Is money the determining factor to school districts producing students who perform well? Surprisingly, the answer is no. If money alone were the key, a small town like Steubenville, Ohio, in Jefferson County on the Ohio River and part of the Rust Belt, would not perform as well as Upper Arlington, Ohio, an affluent community.

No doubt, adequate funding is important, but other factors are equally important, such as whether a child’s basic needs in order to thrive and succeed in the classroom are met. Many children are part of families that live in a van or perhaps in abandoned buildings. Not all children have what many take for granted, like electricity, running water or heat. Some may not eat regularly and aren’t clothed properly.

And then there’s the matter of social capital, that is, those community connections a family has. Steubenville provides a good example. Based on an audit of the Ohio Department of Education conducted by the state auditor, published in 2021, Steubenville ranks in the top 10 percent of all Ohio school districts in terms of performance. And it does so spending far less money per student than Upper Arlington.

The reason Steubenville is able to spend less money on education and still achieve high performance scores is strong community fabric. When you have social capital and those close connections that exist when adults take an interest in the life of students and teachers, students perform well.

One rural district has a practice of ensuring that all new teachers ride on the school bus to get a sense for how their students live. Think about what that level of understanding does for a teacher.

Listen to our conversation with Tracy Nájera, Ph.D., and Howard Fleeter, Ph.D.

Tracy has committed her professional career to improving the lives of children and their families, especially those most vulnerable in society. Her experience spans research, program management and implementation and public policy. For most of her career, Tracy has worked in education policy, tackling issues such as school funding, professional learning and human capital in education.

Howard has worked extensively for more than 25 years with Ohio education policy-makers to improve the state's school funding system and is the owner of the state and local government finance and tax policy consulting firm Howard Fleeter & Associates. He serves as a research consultant on education finance and policy issues for the Ohio Education Policy Institute.

Statistics show that between two and five percent of those incarcerated were wrongly convicted and are actually innocent. Can you imagine?

How do the wrongly convicted win their freedom? It’s a long and arduous process that begins with a committed attorney and, often, those attorneys are assisted by the nationwide organization, the Innocence Project.

One of those committed attorneys is our guest Charlie Weiss, a long time civil law lawyer in St. Louis, who later in his career was drawn to this work. Often the wrongfully convicted have been in prison for 20 years or more, and their families have exhausted all of resources to help with the person’s defense, and they’re all exhausted from the stress and frustration.

It takes great resources to handle these cases, and it helps if you’re part of a large firm that can commit manpower and has the assets needed to hire experts, conduct DNA testing, etc. And it takes years to cross the finish line. Perseverance is the order of the day.

The process is challenging for two reasons. The first is the judicial system’s reluctance to reevaluate a case. It's as if the system is saying, “We've tried this case. We’re done. We must have gotten it right.” Finality matters, and, besides, what trial judge wants to admit that an error was made in his court? Which is to say, it’s often an appellate court that orders a trial court take a second look at a case.

And there’s the matter of politics. Prosecuting attorneys get elected based on the convictions they win. Assisting someone getting released from prison doesn’t result in votes. The Missouri Attorney General's office has a policy that it will oppose every habeas corpus case brought—post trial proceedings to seek to overturn a conviction—regardless of how good the evidence is. “They just automatically oppose it,” Charlie told us.

Listen to our conversation with Charlie.

We continue our conversation with MAGA faithful Chuck Cordit about why he thinks Donald Trump's first 100 days in office have been successful.

Donald Trump has the lowest 100-day job approval rating of any president in the past 80 years, with public pushback on many of his policies and extensive economic discontent, including broad fears of a recession.

The concept of the "First 100 Days" refers to the early period of a U.S. president’s new term, typically seen as a symbolic window to set the tone, push key policies and demonstrate leadership. It represents a kind of political version of a first impression.

In the United States, no one talked that much about the importance of a president’s first 100 days—until Franklin D. Roosevelt took office in 1933. He took swift action to calm the nation’s crippling financial panic (cue the Emergency Banking Act and the “fireside chats” that became Roosevelt’s signature) and began rolling out the programs that made up his New Deal, including 15 major pieces of legislation in the first 100 days. FDR’s extraordinary productivity translated into enormous popularity, and he set a first 100-day standard against which all future U.S. presidents would (perhaps unfairly) be measured.

