Are You Kidding Me?

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?

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?

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

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

Every child in America deserves to know that a path to a successful life exists and they have the power to follow it. But instead, kids today are besieged by two incomplete, harmful narratives. The “blame the system” narrative teaches kids they are powerless against societal forces while the “blame the victim” narrative tells them that any undesirable outcome in life is a product of their own shortcomings, regardless of whether they have received any meaningful support along the way. There is a third way that keeps the individual at its center while relying on mediating institutions to guide and support young people.

In this special episode, Ian discusses his new book, “Agency.” At each juncture of Ian’s career, he noticed that young people, in addition to absorbing a cultural narrative that devastated their chances of success, were growing up in communities with high concentrations of fragile families, lack of school choice, declines in religiosity, and significant unemployment.

Rowe fully acknowledges the reality of societal barriers in disadvantaged communities. That’s why, in addition to a personal conviction in their own potential, kids need to embrace four building blocks that will lead to a life of human flourishing: Family, Religion, Education, and Entrepreneurship (F.R.E.E.).

Resources

• Agency | Ian Rowe | Templeton Press

• Agency: A Book Event with Ian Rowe and Yuval Levin | American Enterprise Institute

• Critical Race Theory Distracts from Widespread Academic Underachievement | Ian Rowe | Newsweek

Show Notes

• 02:55 | July 11, 2016: The moment Ian realized schools were not enough

• 08:55 | Young people are trapped between two harmful narratives

• 11:30 | Agency: The force of your free will guided by moral discernment

• 13:25 | Breaking down the F.R.E.E. framework

• 25:50 | F.R.E.E. is universal and timeless

• 28:30 | This book is for anybody who has the ability to shape the moral character of young people

In public schools across the country, “circle conversations“—where teachers ask personal questions of their students—is just the latest example of American classrooms focusing on everything but academic instruction. Should American teachers remain purely educators or evolve into something akin to therapists?

In this episode, Naomi and Ian are joined by Daniel Buck, a Senior Visiting Fellow at the Fordham Institute, teacher, and author of an upcoming book on the philosophy of education. Daniel explains how teacher training now focuses on restorative justice ostensibly as a way to create more “safe spaces” for students. Instead, these practices have led to an uptick in bullying, classroom disruption, and more time in suspension, as well as less time devoted to reading and doing math. Daniel is encouraged by the recent surge in local activism among parents who want schools to prioritize teaching. But he worries that some critics may overplay their hand by accusing teachers of “grooming.”

Resources:

• ‘Community Circle’ Classroom Fad is Likely to Do More Harm Than Good | Daniel Buck | New York Post

• In Defense of Suspensions | Daniel Buck | Fordham Institute

• Not Everyone’s on Board with Turning Schooling into Therapy | Robert Pondiscio | Fordham Institute

• The Pedagogy of the Depressed | Robert Pondiscio | Fordham Institute

Description:

Suicide rates in adolescents have tripled since the start of the pandemic, and 1 in 5 kids will not make it out of their childhood without a severe mental disorder. How should we address this mental health crisis to better prepare children for adolescence?

In this episode, Naomi and Ian are joined by Erica Komisar, a clinical social worker, psychoanalyst, and author of Chicken Little the Sky Isn’t Falling: Raising Resilient Adolescents in the Age of Anxiety. Erica explains how children experienced intense losses and periods of neglect and sometimes abuse during the pandemic, on top of the typical challenges already associated with growing up. While parents should ideally play a primary role in their child’s wellbeing, Erica believes K-12 schools are not doing enough to help children. She advocates for each child to receive thirty minutes of therapy per week from social workers in order to provide the foundation of emotional security that kids need for future independence and self-sufficiency.

Resources:

• Five Steps Schools Can Take Now to Boost Youth Mental Health | Erica Komisar | Institute for Family Studies

• Many Teens Report Emotional and Physical Abuse by Parents During Lockdown | Ellen Barry | New York Times

Show notes:

• 01:35 | Covid-19 has amplified preexisting youth mental health issues

• 05:45 | How do we draw the line between the role that parents and schools have in children’s lives?

• 08:00 | Schools should have armies of social workers

• 16:45 | Kids are going into adolescence more neurologically fragile

• 19:10 | We treat young children as if they’re older and a project a sense of independence that they’re not prepared for

Description:

Starting in the late 20th century, Scandinavian countries began opening up parental leave for fathers, with Norway eventually establishing at least four weeks of parental leave for fathers alone. This approach has now caught on throughout the post-industrialized world. How have these policies affected family bonding and the well-being of children?

In this episode, Naomi and Ian are joined by Kay Hymowitz, the William E. Simon Fellow at the Manhattan Institute and a contributing editor of City Journal. Kay explains that the goal of these policies was to create more gender equality by allowing women a quicker return to the workforce. In reality, mothers remained taking care of the children, and the attempt to re-order gender relations has only confirmed the existence of the natural differences between mothers and fathers.

Resources:

• What we know about paternity leave | Kay Hymowitz | Institute for Family Studies

• Mom genes: Inside the new science of our ancient maternal instinct | Abigail Tucker | Gallery Books

Show notes:

• 00:45 | The history of paternity leave

• 02:40 | The “use it or lose it” approach

• 10:20 | Who pays for these expansive paternity leave policies?

• 13:55 | Acknowledging that women have a unique bond with their child

• 18:25 | Bureaucratic efforts to redefine gender roles

Description:

Controversial ideologies about race and gender are making their way into K-12 classrooms. This kind of watered-down Marxism—in which everyone is designated either oppressed or oppressor—is at odds with the longstanding American principles of equality. How should school choice advocates respond to these harmful developments?

In this episode, Naomi and Ian are joined by Jay P. Greene, senior research fellow in The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Education Policy. He describes the history of the education reform movement, including the point at which he believes the leaders lost the chance at having more support among the American public. He outlines why a focus on equity and social justice has prevented a bipartisan coalition for education reform from forming. Now, he argues we should focus on a new education reform movement, one that appeals to all families who are displeased with current trends in K-12 schools.

Resources:

• Time for the school choice movement to embrace the culture war | Jay P. Greene | The Heritage Foundation

• Does school choice need bipartisan support? An empirical analysis of the legislative record | Jay P. Greene and James D. Paul | American Enterprise Institute

• How responsive are researchers to the education policy agenda? Trends in education research from 2005 to 2019 | Jay P. Greene and Frederick M. Hess | American Enterprise Institute

Show notes:

• 02:05 | Education reform is doing great but the movement is dead

• 05:05 | What was the turning point for the education reform movement?

• 17:30 | Charter schools are reliant on others to open, which has led to an education system favored by progressive elites

• 20:00 | How do we broaden the appeal of school choice?

• 24:10 | The new watered-down Marxism that is infiltrating our institutions

Description:

Changing the names of schools, instituting race-based affinity groups, and eliminating standardized tests are just a few of the actions that woke boards of education across the country are taking in pursuit of equity. The result is that schools are now focused on everything but academic instruction.

In this episode, Naomi and Ian are joined by Nicole Neily, president and founder of Parents Defending Education (PDE). She says that lawsuits in places like northern Virginia and the suburbs of Boston, not to mention the school board recall in San Francisco, signify that even liberal progressives are fed up with performative wokeness that favors optics over outcomes. Nicole believes this movement of parental power is just getting started, and she encourages parents to continue pushing for transparency when it comes to their child’s education.

