding the right career path

Following the Dobbs decision, how can policymakers and adoption agencies ensure that adoption is one of the options women consider when they find themselves with an unplanned pregnancy?

In this episode, Naomi and Ian are joined by Elizabeth Kirk, director of the Center for Law and the Human Person at Catholic University’s Columbus School of Law. Elizabeth explains that adoption is not often considered by mothers because many are unaware of how much control they have in the adoption process, choosing the family they want their child to be raised in. Many people also confuse private infant adoption with adoption out of the foster care system.

In order to prioritize adoption as a meaningful choice for women, Elizabeth recommends that states require schools to teach about adoption in sex education classes, using programs like Option Hope in Louisiana. While she praises the adoption tax credit, the kinds of policies that would result in women considering adoption come from improving options counseling and giving birth mothers post-placement counseling.

Resources:

Countering the ‘Soft Stigma’ Against Adoption | Elizabeth Kirk | Institute for Family Studies

The Role of Adoption in Dobbs-Era Pro-Life Policy | Elizabeth Kirk | Charlotte Lozier Institute

Adoption After Dobbs | American Enterprise Institute Event

Show Notes:

• 01:11 | Misbeliefs and reasons why adoption is still not considered a meaningful option

• 06:37 | Best-practices on how states can create a welcoming debate about adoption

• 12:14 | A legal landscape that promotes informed consent counseling

• 14:06 | How faith-based institutions model radical hospitality in child welfare

• 16:22 | Prioritizing adequate language and understanding women’s needs

What lessons can policymakers and child welfare workers learn from those with personal experience in the foster care system in order to best support vulnerable children?

In this episode, Naomi and Ian are joined by Tori Hope Petersen, former foster youth, current foster mom, and author of the gripping memoir Fostered. Tori describes how she navigated her way to a life of college graduation, athletic success, and a loving family despite living in twelve different foster homes. She recounts the positive influence of her Court Appointed Special Advocate and explains the need for more accountability with caseworkers. Tori believes we should be doing more to promote kinship care, detailing her powerful relationship with her track coach and mentor who ultimately served as her father figure.

Resources:

• Fostered: One Woman’s Powerful Story of Finding Faith and Family Through Foster Care | Tori Hope Petersen | ‎ B&H Books

• We’re Still Failing Kids in Foster Care | Naomi Schaefer Riley | Deseret News

Show Notes:

• 01:06 | Tori’s childhood and first experience with the child welfare system

• 05:49 | The conflict of interests of caseworkers and the role of Court Appointed Special Advocates

• 09:45 | The importance and neglect in the foster system of kinship care

• 17:04 | How Tori found guidance and healing in faith

• 21:41 | Broadening the horizon for other people's stories in college

Public policy often looks at race, social class, and gender when analyzing educational inequality. But what impact could religion have on academic performance?

In this episode, Naomi and Ian are joined by Ilana Horwitz, Assistant Professor in the Department of Jewish Studies at Tulane University and the author of God, Grades, and Graduation. Ilana breaks down the findings from a nationally representative study out of Notre Dame, which showed that students raised in Christian backgrounds get better grades in middle and high school regardless of their socioeconomic status. However, middle and upper-class students tend to choose less selective colleges, in part because college selection for religious students is more of a social decision than an economic one.

Ilana explains that children who grow up religious tend to be conscientious, kind to others, and more self-disciplined, all qualities useful for performing well in school. Yet she does not argue that the country needs to be more religious. Instead, she advocates for identifying other institutions that offer the same kind of social capital as religion in order to instill a greater sense of purpose and hope among youth.

Resources:

• ‘God, Grades, and Graduation’ Review: A Faithful Way to Learn | Naomi Schaefer Riley | Wall Street Journal

• I Followed the Lives of 3,290 Teenagers. This Is What I Learned About Religion and Education. | Ilana Horwitz | New York Times

Show Notes:

• 01:15 | Describing some results from the National Study on Youth and Religion

• 04:30 | Religious students get better grades in middle and high school

• 06:30 | How do religious students choose colleges?

