Are You Kidding Me?

What policy successes and failures have shaped outcomes for kids in the past five years, and what is necessary to create solutions in the next five? Join Naomi and Ian for the final episode of the Are You Kidding Me? podcast. From breakthroughs in school choice, to failures in child safety, to the growing ideological capture in child welfare and education, our hosts discuss “the good, the bad, and the ugly” of recent years–while looking ahead to what's needed to create a better future for America's children.Resources• Subscribe to the Are You Kidding Me? Monthly Newsletter • Stay Up to Date with The Free InitiativeShow Notes• 1:10 | “The Good”: Victories for School Choice • 5:04 | “The Good”: The Importance of Family Structure• 9:42 | “The Good”: Pushback against Extreme Ideas in Child Welfare • 13:10 | “The Bad”: Poor Policies around Reporting Child Safety Risks• 17:27 | “The Bad”: Misconceptions around Racial Disparities in Child Data • 18:40 | “The Bad”: The Family First Prevention Services Act's Impact on Residential Care • 25:13 | “Looking Ahead”: Report Data by Family Structure• 29:35 | “Looking Ahead”: Better Policies around Child Maltreatment Fatalities • 32:31 | How to Stay Connected with Naomi and Ian's Work

What will a new administration in Washington mean for American children, particularly the most vulnerable? This week, Naomi and Ian are joined by Lynn Johnson, founder of All In Fostering Futures and former Assistant Secretary of the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) during the first Trump administration. Lynn explores the federal government's role in influencing child welfare at the state level and highlights how reducing regulations and compliance burdens can enable child welfare workers to focus more on serving children and families directly.She reflects on ACF's focus during the first Trump administration, particularly its efforts to prioritize permanency in order to improve long-term outcomes for children in foster care. Lynn also discusses the need to revisit certain policies around kinship care introduced during the Biden administration. She also argues that some of the Biden administration's rules limited state governments' ability to collaborate with faith-based organizations to support foster children. Finally, she underscores the importance of interagency efforts to promote stable families and prevent children from entering the foster system altogether.Resources • How Churches Can Make a Difference in the Lives of Children Who Need Foster Care | Naomi Schaefer Riley• New White House Proposal to Further Alienate Religious Foster Parents | Naomi Schaefer Riley• The Privilege Hiding in Plain Sight | Ian RoweShow Notes• 00:47 | What were the child welfare priorities of the first Trump administration, and how much influence does the federal government have over policies regarding children and families? • 02:20 | Is there a parallel between the Administration for Children and Families and the Department of Education, in terms of their ability to influence state and local policy?• 04:40 | What steps did you take in your role during the first Trump administration, and what steps should be taken now that will get us closer to positive impact? • 10:00 | What can the federal government do that states cannot do to support a child who has experienced extreme instability and a high number of placements in the foster system?• 11:59 | What have the last four years looked like for child welfare under the Biden administration?• 19:31 | The Biden administration worked to implement certain requirements for foster care organizations regarding LGBTQ+ children, which could have negative impact on faith-based agencies. How should the next administration approach this issue?• 24:47 | How much should the federal government focus on prevention when it comes to child welfare issues?

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, in her dissent on the Supreme Court's ruling on affirmative action in 2023, cited a study published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) concluding that black infants are more likely to survive if they are cared for by black doctors than white doctors. But a recent study using the same data suggests that race was not the real factor. This week, Naomi and Ian are joined by George J. Borjas, senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and Professor of Economics and Social Policy at the Harvard Kennedy School, to discuss his recent paper co-authored with Robert VerBruggen, “Do Black Newborns Fare Better with Black Doctors? The Limits of Measuring Racial Concordance.” Originally part of a project analyzing the fragility of empirical findings in social science, George's study reanalyzes the same data used in the PNAS study to see whether the same result emerged. He and VerBruggen found that if the data is adjusted for low birthweight, the correlation between race of the doctor and infant survival disappeared. Their research has now been published by the National Academy of Sciences. George discusses how the narrative about the original study persists even when new data has called it into question. Resources● Do Black Newborns Fare Better with Black Doctors? The Limits of Measuring Racial Concordance | George J. Borjas and Robert VerBruggen ● Are Black Newborns More Likely to Survive with Black Doctors? | George J. Borjas and Robert VerBruggenShow Notes● 00:47 | How did you become interested in the topic of mortality rates among black newborns? What did you find in your study?● 05:50 | Why did your study find different results using the same data as the earlier one?● 07:57 | Why did the original authors not include low birthweight as a factor in their study?● 08:48 | What did you find about the distribution of doctors to women whose infants had low birthweight?● 11:01 | Have you shared this new finding with the original authors of the study?● 13:35 | Given that low birthweight is a universally accepted factor in infant mortality, are you surprised that the original result that black infants do better when they are matched with black doctors was so widely accepted?● 17:17 | Has your study received the same kind of attention as the original study?● 18:40 | Can we empirically answer the question of whether the specialties of doctors and their respective races is the driver of better results for black infants, rather than just the race itself?

