Latest news with #RAND
Ammon
5 days ago
- Business
- Ammon
The United States at crossroads: Between proactive renewal and historic decline
In April 2024, the American RAND Corporation published an extensive analytical report titled "Sources of Renewable National Dynamics." The researchers addressed the structural challenges facing the United States, warning of the risks of decline and loss of global standing if proactive national renewal is not undertaken. This report represents a significant shift in the approach of American think tanks to the issue of the rise and decline of major powers, not only in terms of implicit recognition of the decline phase, but also in presenting a historical and forward-looking model for studying how to restore effective national power. The report reflects growing concern in American decision-making circles that the United States' competitiveness is no longer guaranteed considering domestic and international changes. The report is based on the premise that the rise and fall of major powers is not a historical exception, but rather part of recurring cycles subject to multiple factors, most importantly structural adaptation and the ability to renew during moments of transition. Considering this hypothesis, the RAND team reviewed a number of historical experiences in which great powers experienced relative decline before succeeding—or failing—in regaining the initiative. These experiences include Britain in the Victorian era, the United States during the Progressive Era in the late nineteenth century, the Soviet Union in the 1980s, and China during its transitional periods. The study sought to draw general lessons from these experiences that would help understand the potential for American national renewal before it is too late. The report argues that the proactive renewal of any great power cannot occur without a minimum of subjective and objective conditions, including internal social consensus, flexible political institutions, a productive and innovative private sector, and the state's ability to utilize its resources strategically. It also notes that successful renewal requires a clear recognition of the crisis, not merely cosmetic or defensive rhetoric, as denial often leads to further decline. In this context, the report calls for the need to overcome the sharp partisan divisions in the United States, which it views as a real obstacle to any radical reform. In a systematic approach, the report identified nine key indicators deemed essential for measuring a state's ability to launch a proactive national renewal process. These indicators are: Sustainable resilience: This refers to a society's ability to adapt to crises and transformations without losing its cohesion or dynamism. Sovereign capacity: This is the state's ability to preserve the well-being of its people while ensuring protection from external threats. Freedom of international decision-making: This refers to a state's ability to act externally in accordance with its own interests, without dependence on other powers or coercive alliances. Military power: This refers to the possession of deterrence tools and operational superiority in various arenas of conventional and unconventional conflict. Alliances: The extent to which a state can build a cohesive and effective network of allies based on shared interests, rather than dependence or extortion. Economic power: This refers to the ability to influence the global economy through GDP, production, exports, and the ability to innovate. Market dominance: This refers to control over global market mechanisms, especially in vital sectors such as technology, energy, and finance. Cultural power: This refers to the ability to influence global thought patterns and values through the media, education, and the arts. Technological supremacy: This refers to leadership in technological innovation, including artificial intelligence, advanced manufacturing, and cybersecurity. The report indicates that the United States, despite the challenges, still retains some of the strength needed to rebuild its global position, but it urgently needs a radical review of its economic, social, and educational policies. It also emphasizes that the time available for this transformation is narrowing, and that delaying the launch of the reform process could lead to irreversible consequences, especially in light of the rapid progress achieved by other powers, such as China, in the areas of trade, technology, and geopolitics. The report does not deny the United States' vast resources, but warns that the lack of internal consensus, the escalation of partisan divisions, and the erosion of trust in institutions could empty these resources of their substance and render them unable to fulfill their role in revitalizing the nation. It also indicates that the greatest challenge lies not only in regaining military or economic supremacy, but in renewing a national vision that unites Americans around a common goal and reshapes the relationship between state and society based on justice, efficiency, and innovation. While the report acknowledges that successful cases of proactive renewal are rare in history, it insists that the United States still has a chance to achieve this if it takes serious, thoughtful, and courageous steps. It also emphasizes that renewal is not merely a response to external decline, but rather a voluntary act that requires collective awareness and leadership capable of addressing the public with a language of frankness and responsibility, not one of reassurance and condescension. In this sense, the report is not merely an analytical document, but rather an early call for the need to preempt decline with comprehensive reform initiatives stemming from within and drawing on America's historical legacy of overcoming crises. This warning—issued by one of the most important American research institutions—may be an indication of a shift in the ruling elite's awareness of the magnitude of the challenges facing their country, and a belated realization that progress is only sustainable for those who dare to review and renew. Hasan Dajah is professor of strategic studies at Al-Hussein Bin Talal University
