Connect with us

Business

The progress that girls were making in STEM classes has gone into reverse since the pandemic

Published

on



Crowded around a workshop table, four girls at de Zavala Middle School puzzled over a Lego machine they had built. As they flashed a purple card in front of a light sensor, nothing happened.

The teacher at the Dallas-area school had emphasized that in the building process, there is no such thing as mistakes. Only iterations. So the girls dug back into the box of blocks and pulled out an orange card. They held it over the sensor and the machine kicked into motion.

“Oh! Oh, it reacts differently to different colors,” said sixth grader Sofia Cruz.

In de Zavala’s first year as a choice school focused on science, technology, engineering and math, the school recruited a sixth grade class that’s half girls. School leaders are hoping the girls will stick with STEM fields. In de Zavala’s higher grades — whose students joined before it was a STEM school — some elective STEM classes have just one girl enrolled.

Efforts to close the gap between boys and girls in STEM classes are picking up after losing steam nationwide during the chaos of the COVID-19 pandemic. Schools have extensive work ahead to make up for the ground girls lost, in both interest and performance.

In the years leading up to the pandemic, the gender gap nearly closed. But within a few years, girls lost all the ground they had gained in math test scores over the previous decade, according to an Associated Press analysis. While boys’ scores also suffered during COVID, they have recovered faster than girls, widening the gender gap.

As learning went online, special programs to engage girls lapsed — and schools were slow to restart them. Zoom school also emphasized rote learning, a technique based on repetition that some experts believe may favor boys, instead of teaching students to solve problems in different ways, which may benefit girls.

Old practices and biases likely reemerged during the pandemic, said Michelle Stie, a vice president at the National Math and Science Initiative.

“Let’s just call it what it is,” Stie said. “When society is disrupted, you fall back into bad patterns.”

The pandemic upended progress toward closing the gender gap

In most school districts in the 2008-2009 school year, boys had higher average math scores on standardized tests than girls, according to AP’s analysis, which looked at scores across 15 years in over 5,000 school districts. It was based on average test scores for third through eighth graders in 33 states, compiled by the Educational Opportunity Project at Stanford University.

A decade later, girls had not only caught up, they were ahead: Slightly more than half of districts had higher math averages for girls.

Within a few years of the pandemic, the parity disappeared. In 2023-2024, boys on average outscored girls in math in nearly nine out of 10 districts.

A separate study by NWEA, an education research company, found gaps between boys and girls in science and math on national assessments went from being practically non-existent in 2019 to favoring boys around 2022.

Studies have indicated girls reported higher levels of anxiety and depression during the pandemic, plus more caretaking burdens than boys, but the dip in academic performance did not appear outside STEM. Girls outperformed boys in reading in nearly every district nationwide before the pandemic and continued to do so afterward.

“It wasn’t something like COVID happened and girls just fell apart,” said Megan Kuhfeld, one of the authors of the NWEA study.

Initiatives to boost girls’ confidence in STEM lost traction

In the years leading up to the pandemic, teaching practices shifted to deemphasize speed, competition and rote memorization. Through new curriculum standards, schools moved toward research-backed methods that emphasized how to think flexibly to solve problems and how to tackle numeric problems conceptually.

Educators also promoted participation in STEM subjects and programs that boosted girls’ confidence, including extracurriculars that emphasized hands-on learning and connected abstract concepts to real-life applications.

When STEM courses had large male enrollment, Superintendent Kenny Rodrequez noticed girls losing interest as boys dominated classroom discussions at his schools in Grandview C-4 District outside Kansas City. Girls were significantly more engaged after the district moved some of its introductory hands-on STEM curriculum to the lower grade levels and balanced classes by gender, he said.

When schools closed for the pandemic, the district had to focus on making remote learning work. When in-person classes resumed, some of the teachers had left, and new ones had to be trained in the curriculum, Rodrequez said.

“Whenever there’s crisis, we go back to what we knew,” Rodrequez said.