How do we combat historically low fertility rates? While having fewer children has been correlated with higher rates of education among women, a significant group of highly educated women are still choosing to have big families. What is different about these women, and what can they teach us about the nature of parenthood and the importance of children?This week, Naomi and Ian are joined by Catherine Pakaluk, economist and associate professor at The Catholic University of America, to discuss her recent book, Hannah's Children: The Women Quietly Defying the Birth Dearth. In researching her book, Dr. Pakaluk interviewed women with a college education who also have five or more children with their current spouse. The vast majority of mothers she spoke with viewed raising children as their first priority. This was true of their husbands as well. Work and career were the secondary goals that supported their ability to be parents. These mothers also viewed motherhood through the lens of their faith, whether Catholic, Protestant, Mormon, or Jewish. They shared the belief that children are blessings from God. Dr. Pakaluk discusses the number of unintended, “spillover” benefits she observed among these families, such as increased independence in their children and a less materialistic approach to life, as well as what the implications of her research could be for public policy. Resources -Hannah's Children: The Women Quietly Defying the Birth Dearth | Catherine Pakaluk-What Happens When Every Aspect of Parenting Is a Choice? | Naomi Schaefer RileyTime Stamps-00:37 | Why did you decide to begin this research?-02:30 | What were the criteria for the women included in your study?-04:44 | What were these women like, and what was the motive behind their choices to have large families?-09:20 | How do we shift the conversation around the declining birth rate from technical interventions to the deeper themes you are talking about?-13:13 | How do these women think about their choices with regard to their career? Did they make the choice from a very early age, and how did their decisions fit in with their husbands' decisions?-17:57 | How do you reconcile the strong role religion plays in the lives of these women with the rising secularism of young people we are seeing today?-20:50 | How does the religious atmosphere in these families affect their view on material things? What are the other unintended benefits of having large families?

Much like other governmental agencies, child welfare systems are long overdue for a digital upgrade. But how can we ensure the technological tools implemented truly equip caseworkers and supervisors to meet the needs of children and families?This week, Naomi and Ian are joined by Sixto Cancel, the founder and CEO of Think of Us, a tech nonprofit working to reform the child welfare system in the US. Inspired by his own story in foster care, where one, outdated sentence in his case file determined the trajectory of his time in the system, Sixto founded Think of Us to improve the tech landscape of the foster care system. From the need to incorporate assistive AI into case management to improving federal incentives to encourage innovation, Sixto discusses the key areas in need of reform. Resources• Taking Child Welfare into the 21st Century | Naomi Schaefer Riley, Ian Rowe, and Greg McKay• Big Data Can Save Kids | Naomi Schaefer Riley• Think of Us | Sixto CancelShow Notes• 00:52 | What is the technology landscape of child welfare, and are the systems being used up to date?• 03:07 | What is the origin of your name, Sixto Cancel? • 04:06 | What about your story led you down this path to work toward better experiences for youth in foster care?• 06:38 | What could systems be doing differently to take into account all of the options for foster youth?• 09:28 | How are you now using virtual support services for youth getting ready to age out of the system?• 12:15 | Many child welfare agencies contract with different providers to meet their needs. How is this currently working, and could it be more efficient?• 15:32 | Why was the federal funding you secured ineffective to upgrade the technology systems within child welfare agencies?• 17:08 | What would be the better approach? Should the federal government still be involved, or would that run the same risk of having just one large entity dominating the space and discouraging innovation?• 20:05 | Are you planning to expand the direct service component of your organization?• 21:22 | Thinking about the data you've collected so far, what would say is the biggest mismatch between what people need and what is being offered to them?