Resources:

• Judge calls Thomas Jefferson High admissions changes illegal | Hannah Natanson | Washington Post

• Parents prevail over K-12 ‘bias incidents’ | The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board

• In landslide, San Francisco forces out 3 board of education members | Thomas Fuller | The New York Times

• Power to parents | Deseret News | Ian Rowe

• Parents Defending Education resources

Show notes:

• 02:26 | What is PDE and what recent lawsuits have they been involved with?

• 08:20 | Elite programs aren’t helpful if students are not properly prepared to succeed

• 12:15 | The San Francisco school board recall reflect the sentiments of parents across the county?

• 15:30 | Breaking down the PDE’s lawsuit against Wellesley Public Schools

• 18:40 | Can the parental power movement sustain over time?

Description:

The recently stalled Build Back Better legislation contains $110 billion for universal pre-school for three and four-year-olds. Is a large investment in early childhood education universal pre-k necessary or beneficial for the academic and social development of American children?

In this episode, Naomi and Ian are joined by Katharine B. Stevens, founder and acting CEO of the Center on Child and Family Policy and former director of AEI’s early childhood program. Katharine breaks down new data from a randomized controlled trial studying 3,000 children from pre-k to sixth grade in Tennessee. The study revealed that students who did not attend pre-k displayed higher academic performance and were less likely to have disciplinary infractions than their peers who went to pre-k. Research on child development tells us that young kids need consistent, loving, one on one or small group relationships—factors that are often absent from public school pre-k programs. Katharine explains the need to support other ways of nurturing the development of these children, including family stability.

Resources:

• Effects of a statewide pre-kindergarten program on children’s achievement and behavior through sixth grade | Kevin Durkin et al | American Psychological Association

• Universal Child Care: A Bad Deal For Kids? | Jenet Erickson and Katharine B. Stevens | Institute for Family Studies

• Improving early childhood development by allowing advanced child tax credits | Katharine B. Stevens and Matt Weidinger | Tax Notes Federal

Show Notes:

• 01:00 | What is the Tennessee Voluntary Pre-K research project?

• 08:55 | How should policymakers respond to the results from the study?

• 13:30 | Thinking of school as an antipoverty program doesn’t benefit everyone

• 17:20 | Human development really comes from strong and stable families

• 30:00 | How do we encourage more people to follow the success sequence?

Description:

Twenty years ago, education reformers on the right and left agreed that promoting charter schools and school choice were appropriate steps to close the achievement gap and improve kids’ educational outcomes. Today, feelings among the reformers about school choice are a lot more polarized. Moreover, the recent shutdowns of many schools during the pandemic may have jeopardized Americans’ decades-long relationship with public schools and shown that education is smack in the middle of the political fray.

In this episode, Naomi and Ian are joined by Robert Pondiscio, a Senior Fellow in education policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute. Robert argues that we may not need bipartisan support for school choice and if the left-wing reformers have abandoned important ideas about accountability and meritocracy in our schools, they may do more to harm than help the movement. Encouraging private school choice and vouchers fits better in red-state politics and Republicans should not wait around trying to save a previously bipartisan coalition that may have outlived its usefulness.

Resources:

Does school choice need bipartisan support? An empirical analysis of the legislative record | Jay P. Green | James D. Paul | American Enterprise Institute

After two years of uncertainty and shaken trust, America's relationship with its public schools is in play like never before | Robert Pondiscio | The 74

The Left doesn’t like school choice. The Right doesn’t need them to | Robert Pondiscio | RealClearPolicy

Demystifying Goliath: An Examination of the Political Compass of Education Reform | Ian Kingsbury | Journal of School Choice

Show notes:

• 01:05 | What is the landscape of education reform two years into the pandemic?

• 05:40 | Do everyday parents share the same ideology as progressive ‘elites’ when it comes to school choice?

• 07:20 | How has the left changed its stance on education reform specifically regarding the school choice movement?

• 15:00 | Has the personal connection between parents and school systems become broken?

• 17:50 | What is the impact of groups like Parents Defending Education when it comes to stopping ideologies they don’t share?

Description:

There are over 70,000 adoptions of children in the United States every year, with a majority coming from foster care. Despite adoptions being more diverse and 75% of adoptive parents having a positive relationship with the birth parents, some are calling for adoption to end because it is too traumatic for children.

In this episode, Naomi and Ian are joined by Ryan Hanlon, the acting CEO and President of the National Council for Adoption. Ryan explains that many children have experienced abuse and neglect prior to their adoption and adoption itself can actually be a necessary intervention in their lives. Research from the National Council for Adoption also suggests that adoptive parents are focused on ensuring their adoptive children receive the supportive services they need. With higher rates of children in foster care, Ryan believes we need to do a better job of educating both expectant parents on what their options are and the public on what being an adoptive parent looks like.

Resources:

Adoption: By the Numbers | National Council for Adoption

The Multiethnic Placement Act and Transracial Adoption 25 Years Later | Department of Health and Human Services

Let’s restart the adoption movement | Arthur C. Brooks | The New York Times

Show notes:

01:30 | What does adoption look like in the United States?

05:50 | Effects of adoption on children

09:30 | What explains the increased age of adoptive children?

13:40 | Evidence shows that transracial adoption is not a factor in determining the well-being of an adopted child

18:35 | Are there enough families out there to meet the needs of children in foster care?

26:25 | What can policymakers do to encourage foster care among middle-class Americans?

Description:

Young people who graduate from high school, get a job, and get married before they have children are less likely to live in poverty later in life. Given the importance of this information, some have suggested that this ordering of milestones—known as “the success sequence”—be taught in K-12 schools.

In this episode, Naomi and Ian are joined by Nat Malkus, a senior fellow and deputy director of education policy at AEI. Using data from the August 2021 American Perspectives Survey, which asked over 2,500 American adults about a range of opinions on education, Nat finds overwhelming support among the public for teaching the success sequence. He argues that schools should not only teach students the success sequence but also how to “think statistically” so students can understand the relationship between their actions and their life outcomes.

Resources:

Uncommonly popular: Public support for teaching the success sequence in school | Nat Malkus | American Enterprise Institute

Creating an Opportunity Society | Ron Haskins and Isabel V. Sawhill | Brookings Institution Press

How can the success sequence help kids beat any obstacle? | Ian Rowe and Chris Stewart | Education is Power podcast

Show notes:

01:10 | What is the success sequence and what does this new survey ask?

04:00 | Survey samples include the general public and parents of school-aged children

06:40 | Even the most opposed group were in support of teaching the success sequence by a two to one margin

09:25 | Prescriptive vs. descriptive messaging

14:15 | Non-adherents to the success sequence still support teaching it

Description:

In March 2021, the California Department of Education approved the final version of the ethnic Studies Model Curriculum. In October 2021, Governor Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill No. 101 into law, making California the first state to require an ethnic studies class for graduation.

In this episode, Naomi and Ian are joined by Dr. Wenyuan Wu, executive director of the Californians for Equal Rights Foundation. Dr. Wu explains that, while seemingly benign, the objective of ethnic studies is to train K-12 students to recognize which of them are natural oppressors and victims. Students are required to recite Aztec chants in class, including some by tribes who practice human sacrifice.

This ideology has also infiltrated mathematics. The new math instruction is to teach it in a way that avoids finding the right answer and having to show one’s work, as those are signs of white supremacy. We discuss the recent letter signed by prominent mathematicians and scientists across the country objecting to this change.