• 17:45 | Religion provides a sense of purpose

• 21:25 | Is this a call to action to be more religious?

Are college professors allowed to write about the differences between men and women? Can they speak out about the importance of strong families in creating strong societies? The short answer is no.

In this episode, Naomi and Ian are joined by Scott Yenor, Professor of Political Science at Boise State University and the author of The Recovery of Family Life. Scott was recently investigated by his employer after sharing his thoughts on these matters. After fifty years during which conservatives have tried to accommodate the basic principles of feminism, Scott explains that we need to celebrate the natural differences between men and women instead of socially engineering gender roles based on political ideology. Scott objects to gender equity programs in professional development and believes that K-12 schools should focus more on teaching students how they can build a solid marriage and happy family.

Resources:

• Inside the Title IX Tribunal | Scott Yenor | Law & Liberty

• The Recovery of Family Life: Exposing the Limits of Modern Ideologies | Scott Yenor | Baylor University Press

Show Notes:

• 00:50 | What is behind Scott’s Title IX investigation?

• 05:55 | Strong countries need strong families

• 08:11 | The problem with gender equity programs

• 15:05 | Feminism only works under a certain policy environment

• 23:40 | The impact of cancel culture

The dramatic rise in substance use disorders over the past decade has altered—indeed, destroyed—many American lives, but how does this epidemic affect children? And who is ensuring their safety?

This week, Naomi and Ian are joined by Sarah Font, child welfare researcher and associate professor of sociology and public policy at Penn State, to discuss a recent published statement Sarah wrote on behalf of AEI’s child welfare working group. “The US Is Failing Substance-Exposed Infants” critiques policies which limit Child Protective Services’ responsibility to aid substance-exposed infants, and how voluntary “Plans of Safe Care” put in place by some states are insufficient to address the dilemma. In this episode, Sarah details the effects of drug exposure in infants, whether and how positive toxicology screens in new mothers and infants are reported, and what practices in medicine and child protection need to change in order to prioritize the well-being of children.

Resources

-The US Is Failing Substance-Exposed Infants | Sarah Font et al.

-The US Is Failing Infants Exposed to Drugs and Alcohol | Naomi Schaefer Riley and Sarah Font

Show Notes

-0:01:00 | How should we understand drug exposure among infants?

-0:01:34 | What are the dangers to children of substance exposure in utero and when a child is under the supervision of parents who are addicted?

-0:03:28 | Why is there a reduction in foster care placements when there is an increase in reported abuse?

-0:04:44 | What are plans of safe care intended to accomplish?

-0:06:29 | What was the rationale behind Mass General Brigham’s new policy on substance abuse reporting?

-0:09:16 | How have we lost our focus regarding the effects of drug policy on children?

-0:11:44 | Is the normalization of drug use working as a gateway to children’s drug exposure?

-0:13:34 | What are some policy changes that should be considered by states and medical institutions?

-0:16:11 | What states or localities can we point to as models for others to follow?

-0:16:57 | What happens when hospitals contact CPS?

-0:19:00 | What prevention strategies exist?

A new AEI report found that the COVID-19 pandemic caused the largest enrollment declines in the history of American public Schools. 85 percent of school districts across the country had enrollment losses the year after the pandemic started, and almost half of districts saw declines of 3 percent, a seven-fold increase from the prior year. Why are Americans fleeing public schools?

In this episode, Naomi and Ian are joined by Betsy DeVos, former secretary of education and author of the new book Hostages No More. Over the last two years, parents have witnessed school closures, mask mandates, and seen the impact of a curriculum focused more on social justice than preparing students for high levels of academic achievement. Secretary DeVos explains the flaws in the public school system that pre-date the pandemic and believes broadening school choice will return a standard of excellence to the classroom. Despite efforts in some states to return to remote learning or require masks in schools, Secretary DeVos is optimistic the public’s opposition to these measures will force politicians to put the interests of families and children first.

