Latest news with #BrookingsInstitute
Daily Maverick
7 days ago
- Business
- Daily Maverick
After the Bell: Who's afraid of losing Agoa?
One of the great risks of the debate around Agoa is that it gives us something else to blame, when we should blame ourselves for our poor economy. And we must remember that it is not true that there is no cost to us from Agoa. One of the most boring discussions I've heard around our economy over the past five years has been posed as 'will we keep Agoa?' I hear it everywhere, even now, when US President Donald Trump has made it clear that he wants to tear up the entire trade rule book. I can understand why we keep hearing about it. There are certain sections of our economy that really benefit from it. Because of Agoa (the African Growth and Opportunity Act), they have been able to grow and employ people. And some of the arguments they can make about why Agoa matters to us are important. Free market access to the US is great for the car industry, and for our farmers. It means they are exporting goods produced here, earning dollars in return and basically importing jobs. People are employed, their kids are kept in good schools. You could argue that the entire community around Daily Maverick journalist Estelle Ellis and the rest of the Baywatch team will be badly hit if it all comes to an end. And that would be true. Farmers, too, had a bumper season exporting to the US in the first quarter of the year. They were able to increase the amount of goods they sent there dramatically in that quarter. When I first heard that, I thought, perhaps, like the Chinese (and I'm sure others), they had been rushing goods into US ports before new tariffs could come into effect. But that amazing agricultural economics guru Wandile Sihlobo told me on The Money Show on Monday night that this is not the case. It happened because our farmers have created a strong demand for their goods. And, like our car industry, we are basically importing jobs. But we should be aware that, despite these very loud and important voices in our national debate, this is not the end of the story. The Brookings Institute estimated nearly 18 months ago that 'In total, a loss of Agoa benefits would lead to a GDP decline of just 0.06%'. To put that into context, our GDP grew by just 0.1% in the first quarter of this year. At the same time, the South African Reserve Bank has generally said that load shedding was costing our GDP 2% every year. So it may matter, but only in the context of our complete inability to take action to grow our own economy. One of the great risks of this debate around Agoa is that it gives us something else to blame, when we should blame ourselves for our poor economy. And we must remember that it is not true that there is no cost to us from Agoa. In fact, a few weeks ago I was almost taken aback when an American investor (one of those wonderful people who travels the world, and is hugely interested and fascinated by it) asked me point-blank: 'Why do you all care so much about Agoa?' He even suggested that actually it went against our interests. This is because of some of the small print. If you look at the text of the Act that passed through the US Congress, the conditions of eligibility are designed to literally create African economies in the US mould. Of course, as we were so often reminded during the Lady R saga, it says that you must 'not engage in activities that undermine United States national security or foreign policy interests'. This is a wonderful stick for the US to beat us with. If it wants, it could define our opposition to Israel's genocidal war on the people of Gaza as 'undermining' US 'foreign policy interests'. To be clear, there is much in Agoa that is good. It mentions that workers must be protected, that there should be political freedom and things like that. But it is still a tool of foreign policy. Yes, Agoa is helping African countries to develop. But it is also a useful instrument of control. Agoa looks finished anyway. In reality, the US system of government appears to be giving Trump whatever he wants. So far, very few Republicans have spoken against his tariff policies. But the markets are speaking. And the fact that the bond markets have forced Trump to basically chicken out has given us the wonderful phrase Taco (Trump always chickens out). So, I do think we need to be less afraid of him. He is slowly being revealed as all bark and very little bite. What we really need to do is to find Americans who lose out if we cannot export to the US. The US citrus industry, for example, needs our oranges to keep the market interested in oranges during their non-growing season. And we should not forget those strange people who drive BMW X3s. The models sold in the US are only made here. And even if they are rubbish cars (who can forget Jeremy Clarkson having to throw the sound guy out of the car to go and push, even now it's still worth watching), there is still a lobby for them in the US. I think we need to stop worrying so much about Agoa.