Resources:

California Ethnic Studies curriculum

California Assembly Bill No. 101

California Mathematics framework

Open letter to California Gov. Gavin Newsom

California leftists try to cancel math class | Williamson M. Evers | The Wall Street Journal

Show notes:

• 02:05 | What is the California Ethnic Studies curriculum and AB 101?

• 04:40 | What are students learning under this curriculum?

• 06:35 | Ethnic studies has previously ignored various groups’ contributions to America

• 09:00 | Are Californians aware of what is going on in their schools?

• 13:35 | The new math framework focuses more on equity than learning algebra

• 19:40 | The compelling alternative that will actually help students

Description:

A student in Boston public schools recently knocked her principal unconscious during school hours. A girl was recently sexually assaulted in a Loudon County, Virginia, school, and administrators falsely denied knowledge of its occurrence. What is causing an increase in school violence and how can administrators use their resources to improve school safety and students’ lives?

In this episode, Naomi and Ian are joined by Max Eden, a research fellow in education policy at the American Enterprise Institute. Max explains that the push for restorative justice in schools—trying to even out disparate rates of discipline by race or disability—has actually led to school administrators not disciplining students at all. They ignore important factors like family structure, poverty, and neighborhood crime, which are highly correlated with different rates of behavioral infractions in school. Max believes that we are at the beginning of a broader public recognition of the dangerous impact of restorative justice policies and the need for parents to exercise more oversight over their kids’ school environments.

Resources:

Boston Public Schools principal unconscious for ‘at least’ 4 minutes after beating: police report | Sean Phillip Cotter | Boston Herald

Restorative justice cannot combat the tide of school violence | Naomi Schaefer Riley | Deseret News

Youngkin makes the GOP the parents’ party | Max Eden | The Wall Street Journal

Show Notes:

• 03:15 | Are parents noticing the lack of school discipline?

• 05:30 | The limits of public policy when only viewing the world through race

• 10:10 | The importance of parental involvement in schools

• 13:35 | How do you have a productive conversation with school administrators and those on the ground who disagree with you on this issue?

• 16:35 | Is there a way to elevate student’s voices who now feel they are in a more dangerous learning environment?

• 18:50 | How can we rehabilitate kids using a different approach?

Description:

The child tax credit (CTC) in the United States has always required its recipients to work. Yet the recent proposal from the Biden administration eliminates the work requirement in the CTC. Ensuring that parents earn a small amount of money benefits kids and helps lift families out of poverty. How can we ensure our policies align with what’s best for kids?

In this special episode, Naomi and Ian are joined by Robert Doar, President and Morgridge scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. Robert explains that from 1995 until 2020, our country made strides to bring more people into the labor force, increase positive educational outcomes, and improve children’s relationship with the criminal justice system. But our child welfare and public school systems need to be reformed to ensure that they are focused on helping children.

Resources:

The bad science behind the child tax credit expansion | Robert Doar | The Wall Street Journal

The antipoverty, targeting, and labor supply effects of the proposed child tax credit expansion | Bruce D. Meyer and Kevin Corinth | Becker Friedman Institute

Census Bureau’s household pulse survey shows significant increase in homeschooling rates in fall 2020 | Casey Eggleston and Jason Fields | United States Census Bureau

Enrollment in N.Y.C. public schools declined by 50,000 since the start of the pandemic | Eliza Shapiro | The New York Times

Show Notes

• 01:45 | The history of child tax credits (CTC) and the new CTC proposal

• 03:35 | The National Academy of Sciences made an important error

• 07:30 | Why are we forcing single parents to work at all?

• 10:45 | Are we getting better at caring for low-income children?

• 16:35 | People don’t want to hear viewpoints they disagree with

• 18:00 | Is it possible to create a system for children where everyone is satisfied?

Description:

For decades, women have increasingly outnumbered men in higher education and the problem is getting worse. Men—generally speaking—prefer to work rather than go to school. Yet more traditional, blue-collar jobs now require advanced degrees.

In this episode, Naomi and Ian are joined by Kay Hymowitz, the William E. Simon Fellow at the Manhattan Institute and a contributing editor of City Journal. Kay explains how this trend has not been considered problematic because society is used to thinking about furthering the progress of girls in higher education. She outlines how “degree inflation” is turning into a big problem for young men. To encourage more boys to stay in school and get the skills they need, she suggests that K-12 education should provide career pathways for those not wanting to attend college, and that they build in more time for recess.

Resources:

Dr. Biden’s lesson | Kay Hymowitz | City Journal

A Generation of American Men Give Up on College: ‘I Just Feel Lost’ | Douglas Belkin | The Wall Street Journal

Higher education just isn’t built for men right now | Naomi Schaefer Riley | Deseret News

Show Notes:

• 02:20 | Since 1980, women have moved ahead of men in higher education enrollment

• 06:25 | What are the men doing if they are not in school?

• 08:30 | Traditional blue collar jobs are now requiring four-year degrees

• 12:55 | What can be done in K-12 education?

• 16:20 | Going to college is now synonymous with middle-class life

• 20:35 | What will the impact be on future family structure?

Description:

Educational institutions are supposed to serve the interests of children and their families. Yet parents are increasingly finding themselves coming up against a system that is turned against them. In some instances, they are even labeled by the National School Board Association as "domestic terrorists" for simply voicing their opinion.

In this episode, Naomi and Ian are joined by Christine Rosen, a senior writer at Commentary magazine and chair of the Colloquy on Knowledge, Technology and Culture at the Institute for Advanced Studies and Culture at the University of Virginia. Christine explains that school boards passing emergency use restrictions combined with an ideological push to teach critical race theory in schools has led many parents—conservative and liberal—to come together in an effort to change school policies.

Resources:

Will parents become activists? | Christine Rosen | Commentary

Academic transparency is gaining traction in the states | Max Eden | AEIdeas

Parents Defending Education

Parents United America

FAIR For All

Description:

The American child welfare system is bent toward protecting adults, not children. Kids in danger are treated instrumentally to promote the rehabilitation of their parents, the welfare of their communities, and the social justice of their race and tribe—all with the inevitable result that their most precious developmental years are lost in bureaucratic and judicial red tape.

In this special episode, Naomi discusses her new book, “No Way to Treat a Child.” She explains how the driving policy of the child welfare system today is family preservation, even when remaining with biological parents poses a risk to their safety. She advocates for civil society to play a greater role in child welfare and emphasizes the need for increased support for foster families. And she encourages states to do a better job recruiting and training caseworkers and utilizing data analytics to better understand which kids are most at-risk.

Resources:

No Way to Treat a Child | Naomi Schaefer Riley | Bombardier Books

How the woke takeover of child services endangers abused kids | Naomi Schaefer Riley | New York Post

Description:

Oregon Governor Kate Brown recently signed a law eliminating the requirement that high school graduates be able to demonstrate an ability to read, do math, and write at a high school level. Proponents of the law claim it would promote “equitable graduation standards” that will benefit Oregon’s students of color.

In this episode, Naomi and Ian are joined by Rick Hess, a Senior Fellow and director of education policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute. Rick explains that schools across the country have an obligation to ensure that all of our children—no matter their socioeconomic background or race and ethnicity—have the basic skills for successful citizenship. He also observes that just two decades ago, policymakers on both sides believed that we were not doing low-income or minority students any favors by ignoring educational deficiencies.

Resources:

When educational equity descends into educational nihilism | Rick Hess | Education Week

Aim high: How can we prepare students of all races to achieve greatness? | Ian Rowe | Eduwonk

Show notes:

00:55 | What is Senate Bill 744 in Oregon?

