 |
|
|
|||||
As a child and adolescent psychiatrist, Ive seen how Americas education system leaves neurodivergent children behind. Despite growing awareness of ADHD, autism, and learning differences, schools remain stuck in outdated models. Without rethinking how classrooms are structured, well keep failing students whose brains work differently. Last year, I worked with a boy who dreaded school so much he would sometimes vomit on the drive there. His anxiety wasnt about tests or teachers in the usual sense. It was about the environment itselfthe noise, the lights, the pressure to sit still in a classroom not built for how his brain works. His parents tried everything from walking him into school to rearranging schedules but nothing helped. Then he transferred schools. His new teacher took a different approach: connecting with him, adjusting the classroom, and making small changes that reduced the overwhelm. Suddenly, he wanted to ride the bus. He wanted to stay in class. For the first time, school felt like a place he belonged. One in five kids learns differently This child is neurodivergent, part of the one in five U.S. children who learn, process, and engage differently. Instead of helping these students to adapt, schools have tended to push kids like my client into rigid structures or special programs. The problem isnt these kids. Its that schools were built for neurotypical learners and havent kept pace with what we know about development, learning, and mental health. October is ADHD awareness month, one of the many awareness months that highlights how common these challenges are. But unless schools change what happens in classrooms, awareness wont be enough. ADHD remains one of the most common childhood diagnoses, affecting 11.4% of school-aged children. The CDC now estimates that 1 in 31 children is diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder, up from 1 in 44 in 2018. These children are not outliers. They are classmates, friends, and our own children. Yet too many schools are treating neurodivergence as an exception to manage, rather than a reality to design for. Good intentions, bad outcomes Well-intentioned reforms have fallen short. We moved from segregated special education classrooms to mainstreaming, with aides and breakout sessions. But that support often comes at the cost of stigma. Kids are pulled out of class, singled out, or shadowed by aides whose presence, while helpful, also marks them to their schoolmates as different. Ive met children with anxiety and depression who say the worst part of school isnt the work. Rather its being pinpointed as different because of being singled out. Delays in diagnosis make things worse. Families wait months, sometimes years, for neuropsychological testing. In that lost time, kids fall behind academically, their confidence erodes, and their risk of dropping out increases. By the time support is offered, the damage has already been done. Meanwhile, teachers are asked to fill gaps theyre not trained for. General education teachers arent taught how to create sensory-friendly classrooms or manage the needs of a child with autism or ADHD. Funding is scarce. Insurance companies deny therapies during school hours, arguing they replace academics. And kids are left in the middle, unsupported. Awareness isnt the same as change Awareness months and anti-bullying lessons are important, but they are not enough. In Illinois, for example, lawmakers recently passed a bipartisan resolution recommending K8 education on neurodivergence to reduce bullying and foster acceptance. Thats progress, but it still falls short. Teaching students what autism or ADHD is wont change outcomes unless schools themselves adapt how they teach and support neurodiverse learners. Real inclusion means more than keeping kids in the same room. It means rethinking how we structure classrooms. For some neurodivergent kids, mainstreaming works with minor adjustments like dimmed lights, quiet corners, and social skills groups. For others, hybrid models that combine online learning, which can reduce sensory overload, with in-person opportunities for social and emotional growth may be better. There is no one-size-fits-all answer, and thats the point: Neurodiverse kids need individualized environments that optimize learning rather than force conformity. Technology can help, if used thoughtfully. Tools like AI or virtual reality can personalize lessons or support social learning. But technology is not a cure-all. Without trained educators and mental health professionals guiding their use, these tools risk becoming add-ons instead of meaningful supports. The cost of staying the same The risks of doing nothing are clear. Children with gifts to offer will graduate unprepared, their strengths overlooked, and their potential stunted. Theyll leave schools designed to make them average instead of environments that help them excel. Heres what can be done to fix this. Policymakers need to move beyond symbolic resolutions and fund classrooms that can adapt, including early and equitable access to neuropsychological testing. Educators must be trained in neurodiversity and given the tools to create flexible curricula that make space for sensory, emotional, and social development alongside academics. Parents can push schools to fully implement Individualized Education Plans and 504 plans and insist on environments that allow their children not just to get by, but to thrive. Every child deserves a school that feels safe, supportive, and built for how they learn best. And right now, too many schools are missing that mark. We canand mustbuild systems where neurodiverse kids arent forced to fit in but instead are given the chance to truly shine. Monika Roots, MD, is cofounder, president and chief medical officer of Bend Health.