Resources:

• Hostages No More: The Fight for Education Freedom and the Future of the American Child | Betsy DeVos

• Pandemic Enrollment Fallout: School District Enrollment Changes Across COVID-19 Response | Nat Malkus | American Enterprise Institute

Show Notes:

• 01:20 | Why are Americans fleeing public schools?

• 06:30 | Why is it difficult to address the failings of public school?

• 11:10 | The problems with the Department of Education

• 16:00 | Should we have a national referendum on what topics should be taught in public school?

• 17:30 | The way we run K-12 education is very outdated

Following the Dobbs decision, pregnant women uncertain about their future should be informed of all the options available to them, including adoption. For many, though, encouraging adoption is seen as coercive. Is this accurate?

In this episode, Naomi and Ian are joined by Kate Trambitskaya, CEO of Spence-Chapin Services to Families and Children. For over 125 years, Spence-Chapin has supported women in crisis through comprehensive counseling. Kate explains Spence Chapin’s recent efforts to explain the differences between private adoption and public adoption out of the foster care system. The former does not involve government intrusion. Rather, private adoption is an alternative to parenting. Every expectant parent deserves to know that at adoption agencies nationwide, there is a waiting list filled with stable families who are ready, willing, and able to adopt children.

Resources:

• Adoption After Dobbs | Naomi Schaefer Riley | City Journal

• Birth Parent Support: The Spence-Chapin Way | Leslie Nobel | Spence-Chapin Services to Families & Children

Show Notes:

• 1:40 | What has changed after Dobbs

• 2:40 | Adoption as an empowering option

• 5:37 | Comparing adoption at birth with adoption from foster care system

• 9:45 | What does Legal Defense look like in the Foster Care System?

• 10:35 | The benefits of Open Adoption

• 14:55 | Is adoption an alternative to abortion?

• 21:45 | Who chooses adoption?

• 24:10 | Race and Adoption

What should kids be reading in school? A movement has swept through K-12 classrooms to cancel classic texts and replace them with more racially diverse voices. Yet the very authors these activists are seeking to eliminate from school curricula influenced prominent African-American thinkers like Martin Luther King Jr. and James Baldwin.

In this episode, Naomi and Ian are joined by Dr. Anika Prather, professor in the Classics department at Howard University and founder of The Living Water School. To “decolonize” the curriculum, eliminating works by Shakespeare and Socrates, explained Dr. Prather, is to create holes in our understanding of black authors and the interconnected history of people today. While these educators might mean well, their decision to stop reading the classics in the name of social justice will only prevent our children from forming a broader worldview.

For a better understanding of how to teach the classics, educators should draw inspiration from Dr. Prather’s own classically inspired school based on the Sudbury model.

Resources:

• Living in the Constellation of the Canon: The Lived Experiences of African-American Students Reading Great Books Literature | Dr. Anika Prather

• The Living Water School: A Classically Inspired School for Independent Learners in a Global Community

Show Notes:

• 1:45 | Background of the fight over literature education

• 3:10 | Using literature to understand the Civil Rights Movement

• 5:20 | Accessibility in Literature Education

• 7:20 | The Harlem Renaissance and Classical Education

• 9:30 | Decolonization Literary Movement

• 13:20 | Background of the Living Waters School

• 20:25 | Recommended Reading

• 24:30 | Responding to Pushback

• 29:15 | Chinua Achebe and the classics

The push for gender-affirming therapy for young people is driven by the empirical claim that if this type of healthcare is not made widely and readily available, kids who are questioning their identity are in danger of committing suicide. This emotional extortion has caused adults to see this care as the only solution to help these children. What does the data really tell us?