03:30 | There used to be a bipartisan consensus in education

04:35 | How would Governor Brown explain this policy?

06:45 | Mediocrity in education is painless in the short-term but devastating in the long-term

12:45 | Which educational institutions are upholding legitimate academic standards?

15:05 | School boards still have a voice in shaping curriculums

Description:

Prior to 1972, putting up a child for adoption did not require the consent of an unmarried father. Despite a Supreme Court case changing the law, many birth fathers are still unaware that they must register on a putative father registry in order to have input in their child’s future.

In this episode, Naomi and Ian are joined by Ericka Andersen, a freelance writer, digital marketing professional, and host of the podcast Worth Your Time. Ericka explains that the historical background prior to 1972 combined with the unfair stereotype associated with birth fathers often results in the birth mother alone making the decisions for her child. Ericka notes that most people are just as curious about and in need of a relationship with their birth father as they are their birth mother, but they rarely have access to the necessary information to make those connections.

Resources:

Bringing birth fathers back into adoption narratives | Ericka Andersen | Christianity Today

Sorry, Harvard, fathers still matter—including Black fathers | Ian Rowe and Brad Wilcox | USA

Show notes:

01:25 | Why are birth fathers typically not involved in the adoption story?

03:20 | How do we make sure birth fathers are involved in the adoption process?

06:15 | Giving birth fathers a voice would be better for everyone

08:55 | Keeping the best interests of the child in mind when the birth father shouldn’t be involved

10:50 | Why does the putative father registry differ by state?

14:45 | The role of religious institutions in the adoption process

Description:

Every year, 23,000 children will age out of the foster care system without a loving family to take care of them. How can child welfare agencies, government, and public policy help these kids achieve upward mobility and ensure that they learn the important skills needed to have a successful life?

In this episode, Naomi and Ian are joined by Tim Keller, Senior Vice President and Legal Director at Gen Justice, an organization based in Arizona dedicated to fighting for foster care children at the federal and state level. Tim shares Gen Justice’s proposal to establish fostering independence accounts—a state-funded initiative that provides financial support to kids if they are willing to stay in the foster care system and accept guidance on everything from education and job training to housing and financial literacy courses. Finally, Tim also speaks to the importance of prioritizing the needs of the child when thinking about child welfare.

Resources:

Cash accounts can help youth aging out of foster care succeed | Gen Justice

Foster care agencies take thousands of dollars owed to kids. Most children have no idea | Eli Hager | The Marshall Project and NPR

Show Notes:

01:50 | What is the average profile for a kid who ages out of foster care?

05:00 | What are fostering independence accounts and how do they work?

08:35 | The risks associated with the new California Universal Basic Income law

12:00 | Should the focus be on supplying cash assistance or life skills to kids who age out of foster care?

18:45 | Thinking about a child-centric view of child welfare

Description:

The way we frame conversations about race has significant implications for future education policies. Talking about “achievement gaps” draws attention solely to the differences between white and black students, which can perpetuate racial stereotypes. Maybe framing the issue as an “opportunity gap” instead would encourage us to consider policies that promote equity and excellence for all.

In this episode, Naomi and Ian are joined by David Quinn, Assistant Professor of Education at the Rossier School of Education at the University of Southern California. Professor Quinn discusses the value of focusing on opportunity gaps instead of achievement gaps. He also notes the importance of recognizing historical injustices while at the same time understanding the importance of agency in the advancement of learning.

Resources:

Experimental effects of “achievement gap” news reporting on viewers’ racial stereotypes, inequality explanations, and inequality prioritization | David Quinn |Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics

Distance to 100 for everyone vs. closing racial or achievement gaps | Ian Rowe | Eduwonk

Show notes:

00:45 | Problems with the “achievement gap discourse”

06:00 | Framing the issue as an “opportunity gap”

13:20 | Reports on racial test score gaps magnified racial stereotypes

14:50 | Thinking about racial equity in terms of justice

28:30 | The importance of agency for the advancement of learning

Description:

Families are increasingly finding themselves trapped in a whirlwind of competition for their kids. From rigorous sports clubs to the college admissions process, parents are forced to concentrate more on what everyone else is doing as opposed to what is best for their family. This unhealthy dynamic has led to a decline in civic associations and other institutions that are critical for community and human development. How can parents better adapt to these changing times and attempt to rewrite the social contract?

In this episode, Naomi and Ian are joined by Matt Feeney, author of "Little Platoons: A Defense of Family in a Competitive Age." Matt discusses how a harmful culture of competition is causing children to miss out on key developmental milestones and skills needed for a successful life. Matt notes the importance of school counselors and parents working together to combat unhealthy incentives.

Resources:

Sports Families: The Hungry System of Club Sports | Matt Feeney | Institute for Family Studies

Bread and circuses: The replacement of American community life | Lyman Stone | American Enterprise Institute

Show Notes:

00:35 | What are “Little Platoons” and how does this concept shape our understanding of the family?

06:55 | Why parents are reluctant participants in a hyper-competitive environment

09:20 | What is lost in the lives of kids by our cultural obsession over sports and extracurriculars?

11:45 | Why the college admissions process is interfering in the moral autonomy of the family

15:20 | How can parents push back against these harmful incentives?

Description:

The New York legislature has just passed a law that could bring $350 million of tax revenues to the state each year from marijuana sales. While the short-term benefits may be appealing, it Governor Cuomo and his lawmakers have not considered the far-reaching ramifications of such a law. The passage of this and other similar laws across the nation call into question several items: What has happened to bourgeois virtues such as honesty, integrity, temperance, and delayed gratification in our nation? What role does the government have in maintaining those values? If that is not their role, what is?

In this episode, Naomi and Ian are joined by Howard Husock, an adjunct fellow alongside them at American Enterprise Institute studying local government, civil society, and urban housing policy. Referencing one of his recent columns, Howard discusses how the passage of laws that enable and even encourage drug use undermines the bourgeois values that contribute to a productive and healthy society. Howard notes that, far too often, government officials are followers of public trends rather than leaders who advocate for proven, constructive values.

Resources:

Government against bourgeois values | Howard Husock | City Journal

Albany’s shameless weed bribe will hurt the poor | Howard Husock | New York Daily News

Show notes:

01:00 | What are the bourgeois virtues?

02:50 | The unintended consequences of collecting revenue from marijuana taxes

07:15 | Will marijuana laws create new “dry” and “wet” towns?

10:10 | Why do legislators continue to enable drug use?

13:20 | Government as peoples’ problem solver

17:00 | With the widespread decline of religious institutions, how can seemingly lost virtues be reinforced going forward?

A good education is a ticket to a good life, and high-quality mathematics instruction is growing rapidly in importance. However, an increasingly loud line of rhetoric threatens to weaken our public schools’ standards for high-quality mathematics programs. For example, The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has supported a math curriculum taking the position that white supremacy is furthered by objectivity in mathematics. Will this divisive and demoralizing new approach offer any improvements to children’s learning?

In this episode, Naomi and Ian are joined by Ben Chavis, the former principal of the American Indian Public Charter School in Oakland, California. There, he transformed a school on the brink of closure into one of the top schools in the country. Ben credits this incredible turnaround to an undying focus on what really matters: academic rigor. He confronts the ideas and policies that may be detracting from the quality of learning in our nation’s schools and offers an alternate view on how we can revitalize math education in the US.