Category:
E-Commerce
As the global climate and environmental crisis accelerates, the urgency for sustainable alternatives to fossil fuel-based products has never been greater. Today, biobased productsderived from renewable agricultural, marine, and forestry materialsare gaining momentum as critical tools in reducing our reliance on non-renewable resources and mitigating environmental harm. From everyday household goods to advanced industrial materials, biobased alternatives are transforming entire industries and creating pathways toward a lower-carbon, more resilient future. Biobased products offer a broad range of applications, including lubricants, detergents, inks, fertilizers, and bioplastics. To qualify as biobased, the USDA requires that products must contain a minimum of 25% renewable content unless an established minimum is defined for that category. Consumers are taking notice: A striking 64% now prioritize sustainability in purchasing decisions and are willing to pay an average 12% premium for products with proven eco-benefits. The environmental payoff is significantbiobased products prevent the release of 12.7 million metric tons of CO annually, the equivalent of removing nearly three million cars from the road. HISTORY OF BIO-BASED PRODUCTS The use of biobased materials is far from new. Ancient civilizations utilized wool, plants, and plant oils long before petroleum ever entered the picture. In the early 20th century, many industrial chemicals were still derived from biomass. During the 1930s, automotive pioneer Henry Ford famously experimented with soybean-based plastics for car parts. Wartime resource shortages, particularly during and after World War II, prompted renewed interest in renewable alternatives. The modern era of biobased innovation was catalyzed by policy action. In 1999, President Bill Clinton issued Executive Order 13134, laying the foundation for a national biobased product strategy and encouraging early adoption of renewable technologies. This pivotal moment helped bring the promise of biobased materials into the mainstream. THE PRESENT-DAY BOOM Fast forward to today, and the biobased sector is thriving. The USDA now tracks 139 biobased product categoriesup from just five in 2005excluding food, fuel, and feed. This explosive growth reflects both market demand and technological progress. These products displace approximately 300 million gallons of petroleum annually in the U.S. alone, which equates to removing another 200,000 vehicles from circulation. In total, the industry has contributed over $393 billion in value-added economic output, signaling both its ecological and economic relevance. A significant trend in 2024 has been the surge in biobased alternatives to single-use plastics. From bamboo cutlery and soy-based straws to potato-starch trash bags and palm leaf plates, sustainable materials are now widespread in consumer goods. Biobased products have also expanded into less obvious categories, such as safety equipment, filters, adhesives, clothing, and even perfumes. The built environment offers some of the most compelling examples, with fibers and fabrics emerging as a particularly fast-growing segmentadding 127 newly certified USDA biobased products in the past year alone. Products like Biobased Xorel, a high-performance textile used in commercial interiors. While its molecularly identical to a petroleum-based counterpartboth made from polyethylenethe key difference lies in the feedstock: sugarcane. The sugarcane plant yields significantly more per acre and produces 9.5 units of renewable energy for every unit of material, compared to just 1.4 units from corn. Even more impressively, sugarcane does not require genetic modification, and in Brazilthe worlds leading producerit is cultivated on only about 1% of the countrys arable land, meaning it doesnt compete with food crops or contribute significantly to deforestation. While many biobased materials are already on the market, a wide array of new solutions are still in the experimental phase, signaling even greater potential on the horizon. Researchers are exploring everything from synthetic spider silk, with its incredible strength and flexibility, to self-healing concrete designed to increase infrastructure lifespan and reduce maintenance emissions. In particular, synthetic spider silk is gaining attention as a potential replacement for environmentally damaging plastic fibers in construction. Yet, amidst the progress, concerns about greenwashing persist. Fortunately, third-party certifications such as the USDA Certified Biobased Product Label help cut through the noise, ensuring material origins are verified and measurable. LOOKING AHEAD: INNOVATION AND OPPORTUNITY As the biobased sector matures, technology is redefining its possibilities. Advanced biorefinery processes and synthetic biology are giving rise to new materials and offering petroleum-free alternatives for commercial interiors. Equally important is the integration of carbon capture and utilization, turning waste emissions into viable material inputs. The path forward also relies on scalable production, improved supply chain resilience, and continued transparency. Emerging technologiessuch as genetic editing, bioprinting, and AI-driven process optimizationare laying the groundwork for a dynamic, circular, and responsive system of biobased manufacturing. A CALL TO ACTION Biobased products present a powerful opportunity to rethink the materials we rely on every day, but success depends on more than technological innovation. Governments must continue investing in supportive legislation and incentives. Industries must demand transparency and take full stock of environmental, human health, and social equity impacts. Consumers, empowered with information, ust look beyond labels and ask: Whats the true cost? By replacing environmentally damaging materials with renewable, sustainable alternatives and by prioritizing certifications, transparency, and lifecycle impact, we can build a world where sustainability isnt just a trendbut the default. The future of biobased products is not only promisingits essential. Gordon Boggis is CEO of Carnegie.