Because of the Family First Prevention Services Act passed in 2017, residential care facilities, or “group homes,” for foster youth have lost significant funding—leading to the closure of many residential treatment options. Many advocates of the policy believe that placement with families are always the best option for kids. But what about the numerous foster youth who report immense benefits from their time in residential care? This week, Naomi and Ian are joined by Bruce Henderson, a former professor of psychology at Western Carolina University for over 40 years. Drawing on his background in child psychology, Bruce conducted a comprehensive review of the research on residential care facilities to understand how time spent in these homes affects foster youth. This research led to the publishing of his recent book, Challenging the Conventional Wisdom about Residential Care for Children and Youth. In this episode, Bruce explains the findings of his research and why he believes residential care must continue to be supported as an option for foster youth. Lastly, he shares a way to support The Black Mountain Home for Children and Families, a very impactful residential care home for foster youth in Black Mountain, North Carolina, that has suffered significant damage from Hurricane Helene. We encourage our listeners to give as they are able. Resources• Challenging the Conventional Wisdom about Residential Care for Children and Youth | Bruce B. Henderson• A Critical Dialogue on Residential Care for Children and Youth: What We Really Know and Questions of Quality | Bruce B. Henderson and James P. Anglin• Why Foster Children Are Sleeping in Offices and What We Can Do About It | Naomi Schaefer Riley et al. Show Notes• 00:54 | What motivated your interest in this research topic?• 02:32 | What is the Family First Prevention Services Act?• 05:44 | Why does residential care carry so much stigma today?• 07:09 | What were your findings when you looked at residential care facilities in other countries?• 09:06 | Is there a version of Family First that you would have supported?• 10:51 | What are the circumstances that make it possible for residential care to have a positive impact on a child's life?• 13:17 | Do attitudes around race play a role in the policy conversation around residential care?• 13:51 | How do you make appropriate comparisons when you look at this research and what studies have you found helpful when evaluating the effects of residential care on foster youth?• 17:14 | Does research show if the type of organization plays a role in the success of the residential home (i.e., faith-based, etc.)?• 18:21 | Do you envision a situation where we start to rethink whether we can really do without residential care? Can we go back?• 21:06 | Where does the financing come from for these facilities and programs?• 24:10 | How to Help The Black Mountain Home for Children and Families

Technological innovations are often sold to the public as ways to make life easier. But what if the increasing prevalence of technology in our lives is actually crowding out human experiences that are integral to children's development and well-being?This week, Naomi and Ian are joined by AEI Senior Fellow Christine Rosen to discuss her new book, The Extinction of Experience. Christine argues that the unmitigated push to integrate technology into all areas of life can be particularly harmful for children, who could be missing out on fundamental human experiences that help them grow. She highlights how even simple practices like learning cursive, or more significant milestones like dating—without the medium of screens—play a fundamental role in shaping who children become as adults. Contrary to tech moguls like Elon Musk who want to form new human communities on other planets, Christine believes we have a responsibility to find solutions that make life on earth a good one for children. Making the active choice to cut out technology from certain areas of our lives could be a good place to start. Resources• The Extinction of Experience: Being Human in a Disembodied World | Christine Rosen• The Lost Art of Waiting | Christine Rosen• Katharine Birbalsingh on Banning Smartphones from Schools | Naomi Schaefer Riley, Ian Rowe, and Katharine BirbalsinghShow Notes:• 01:13 | When did you first start noticing the negative impacts screens were having on kids?• 03:11 | Does it bring you some comfort that there is a growing movement to remove cell phones from schools?• 05:14 | What are some of the individual experiences we are losing because of technology? Are there some experiences that are alright to replace?• 08:00 | How has technology affected dating and the romantic lives of young people?• 10:03 | Can we recapture the tradition of having ‘forced' human interaction in spaces like churches, schools, and homes?• 12:36 | What can you tell us about the individuals and companies who are making these technologies?• 15:19 | Figures like Elon Musk have resorted to colonizing new planets as a solution to some of our human problems. Is this the right response? How would you respond?• 18:08 | What are the chances that a child who has been raised with so much technology will be able to dig themselves out of this?• 20:55 | Is there a role for faith and religious institutions in all of this?

When parents perpetuate abuse against their children, it is all too likely that they themselves were also victims of abuse. Children who have experienced maltreatment face significant barriers to flourishing when they reach adulthood, but with support and the right tools, it is possible for individuals to make different choices and break the cycle of abuse in their family. This week, Naomi and Ian are joined by Savannah Nelson, an undergraduate student at BYU-Idaho and recent author of an op-ed for the Institute for Family Studies, “Ending the Cycle of Intergenerational Child Abuse.” Savannah discusses her personal connection to the topic, sharing how her mother overcame the abuse she endured from her parents and was able to make a different choice when starting her own family. She also shares what she has learned from her research, including how forming strong marriages is associated with lower risk of abuse, and how marriage and family education can be an effective tool for equipping parents to create healthy relationships with each other and with their children. Resources-Ending the Cycle of Intergenerational Child Abuse | Savannah Nelson and Timothy Rarick-Married Fatherhood | Ian RoweShow Notes-00:52 | How did you come to write about this topic?-03:03 | What does it mean to be a “transitional character”?-04:24 | What kind of process must an individual go through in order to become a transitional character?-05:57 | How must a child make the choice to make a change even when the change hasn't been modeled for them? -07:17 | How can we help children who have experienced abuse feel confident that they are able to form healthier relationships in their own life? -09:37 | What role does marriage play in breaking the cycle of abuse, and what do you think of the fact that more and more young people are not considering marriage or children within marriage as part of their future?-12:26 | What resources are available through churches and religious communities to educate individuals on ending the cycle of abuse? Is this topic incorporated into family and marriage education in the context of the LDS church?