Forbes
5 days ago
- Science
- Forbes
It's Time To Change The Math Calculus: How The US Can Finally Get Math Education Right
Four schoolboys watch as their teacher points to a lesson on the blackboard. PISA scores reveal deep problems in how the United States teaches math. Here's what research—and top-performing countries—say needs to change Julie Fitz, Researcher at the Learning Policy Institute, contributed to this story In recent years, a much publicized 'reading crisis' has been a hot topic in the United States, but mathematics achievement tells a much more troubling story. In the 2022 Program in International Student Assessment (PISA), which tested students in 80 jurisdictions worldwide, U.S. 15-year-olds did comparatively well in both reading, ranking 7th among participating nations, and science, ranking 13th. However, U.S. students ranked lower than 30 other nations in math—well below the international average score. In contrast to the highest-achieving countries, U.S. performance is lower for both high and low achievers and shows wider achievement gaps associated with students' socioeconomic status—gaps that national data show have grown even wider since the pandemic. Beyond the scores, the United States has become a math-phobic nation, with many students coming to hate and fear mathematics and too few interested in continuing into mathematically rich fields of study. A recent RAND study found that only about 25% of middle and high school students found their math classes interesting most of the time, while half reported losing interest in math class half or more of the time and the remainder reporting they were rarely engaged by math. Many students had decided they were not a 'math person' before they even got to middle school. This problem has manifested as labor shortages for technical occupations in the United States, with many positions needing to be filled by individuals from other countries on H1B visas, which are increasingly in short supply. As a consequence, calls for reform in mathematics education have once again become widespread. However, efforts to rethink the U.S. math curriculum, instruction, and assessments have come and gone over many years, beginning with the post-Sputnik era in the 1950s, and recurring regularly since. Efforts to create a curriculum focused on deeper understanding of mathematical concepts (often called 'new math,' even though it's decades old) have warred with a status quo that favors rote memorization of basic math facts and the use of algorithms to solve problems that are not deeply understood. This status quo is reinforced by textbooks and tests wedded to a coverage curriculum that touches on many subjects in each grade level without delving deeply into any. At the high school level, the United States has clung to a math curriculum prescribed by a set of educators called the Committee of Ten, appointed by the National Education Association in 1892, the year Thomas Edison received a patent for the telegraph and long before computers, large-scale data, or new statistical methods were on the scene. These combined challenges have been partly responsible for generations of elementary teachers poorly prepared in math and often math-phobic themselves. Furthermore, decades of secondary math teacher shortages means that many positions have been filled by individuals teaching on substandard credentials who have inadequate preparation in math or pedagogy or both. In a high-demand field like mathematics, where college graduates can earn at least 50% more in industry than they can in education, the wage gap between teachers and other professions is particularly problematic, and it is difficult to fill positions with fully qualified teachers. All of this contributes to the widespread difficulties students experience in understanding math. Coupled with long-standing biases about who deserves access to math opportunities, the United States has a widely shared belief that only some people have the 'math gene' that allows them to succeed at math—and that most women and people of color do not have it. There is renewed urgency around math education—fueled by growing global economic competitiveness, equity concerns, and technological change. A number of states are seeking to update their math requirements, infusing more attention to computer science and data science. Councils of mathematicians and mathematics teachers have urged changes to modernize math, focus on big ideas, teach it in meaningful ways, and connect it to real-world problems. Some states, like California, have overhauled their entire math framework with these goals in mind. As this move requires changes in the textbooks and materials the state adopts, it may shift the broader curriculum market. The Gates Foundation is devoting a significant share of its massive giving to the improvement of math education across the country. As Bill Gates has noted, not many students share his love of math. The Gates Foundation's K–12 education strategy is focused on modernizing math education so that it connects to students' interests, abilities, needs, and goals; engages them in collaboration to find answers and communication about their problem-solving approaches; and applies to complex, real-world problems that students know exist outside the classroom, from designing a budget to estimating population growth. The goal is for every student to become a 'math person' and to be able to use the power of mathematics in every aspect of their lives. First, it might be useful to learn from the very different way in which math