Category:
E-Commerce
Earlier this year, while the U.S. government was cutting billions in foreign aid, a refugee education program called Yeti Confetti did something remarkable: It took a single grant and scaled from serving 35 to 1,400+ students in Lebanon and NYC. They anticipate doubling that within the next few months. While hundreds of humanitarian organizations suspended programs because of the U.S. foreign assistance freeze, Rocket Learning, an education tech platform in India, is reaching 3 million children across 10 states and territories at $1.50 per child per year, a fraction of comparable traditional early childhood programs. This dichotomy was reflected in two types of conversations I heard during the United Nations General Assembly week in September 2025. In one, senior leaders from development agencies were genuinely grappling with an existential moment, with deep cuts in international aid worldwide. Then, there were the people closer to the work who had already moved ontoo busy delivering and craving for scale. WHAT GOT US HERE WONT GET US THERE The decades-long development of infrastructure created real expertise and crucial services to communities that desperately needed support. That matters and still does. The challenge isn’t the people or the expertiseit’s the operating system. That system was built for a world with more money than innovation. We now live in a world with more innovation than money. Layers of oversight, risk-averse funding cycles, and multiple intermediaries mean the infrastructure can’t move at the speed or cost-efficiency the moment demands. In 2024, the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) estimated that 305 million people worldwide would need humanitarian assistance by 2025. Despite the growing need, by November 2024, less than half (43%) of the requested $50 billion had been received. Climate disasters aren’t slowing down. Neither is conflict. Neither is displacement. When the gap between need and allocated resources grows this wide, shouldnt the calculation change? This isn’t about replacing institutional knowledge but about restructuring who holds resources and how they flow. It’s about multilateral agencies recognizing that their greatest value might be directly platforming solutions rather than implementing them or hiring intermediaries. It’s about foundations embracing risk, treating innovation as a core strategy rather than a side portfolio. WHAT THE DOERS KNOW Theres a solution to a problem the traditional sector has been trying to solve for yearshow to reach more people, faster, with less money. There’s an entire generation of entrepreneurs who never waited for perfect conditions or for permission. Take Kate Kallots Amini in Africa. Her data platform is solving the continents critical data scarcity and information inaccessibility by providing hyper-accurate, granular data localized to smallholder farms. Its now benefitting 7.5 million people across 25 countries, including partnerships with the governments of Barbados, Côte dIvoire, and Sierra Leone. Rocket Learning, mentioned above, became the Indian government’s technical partner for 230,000 rural childcare centers, with students scoring 30% higher in their classrooms than others. The detailed economic analyses reveal a remarkable benefit-to-cost ratio of $1,274 per child. The solutions that work have these traits in common: They’re cheaper: Technology enables reach without decreasing marginal costs. They’re faster: Different organizational structures enabling different speeds. They’re sustainable: They generate revenue, create jobs, and outlast any single funding cycle. Moving resources directly to entrepreneurs introduces different risks. Safeguarding protocols exist for good reasons. But the current approach also carries riskthe risk of reaching fewer people, taking longer, at a higher cost per beneficiary. We need to be honest about which risks we can afford at this moment in time. WHAT HAPPENS NEXT The bottleneck isn’t ideas. It’s the infrastructure connecting local entrepreneurs addressing the pressing challenges of their communities to resources and scale. Here’s what would accelerate impact: Early and direct capital is where the leverage is highest compared to the years of pilot data that traditional funders want. Bespoke support from people who’ve done it before, not another workshop on Theory of Change. Networks for scale toconnect proven solutions to government partners, procurement processes, and private sector distribution channels. Many entrepreneurs can build great products but lack relationships with decision-makers who control access to millions of beneficiaries. Patient growth capital because one-year grants don’t match the timeline of building sustainable organizations that scale to millions. Validation infrastructure so development agencies can shift from primary implementers to validators and amplifiers of what’s working. Using institutional credibility and expertise to assess, endorse, and help scale entrepreneur-led solutions that meet rigorous standards. For funders, this isn’t charity. It’s leverage. Wed be backing solutions that become self-sustaining, building systems that outlast any administration’s foreign policy shifts, reaching more people for a fraction of traditional cost-per-beneficiary, and getting closer to aid independence, which countries in the Global South are hungry for. The future of global development is happening right now in Tripoli, Kolkata, Mombasa, Ho Chi Minh, in the hands of entrepreneurs who saw that the system couldn’t move fast enough and decided to build something that would. This transition asks people to reimagine systems they’ve spent careers building. Thats not easy. The expertise and relationships built over decades matter. The question is how to channel those assets toward what’s demonstrably working. The ground has already shifted. The doers never stopped moving. Lets join them. Hala Hanna is the executive director of MIT Solve.
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||