Concerns about a mental health crisis among young people have produced broad initiatives to improve overall mental well-being or “prevent” mental illness. But what evidence do we have that these programs are producing desirable outcomes? This week, Naomi and Ian are joined by Carolyn Gorman, the Paulson Policy Analyst at the Manhattan Institute. In a new report to be released on September 12, Carolyn examines whether school-based mental health initiatives are useful for combatting mental health issues among kids. She explains that, in many cases, the continued effort to broadly incorporate mental health treatment, awareness, and “prevention” programs into school systems do more harm than good. In light of the recent Georgia school shooting, the current conversation around mental health continues to be a pressing one. However, as Carolyn notes, policies targeted specifically toward individuals with severe mental health disorders are more likely to affect change than broad funding for mental health awareness and prevention. Resources-A Better Youth Mental Health Policy | Carolyn D. Gorman and Scott Dziengelski-Senate Gun Bill Includes Solid Mental Health Policies—But Must Focus on Serious MentalIllness | Carolyn D. GormanShow Notes00:40 | What were the findings of your research on theimpact of current mental health policy initiatives on the well-being andeducational outcomes of kids?02:29 | What are the downsides of the prevailing approachesto mental health policy? 05:38 | You divide mental health approaches into threetiers. Can you break those down?08:58| What is considered a mental illness and what is not?When are services at school appropriate, and where are the areas where schoolsare attempting to treat kids when they shouldn't?11:51 | What do you mean when you say the distinct goals ofmental health and education are often in direct conflict?14:28 | What is the right role for schools to play in therealm of children's mental health? 17:16 | How do mental health professionals view theencroachment of mental health treatment into schools? How can we untangle this?22:49 | How do social emotional learning programsexacerbating mental health issues?28:11 | What are the final policy recommendations from yourreport, and is there any distinction in recommendations based on the age of thechild?

Policymakers, researchers, and activists in the child welfare field frequently point to racial disparities within the system, as evidence of the systemic bias. But what are the true causes of these disparities? And how should governmental bodies tasked with protecting civil rights understand this issue?This week, Naomi and Ian are joined by Rafael Mangual, Nick Ohnell Fellow at the Manhattan Institute, to discuss his recent resignation from the New York State Advisory Committee to the US Commission on Civil Rights after it conducted an investigation of racial disparities in the child welfare system. Rafael discusses the report published by the committee, which includes recommendations that would significantly diminish the power of the child welfare system. He includes data from his own research that challenges the findings of the committee and expresses concern that other state committees are going to engage in the same kind of work that is thin on evidence and heavy on ideology. Resources-Kids In Jeopardy | Rafael Mangual-The Radical Push to Dismantle Child Protective Services | Naomi Schaefer Riley and Rafael Mangual-Advisory Committees | US Commission on Civil RightsShow Notes04:00 What are the disparities in the child welfare system, and what are the potential explanations for them? How did the committee go about gathering information to answer that question?11:30 How do committee members respond when alternative data is presented that suggests other causes for disparities besides systemic racism? 20:48 How would you respond to the claim that cash payments to families involved in child welfare will effectively address issues of abuse or neglect, and what do activists believe will be accomplished by this idea?

In 1996, Rev. W.C. Martin and his wife partnered with 22 families in their 100-person congregation to adopt 77 of the most difficult-to-place children in the Texas foster care system. A recent film, Sound of Hope: The Story of Possum Trot, tells the stories of these families and the inspiring results of their efforts. This week, Naomi and Ian are joined by Joe Knittig, CEO of Care Portal and executive producer of Possum Trot. As leader of an organization designed to connect caretakers and resources in local communities to children in need, Joe was already well-versed in bringing communities together to support vulnerable kids. As executive producer of Possum Trot he hopes to broaden these efforts, encouraging faith communities across the nation to step up for kids in foster care. Resources-Sound of Hope: The Story of Possum Trot | Angel Studios -How Churches Can Make a Difference in the Lives of Children Who Need Foster Care | Naomi Schaefer RileyShow Notes-00:40 | Tell us about your background and how it led to your involvement in the film?-02:15 | How does Care Portal connect caretakers with children in need?-05:49 | What is the story behind the Possum Trot? What are you hoping to accomplish through the film?-08:03 | When the Martin family approached the state about adopting the most difficult-to-place children, what was the initial response?-10:20 | The story of Possum Trot takes place in a historically black church community. How does this story contribute to the conversation around race in the child welfare system? -13:55 | How could the film catalyze churches and faith-based organizations to become more involved in child welfare and the foster care system? -16:17 | The film highlights the real struggles of fostering children. Is that part of the story resonating with audiences?-19:04 | How can listeners see the film?-20:18 | You are showing screenings of the film in church communities—what impact are you seeing?-21:48 | How are the original families doing?