Miami Herald
23-05-2025
- Politics
- Miami Herald
College Board cancels award program for high-performing Black and Latino students
The College Board this month changed the criteria for its National Recognition Program awards in a move that could shift tens of thousands of scholarship dollars from Black and Latino students to white students. Colleges used the awards to recruit and offer scholarships to high-performing students from groups underrepresented in higher education. The award previously recognized academic achievement by students in five categories - Black, Hispanic, Native American, first-generation and those living in rural areas or small towns. The racial categories have been eliminated. Now, students living in small towns and rural areas can still earn the award if they score in the top 10 percent among all small-town and rural students in their state on the PSAT - a precursor to the SAT that is administered in high schools around the country. The same is true for first-generation students but not for students in underrepresented racial categories. Related: Interested in more news about colleges and universities? Subscribe to our free biweeklyhigher education newsletter. Critics said they were disappointed by the College Board's decision. "They believed racial inequality was something important to address yesterday, and by changing that, they're implying that it's not something important to fight for now," said Rachel Perera, a fellow in government studies at the liberal Brookings Institute. "That's the heart of the question that's being debated - although it's not being debated in explicit terms - does racial discrimination exist?" In a statement on its website, the College Board noted the 2023 Supreme Court ruling that prohibited the use of race in admissions, although the National Recognition Program awards were used for scholarships and recruitment, not admissions. "Recent legal and regulatory actions have further limited the utility of these awards for students and colleges," the statement says. Also, President Donald Trump has repeatedly made clear his disapproval of race-conscious policies in higher education, and some states have banned consideration of race in scholarship decisions. In 2023-24, the College Board issued 115,000 recognition awards, and a little less than half were in the racial categories. The previous year there were more than 80,000 awards and the majority were for Black, Hispanic and Native American students. While the College Board doesn't hand out money itself, universities use it to select students for scholarships. The Board has not maintained a list of which institutions used the racial categories, according to Holly Stepp, College Board's director of communications. The College Board started the program in 1983 to recognize high-performing Hispanic students. In 2020, the other two racial categories and the small town and rural designations were added. First-generation students could win the award starting last year. Small towns could include those with modest incomes or wealthy enclaves like Aspen, Colorado. All students must also have at least a B+ average. Related: Cutting race-based scholarships blocks path to college, students say While students of all races can now earn the awards, the removal of the racial categories will likely disproportionately affect Black and Hispanic students. On average, Asian and white students score higher on PSATs. White students' average score on the PSAT last year was 994 last year compared with 821 for Black students - a gap of 173 points. Asian students' average was even higher at 1108 while Hispanic and Native American students averaged 852 and 828 respectively. "It's a move towards race-blind categories when we know that education and access to education isn't race-blind," said Wil Del Pilar, senior vice president at the left-leaning policy and advocacy group EdTrust. Some conservatives praised the move, however, arguing that race-conscious scholarship and recruitment programs were ways to get around the Supreme Court's rulings on affirmative action and that they were a form of reverse discrimination. Jonathan Butcher, senior research fellow in education policy at the conservative Heritage Foundation, said he believes that racial discrimination does exist and should be addressed, but that race-conscious education policies were both illegal and ineffective. "If you are using racial preferences, you are setting students up for a loss of confidence when they struggle in a situation they're not prepared for," Butcher said. Related: How did students pitch themselves to colleges after last year's affirmative action ruling? In place of the racial categories, a new designation has been added this year that recognizes students who score in the top 10 percent of their high school on the PSAT. Experts say colleges are unlikely to offer scholarships to all students who score in the top 10 percent of every high school in the country, given the cost that would entail. Officials at the University of New Mexico, for example, said they would stop using the College Board designations beginning in the 2026-27 school year. "We're currently analyzing our scholarship strategy, but changes will be made across the board," said Steve Carr, the university's director of communications, in an email. In 2023-24, the University of New Mexico awarded scholarships worth $15,000 each to 149 Black, Hispanic and Native American students. The University of Arizona also offered scholarships to students who earned National Recognition Program awards in the racial designations last year. "The university was already evaluating its scholarship strategy and will consider the College Board's announcement as we determine how best to move forward and support our students," said Mitch Zak, spokesman for the University of Arizona, in an email. In addition to the PSAT scores, students are eligible for the College Board award if they score a 3 or higher out of 5 on two Advanced Placement exams taken during their ninth and/or 10th grade year, although many high schools don't uniformly offer AP courses to freshmen and sophomores. "We can't really have a conversation around merit if we're not all at the same starting point in terms of what we receive from our K-12 education," said Del Pilar, "and how we're able to navigate the test prep environment, or the lack of test prep that certain communities receive." Contact senior investigative reporter Meredith Kolodner at 212-870-1063 or kolodner@ or on Signal at merkolodner.04 This story about the College Board was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for the Hechinger newsletter. The post College Board cancels award program for high-performing Black and Latino students appeared first on The Hechinger Report.