Resources:

Math Camp in a Barn: Intensive Instruction, No-Nonsense Discipline | Naomi Schaefer Riley | The Wall Street Journal

Show notes:

02:28 | How can white supremacy show up in math classes that are focused on objectivity?

04:38 | Math as a key for upward mobility for students from disadvantaged backgrounds

09:50 | Confronting the idea that objectivity of math is racist, and so are the people teaching it

12:25 | Why the importance of math to professional success is ignored

16:28 | How to diversify schools without a quota system

22:03 | The role that math camps and extracurricular activities play in students’ success

25:47 | How to improve math programs in the public school system

Description:

In the 1978, the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) became law — institutionalizing a sweeping set of race-based restrictions over how child welfare systems can treat Indian children. While the law was passed with the noble intent of protecting Native American cultures, its effects have been devastating, halting the protection of children in countless dangerous situations. Why is ICWA so harmful to children? How can lawmakers address the shortcomings of this law while supporting the preservation of Native American cultures? What is the likelihood the courts will strike down ICWA as unconstitutional for discriminating on the basis of race?

In this episode, Naomi and Ian are joined by Timothy Sandefur, vice president for litigation at the Goldwater Institute and an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute. Timothy discusses the history of ICWA, the current crisis of unaddressed maltreatment among Indian children, and recent court decisions that give him hope that leaders are beginning to recognize the unconstitutionality of many provisions in this law.    

Resources:

The Indian Child Welfare Act: A law that paved the way for a 5-year-old’s death | Naomi Schaefer Riley | USA Today

Native American foster children suffer under a law originally meant to help them | Elizabeth Stuart | Phoenix New Times

Show notes:

01:08 | Why the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) was passed in the 1970s and how it has shaped the child welfare system

07:00 | Is ICWA constitutional given its basis on race?

10:00 | The recent decision of the Fifth Circuit of Appeals to strike down the “active efforts” provision of ICWA

12:35 | The crisis of abuse among Indian children and the real-life implications of ICWA for these kids

17:20 How we can protect Indian children and also preserve the integrity of Native American culture

20:45 | Will the Supreme Court review ICWA in the near future?

24:05 | Does ICWA deter foster and adoptive families from trying to take care of Indian children?

Description:

Conversations about polyamory, same-sex parenting, and other alternative family arrangements have received increased national attention in recent years. But so often, these discussions focus primarily on the interests and desires of adults and pay very little attention to the wellbeing of children. What factors should serve as the impetus for change in policy and culture around child welfare? How should we balance the desires of adults with the needs of children when making decisions about the type of family a child will be raised in?

In this episode, Naomi and Ian are joined by Katy Faust, author of “Them Before Us: Why We Need a Global Children’s Rights Movement,” and founder of an advocacy organization with the same title. Katy discusses why her organization is advancing a child-centered approach to parenting, adoption, and child welfare. She outlines her conclusions from quantitative research and the stories of children and adults looking back on their childhood about the type of family arrangement that is best suited to help kids flourish, and the implications that has for public policy. 

Show notes:

01:15 | The child-centered approach to child welfare and adoption Katy Faust is advocating

05:50 | What does it mean for children to have natural rights, independent of the desires and interests of adults?

10:20 | Why, in the world of children’s rights, adults must do hard things

12:40 | The importance of storytelling in the fight for children’s rights

14:05 | The data show that any family structure other than a child living with their two biological parents leads to worse outcomes for children

21:50 | Why “Them Before Us” seeks to change both hearts and laws

Description:

A professor at Georgetown Law School was recently fired for remarks she made during a private zoom call about the academic performance of black students at Georgetown — raising several questions about the nature of and potential solutions to racial disparities in higher education. What are the root causes of racial disparities in schools? How much freedom should professors and administrators be given to explore explanations of disparities that move beyond institutional racism? Should objective measurements of performance — such as standardized tests — be abolished?

In this episode, Naomi and Ian are joined by University of Pennsylvania law professor Amy Wax to discuss these issues and more. Professor Wax offers her defense of academic standards, arguing that movements seeking to deny the root causes of disparities and attribute all differences to structural racism are threatening the integrity of higher education institutions.

Resources:

Pursuing Diversity: From Education to Employment | Amy L. Wax | The University of Chicago Law Review

Georgetown professor fired for statements about black students | Elizabeth Redden | Inside Higher Ed

Show notes:

00:45 | How one Georgetown professor was fired for private comments made over a zoom call, and Professor Wax’s own experience with cancel culture in higher education

03:45 | Should objective measures of performance be treated as suspect?

13:00 | The unavoidably comparative nature of law school

15:40 | Which early interventions can policymakers make to reduce racial disparities in academic achievement?

20:00 | How the crisis of family breakdown cuts across racial and ethnic lines today

26:00 | How the narrowing "Overton window" of acceptable beliefs on the cause of racial disparities today threatens the quality of our educational institutions

Description:

Foster youth today face incredible challenges building a stable life when they age out of the child welfare system. Fewer than ten percent ever graduate college, and tragic reports have outlined crises of homelessness and poverty among these young adults. But some foster youth have found healing and restoration through caring foster parents, a deeply embedded sense of personal agency, and connections to strong networks of support. We can learn a lot from the stories of these individuals about how to better serve young adults in foster care as they approach adulthood.

In this episode, Naomi and Ian are joined by Justin and Alexis Black — Authors and founders of “Redefining Normal.” Alexis and Justin share their story of transformation as they escaped a past of abuse, neglect, and trauma and began to build a future together, with the help of amazing foster parents, a strong faith, and a web of critical supports. Alexis and Justin defied the odds — graduating from college and becoming authors, public speakers, and serial entrepreneurs. Today, they have dedicated their career to building awareness around the challenges foster youth face and advocating for practices and policies that will help foster youth escape the cycle of trauma and find healing.

Resources:

Not safe for kids: Fixing our broken child welfare system | Naomi Schaefer Riley | American Enterprise Institute

Show notes:

03:10 | Justin and Alexis’s story growing up in foster care and the challenges they faced

08:10 | What does “normal” look like for a youth in foster care?

13:10 | How to support foster youth in healthy relationship formation and educational pursuits

16:55 | How giving foster youth a consistent and supportive place to call “home” empowers agency

18:20 | Reforming child welfare systems to help foster youth transition to adulthood

26:25 | Justin’s Rising Over Societal Expectations (ROSE) model for empowerment

Description:

The tragic death of George Floyd has sparked many important conversations about how Americans can pursue a future characterized by unity and equality around race. Yet, amid this national reckoning on race, a divisive and disempowering philosophy of “antiracism” has risen to the forefront of American culture. Is the solution to America’s racial disparities continuously reifying race in rhetoric and public policy? What are the potential consequences of training our children to see race as the most important part of a human’s identity? 

In this episode, Naomi and Ian are joined by Thomas Chatterton Williams — AEI visiting fellow, contributing writer for the New York Times, and prolific author and cultural critic. Thomas shares why he believes Americans must work toward unlearning race — restoring a person’s character, interests, and beliefs at the core of their identity rather than the color of their skin. Later, Thomas discusses why the core tenets of “antiracist” ideologies inadvertently reinforce ideas of white superiority and black inferiority.