Bias against girls in STEM persists

Despite shifts in societal perceptions, a bias against girls persists in science and math subjects, according to teachers, administrators and advocates. It becomes a message girls can internalize about their own abilities, they say, even at a very young age.

In his third grade classroom in Washington, D.C., teacher Raphael Bonhomme starts the year with an exercise where students break down what makes up their identity. Rarely do the girls describe themselves as good at math. Already, some say they are “not a math person.”

“I’m like, you’re 8 years old,” he said. “What are you talking about, ‘I’m not a math person?’”

Girls also may have been more sensitive to changes in instructional methods spurred by the pandemic, said Janine Remillard, a math education professor at the University of Pennsylvania. Research has found girls tend to prefer learning things that are connected to real-life examples, while boys generally do better in a competitive environment.

“What teachers told me during COVID is the first thing to go were all of these sense-making processes,” she said.

A school district renews its commitment

At de Zavala Middle School in Irving, the STEM program is part of a push that aims to build curiosity, resilience and problem-solving across subjects.

Coming out of the pandemic, Irving schools had to make a renewed investment in training for teachers, said Erin O’Connor, a STEM and innovation specialist there.

The district last year also piloted a new science curriculum from Lego Education. The lesson involving the machine at de Zavala, for example, had students learn about kinetic energy. Fifth graders learned about genetics by building dinosaurs and their offspring with Lego blocks, identifying shared traits.

“It is just rebuilding the culture of, we want to build critical thinkers and problem solvers,” O’Connor said.

Teacher Tenisha Willis recently led second graders at Irving’s Townley Elementary School through building a machine that would push blocks into a container. She knelt next to three girls who were struggling.

They tried to add a plank to the wheeled body of the machine, but the blocks didn’t move enough. One girl grew frustrated, but Willis was patient. She asked what else they could try, whether they could flip some parts around. The girls ran the machine again. This time, it worked.

“Sometimes we can’t give up,” Willis said. “Sometimes we already have a solution. We just have to adjust it a little bit.”

___

Lurye reported from Philadelphia. Todd Feathers contributed reporting from New York.

___

The Associated Press’ education coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

The rise of on-demand leadership in the AI economy

Published

on



A quiet but consequential shift is underway in the executive labor market. Companies are rethinking how they access senior judgment in the AI era. 

Rather than defaulting to full-time executive roles that command lofty salaries and long-term overhead, companies are increasingly turning to experienced consultants, strategists, and advisors to provide leadership on a limited and targeted basis.

This is not a dilution of leadership, but a recalibration of where experience delivers the most value.

According to LinkedIn’s latest Jobs on the Rise report, the fastest-growing roles in the U.S. economy sit at the intersection of AI and strategy. AI engineers claimed the top spot, while AI consultants and strategists ranked No. 2 overall. Strategic advisors and consultants also placed in the top 10. Together, the data show that as execution becomes cheaper, human judgment becomes more valuable.

The underlying driver is the implementation gap. After years of AI experimentation, organizations are struggling to convert tools into returns. While they do not lack models or software, many lack orchestration. Companies are increasingly turning to AI consultants and strategists to align technology with business realities, governance, and incentives, work that requires credibility, cross-functional fluency, and the kind of judgment typically associated with senior leadership roles.

The labor market now reflects a clear division of labor. Demand is rising simultaneously for full-time technical AI talent and for senior professionals who can translate those capabilities into business outcomes. As companies scale internal AI teams, they are increasingly relying on external advisors and consultants to provide the judgment required to direct that work at critical moments.

The supply side of this shift is shaped by organizational reality. Executives continue to make daily decisions, but AI has concentrated risk into fewer, more complex, and higher-impact choices around operating models, capital allocation, and governance. Rather than expanding permanent headcount, companies are bringing in experienced external leaders to guide those decisions when the stakes are highest.

The economics reinforce the model. Although senior advisors and consultants often command higher hourly rates, their total annual cost is typically a fraction of a comparable full-time executive role because they are engaged for a limited scope and time. Just as important, this approach allows organizations to draw on multiple forms of expertise rather than binding themselves to a single permanent hire.