We talk with Chuck Cordak, an ardent MAGA supporter, about why he thinks Trump's first 100 days have been successul, and, of course, we offer our view. Spoiler alert: Chuck is positively impressed; we're not.

What seems to matter to MAGA followers, like Chuck, is the volume of activity that surrounds the Trump administration. The question is, what does all that activity do for the good of the country?

Chuck is a father of six, five who serve in the military. He has been deeply involved with Ohio, Illinois GOP politics for over 40 years. A former ROTC Midshipman at Ohio State University, Chuck is a native Ohioan and says he was raised as a Truman Kenndy Democrat with conservative Catholic education and traditional values. He has worked all over the Midwest, as well as the Northeast. Chuck resides in Columbus and is currently working on releasing a thought buster book. Chuck is also a segment contributor for Sirius XM and TNT Radio and writes for AFNN.us.

So what does it take for a MAGA faithful to offer any criticism of Trump? Listen and find out.

In 1974, Ohio’s prison population was 8,400 Ohioan. By 2011, the number grew to 51,000. Are we any safer as a result? Do all these inmates need to remain behind bars?

Are we just locking up people without adequate attention being paid to things like education, drug treatment, mental health treatment and cognitive therapy? Our guest, Gary Mohr, former Director of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, wanted to know, and so he called on the late Edward Latessa, PhD, of the University of Cincinnati’s Department of Criminal Justice to find out.

Latessa spent three years visiting every prison in Ohio, collecting data and examining every program prisons offered to inmates. He concluded that an inmate’s pursuit of a GED, drug treatment and other self-help programs resulted in a statistically significant difference in terms of violence and recidivism.

After Latessa completed his research, the Ohio legislature delved into revising the criminal code and created a panel of 23 individuals, consisting of legislators, defense attorneys, prosecutors and corrections staff. After a year and a half, several recommendations were made, all of which were endorsed by a legislative committee, and then—nothing. No legislation was introduced.

If Ohio’s prison population has increased from 8,400 to 51,000, while the general population has remained fairly stable, that means, Mohr explains, there’s either a staggering increase in crime, or we're not doing what we need to do to reduce criminality and the amount of time people spend in prison, or some combination.

Crime didn’t increase significantly during Mohr’s tenure, but the criminal code increased, and sentencing changed. Now we have more mandatory sentencing, which is a disincentive for inmates to engage in those programs that Latessa proved were beneficial in reducing the prison population.

Add to this that politically it’s popular to be tough on crime. Sentencing offenders to long jail time is more popular than pushing for rehabilitation. Listen to the conversation.

It’s not intuitively obvious, but discarding DEI can result in even fewer medical professionals serving already underserved communities in rural Ohio. The Trump administration is doing its level best to eliminate DEI on the premise it fosters unlawful discrimination, but as Abraham Graber, Ph.D, points out, DEI promotes diversity and equity so as to achieve better outcomes, and that includes better outcomes in terms of getting more medical students interested in practicing medicine in rural Ohio.

There's been a longstanding problem in rural Ohio suffering from inadequate healthcare. Some counties have just a handful of doctors. Some counties don’t have a single doctor or hospital. What if you live in, say, Vinton County, and you need an oncologist? Well, like they say in the mob, “Fuggetaboutit.” You’re pregnant and need prenatal care? Same thing.

Who picks up the slack in these counties? EMT crews, but their services are only a stopgap.

The absence of medical care for these communities means the people in these areas are not as healthy as those who live in metropolitan areas, and they have shorter life spans.

To get more medical professionals in rural Ohio, we need a concerted recruiting program. And that means recruiting from the counties that are underserved, because the people who would want to practice in those counties will most likely come from those counties and not from the large metropolitan areas.

And here’s the challenge. If kids in those counties don’t see doctors and don’t see their friends becoming doctors, they’ll never even think about becoming doctors.