Yahoo
21-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
AI in education: Let's not miss the forest for the trees
(Matt Cardy / Getty Images) President Donald Trump recently issued an executive order titled Advancing Artificial Intelligence Education for American Youth. As with federal educational policy generally, it is not likely to have a significant impact on K-12 education because education has always been a state and local matter. In fact, in 2024, Gov. Glenn Youngkin issued Executive Order 30 and an associated set of education guidelines that have already generated important action related to AI in education, including a summit this week that brings together educators in the K-12 and higher education systems to try to create alignment and educational pathways to best serve students in the commonwealth. Trump's EO is a bit redundant to Youngkin's EO, and both miss the forest for the trees. K-12 schools serve multiple purposes; two of the most important are to prepare young people to be productive members of a deliberative democracy and to prepare them for the workforce. To properly serve either of those roles has always meant ensuring that students are technologically literate, meaning not necessarily that they are adept at using technology, but rather that they make good choices about what, if any, technologies might be used in personal or professional situations. Today, artificial intelligence dominates the technology discourse, and the potential effects of AI on the workforce and civic life are significant. Concerning the workforce, the Brookings Institute's late 2024 analysis concluded that '…more than 30% of all workers could see at least 50% of their occupation's tasks disrupted by generative AI.' On democracy, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace writes that 'AI models enable malicious actors to manipulate information and disrupt electoral processes, threatening democracies.' This research makes it clear: If public schools are to serve their highest purposes, it is incumbent upon educators to make sure students are AI literate. Being AI literate, though, means much more than just learning to use AI; it also means being aware of the ethics and potential risks. We know, for example, that AI is hurting the environment and that AI companies are defending themselves against credible claims of intellectual property violations. Students need to know that, too. Additionally, integrating chatbots into the learning process potentially dehumanizes a necessarily human experience. Absent this knowledge and the right skills and dispositions around technology and AI, our young people are less likely to be able to successfully engage in an increasingly technological civic age and are less likely to be prepared to succeed in an increasingly technological workforce. However, even that broader, ethics-inclusive approach to AI literacy is too narrow. AI is the latest form of technology to capture our attention, but our society is increasingly dominated by other technologies, including technologies of surveillance (some of which are powered by AI). Nearly all aspects of our society, from schooling to law enforcement, are changing because of technological developments. Long ago, institutions of higher education developed whole interdisciplinary programs of study that consider the historical, cultural and social impacts of science and technology on society. This is the broader, more interdisciplinary approach that needs to be integrated into our K-12 schools. Interdisciplinary programming is challenging in our siloed K-12 system, but it is possible and worth trying. We could, for example, ensure that when students read novels in school, they read one or two books that force discussion about the role of technology in our society. There is no shortage of good books like that. When students learn about history, they should learn about the Luddites. They might learn, for instance, that to be a Luddite was not just to be anti-technology; rather, Luddites started a labor movement that pushed back against the sort of automation that AI could contribute to today. For math, students could study quantitative reasoning and learn about how much of AI and machine learning is based on inferential statistics. I am the parent of a public school student and a critical friend of technology who wants my child to be able to explore the affordances of technology for learning. However, I am not interested in my child engaging in the sort of AI integration that Trump's EO speaks to. If my child struggles to grasp a concept, I want them to struggle through it with their classmates and teachers, not some AI chatbot tutor. And, as a taxpayer, I am not interested in supporting the integration of technology that comes from the 'public-private partnerships' that are highlighted in the EO. That's a not-so-subtle attempt to further enrich the technology leaders who sat on stage at Trump's inauguration. Instead of teaching my child to use Adobe Firefly to make fancy reports, I want my child's teachers to help them learn to navigate a world that is increasingly technological and morally complex. Among some members of society, there is a near-religious devotion to AI. And, coincidentally, how religion is handled in public schools (at least for now, as the Supreme Court newly considers the place of religion in public schools) may be instructive. The common saying has been that schools can teach about religion, but they cannot teach religion. I favor a similar approach to AI in education. We should teach about AI, not teach with or especially for AI. In fact, if our schools are to prepare students like my child for the world ahead, they must largely look away from the narrow and shiny new object of AI and meet the broader societal challenge this technology represents. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Business Journals
15-05-2025
- Business
- Business Journals
Great Jobs KC CEO: We can end poverty in Kansas City