is taught in the highest-achieving countries, where outcomes are also much more equitable. In the four highest-achieving nations on PISA rankings—Singapore, Japan, South Korea, and Estonia—mathematics is taught in heterogeneous classrooms, with no tracking prior to 10th grade. The curriculum tackles a small number of seminal topics in each school year—like ratio and proportion or the concept of integers—and teaches these deeply from multiple angles. These countries and many others present math in an integrated fashion with domains of mathematical study combined to allow for more robust conceptualization and problem-solving. For this reason, none of these countries teach the Algebra I, Geometry, Algebra II/Trigonometry sequence common in U.S. high schools, as prescribed by the Committee of Ten in 1892. In Japan, for example, Mathematics I, II, and III each combine elements of algebra, geometry, measurement, statistics, and trigonometry. As is also true in Singapore, the focus is on taking time for students to intently discuss and collaboratively solve complex problems that integrate the content—often just one complex problem in a class period—rather than memorizing formulas and applying rote procedures to multiple problems that isolate the mathematical ideas and challenge students' deep understanding. In both countries, reforms over the last decade have focused more intently on experiential and project-based learning and applications to real-world problems, adding data use across the grades. In Japan, when differentiation occurs in 10th grade to add greater challenge to the courses of advanced students, the curriculum remains similar, and both lanes allow students to reach advanced courses like calculus. A similarly integrated curriculum is used in South Korea, where a 'learner-centered' approach advanced by the Ministry of Education has focused mathematics on active engagement in problem-solving. In Estonia, the most rapidly improving country, reforms over the last decade have followed a similar path while focusing intensely throughout the grades on the use of computers and statistics for data analysis, using real-world problems to organize mathematical inquiry (Hõim, Hommik, and Kikas 2016). In all cases, these highly successful countries develop a more integrated curriculum organized around major concepts that are taught deeply, infused with real-world data and problem-solving, and taught to all students. Second, in addition to modernizing the mathematics curriculum, we need to support the development and use of high-quality instructional materials that reflect the integration of mathematical ideas, the use of real-world data to pose and solve problems, open-ended approaches to exploring problems using multiple methods, and robust mathematical discourse in the classroom. High-quality instruction also requires well-prepared, supported teachers. The curriculum will not teach itself. Teachers need extended opportunities to learn how to teach this kind of curriculum, beginning in preservice education and continuing throughout their careers. They need opportunities to develop both content knowledge and pedagogical skill through preparation programs and professional development that emphasize deep understanding and help teachers learn to create supportive, inclusive learning environments. Unlike the traditional 'sit and get' or drive-by workshops teachers often experience, professional learning needs to be ongoing and job-embedded, with opportunities for teachers to collaborate and learn from each other with support from skilled math coaches—a strategy used by many countries in updating their curriculum and adopted by California as part of its new math reforms. We also need to address the long-standing math teacher shortage. In the high-achieving countries noted earlier, teachers typically earn as much as other college graduates (Singapore pegs salaries to those of engineers), and are treated with great respect, so teaching is a desirable career. U.S. teachers, by contrast, earn about 25% less, on average, than other college-educated workers and have much more grueling work schedules—with more hours teaching students and less time for planning and collaboration. Pay differentials are even larger for fields like math, so filling teaching vacancies with fully qualified teachers is difficult, especially in schools serving large concentrations of students from low-income families, which are often under-resourced. These schools, as a result, offer fewer advanced courses and rely more heavily on uncertified teachers or substitutes who come and go. As was true for a brief time in the post-Sputnik era, the recruitment, retention, and training of teachers need urgent policy and funding attention. Research has shown that math isn't just about what we teach—it's about how we teach it. Classroom environments should foster curiosity, persistence, and collaboration. Instruction must reflect both powerful mathematical concepts and supports informed by the science of learning and development, recognizing students' social, emotional, and cognitive needs. A recent report from the Learning Policy Institute synthesizes research findings from the fields of mathematics teaching and learning, educational psychology, and the learning sciences to identify key classroom conditions that support K–12 math major principles emerge as key: There are compelling reasons on many levels to ensure all students are prepared and supported to excel in mathematics: to support our country's ability to be competitive in a global market, to prepare students at every level for the ever-increasing complexity of modern times, and to develop critical cognitive functioning. But at the heart of it, children should learn math because, as Francis Su said, 'To miss out on mathematics is to live without experiencing some of humanity's most beautiful ideas.