And for those few who might aspire to practice medicine, they likely don’t have the same life experience or education as others and, thus, face barriers when tested and suffer from the negative stereotype many have about rural Americans.

As Dr. Graber points out, if we want to start getting students in rural Ohio interested in and practicing medicine, we have to start thinking about how we find these young people. Focusing on test scores alone won’t get us where we need to be. We need targeted recruiting, and that’s DEI.

Bhuwan Pyakurel, a former refugee from Bhutan, resettled in the United States in 2009. He and his family moved to Ohio in 2014 and he became a U.S. citizen in 2015. They bought their first home in Reynoldsburg and immediately became involved in the community. Bhuwan and his wife, Dil, have been married for 14 years and they have two children, Aditi and Dev, both who attend Reynoldsburg Public Schools. Aditi loves reading and volunteers her time to raise funds to protect the environment. Dev loves sports and plays basketball and soccer, and enjoys skateboarding, karate, chess, and solving the Rubik’s Cube.

As a community leader, Bhuwan has worked with the Reynoldsburg Police Department and residents ever since he moved to the city. He believes education is the most important tool to bridge the gap and build trust between those in public safety and the community. Since 2015, Bhuwan has been a manager of interpretive services for Primary One Health, which operates 10 clinics in Central Ohio, and he also serves on the Board of the new Reynoldsburg YMCA. He has also served as President of the Bhutanese Community of Central Ohio (BCCO). For Ward 3 residents and all of Reynoldsburg, Bhuwan’s plans include: helping keep Reynoldsburg residents safer by fixing sidewalks, roads and infrastructure and improving lighting, increasing the number of code enforcement officers in the City, boosting communications and transparency between City Council and citizens by using modern technologies, and making City government work better for the people of Reynoldsburg by holding regular town hall forums with constituents.

Bhuwan, who has a Bachelor of Science degree from North Bengal University in India, and the City of Reynoldsburg made history in November 2019 when he became the first Bhutanese American to be elected to public office in the United States.

After he and 120,000 fellow Bhutanese-Nepali’s were forcibly pushed out of Bhutan and their civil, human and political rights stripped away, Bhuwan says he will “always be grateful to this nation for giving me a second chance to live my life and enjoy these freedoms in the greatest country in the world.” Bhuwan deeply values his American citizenship and its inalienable protected rights, and he now works to “pay it forward” and create new opportunities for the people of Reynoldsburg.

If the mob were doing what President Donald Trump is doing, we’d call it a shakedown. By way of several executive orders, he has accused some of the largest law firms in America of unlawful misconduct and, on his own, determined they violated the law and issued punishment. But if the firms capitulate to his demands, they won’t be punished.

Joining us in this discussion is our friend and fellow lawyer, Jim Meaney.

The targeted firms are guilty of simply representing causes Trump can’t stand and represent some of the largest businesses in America, many of which do business with the federal government. These firms are given a choice: either do legal work for free—for groups that Trump likes—or be barred from entering federal buildings and lose their security clearances, while the government terminates its contract with their clients.

What’s the misconduct? Trump accuses the Paul Weiss firm of engaging in “harmful activity,” Perkins Cioe firm of “dangerous and dishonest activity,” and Susman Godfrey of working to “degrade the quality of American elections.”

What did Paul Weiss do? A partner in the firm brought suit against the individuals who stormed the Capitol on January 6, 2021. Perkins Coie represented the 2016 Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, and Susman Godfrey represented Dominion Voting Systems in a defamation case against Fox Corp.

What’s going on here is part of a much bigger plan—a unified attack on everything Trump hates. He is attacking universities and free thought. He is attacking the judiciary by approving the idea of impeaching judges who have ruled against his immigration policies. He’s dismantling multiple federal agencies.

At last count, nine firms have capitulated and struck deals with Trump. Four have filed suit in federal court and attacked his executive orders and have been successful in the early stages of litigation. In street parlance, we have nine “cavers” and four “fighters.”

The issue is, don't law firms have an obligation to see beyond themselves, to see beyond their own interest, and to see beyond their clients’ interests when the system itself is at risk? Nine firms have said no. Four have said yes.