As the school choice movement has gained momentum in recent years, parents have become a political force to be reckoned with. This week, Naomi and Ian are joined by Corey DeAngelis, senior fellow at the American Federation for Children and a visiting fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution, to discuss his recent book, The Parent Revolution: Rescuing Your Kids from the Radicals Ruining Our Schools. The book highlights the key contributors to school choice's spread across the country, the wealth of research on ways educational freedom benefits all children, and what is required to continue to advance educational freedom in the US. In this episode, Corey explains the important role of parents in the fight for school choice—particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic—the benefits of school choice for low-income communities, and the ongoing political shift towards school choice at the local, state, and federal levels. Resources-The Parent Revolution: Rescuing Your Kids from the Radicals Ruining Our Schools | Corey DeAngelis-Why We Must Eliminate Barriers to School Choice Nationwide | Ian Rowe-‘The Death of Public School' Review: Find a Place to Learn | Naomi Schaefer Riley-When Parents Do Know Best: Darla Romfo on the Viability of School Choice Programs | Naomi Schaefer Riley and Ian RoweShow Notes-0:00:45 | What was your purpose in writing the book?-0:03:24 | How did school closures and parents' awareness of course content during the COVID-19 pandemic accelerate the school choice movement?-0:07:13 | What does research reveal about the impact of school choice on upward mobility, and are “school choice alliances” growing in low-income communities?-0:10:10 | Should school choice waivers apply to all institutions, or should there be limitations?-0:14:08 | Which states are the “next frontiers” for school choice? -0:16:57 | How does school choice help ensure high quality education options?-0:20:36 | Would abolishing the Department of Education benefit or harm school choice?

The country's youth mental health crisis continues to increase demand for psychiatric beds. Yet, the availability of residential treatment facilities, reserved for youth with severe emotional disturbances, is on the decline. What impact does this have on youth—including those in foster care--with high levels of need, and how do we ensure access to treatment for the children who need it most?This week, Naomi and Ian are joined by Scott Dziengelski, a consultant at King and Spalding LLP and former director of policy and regulatory affairs at the National Association for Behavioral Healthcare, to discuss his recent report, “Deinstitutionalization Redux: The Decline in Residential Mental Health Treatment for Youth.” The report highlights the concerning shortage of residential treatment facilities and bed space for youth who need care. In this episode, Scott explains the current move toward deinstitutionalization, the effect of negative media messaging around residential treatment centers, and the crucial policy and cultural changes needed to ensure youth with severe challenges receive the care they need.Resources-Deinstitutionalization Redux: The Decline in Residential Mental Health Treatment for Youth | Scott Dziengelski-How Foster Kids Are Being Damaged by a Lack of Home Care Facilities | Naomi Schaefer Riley-Why Foster Children Are Sleeping in Offices and What We Can Do About It | Sean Hughes et al. Show Notes-00:58 | How did you get involved in children's mental health policy?-02:20 | What does the spectrum of need look like for children's mental health, and which children are served by residential treatment facilities?-05:26 | How do you interpret the data around the rise in children's mental health challenges?-07:34 | What led to the decrease in availability of residential treatment facilities?-10:34 | Why are people advocating for the deinstitutionalization of residential treatment facilities? -13:23 | Two congressional hearings on residential treatment recently took place. What impact will these have on the availability of residential treatment?-16:55 | How does tying educational funds to children help when residential treatment is needed?-21:18 | What is your recommendation on Medicaid dollars following children in care? How do we shift the narrative on residential treatment facilities? -25:37 | Which states are doing the best in regard to residential treatment facilities?

The dramatic rise in substance use disorders over the past decade has altered—indeed, destroyed—many American lives, but how does this epidemic affect children? And who is ensuring their safety?This week, Naomi and Ian are joined by Sarah Font, child welfare researcher and associate professor of sociology and public policy at Penn State, to discuss a recent published statement Sarah wrote on behalf of AEI's child welfare working group. “The US Is Failing Substance-Exposed Infants” critiques policies which limit Child Protective Services' responsibility to aid substance-exposed infants, and how voluntary “Plans of Safe Care” put in place by some states are insufficient to address the dilemma. In this episode, Sarah details the effects of drug exposure in infants, whether and how positive toxicology screens in new mothers and infants are reported, and what practices in medicine and child protection need to change in order to prioritize the well-being of children. Resources-The US Is Failing Substance-Exposed Infants | Sarah Font et al.-The US Is Failing Infants Exposed to Drugs and Alcohol | Naomi Schaefer Riley and Sarah FontShow Notes-0:01:00 | How should we understand drug exposure among infants?-0:01:34 | What are the dangers to children of substance exposure in utero and when a child is under the supervision of parents who are addicted?-0:03:28 | Why is there a reduction in foster care placements when there is an increase in reported abuse?-0:04:44 | What are plans of safe care intended to accomplish?-0:06:29 | What was the rationale behind Mass General Brigham's new policy on substance abuse reporting? -0:09:16 | How have we lost our focus regarding the effects of drug policy on children?-0:11:44 | Is the normalization of drug use working as a gateway to children's drug exposure?-0:13:34 | What are some policy changes that should be considered by states and medical institutions? -0:16:11 | What states or localities can we point to as models for others to follow?-0:16:57 | What happens when hospitals contact CPS? -0:19:00 | What prevention strategies exist?

