Are You Kidding Me?

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?

Two weeks after three-year-old Shaquan Butler was found dead at a homeless shelter in Queens, two more young children were fatally stabbed by their mother inside a family shelter in the Bronx. There were plenty of warning signs in both cases, and even worse the, Administration for Children’s Services (ACS) had already been investigating the families prior to the murders. What keeps social workers from rescuing children in unsafe homes and how can child welfare agencies start putting kids’ safety first?In this episode, Ian interviews Naomi on the failures of the child welfare system today, driven by the misguided belief that the existence of racial disparities is proof that the system is racist. While black children are investigated by child welfare agencies and in foster and congregate care at a higher rate than represented in the population, they are also twice as likely to experience abuse and neglect and three times as likely to die from child maltreatment. Instead of prioritizing racial equity, ACS should acknowledge the role of family structure, substance abuse, and mental illness in these tragedies, and train caseworkers to understand that their primary goal is to protect children.Resources:• No Way to Treat a Child: How the Foster Care System, Family Courts, and Racial Activists Are Wrecking Young Lives | Naomi Schaefer Riley | Bombardier Books• The City Knew Three-Year-Old Beaten to Death Was Being Abused—What Does It Take for Agencies to Act? | Naomi Schaefer Riley | New York PostShow Notes:• 01:20 | What is going on with ACS? • 04:35 | Debunking the narrative that child welfare systems are racist because racial disparities exist• 08:30 | Family structure is not distributed evenly in this country• 09:35 | The tragedies of Shaquan, DeSean, and Octavius• 21:00 | Child welfare agencies’ main equity is protecting children from harm, not racial equity

A century after the Supreme Court’s infamous ruling that children are “not mere creatures of the state,” there is a rising belief today that government is better suited than parents to decide what’s best for children. Increasingly, teachers and school administrators are making critical decisions about students’ upbringing without parental consent or even knowledge. How will this ideology affect the relationship between parents and teachers and how should parents respond? In this episode, Naomi and Ian are joined by Robert Pondiscio, a former teacher and Senior Fellow in education policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute. Robert outlines the current legal lines that have been drawn between parents and schools. He expresses concern over states like New Jersey that are wrongfully using FERPA (Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act) as a legal basis for not notifying parents when children change their pronouns or gender. While these guidelines are intended to protect children, Robert argues that they only erode trust between parents and teachers. With the latest NAEP (National Assessment of Educational Progress) report showing that a majority of students nationwide still cannot read and do math at grade level, parents should get involved in their local school districts to ensure that schools are focusing on academic performance above all else.Resources:• Schoolchildren Are Not ‘Mere Creatures of the State’ | Robert Pondiscio | American Enterprise Institute• How to Educate an American | Ian Rowe, Naomi Schaefer Riley | Templeton PressShow Notes:• 00:40 | What does it mean that schoolchildren are not mere creatures of the state? • 03:25 | Public education is assuming powers it doesn’t have • 08:00 | Keeping secrets from parents violates FERPA• 11:10 | There’s a cultural problem in education where we tend to distrust parents• 15:55 | What are the political ramifications of this belief?

The Biden administration recently announced its decision to forgive $10,000 in student loans for borrowers making less than $125,000 per year and up to $20,000 for Pell Grant recipients. Is this policy the best way to help kids? Is it even legal?In this episode, Naomi and Ian are joined by David French, senior editor at The Dispatch and columnist for The Atlantic. David explains that this $400 billion proposal is effectively financial relief given to one of society’s most privileged populations. Most of the taxpayers footing this bill aren’t college graduates, and it’s unreasonable to ask them to subsidize the education debt of people who stand to earn more money over the course of their lifetimes. David also breaks down why this idea is on shaky legal ground, in part because the administration has to demonstrate that this relief is tied to an actual emergency. After Biden declared, “the pandemic is over,” that argument is harder to make. Resources:• Why Biden’s Debt-Relief Plan ‘Pings Our Sense of Unfairness’ | David French | The Atlantic• Biden’s Student Loan Announcement Is a Regressive, Expensive Mistake | The Washington Post Editorial BoardShow Notes: • 01:21 | How the relief program benefits the most economically advantaged classes of people• 06:37 | A discouraging message to frugal and hardworking students • 08:30 | Legal landscape: the concept of standing• 13:06 | Legal landscape: the program's unconstitutionality• 17:35 | What is the political calculus behind student debt relief?• 21:15 | Prioritizing policies that support young people on finding the right career path

Following the Dobbs decision, how can policymakers and adoption agencies ensure that adoption is one of the options women consider when they find themselves with an unplanned pregnancy?In this episode, Naomi and Ian are joined by Elizabeth Kirk, director of the Center for Law and the Human Person at Catholic University’s Columbus School of Law. Elizabeth explains that adoption is not often considered by mothers because many are unaware of how much control they have in the adoption process, choosing the family they want their child to be raised in. Many people also confuse private infant adoption with adoption out of the foster care system. In order to prioritize adoption as a meaningful choice for women, Elizabeth recommends that states require schools to teach about adoption in sex education classes, using programs like Option Hope in Louisiana. While she praises the adoption tax credit, the kinds of policies that would result in women considering adoption come from improving options counseling and giving birth mothers post-placement counseling. Resources:Countering the ‘Soft Stigma’ Against Adoption | Elizabeth Kirk | Institute for Family StudiesThe Role of Adoption in Dobbs-Era Pro-Life Policy | Elizabeth Kirk | Charlotte Lozier InstituteAdoption After Dobbs | American Enterprise Institute EventShow Notes:• 01:11 | Misbeliefs and reasons why adoption is still not considered a meaningful option• 06:37 | Best-practices on how states can create a welcoming debate about adoption• 12:14 | A legal landscape that promotes informed consent counseling• 14:06 | How faith-based institutions model radical hospitality in child welfare• 16:22 | Prioritizing adequate language and understanding women’s needs