Forbes
6 days ago
- Forbes
The AI Education Gap: Why Schools Need Policies Now
Schools need clearer AI policies that support teachers and students. American educators have rapidly adopted AI, but a critical gap has emerged: most schools aren't teaching students how to use these powerful AI tools responsibly. Sixty percent of teachers now report using AI in their lessons, yet a stark disconnect exists between AI adoption and implementation. Survey data from the RAND American Educator Panels indicate that only 25% of teachers have integrated AI into their instruction, while 35% stated that their school has established guidelines for AI use, and 27% reported that their school has no AI rules in place. This disparity reveals a concerning pattern across U.S. K-12 education: AI tools like ChatGPT are proliferating in classrooms without the necessary guardrails or educational frameworks to maximize their potential. Teachers Adopt AI, Schools Lag Behind The numbers tell a story of individual innovation outpacing institutional planning. While three in five teachers experiment with AI tools, only one in four has moved beyond casual use to meaningful classroom integration. Teachers describe using AI for lesson planning, generating discussion prompts, and creating differentiated materials. Some craft personalized math problems for students interested in sports statistics or business scenarios. Others use AI to translate materials for English language learners or generate reading comprehension questions at varying difficulty levels. However, this experimentation often occurs in isolation. Without formal training or institutional support, educators navigate AI implementation through trial and error. AI Policy Vacuum Creates Wild West Environment More than eight in ten schools operate without clear guidelines on when, how, or whether to use AI in educational settings. This approach leaves teachers uncertain about boundaries: The absence of guidance creates inconsistent experiences for students. AI use might be encouraged in one classroom, prohibited in another, and ignored entirely in a third—all within the same building. Missing the AI Educational Opportunity The real challenge isn't AI adoption—it's educating about AI. Schools that rush to implement tools without teaching responsible use miss a fundamental opportunity to prepare students for a technology-integrated future. Students require instruction on prompt engineering, understanding AI limitations, recognizing bias in AI-generated outputs, and maintaining academic integrity when utilizing AI assistance. These skills represent essential digital literacy for the next generation. Some forward-thinking educators have begun incorporating AI literacy into their curricula. Students learn to critically evaluate AI-generated content, understand when human expertise remains irreplaceable, and develop strategies for ethical collaboration with AI. The AI Integration Challenge Proper integration requires rethinking lesson design, assessment strategies, and learning objectives. It requires understanding how AI can enhance, rather than replace, critical thinking, creativity, and human connection in the educational process. Teachers deserve clear direction and dedicated time to master these tools effectively. Professional development cannot be a one-time workshop or brief orientation. Instead, educators deserve ongoing training that recognizes the rapidly advancing capabilities of AI. This includes practical sessions on tool selection, classroom management with AI present, and designing assignments that leverage AI strengths while developing student capabilities. Equally important is teaching students to develop discernment and ethical practices regarding the use of AI. Students must learn to critically evaluate AI-generated content, understanding when outputs may contain errors, bias, or inappropriate information. They need instruction on academic integrity boundaries—when AI assistance enhances learning versus when it undermines skill development. Successful AI integration also requires teaching students to ask better questions. The quality of AI responses depends heavily on prompt engineering skills. Students who learn to craft thoughtful, specific prompts develop stronger analytical thinking than those who rely on basic queries. Ethical considerations extend beyond cheating prevention. Students should understand AI's limitations, recognize when human expertise remains essential, and develop strategies for maintaining their own creative and critical thinking abilities while using AI as a collaborative tool. Without this foundation of discernment and ethics, AI tools risk becoming crutches rather than enhancement tools that prepare students for responsible AI use throughout their academic and professional careers. Building A Responsible AI Culture Schools that have successfully integrated AI share common characteristics: clear policies, comprehensive teacher training, and explicit instruction on responsible use. These institutions treat AI as they would any powerful educational tool—with intentionality, preparation, and ongoing evaluation. They establish guidelines that protect academic integrity while encouraging innovation. At WIT (Whatever It Takes), the educational organization I founded in 2009, we recognized early that AI adoption required proactive policy development and usage practices. This led us to create WITY, a platform that teaches AI usage with transparency and accountability. Our experience revealed how schools can effectively integrate AI tools while maintaining educational integrity. The AI Path Forward Schools can either harness AI's educational potential through thoughtful implementation or allow haphazard adoption, which can undermine learning outcomes. Three priorities emerge for educational leaders: Develop comprehensive AI policies that provide clear guidance for educators and students while remaining flexible enough to evolve with rapidly changing technology. Invest in educator training that moves beyond basic tool familiarity to pedagogical integration and ethical considerations. Develop AI literacy curricula that educate students to utilize these tools effectively, responsibly, and with a comprehensive understanding of their capabilities and limitations. The 60% adoption rate demonstrates educators' recognition of AI's potential. Now, schools must catch up with policies, training, and instruction that match this technological enthusiasm with educational wisdom. Students deserve more than exposure to AI tools—they need education about how to wield them thoughtfully. The future workplace will demand these AI skills. Schools that act now to build responsible AI integration will prepare students for success. Those that don't risk leaving graduates behind in an increasingly AI-integrated world. The AI technology has arrived in classrooms. The question now is whether schools will rise to meet the educational moment.