Resources:

Beyond Black History Month| Thomas Chatterton Williams | The Wall Street Journal

Moving from persecution to prosperity: Demystifying Black excellence | Ian Rowe, Thomas Chatterton Williams, and Glenn Loury | HBS African-American Alumni Association

Show notes:

01:15 | Thomas Chatterton Williams’ philosophy of “unlearning” race

05:40 | Why critical race theory inadvertently reinforces ideas of white superiority and black inferiority

08:17 | The importance of desegregating American life, and why “safetyism” threatens progress on this front

14:50 | Controversy around the capitalization of color descriptors and the problem with “performative” justice

17:40 | How to channel the collective “moral panic” of this moment for good

24:35 | How the Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism (FAIR) is helping parents stand up to schools that are segregating students and violating their rights

Description:

Many child welfare systems have abdicated their duties in the wake of the pandemic — failing to identify and protect children who have fallen victim to maltreatment. How can child welfare officials inspire a different approach that increases touchpoints with children, uses the resources of caseworkers and foster families more effectively, and offers faster, better care coordination for vulnerable children? What role should technology companies play in collaborating with states to improve care coordination?

In this episode, Naomi and Ian are joined by Greg McKay — the Director of Worldwide Health and Human Services for Microsoft and the former director of the Arizona Department of Child Safety — to discuss these questions and more. Greg talks about how his unique background in law enforcement, investigation, and foster parenting helped him take Arizona’s child welfare system from “worst” to “first” on several measures. Later, Greg discusses the importance of updating state care coordination and record-keeping technology to allow case workers to spend more time in the field with vulnerable children and less time entering data into antiquated systems.

Resources:

What lessons can the child welfare system take from the COVID-19 pandemic?| Naomi Schaefer Riley et Al. | American Enterprise Institute

Child welfare in the midst of the pandemic | Naomi Schaefer Riley et Al. | American Enterprise Institute

 Show notes:

01:20 | Greg McKay’s background in law enforcement, investigation, foster parenting, child welfare administration, and technology

02:35 | Taking Arizona’s child welfare system from “worst” to “first”

07:16 | How antiquated technology is limiting case workers’ ability to protect children during the pandemic

08:58 | How the pandemic is reducing the number of abuse and maltreatment cases that get reported, and what that means for children

10:25 | Why children need to return to in-person learning

16:50 | The most effective intervention technology companies can offer child welfare officials

19:25 | Increasing partnership and care coordination between government systems 

Description:

Specialized high schools for gifted students are receiving a lot of criticism these days because many tend to admit a disproportionate number of white and Asian students. But for many of these schools, admissions is based primarily on an unbiased entrance exam. If black and Hispanic students are performing less successfully on these entrance exams, does that mean the exams themselves are racist or does it point to a deeper problem? What is the role of specialized high schools in American education today? How can these schools offer talented students from all backgrounds a fair shot at success? In this episode, Naomi and Ian take up these questions and more. They discuss how disparate admissions rates point to a fundamental failure of neighborhood schools to offer disadvantaged kids the chance at a good education. And they explain why school choice can help to address this root problem. 

Resources:

Exam-school admissions come under pressure amid pandemic | Naomi Schaefer Riley | Education Next

Show notes:

00:30 | Why are specialized schools are coming under pressure?

01:30 | Are school admission tests equitable?

04:00 | Why neighborhood schools are failing to prepare disadvantaged students for success

09:20 | Can complicated admissions formulas actually create ‘affirmative action’ for white kids?

10:25 | What are the implications for school choice?

15:20 | How should school leaders move forward?  

Over the past month, US family policy has captivated the attention of policymakers across the ideological spectrum. At the forefront of the family policy conversation: a universal child allowance. In early February 2021, Senator Mitt Romney proposed a sweeping plan to combine several tax credits and the major US cash welfare program into a universal child allowance, paid in cash to families on a monthly basis. Democrats responded with a plan of their own that would introduce a slightly smaller child allowance, but keep other federal benefits intact. How would a universal child allowance affect child poverty in the US? Does this policy hold fast to the conservative tradition of pursuing “temporary, targeted, and timely” federal supports? 

Joining Naomi and Ian in this episode is AEI Rowe Scholar in poverty studies Angela Rachidi. She discusses the history of poverty alleviation programs in the US, the potential unintended consequences of a child allowance, and the policy agenda of a new “pro-natalist” movement on the right focused on removing barriers that prevent Americans from having the number of children they desire. Later, Ian, Naomi, and Angela explore means-tested “baby bonds” as a potential alternative to the child allowance. 

Show Notes:

03:50 | Child allowance proposals on the Left and Right

04:40 | Key differences between Romney proposal and Democrat’s policy

06:45 | A return to pre-1996 welfare

10:30 | Why send cash to high income families?

14:05 | Pro-natalist case for a child allowance

16:30 | Ideal fertility vs. actual fertility rates; what are the tradeoffs?

19:05 | What about means-tested “baby bonds?” 

22:20 | Will a child allowance proposal become law in the near future?

Resources :

Fix family poverty with free markets, for once | Naomi Schaefer Riley and Angela Rachidi | Reason

How would a child allowance affect employment? | Angela Rachidi | AEIdeas

Romney’s child allowance proposal would eliminate decades of anti-poverty progress | Angela Rachidi | RealClearPolicy

Description:

Title IX was first implemented in the 1960s to rectify discrimination against women on the basis of sex in institutions receiving federal funding. In what can only be described as one of the quickest shifts in American culture, women began to outperform men in both enrollment and success in higher education. What role should Title IX play in promoting equal opportunity today? Are woke colleges and universities misconstruing the original intent of this rule and unlawfully discriminating against men? How does Title VI — a counterpart to Title IX that prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin — fit into the picture?

In this episode, Mark Perry, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, joins Naomi and Ian to discuss the history of Title IX and Title VI and to highlight concerning trends that now threaten the original intent of these rules to ensure equal opportunity. Mark has filed 300 Title IX complaints with the office for civil rights, resulting in 144 federal investigations for violations of civil rights laws and more than 30 resolutions in his favor.

Resources:

Do our woke universities live up to their own values? | Mark J. Perry | Carpe Diem

The year in review: An update on my efforts to challenge Title IX violations in higher education and advance civil rights for all | Mark J. Perry | Carpe Diem

Show Notes:

01:05 | What are Title IX and Title VI, and how are they supposed to function?

03:40 | Women outperforming men in higher education

08:30 | Can you use disparities to justify discrimination at an institutional level?

10:10 | How will the new Biden-Harris administration respond to Title IX discrimination?

12:00 | How does Title IX impact single-sex programs?

19:15 | Is discrimination leaving boys behind in education and job preparedness?

For decades, the NCAA’s Academic Performance Program has sought to hold colleges across the country accountable to provide a quality education to their student-athletes. Yet, today, this program has come under fire for the way it treats historically black colleges and universities (HBCUs). Is it racist to hold HBCUs to the same academic standards as other colleges? What role should institutions of higher education play in serving the long-term interests of their athletes? In this episode, Johnny Taylor Jr.—president and CEO of the Society for Human Resource Management—joins Naomi and Ian to discuss this issue and more. Johnny is an expert on issues pertaining to HBCUs. He used to lead the Thurgood Marshall College Fund—a non-profit organization supporting more than 300,000 students at HBCUs. Johnny notes that a vast majority of student athletes—even those from top-tier athletic schools—never go on to play professional sports, and academic standards are an essential method of holding colleges accountable to prepare their student-athletes for career success. 

Later, Naomi, Ian and Johnny discuss why HBCUs continue to provide critical pathways to upward mobility for young black men and women who might otherwise miss out on opportunities for higher education. They also examine recent unsolicited donations from Mackenzie Scott and discuss why it will be important for additional support of these institutions to hold colleges accountable to allocate funding toward value-adding improvements. 