The talent profile filling these roles is equally telling. Many of these advisors are former founders, CEOs, and COOs. Experience functions as a filter. LinkedIn’s data shows that many of the fastest-growing strategic roles carry a median of eight or more years of experience. These are not entry-level positions, but mid- or second-act careers for professionals with deep industry context.

The rise of founders and independent consultants on the Jobs on the Rise list also signals that this shift is driven by talent behavior, not just employer demand. Senior professionals are increasingly opting for career paths that offer autonomy, variety, and the opportunity to leverage their skills rather than committing to a single organization in an uncertain environment.

As AI automates and cheapens execution, the market value of human judgment, strategy, and accountability rises. As a result, pricing power shifts from doing the work to deciding what work should be done and how it should scale.

In this environment, experience is the moat. What is often described as “fractional leadership” is better understood as the unbundling of executive judgment from full-time roles. Over time, this model is likely to become not a stopgap but a structural response to the redistribution of value, risk, and expertise in the AI economy.

Join us at the Fortune Workplace Innovation Summit May 19–20, 2026, in Atlanta. The next era of workplace innovation is here—and the old playbook is being rewritten. At this exclusive, high-energy event, the world’s most innovative leaders will convene to explore how AI, humanity, and strategy converge to redefine, again, the future of work. Register now.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Trump finds a ‘solution’ to Greenland crisis, backs off on 10% tariff threats

Published

on



President Donald Trump seems to have found a “solution” to the Greenland crisis following talks with NATO leadership on Wednesday. He said he will back away from the threat to impose 10% tariffs on eight European allies — an announcement that had sparked a mass sell-off on Tuesday — that were set to take effect on Feb. 1.

The reversal came only hours after Trump walked back an earlier threat to use force to secure Greenland during his World Economic Forum speech in Davos, Switzerland.

“We have formed the framework of a future deal with respect to Greenland and, in fact, the entire Arctic Region,” Trump wrote on Truth Social, adding that the plan would be “a great one for the United States of America, and all NATO Nations.” He said the tariffs would be shelved “based upon this understanding.”

The announcement followed a meeting with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, who has been seeking to defuse growing tensions between Washington and its European allies as Trump escalated rhetoric over Greenland’s strategic importance. Trump also said on Truth Social that additional discussions were underway concerning what he called the “Golden Dome” initiative related to Greenland, without providing details.

Markets reacted sharply to the apparent de-escalation. The S&P 500 rose 1.5% in afternoon trading, while long-term U.S. Treasury yields fell, signaling investor relief after days of volatility. Despite this pullback potentially confirming yet another instance of the “TACO trade,” or “Trump Always Chickens Out,” major questions remain over the substance of the framework. 

Trump has repeatedly said that anything less than controlling all of Greenland is “unacceptable.” It’s unclear, and seems unlikely, that the outline discussed with NATO leadership satisfies that particular condition, given that Denmark reiterated that it would not give up Greenland’s sovereignty after Trump’s speech on Wednesday. 

In his Truth Social post, Trump said Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Special Envoy Steve Witkoff would lead negotiations going forward and report directly to him.The announcement also comes after the EU suspended trade negotiations with the U.S. and suspended the trade agreement they have had in place since August. CATO scholar Kyle Handley, in a statement provided to Fortune, wrote that the suspension should have never been seen as a “dramatic breakdown,” because “there was never a real deal to begin with.”

“What’s unraveling now was a fragile, politically convenient set of press releases that papered over fundamental disagreements and was always vulnerable to executive-level tariff threats.”



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Trump says Europe does one thing right: drug prices

Published

on



President Donald Trump told an audience of thousands of executives and global leaders at the World Economic Forum that European countries have taken a turn for the worse. Trump said his friends who visit the continent tell him they don’t recognize the region—and “not in a positive way.”

“I love Europe, and I want to see Europe go good,” Trump said on Wednesday at the Davos, Switzerland, meeting. “But it’s not heading in the right direction.”