Business Insider
26-06-2025
- Politics
- Business Insider
Putin said Russia is starting mass production of a ballistic missile that he wants to 'duel' with US-made defenses
Russia is scaling up its production of Oreshnik intermediate-range hypersonic missiles, which Russian President Vladimir Putin previously put forward as a possible duel contender against US missile defense systems. Putin told a graduating class of military cadets on Monday that Russia is accelerating production of the Oreshnik missile, which was first used against Ukraine in November. "Serial production of the latest Oreshnik medium-range missile system is under way," said Putin in the televised address, per Reuters. With a range of up to about 3,415 miles, the Oreshnik is capable of reaching targets across Europe and even the western United States. Putin has said that the missile is nearly impossible to intercept and can carry a destructive force comparable to that of a nuclear weapon. After the Oreshnik was used to strike Ukraine's Dnipro region in November, Putin said there were "currently no ways of counteracting this weapon," per the BBC. Putin has previously made claims about how unstoppable certain Russian missiles are, only to see them downed in combat a short while later. A missile duel In December, Putin proposed a "duel" with the US to show the Oreshnik's alleged supremacy over US-made systems. "We're ready for such an experiment," he said. But Michael Bohnert, a defense analyst at RAND, told Business Insider that while the missile's range and speed pose challenges, its practical impact might be overstated. "When it comes to the ability of Oreshnik missiles and bypassing defenses, the fundamental issue with missile defense is not capability but the quantity and location of missile defenses tailored to the threat," he said. "Oreshnik missiles are incredibly expensive for their limited conventional warhead size and quantity," he added. "While it has the range to target many locations without matching air defenses, its literal kinetic impact would still be low for the cost." However, Bohnert said that the missiles do force the need for "more matching air defenses to protect critical infrastructure." Grace Mappes, a Russia analyst at the Institute for the Study of War, argued that the Oreshnik does not represent a major shift in Russia's military capabilities. She told BI that Russia has other missiles with comparable ranges and greater payloads. "Russia regularly strikes Ukraine with nuclear-capable missiles and has long had missiles in mainland Russia and Kaliningrad capable of striking NATO states," she said. "These capabilities have not changed," she added. "Russia is just using the Oreshnik to make an old threat upon which Russia has never acted seem new."