Time stamps:

00:58 | What is the Academic Performance Program and why is it coming under fire? 

06:22 | How do we understand claims of systemic racism in the NCAA?

08:55 | Should we be investing more resources into HBCU’s?

11:00 | What is the ‘Value Proposition’ of HBCU Institutions?

17:35 | The recent renaissance of HBCUs with notable graduates like Stacey Abrams, Raphael Warnock and Kamala Harris.  

Schools across the country have begun to adopt practices around teaching and enforcing “woke” principles that raise concerns about the rights and wellbeing of children. In some instances, students are required to publically declare their support or opposition to certain ideologies and “corrected” later if their answers are not satisfactory. Are schools overstepping their bounds and infringing on students’ rights? How can educators generate healthy and productive conversations on race?

Joining Naomi and Ian in this episode is Bonnie Snyder, the High School Outreach Fellow at the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE). Bonnie shares her efforts with FIRE to produce a manuscript called “Undoctrinate,” which seeks to provide educators the necessary tools to promote free and constructive conversations in schools. Later, they share encouraging news about the success of the “1776 Unites” project’s high school curriculum, which presents a more complete and authentic approach to American history, recognizing both America’s legacy of slavery and the remarkable accomplishments of black Americans in the face of oppression.

Resources:

My kids and their elite education in racism | Naomi Schaefer Riley | Commentary

1776 Unites Curriculum | “1776 Unites”

Elite Private School In L.A. Rolls Out New ‘Anti-Racism’ Policies — Some Students, Parents, And Alumni Aren’t Thrilled | Jon Brown | The Daily Wire

Show notes:

00:45 | What is happening in high schools around free speech and the “woke” sensibility?

02:00 | Concerning incidents of public humiliation

05:35 | What is FIRE doing to help parents and their students stand up to school overreach?

09:51 | How these efforts threaten the future of high school students

13:28 | Why the “1776 Unites” curriculum ican help schools promote free and constructive conservations about race and opportunity in America

17:40 | Crediting the “1619 Project” for raising an important discussion on the gaps in school curricula on American history

19:15 | How the legacy of the “Rosenwald schools” can inform an approach to build a brighter future for black Americans

In October 2020, the San Diego Unified School District board unanimously approved sweeping changes to the district’s grading system in an effort to become “anti-racist.” Among these changes: removing the requirement for all students to turn in their homework on time. Does altering the way students are graded really address the root problem of the achievement gap? How do “anti-racist” policies shape the way minority children view themselves? How will parents respond to this policy decision, given that California voters just struck down a state-wide referendum to allow affirmative action policies?

In this episode, Naomi and Ian are joined by Nat Malkus, AEI Resident Scholar and Deputy Director of Education Policy Studies, to discuss the potential effects of San Diego’s new policy. Nat notes that schools are not just vehicles for transferring academic knowledge from teachers to students — they are supposed to prepare children to flourish in all areas of life. Accordingly, schools and teachers should encourage and reward hard work, consistent effort, and self-confidence, among other important character traits.

Resources:

The soft bigotry of anti-racist expectations is damaging to Black and white kids alike | Ian Rowe | USA Today

Time stamps:

01:25 | San Diego’s grading overhaul and growing “anti-racist” efforts in schools across the US.

03:30 | The importance of rewarding both mastery and character formation in schools.

06:45 | Studying students’ successes rather than their failures in order to identify ways to reduce disparities.

07:45 | Will changing a grading system really address the root causes of the achievement gap?

11:25 | School is about more than just learning academic material and earning a test score.

12:30 | How do “anti-racist” school policies affect the self-perception of minority students?

17:00 | California’s referendum on affirmative action and parents’ reaction to “anti-racist” policies. 

James and Gail Blais were barred from fostering their one-year-old great-granddaughter due to their religious beliefs. During the foster parent application process, the Washington state government led the Blaises through hypothetical questions assessing how they would respond if their great-granddaughter were to identify as homosexual or transgender at some point in the future. As Seventh-Day Adventists, the Blaises said they would certainly continue to love the child, but they could not support the child’s decision in that circumstance. This raises an important question: can state governments deny foster applications due to the religious beliefs of potential foster parents? 

In this episode, Naomi and Ian are joined by Eugene Volokh, an expert in first amendment law and professor of law at UCLA, to explore how state adoption authorities can ensure the well-being of foster children while respecting the religious beliefs of prospective foster parents. Volokh notes that because the Blaises were applying to care for a relative, and the decision to deny their application was based on responses to hypothetical scenarios, this case signals a particularly concerning overreach by the Washington state government.

Resources:

Couple Barred from Fostering Their 1-Year-Old Great-Granddaughter Because of They Oppose Homosexuality and Gender Transitioning | Eugene Volokh | Reason

Show notes:

01:05 | Why did Washington's child welfare department deny the Blais’ foster application?

04:05 | How should we think about the boundaries the government places around foster parenting?

07:10 | Should foster agencies incorporate speculative scenarios in the decision-making process?

09:20 | Do people with non-religious conscientious objections have rights as well?

12:40 | How can foster agencies recruit the greatest volume of high-quality foster parents possible?

18:25 | Should the perspective of children’s biological parents be taken into account?

21:39 | Regardless of legality, is it prudent for the government to place its “hand on the scale” and emphasize one factor over all others when determining the fit of a foster family?

Much research demonstrates the academic benefits of school choice. But schools don’t just convey academic knowledge to children — they also play a critical role in developing a child’s social and moral life.

In this episode, Naomi and Ian are joined by Patrick Wolf, professor of education policy at the University of Arkansas. They discuss a recent paper Wolf co-authored with AEI visiting scholar and UVA professor Brad Wilcox, exploring how enrollment in public, Catholic, Protestant, and secular private schools shapes children’s family outcomes later in life. The results suggest the moral ecologies of these different school types are powerfully linked to the family lives students will ultimately lead as they grow into adulthood. In other words, private schools — especially Protestant ones — may offer a clear advantage to children when it comes to family life. 

Resources:

The Protestant family ethic | American Enterprise Institute

Private schools outpace public schools in putting kids on the path to marriage | NationalReview.com

Time stamps:

02:00 | Why did Wolf partner with Brad Wilcox to study the intersection of education and family life?

03:10 | Which schools put children at an advantage when it comes to family life?

06:45 | What are “moral ecologies” and why are they important?

10:35 | How do the moral messages Protestant and Catholic schools send to their students differ?

14:20 | What are the implications of these findings for public schools?

The Opioid epidemic has received a great deal of attention in the national media, but little has focused on how this tragic crisis is affecting children. New research suggests the drug crisis has torn at least 1.5 million children away from a parent since the mid-nineties. Such large disruptions to children’s living arrangements will have long-reaching impacts.

In this episode, Ian and Naomi are joined by Kasey Buckles, a professor of economics at the University of Notre Dame. She recently co-authored an important new study on the drug crisis and its effects on children. Dr. Buckles and her co-authors reveal that laws favoring OxyContin advertisement and prescriptions likely contributed to a rise in the number of children separated from their parents. As we continue to grapple with the drug crisis in this country, the evidence from this study suggests that our policies can have a strong impact on children’s well-being.

Resources:

The drug crisis and the living arrangements of children | National Bureau for Economic Research

Time Stamps:

01:05 | Key findings of the study

04:08 | How do the authors isolate the effects of the drug crisis, versus other causes? 

09:55 | How did the drug crisis impact children of different races?