What lessons can policymakers and child welfare workers learn from those with personal experience in the foster care system in order to best support vulnerable children? In this episode, Naomi and Ian are joined by Tori Hope Petersen, former foster youth, current foster mom, and author of the gripping memoir Fostered. Tori describes how she navigated her way to a life of college graduation, athletic success, and a loving family despite living in twelve different foster homes. She recounts the positive influence of her Court Appointed Special Advocate and explains the need for more accountability with caseworkers. Tori believes we should be doing more to promote kinship care, detailing her powerful relationship with her track coach and mentor who ultimately served as her father figure. Resources:• Fostered: One Woman’s Powerful Story of Finding Faith and Family Through Foster Care | Tori Hope Petersen | ‎ B&H Books• We’re Still Failing Kids in Foster Care | Naomi Schaefer Riley | Deseret NewsShow Notes: • 01:06 | Tori’s childhood and first experience with the child welfare system• 05:49 | The conflict of interests of caseworkers and the role of Court Appointed Special Advocates• 09:45 | The importance and neglect in the foster system of kinship care• 17:04 | How Tori found guidance and healing in faith• 21:41 | Broadening the horizon for other people's stories in college

Public policy often looks at race, social class, and gender when analyzing educational inequality. But what impact could religion have on academic performance?In this episode, Naomi and Ian are joined by Ilana Horwitz, Assistant Professor in the Department of Jewish Studies at Tulane University and the author of God, Grades, and Graduation. Ilana breaks down the findings from a nationally representative study out of Notre Dame, which showed that students raised in Christian backgrounds get better grades in middle and high school regardless of their socioeconomic status. However, middle and upper-class students tend to choose less selective colleges, in part because college selection for religious students is more of a social decision than an economic one. Ilana explains that children who grow up religious tend to be conscientious, kind to others, and more self-disciplined, all qualities useful for performing well in school. Yet she does not argue that the country needs to be more religious. Instead, she advocates for identifying other institutions that offer the same kind of social capital as religion in order to instill a greater sense of purpose and hope among youth.Resources:• ‘God, Grades, and Graduation’ Review: A Faithful Way to Learn | Naomi Schaefer Riley | Wall Street Journal• I Followed the Lives of 3,290 Teenagers. This Is What I Learned About Religion and Education. | Ilana Horwitz | New York TimesShow Notes:• 01:15 | Describing some results from the National Study on Youth and Religion • 04:30 | Religious students get better grades in middle and high school • 06:30 | How do religious students choose colleges? • 17:45 | Religion provides a sense of purpose• 21:25 | Is this a call to action to be more religious?

Are college professors allowed to write about the differences between men and women? Can they speak out about the importance of strong families in creating strong societies? The short answer is no. In this episode, Naomi and Ian are joined by Scott Yenor, Professor of Political Science at Boise State University and the author of The Recovery of Family Life. Scott was recently investigated by his employer after sharing his thoughts on these matters. After fifty years during which conservatives have tried to accommodate the basic principles of feminism, Scott explains that we need to celebrate the natural differences between men and women instead of socially engineering gender roles based on political ideology. Scott objects to gender equity programs in professional development and believes that K-12 schools should focus more on teaching students how they can build a solid marriage and happy family.Resources:• Inside the Title IX Tribunal | Scott Yenor | Law & Liberty• The Recovery of Family Life: Exposing the Limits of Modern Ideologies | Scott Yenor | Baylor University PressShow Notes:• 00:50 | What is behind Scott’s Title IX investigation? • 05:55 | Strong countries need strong families• 08:11 | The problem with gender equity programs• 15:05 | Feminism only works under a certain policy environment• 23:40 | The impact of cancel culture

A new AEI report found that the COVID-19 pandemic caused the largest enrollment declines in the history of American public Schools. 85 percent of school districts across the country had enrollment losses the year after the pandemic started, and almost half of districts saw declines of 3 percent, a seven-fold increase from the prior year. Why are Americans fleeing public schools? In this episode, Naomi and Ian are joined by Betsy DeVos, former secretary of education and author of the new book Hostages No More. Over the last two years, parents have witnessed school closures, mask mandates, and seen the impact of a curriculum focused more on social justice than preparing students for high levels of academic achievement. Secretary DeVos explains the flaws in the public school system that pre-date the pandemic and believes broadening school choice will return a standard of excellence to the classroom. Despite efforts in some states to return to remote learning or require masks in schools, Secretary DeVos is optimistic the public’s opposition to these measures will force politicians to put the interests of families and children first. Resources:• Hostages No More: The Fight for Education Freedom and the Future of the American Child | Betsy DeVos • Pandemic Enrollment Fallout: School District Enrollment Changes Across COVID-19 Response | Nat Malkus | American Enterprise InstituteShow Notes:• 01:20 | Why are Americans fleeing public schools? • 06:30 | Why is it difficult to address the failings of public school? • 11:10 | The problems with the Department of Education • 16:00 | Should we have a national referendum on what topics should be taught in public school? • 17:30 | The way we run K-12 education is very outdated