But the president conceded that Europe is doing one thing better: keeping its drug prices low. 

“A pill that costs $10 in London costs $130. Think—it costs $10 in London, costs $130 in New York or in Los Angeles,” he said to murmurs from the crowd. 

Europe may not be recognizable to Trump’s friends, but Trump said he has other friends returning from London, remarking on the affordability of medication there. Indeed, a 2024 Rand study found that across all drugs, U.S. customers paid on average 2.78 times higher prices than in 33 other countries, including France, Germany, and the United Kingdom, in 2022.

The president has adopted a “most favored nation” policy meant to both lower drug costs for Americans while pushing other countries to pay more. Trump made a concerted effort in his second term to address astronomical drug costs, including minting a deal with 17 pharmaceutical companies to slash U.S. prices to match medication costs overseas. The move followed a sweeping executive order issued in May to introduce the most-favored-nation policy. On Wednesday, Trump alluded to an executive order he signed last week, pledging to lower drug prices by up to 90%.

Fallout with France

Trump said pharma companies did not initially believe countries would be willing to change prices. Trump noted in his remarks that he first approached French President Emmanuel Macron about increasing drug prices, but Macron refused.

“I said, ‘Emmanuel, you’re going to have to lift the price of that pill,” Trump said.

Trump said that threatening a 25% tariff on French goods, including wines and champagne, sealed the deal. Macron’s office disputed Trump’s assertion that he pressured the French president into lowering drug prices. 

“It’s being claimed that President @EmmanuelMacron increased the price of medicines. He does not set their prices. They are regulated by the social security system and have, in fact, remained stable,” Macron’s office said in an X post. “Anyone who has set foot in a French pharmacy knows this.”

Included in the post was a gif of Trump with animated “Fake news!” text overlaid on the image.

Health policy experts say drug prices in the U.S. are so high because of a system structured differently from other countries that allow companies to negotiate with individual insurance companies or pharmacy benefit managers, giving them more leverage to raise prices than in other countries’ systems, where there is one regulatory agency negotiating drug prices for a population.

Efficacy of Trump’s efforts to lower drug costs

Industry leaders think Trump’s efforts to lower drug costs could pay off. Vas Narasimhan, CEO of pharmaceutical giant Novartis, told Fortune’s Jeremy Kahn at a USA House session in Davos on Wednesday that Trump identified a valid issue in the high cost of U.S. drugs.

About two-thirds of new drugs on the market over the last decade have come from the U.S., a result of its highly developed research and development (R&D) infrastructure. Some argue that other countries benefit from U.S. innovation without paying their fair share to support the industry’s growth.

“When you look at what underpins R&D in our industry, it’s been primarily in the United States,” Narasimhan said. “The United States is the source of more than half the profits of the industry, and without the United States, you wouldn’t have all of these innovations, all these incredible medicines.”

Narasimham emphasized the need for a “more balanced approach” to funding R&D, implying that other countries should pay more for U.S.-produced pharmaceuticals. He pointed to Trump’s deal with the 17 drug companies as a “reasonable” solution.

Early signs, however, suggest drug prices have not come down. A January report from drug price research firm 46brooklyn found drug companies, including 16 firms with which Trump made deals since September, raised drug prices for at least some of their drugs in the first two weeks of 2026. The median increase of the 872 brand-name drugs with hiked prices was about 4%, the same rate as the year before.

Reuters similarly reported earlier this month, citing data from 3 Axis Advisors, that those 17 drug companies had raised the prices of 350 medications. Public health experts attributed the rise to the behind-the-scenes nature of the deals between drug companies and insurers.

“These deals are being announced as transformative when, in fact, they really just nibble around the margins in terms of what is really driving high prices for prescription drugs in the U.S.,” Dr. Benjamin Rome, a health policy researcher at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, told the outlet.

The Department of Health and Human Services did not immediately respond to Fortune’s request for comment.



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © Miami Select.