In this episode, Naomi and Ian are joined by Jay Greene, a Senior Research Fellow for the Center for Education Policy at the Heritage Foundation. Jay explains that previous studies making this claim fail to capture a representative sample of young people with gender dysphoria. In his new paper, Jay finds a 14 percent increase in annual suicide rates in states where minors are able to access gender-affirming care compared to states that prevent minors from undergoing this care without parental consent. Jay also suggests that the effort by guidance counselors, teachers, and school administrators to automatically affirm a child’s gender identity undermines parents and fails to address any underlying mental health conditions that would help everyone work together to determine what is in the best interest of each child.

Resources:

• Puberty Blockers, Cross-Sex Hormones, and Youth Suicide | Jay Greene | Heritage Foundation

• When the State Comes for Your Kids | Abigail Shrier | City Journal

Show Notes:

• 2:28 | Claims regarding gender-affirming therapy

• 6:37 | Problems with prior studies on gender-affirming drugs

• 8:28 | Relation to severe mental health issues

• 14:30 | Background of Dr. Greene’s study

• 16:55 | Discussing Dr. Greene’s study and his findings

• 20:40 | Comparing suicide rates across generations

• 24:10 | Title IX and new Biden Regulations

Since research suggests that past maltreatment of a child is the best predictor of future child abuse or neglect, several states have enacted a program called “birth match.” This program compares the names of parents of newborns with lists of individuals who have previously killed or seriously injured a child or had their parental rights terminated. Are these programs worthwhile? Should other states follow suit?

In this episode, Naomi and Ian are joined by Marie Cohen, a child welfare policy analyst, researcher, and former Washington, DC social worker. Marie describes the birth match systems as they have been adopted by five states and explains the challenges she faced when gathering research for her latest report. Despite opposition to birth match from both civil liberties advocates and progressive activists, Marie says that the goal of the program is non-partisan— protecting children—and hopes that it will become more widely adopted.

Resources:

• Learning from the Past: Using Child Welfare Data to Protect Infants Through Birth Match Policies | Marie Cohen | American Enterprise Institute

• Would a broader birth match have saved Antoine Flemons? | Marie Cohen | Child Welfare Monitor

Show Notes:

• 01:30 | What is birth match?

• 05:25 | A name matches, what’s next?

• 09:07 | Unofficial work-arounds seeking the welfare of the child

• 11:25 | Birth match and civil liberties

• 14:10 | The trouble with data

• 16:50 | Opposition to child welfare services due to supposed racism

• 20:06 | Potential for future federal action

Classroom instruction in the field of “Social and Emotional Learning” (SEL) has recently come under fire, particularly from conservatives. Critics see SEL as a mechanism for the government to indoctrinate students on controversial social issues. But should teachers abandon social and emotional learning altogether?

In this episode, Naomi and Ian are joined by Nathaniel Grossman, a research intern at the Fordham Institute and former elementary school teacher. Nathaniel explains how Social and Emotional Learning has always been a critical component of a child’s education. He highlights the importance of creating a comfortable environment in the classroom for children to express their concerns and to teach them how to function well and collaborate with others. He worries that some forms of SEL will run contrary to values students are learning at home. And he is also concerned that in the name of improving students’ mental health, districts are eliminating testing and other assessments. Lowering expectations for students, which in turn lowers students’ expectations of themselves, is SEL done poorly.

Resources:

• Schools have no choice but to teach social and emotional skills | Nathaniel Grossman | Fordham Institute

• What It Will Take for Social and Emotional Learning to Succeed | Frederick M. Hess and RJ Martin | American Enterprise Institute

• A Dubious Consensus on ‘Social and Emotional’ Learning | Frederick M. Hess | American Enterprise Institute

Show Notes:

• 02:50 | What is Social and Emotional Learning?

• 04:18 | Children will pick up social and emotional cues whether or not they are intentionally taught

• 07:23 | Handling hot topics like gender identity and school shootings in the classroom

• 11:30 | On sheltering students from potentially triggering standardized testing

• 15:10 | The harm of lowering standards in the name of SEL

• 18:45 | Evaluating students’ social and emotional skills