13:30 | Most important interventions to uplift child-wellbeing 

14:15 | How the effects of this crisis extend beyond the foster care system

Startling pictures of starving, neglected, naked children were the first images seen by American parents after Ceaușescu’s communist dictatorship in Romania fell in the late 80s. But a well-intentioned rush to adopt these children led to difficulties for many Romanian children and their American parents, because families and adoption agencies did not fully understand the brain damage these children had incurred under squalor conditions in Romanian orphanages. How does a lack of personal affection shape a child’s development? Why are strong familial bonds so important?

In this episode, Naomi and Ian are joined by Melissa Fay Greene, Kirk Distinguished Writer in Residence at Agnes Scott College, to discuss her recent Atlantic article on the wave of Romanian adoptees brought to the US in the 1980s. The lack of personal attachment experienced by these children caused severe impairments to their development, speaking to the critical importance of love for healthy child development.

Resources:

30 Years Ago, Romania Deprived Thousands of Babies of Human Contact | The Atlantic

Time stamps:

01:10 | Greene’s personal connection to adoption in Romania

03:50 | Discovering brain damage in the Romanian children due to lack of nurture in orphanages

05:15 | What happened when the adoptees went from scarcity to abundance in an American home?

10:45 | Importance of love and stability for child development

16:45 | How long can a child be without a nurturer?

It is good to fight against racism in schools and in the workplace. But a new wave of “anti-bias” trainings in public and private organizations are pushing a divisive and disempowering narrative surrounding race. Organizations ranging from local school districts to the Seattle government and the Treasury Department have singled out white employees for “anti-racism” trainings and engaged in humiliating practices that studies have shown to be ineffective.

In this episode, Naomi and Ian are joined by Christopher Rufo, director of the Discovery Institute’s Center on Wealth & Poverty, to discuss the impacts of critical race theory, a growing philosophy that seeks to distill a person’s identity to his or her race.

Resources:

The truth about critical race theory | The Wall Street Journal

Summary of critical race theory investigations | Christopherrufo.com

Time Stamps:

01:25 | How a public request led to uncovering divisive training sessions sponsored by the FBI, Treasury Department, NASA, and other core federal agencies

04:19 | The “weaponization” of anti-bias trainings

07:40 | Harvard study finds critical race theory anti-bias trainings are ineffective

10:35 | How do non-white employees respond to these trainings?

13:10 | What are children being taught in school about their race?

Loving homes are important for adoptive children, regardless of the race of the adoptee. But recent articles from the Brookings Institution and America Magazine have called into question whether race is a more important factor when matching a child with their adoptive parents. Particularly, they suggest that white parents adopting black children can be damaging. Should adoption be determined by race or by merit? What are the consequences of limiting adoption to only racial matches?

 In this episode, Naomi and Ian are joined by Malka Groden, adoptive mother of two young children and deputy director of development at the Manhattan Institute, to discuss the importance of transracial adoption. As Malka, Naomi and Ian reveal, science and scholarship suggest that love wins out over racial differences when offering any child a stable home where he or she can flourish.

Resources:

Abby Johnson’s comments about her adopted Black son are problematic. Here’s why. | Brookings Institution

White parents adopting Black kids raises hard questions. We can all learn from them | America Magazine

Show Notes:

01:05 | Is it problematic for a white family to adopt a black child?

03:10 | Loving adoption over the foster system

06:55 | Building genuine relationships with diverse communities

08:25 | Multiethnic Placement Act of 1994 prioritizes loving placement over race-based placement

12:05 | Science affirms need for attachment, regardless of skin color

15:30 | Traumas felt by all adoptees and biological children, due to imperfect parents

By nearly all measures, remote learning fell short for a majority of students in the spring of 2020. With most schools opting to forego in-person teaching this fall, educators desperately need an effective virtual learning model to guide their teaching efforts. How can teachers engage students in their coursework, even as they tune in from […]

The post Remote learning that works appeared first on American Enterprise Institute - AEI.

With a large majority of public schools opting to continue remote learning this fall in lieu of reopening, parents face a unique set of challenges as home-based education becomes a more permanent fixture of life. How will life change for the millions of working parents whose children will now be at home for the fall? […]

The post How to homeschool in a pandemic appeared first on American Enterprise Institute - AEI.

A member of the Los Angeles County Commission for Children and Families recently issued a call to abolish foster care. Is the foster care system inherently racist? Are children being removed from their homes simply because their families are experiencing poverty? How can we ensure that disadvantaged children can have a brighter, more prosperous future? […]

The post Addressing racial disparities in foster care and inspiring agency in kids appeared first on American Enterprise Institute - AEI.

The Children’s Scholarship Fund (CSF) recently surveyed parents who receive need-based scholarships from their organization to send their children to inner-city private schools. How has the coronavirus affected the lives of low-income children attending these private schools? Were private schools in the CSF network prepared to meet the needs of vulnerable students this past spring […]

The post Private schools can help low-income kids, too appeared first on American Enterprise Institute - AEI.

Young people in Detroit are suing the state of Michigan over deplorable learning conditions in many of their city’s public schools. This begs the question: Why do students need to take such extreme measures to fight for the right to learn how to read? Are these poor learning conditions caused by a lack of school […]

The post Lockdown learning and children’s right to read appeared first on American Enterprise Institute - AEI.

Ian and Naomi talk to Jason Riley, a Manhattan Institute fellow and WSJ columnist, about racial bias in standardized testing and law enforcement

The post Abolishing the SAT won’t help minorities. Neither will abolishing the police appeared first on American Enterprise Institute - AEI.

Penn State's Sarah Font joins to discuss the child abuse risks caused by lockdown orders, child welfare during COVID, and how officials can keep kids safe.

The post Lockdown is more than an inconvenience for vulnerable children appeared first on American Enterprise Institute - AEI.

In a time of uncertainty, Ian and Naomi share uplifting news about foster care adoption rates and how to protect children from adverse experiences

The post Measuring adversity (and protecting kids from it) appeared first on American Enterprise Institute - AEI.

Nobel laureate James Heckman recently made waves among early childhood advocates when he said he is not, and never was, a supporter of universal pre-K. In this episode, Katharine Stevens — a resident scholar at AEI specializing in early childhood development — joins Ian and Naomi for a riveting discussion on James Heckman’s research and […]

The post Is universal child care universally beneficial? appeared first on American Enterprise Institute - AEI.

How do we promote educational opportunities for low-income children even before they start going to school? Does investing in young children really reap big benefits? Does the provision of center-based child care for families encourage low parental engagement in a child’s life? On this episode, Ian and Naomi are joined by Sarah Walzer, the CEO […]

The post Parenting 101 appeared first on American Enterprise Institute - AEI.

Ian and Naomi talk with two educational reform giants on ways to salvage the learning time lost to COVID-19 and keep kids engaged through summer learning

The post Creating a national summer learning program appeared first on American Enterprise Institute - AEI.

Before the Great Depression, charitable and religious organizations almost exclusively ran the child welfare system in the US. What is the appropriate role of private institutions in the child welfare system today? How can policy redress the perverse incentives currently built into the funding model of public child welfare agencies? In this episode, Ian and […]

The post Getting the Incentives Right appeared first on American Enterprise Institute - AEI.

Ian and Naomi delve into varied parenting-related topics in this episode, including the role of fatherhood, prison nurseries, and rising black teen suicides

The post Fathers, Be Good to Your Daughters appeared first on American Enterprise Institute - AEI.

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.