How has the Supreme Court's decision on Dobbs v. Jackson affected foster care and adoption in the United States during the past two years?This week, Naomi and Ian are joined by Herbie Newell, President & Executive Director of Lifeline Children's Services, one of the largest adoption agencies in the United States. Herbie discusses how the recent limits on abortion access in some states have impacted adoption agencies. He highlights the cultural shifts that have emerged since the Dobbs decision, including the decreased stigma surrounding adoption. He also addresses the slight increase in foster care numbers following the ruling, and how to interpret it, as well as how we can create a more positive outlook on adoption as an option for mothers, fathers, and children in the United States.Resources-Doing Adoption the “Right” Way Can Work for Everyone Involved | Naomi Schaefer Riley -Elizabeth Kirk on Adoption Post Dobbs | Naomi Schaefer Riley | Ian Rowe-What is it Like to Place Your Child For Adoption | Naomi Schaefer Riley | Timothy P. CarneyShow Notes-0:00:57 | How has the atmosphere around adoption changed post Dobbs?-0:03:59 | How has the view of adoption shifted in the pro-life community?-0:06:31 | Has there been an increase in foster care post-Dobbs?-0:09:44 | How should we think about adoption as an option for mothers and how can we reduce the stigma women choosing adoption face?-0:13:20 | What pressures might women feel in the adoption process? How do we address them?-0:18:23 | Does adoption stigma drive single-mother households? How do we better involve men throughout the adoption process?

The steep increase in mental health challenges among young children is one of today's most widely discussed issues. But why is so little attention paid to the role of family dynamics in creating or reducing stress for kids?This week, Ian and Naomi are joined by Dr. Nicholas Zill, research psychologist and senior fellow at the Institute for Family Studies, to discuss his most recent report, “Families Matter to Kids' Mental Health.” In the report, Dr. Zill analyzes data from the National Survey on Children's Health to demonstrate how family structure affects not only the likelihood children will need mental health services, but also whether they will receive them. He points out a number of striking findings, including how foster children are the group most likely to be using medication to treat mental health problems. Dr. Zill emphasizes how understanding a child's family structure is vital to treating their mental health, and how other methods of combatting mental illness beyond medication should be employed as well. Resources-Families Matter to Kids' Mental Health | Nicholas Zill-Why Foster Kids Aren't Getting the Mental Health Care They Need | Naomi Schaefer RileyShow Notes-00:44 | Why does family structure get missed in the conversation about kids' mental health?-08:25 | Why does the gap between the need and receipt of mental health services come from? How can we close that gap? -11:48 | How do we share this data without seeming like we are blaming families for their impact on a child's mental health? -13:08 | How do we make sure we are talking about the youth mental health crisis in an accurate, right-sized way? -16:46 | Do younger generations having different attitudes toward marriage and forming families? -18:29 | What is the good news on this issue? -21:23 | How can we encourage reporting of data on family structure?

Conventional wisdom suggests that developing a child's intellect is the job of schools, but parents spend far more time with their kids than teachers do. There is a lot that parents can and should do on this front. This week, Naomi is joined by Eva Moskowitz, founder and CEO of Success Academy Charter Schools in New York City, and author of the recent book, A+ Parenting: The Surprisingly Fun Guide to Raising Surprisingly Smart Kids. Eva discusses how many parents feel an obligation to come down to their child's level when it comes to speech or play, but in fact, their child may benefit more from being included in the complex or stimulating discussions and activities that parents are already enjoying. From movies, to games, to music played in the car, Eva has curated a list of materials and activities that are both age-appropriate and intellectually challenging for kids. What is important, Eva argues, is for parents to enjoy time with their kids, as this creates greater satisfaction for children, too. Resources-A+ Parenting: The Surprisingly Fun Guide to Raising Surprisingly Smart Kids | Eva Moskowitz-Teach Your Children Well | Naomi Schaefer Riley Show Notes-00:55 | What inspired you to write this book?-03:27 | How should parents work to develop their child's intellect differently than schools?-06:16 | How does this guidance translate across class divides? Are you hoping to bridge the gap between parents who are familiar with these cultural staples and those who aren't? -09:57 | Why does the specific book a child reads matter beyond just the fact that they are reading at all?-11:59 | Can you give an example of the type of movie that is worthwhile for kids to watch, and why?-15:46 | How do you know when these activities are appropriate, or if too much is going over the child's head? -18:08 | What are your thoughts on the impact of cellphones and social media on children's intellectual development?-21:08 | How can we engage in parenting in a way that helps us find more of the joy in the process?