25-06-2025
- Business
Beijing, a longtime friend of Tehran, turns to cautious diplomacy in Iran's war with Israel
When Israel attacked Iran nearly two weeks ago, the Chinese government, a longtime friend of Iran, jumped into action — at least, when it came to words. It condemned the attacks. Its leader, Xi Jinping, got on the phone with the Russian leader and urged a ceasefire. Its foreign minister spoke with his counterpart in Iran. But that's where China stopped. The usual rhetoric was delivered. De-escalation and dialogue were trumpeted. Yet China offered no material support. Despite Beijing's clout as a near-peer rival to the United States and its ambition to play a bigger role on the world stage, Beijing refrained from offering military support to Iran, let alone getting directly involved in the conflict. The decision underscored the limitations it faces in the Middle East. 'Beijing lacks both the diplomatic capabilities and the risk appetite to quickly intervene in, and to think it can successfully navigate, this fast-moving and volatile situation," said Jude Blanchette, director of the China Research Center at RAND. Given the tangled politics of the Middle East, where China holds substantial economic and energy stakes yet wields minimal military influence, Beijing 'isn't inclined to stick its neck out,' Blanchette added. Instead, the Chinese government opts to remain 'a measured, risk‑averse actor.' Zhu Feng, dean of the School of International Relations at Nanjing University in eastern China, said volatility in the Middle East is not in China's interests. 'From China's point of view, the Israel-Iran conflicts challenge and impact China's business interests and economic security,' Zhu said. 'This is something China absolutely does not want to see." After the Iranian parliament floated a plan to shut down the strategically located Strait of Hormuz over the weekend, China spoke against it. 'China calls on the international community to step up efforts to de-escalate conflicts and prevent regional turmoil from having a greater impact on global economic development,' said Guo Jiakun, a spokesman for the Chinese foreign ministry. On Tuesday, following the ceasefire announcement, U.S. President Donald Trump wrote in a social media post: 'China can now continue to purchase Oil from Iran,' suggesting the ceasefire would prevent the disruption of Iranian oil production. A 2024 report by the U.S. Energy Information Administration contained estimates suggesting that roughly 80% to 90% of the oil exported by Iran went to China. The Chinese economy could struggle to preserve its industrial production without the roughly 1.2 million barrels of oil and other fossil fuels provided by Iran. Craig Singleton, senior China fellow at the Washington-based think tank Foundation for Defense of Democracies, summed up Beijing's responses as 'steady oil buys and ritual calls for 'dialogue'.' 'That's about it," Singleton said. 'No drones or missile parts, no emergency credit line. Just words calibrated to placate Tehran without rattling Riyadh or inviting U.S. sanctions.' Beijing's muted responses also expose the gap between China's great-power rhetoric and its real reach in the region. Said Singleton: 'China's Gulf footprint is commercial, not combat-ready. When missiles fly, its much-touted strategic partnership with Iran shrinks to statements. Beijing wants discounted Iranian oil and a 'peace-broker' headline, while letting Washington shoulder the hard-power risks.' Since the onset of the war, Beijing — which brokered a diplomatic rapprochement between Iran and Saudi Arabia in 2023 — stood by Iran's side and urged talks. At the United Nations, China, a permanent member of the Security Council, teamed up with Russia and Pakistan in putting forward a draft resolution condemning 'in the strongest terms' the attacks against peaceful nuclear sites and facilities in Iran. They called for 'an immediate and unconditional ceasefire" even though the United States, another permanent member on the council, is almost certain to veto the proposal. Shortly after Israel attacked Iran, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi had a phone call with his Iranian counterpart, Abbas Araghchi, and told him that 'China explicitly condemned Israel's violation of Iran's sovereignty, security and territorial integrity.' Wang, using common diplomatic language, said China was 'ready to maintain communication with Iran and other relevant parties to continue playing a constructive role in de-escalating the situation." Wang later spoke with foreign ministers of Oman and Egypt; both nations are key mediators in the region. And late last week, before the U.S. got involved militarily, Xi spoke with Russian President Vladimir Putin; the two agreed to stay in closer contact over Iran and work toward de-escalation. But China stayed away from any direct involvement, and Russia also had muted responses to the Israel-Iran conflict. Iran is an important link in Xi's ambitious global project Belt and Road Initiative, and in 2023 joined the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, a security group by Russia and China to counter the U.S.-led NATO. It has conducted joint exercises with China, including this year's 'Maritime Security Belt 2025' in the Gulf of Oman, in which Russia also took part. On Wednesday, Beijing will convene a meeting of defense ministers of SCO member nations. As important as Iran is to China, it is only part of Beijing's calculus, according to an analysis by the Soufan Center, a New York-based organization that focuses on global security challenges. In an intel brief, the center said the conflict has revealed that Beijing's support for its partners, especially those in confrontation with the United States, 'is limited by a complex matrix of interests, including its desire to avoid alienating major economic partners and escalating tensions with the West."