Poverty is not an intractable problem; it can be eradicated here in Kansas City. It will take time, effort, monetary investment, creativity, patience and the good-heartedness to work with people who may not seem like natural allies. But fortunately, all those things exist in Kansas City, and it is in the interest of every single person in the region to try. I believe the tools to do this are here right now. We just need collaboration and the will to do the work. The parameters of the challenge are clear. There are 670,000 people in the metropolitan area living in poverty or struggling to make ends meet, according to the Brookings Institute. We have what it takes to help those 670,000 adults and children move from poverty to economic prosperity. The seeds of the solution lie in other facts about our community, which is that Kansas City is home to a vibrant and growing economy with thousands of jobs it is struggling to fill. There are tens of thousands of good paying jobs to be filled in health care, IT, construction and advanced manufacturing, to name only a few. Panasonic gave a vote of confidence to our region with the high-tech battery factory it's completing in DeSoto. This project is projected to eventually employ 4,000 skilled workers and has already created construction jobs building housing in the area for many of those workers. Health systems have thousands of job openings. Good-paying tech jobs are increasing, with cybersecurity job openings poised to grow rapidly this year in the region. The 2026 FIFA World Cup is coming to Kansas City next year, which will create another economic boon. All of this is evidence of what a fantastic place Kansas City is to live. It's also one of the 10 most affordable major cities in the United States. The pieces are here, waiting to be assembled. Another critical tool to ending poverty in Kansas City is also already available — no-cost, quality job training that is customizable for particular industries and employers, with services that help those who enroll finish the training and succeed on the job. I know it's available because the organization I lead, Great Jobs KC, has already successfully trained over 10,000 workers in Kansas City and is ready to train more eligible and willing candidates. Several important groups that have shown their willingness to lead and collaborate are the KC Chamber of Commerce, the Area Development Council and the Mid-America Regional Council, which are connecting their members with Great Jobs KC to help businesses get workforce support and streamline hiring for scholars. Access to quality health care is another key to ending poverty. We have some of the best hospitals in the nation and in the world here in Kansas City. And as more adults secure jobs that include full benefits for themselves and their families, the more we can improve health outcomes for all. These tools permit a solution that's different from the usual answers. I'm not talking about solving poverty with a higher minimum wage or solely relying on charity. This is about harnessing a thriving economy to lift up, train and support those who need and want good jobs, all while accelerating economic growth within the region and prosperity for all. Training people so they can fill and succeed in real jobs is cost-effective and benefits all of us. Great Jobs KC graduates have already earned an additional $57 million, and the economic ripple effect of that extra money circulating in the region is vast. Taxpayers benefit with more people contributing to the tax base and fewer needing assistance to get by. The generational benefits to the region will be enormous, in the forms of economic growth and increased hope. Of course, there will be obstacles. Cost of housing is a big one, so a thoughtful housing strategy must accompany an investment in workforce development. Smart housing policies require committed and resourceful political leadership. Ending poverty will also require strong leadership from our business and political leaders. They must be willing to lead by example, as they did in San Antonio, a metro area of similar size to ours. There, the mayor and business leaders got behind a 0.125% sales tax to fund economic development and raised $200 million for workforce development. Education, affordable housing, access to health care, safety net supports, good jobs and hope can end poverty. It costs Great Jobs KC about $5,000 to get a scholar ready for success in the workplace. If our goal is to get 670,000 adults and children out of poverty, we're looking at a price tag of about $1.7 billion. It sounds like a lot — but between government, business and our generous philanthropic community, it is entirely possible. And the return on this investment will be tenfold. If the possibility exists to make poverty a relic of history, we should do it. We have ideas, obviously, but would never claim to have all the answers. We would love to hear your responses on how to end poverty in Kansas City. Reach out to Great Jobs KC through LinkedIn and Facebook. Together, we can do this. Earl Martin Phalen, CEO of Great Jobs KC, is dedicated to transforming Kansas City's workforce. Under his leadership, Great Jobs KC provides tuition-free career training, connecting over 5,000 individuals to high-demand industries. A collaborator with businesses and training partners, Phalen focuses on building a skilled, diverse pipeline to fuel economic growth.
Yahoo
14-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Peoria Area World Affairs Council hosting virtual talk with Dr. Melanie Sisson
PEORIA, Ill. (WMBD) — On Thursday, the Peoria Area World Affairs Council is hosting 'The United States, China and the Competition for Control' with Dr. Melanie Sisson of Brookings Institute. 'Our conversation is going to be first about what kind of, not so much threat, but what is it about China we need to worry about,' said PAWAC program chair Don Samford. 'Her book is going to be more that China is looking for sphere of influence, in its own area which has been historic and not necessarily to replace the United States. But we will also discuss other books and other theories that say they want to replace the United States as the first thing.' Due to a family matter, the program with Sisson is now virtual via Zoom. The event is May 15 at 6 pm. Pre-registration is required. To register click here. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