Why do some members of the “elite class”—those who are educated, wealthy, and largely raised in stable, two-parent homes—publicly advocate for harmful beliefs while not subscribing to them in their private lives?This week marks Are You Kidding Me?'s 100th episode! For this special episode, Naomi and Ian are joined by Rob Henderson, psychologist and author of the recent book Troubled: A Memoir of Foster Care, Family, and Social Class. Having experienced an unstable childhood in the foster care system before then enlisting in the military and going on to complete a PhD in psychology, Rob observed a phenomenon among American elites he eventually coined as “luxury beliefs.” Luxury beliefs are held ideas that confer status to the wealthy while inflicting harm on the poor and working class. Rob discusses where he believes this phenomenon originated, the practical impact it has for low-income communities, and how he tries to reverse the trend through sharing data and encouraging people to think more deeply about the ideas they are espousing. ResourcesTroubled: A Memoir of Foster Care, Family, and Social Class | Rob HendersonLuxury Beliefs That Only the Privileged Can Afford | Rob HendersonTroubled: A Book Event with Rob Henderson | Naomi Schaefer Riley, Sally Satel, Rob HendersonShow Notes01:05 | Can you talk about your background with the foster care system, and what the biggest influence in your early years was on your thinking later in life?02:59 | What was the pivot for you that allowed you to find success and eventually write your book?09:56 | Why are members of the “elite class” so predisposed to express certain beliefs in public but not hold to them in their private lives?15:04 | How does the act of holding luxury beliefs by the elite class impact members of the working class?18:45 | Can you talk about the luxury belief dynamic as it plays out with drug use, and how is that dynamic playing out in families? 23:52 | Are you finding that some of the ideas you express in your book are being made by others into their own kinds of luxury beliefs?26:57 | How do we confront luxury beliefs in such a way that we can reverse the impact they are having on low income communities?

The “Success Sequence” refers to a series of steps—graduating high school, working full-time, and marrying before having children—that are shown to dramatically decrease one's likelihood of living in poverty. But what happens if, for a variety of reasons, these steps are completed out of order? In this episode, Naomi and Ian are joined by Angela Rachidi, a senior fellow at AEI focusing on poverty and the effects of federal safety-net programs on low-income individuals and families. Angela discusses her recent report, which examines how completing certain “success sequence” steps (namely, graduating high school, finding full-time work, and getting married) can impact poverty rates for unmarried mothers. Angela explains the immense economic burden and reduced odds of escaping poverty faced by those who have children before marriage or completing their education, especially when the mother is not working toward those critical life milestones. However, her findings indicate that for these young parents, education and marriage in particular have an immensely positive impact, even if these milestones are achieved after having a child. Naomi, Ian, and Angela conclude by discussing how policymakers and community leaders can better encourage and reinforce the value of the completing the steps of the “success sequence” among American youth and adults, even when life does not go exactly as planned. Resources-Dynamics of Families After a Nonmarital Birth | Angela Rachidi-The Success Sequence for Unmarried Mothers | Angela RachidiShow Notes-0:00:44 | Why did you decide to study this particular population?-0:03:12 | Can you talk about the “Fragile Families” dataset that you used for this report?-0:05:08 | What were your findings for these women? -0:12:34 | Can you isolate marriage in correlation with reducing poverty?-0:14:29 | Can you talk about the role of multi-partner fertility?-0:16:48 | How should we share this information with young women in these situations? 0:18:53 | What role do you think personal faith commitment plays into all of this?

Why are Americans having fewer children? And why do younger Americans seem resistant to the idea of having children at all?In this episode, Naomi and Ian are joined by Tim Carney, a senior fellow at AEI focusing on family, religion, and civil society in America. Tim discusses his upcoming book, “Family Unfriendly: How Our Culture Made Raising Kids Much Harder than It Needs to Be.” Tim unpacks all the ways parenting has become harder--from the expectation that parents must provide children with every extracurricular opportunity, to the collapse of marriage and the lack of neighborhoods where kids can walk places. He also argues for a return to the idea that children are inherently valuable—not just vehicles for accomplishments. To conclude, Tim makes recommendations for how coaches, local legislators, educators, and parents can encourage younger people to prioritize getting married and starting a family as they are building their lives. ResourcesFamily Unfriendly: How Our Culture Made Raising Kids Much Harder Than It Needs to Be | Tim CarneyCivilizational Sadness: We Are Becoming Sad and Afraid, and So We Are Making Fewer Babies | Tim CarneyShow Notes- 0:00:45 | What prompted you to write the book? - 0:04:21 | Are there any ways we can make culture more family-friendly through public policy?- 0:06:56 | What makes you different that allows you to see the problems here? What can we do to cultivate more individuals who value family and children?- 0:09:35 | Do you need an underlying religious belief in order to see family differently?- 0:13:52 | How is all of this affecting the trend of young people who are delaying marriage? - 0:23:00 | How can we use research like Raj Chetty's around upward mobility to strengthen the case for families?

