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