New York City public schools have long struggled with abysmally low literacy rates among their students. Will adopting a more evidence-based reading curriculum be enough to create improvement?This week, Naomi and Ian are joined by Robert Pondiscio, Senior Fellow at AEI and scholar of K-12 education, to discuss the science of reading. A former 5th grade teacher himself, Robert recounts his experience with the whole language curriculum in New York City schools, memorably dubbed “vibes-based” literacy by the New York. It centers a student's interest in reading over the building blocks of literacy themselves. Robert discusses a recent announcement that New York schools would be switching to one of three new scientifically-backed reading programs, explaining both the hope and potential challenges that come with adopting the new framework. Resources- Getting Reading Right | Robert Pondiscio- What Do Parents Need to Know About the Science of Reading? | Robert PondiscioShow Notes0:01:00 | What is the science of reading and why should we be glad education leaders are embracing it?0:04:03 | What have teachers been taught about literacy in the past, and what is the truth being rediscovered now?0:08:57 | How difficult will it be to re-train teachers on these new curricula?0:11:30 | How can we help teachers understand that knowledge-building must be a part of teaching reading?0:16:21 | Can anything be done for students who have already missed the early years of proper literacy teaching?0:19:37 | How long will it take to start seeing improvement in test scores and performance?0:28:59 | Do you have hopes for the introduction of AI into teaching and education?

How can we ensure young Americans understand civics? Our K-12 schools have seen a significant loss in the both the quality and quantity of history and civics requirements. Is there any way reverse this trend? In this episode, Naomi and Ian are joined by Chris Sinacola, director of communications and media relations at Pioneer Institute and co-editor of Restoring the City on a Hill: U.S. History & Civics in America's Schools. Chris discusses his new book and outlines what is behind the steady decline of history and civics education, what testing standards and results indicate about the quality of civics education in schools, the importance of connecting students with the roots of the American nation, and what it will take to preserve American tradition and history. Chris also mentions that although some of the data looks bleak, there are upward trends and ways that parents have been mobilizing to protect and improve their children's education. ResourcesRestoring 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 RileyShow Notes0:46 | 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 CohenPutting the Kids First: A Child Welfare System That Works | Naomi Schaefer RileyShow 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. ResourcesThe Relationship Between Child Maltreatment and Poverty | Naomi Schaefer RileyThe Relationship Between Substance Abuse and Child Welfare | Naomi Schaefer RileyFixing Our Child Welfare System to Help America's Most Vulnerable Kids | Naomi Schaefer RileyShow Notes0:01:50 | Naomi's remarks begin0:02:58 | Misconceptions around neglect0:07:22 | Misconceptions around racial disparities0:13:55 | Conversation with Ian begins0:14:13 | 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. ResourcesHome Schooling's Rise from Fringe to Fastest-Growing Form of Education | The Washington PostLet Parents Choose Their Kids Schools | Darla Romfo Why We Must Eliminate Barriers to School Choice Nationwide | Ian RoweThe Death of Public School' Review: Find a Place to Learn | Naomi Schaefer Riley Show Notes0:00:48 | 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. ResourcesWe Can Fight Learning Loss Only With Accountability and Action | Michael J. Petrilli Unlocking the Future | Ian Rowe, Robert Pondiscio, Jessica Schurz, John BaileyShow Notes00:41 | 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 RoweShow 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. ResourcesCalifornia's Math Misadventure Is About to Go National | Brian Conrad | The AtlanticPublic Comments on the CMF | Brian ConradShow Notes1:04 | 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.” ResourcesFinally, We're All Wising up About the Dangers of Screen Time for Kids – Naomi Schaefer Riley, The Los Angeles TimesThe Power of Culture: The Michaela Way – book by Katharine Birbalsingh Katharine Birbalsingh on Michaela – The Report Card with Nat MalkusShow Notes0:00:50 – 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 RoweShow 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 JournalShow 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 PostShow 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 WebsiteShow 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 PostShow 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 PostShow 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 NewsShow 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 NewsShow 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 FederalShow 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 | EduwonkShow 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?