SCIENCE/MATH HAVE LIMITS PREDICTING NATURAL DISASTERS LIKE EARTHQUAKES

FROM:  NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
Earthquakes expose limits of scientific predictions

But math and science are refining ways to predict, limit impact of disasters
In 2012, six Italian seismologists were sent to prison because they failed to predict the 2009 L'Aquila 6.3 magnitude earthquake.

To some that may seem absurd but it points to the faith so many have come to place in science's ability to predict and prevent tragedies. Experts had for decades predicted that Nepal would experience a massive earthquake, but were unable to provide a more precise warning about the recent 7.8-magnitude quake that devastated the country. The Italian seismologists had similarly predicted earthquake probabilities but could not give an exact date.

Science and mathematics have not reached a point where they can forecast with certainty the exact time and specific severity of these cataclysmic events--and may never do so.

"The best we can do is make an assessment of there being a heightened risk in a certain geographic area over a certain window of time," said William Newman, a theoretical physicist at the University of California, Los Angeles, who has received funding from the National Sceince Foundation (NSF) for his work aimed at improving natural hazard predictions. "We can determine a sense of what is likely to occur, but we will never know exactly."

Newman has spent much of his 35-year career working in computational and applied mathematics but also has employed mathematics in applications to probe natural disaster issues such as earthquakes and climate change.

These days, mathematicians seem to be able to model almost anything, but, as Newman points out, the devil is not only in the details but in creating models that can be used for accurate prediction. In the case of tectonic plates, the randomness of their interaction limits the certainty of predictions, and those predictions become less certain as time passes. In much the same way that a weather forecaster can be more certain about predicting tomorrow's weather than next month's, Newman believes earthquake prediction accuracy has the potential to fall off.

"For mathematicians, three aspects come to mind," Newman said. "We like to think of the equations being well posed, well defined, and that we can run with them. In [Edward] Lorenz's case (whose model of turbulence celebrated its 50th anniversary recently), his equations about atmospheric behavior were, by and large, eminently reasonable. He supersimplified and saw that if he perturbed the initial conditions, after a certain amount of time, he could predict nothing."

Yes, you read that right: nothing.

The problem for mathematicians is that forecasting accuracy can only weaken as more variables cloud the equations and models they build. In the case of earthquakes, Newman says the prospects for good predictions are even more dismal than for atmospheric ones. Chaotic dynamics and complexity prevail.

In Los Angeles, where Newman lives, mathematicians and geophysicists have worked together and determined that sometime in the next 30 years, the area is likely to see a substantial earthquake due to its proximity to the San Andreas Fault. And as each year passes, the risk increases in this window of time. The mathematicians can only put so many pre-determined variables into their equations, including the patterns of tectonic plate changes and the environmental conditions that coincide with earthquake occurrences.

"We have to go into this realizing there are bounds," Newman said. "We are looking at complex systems that can produce patterns we just don't understand."

Additionally, while the news focuses on an earthquake and its aftershocks, there are also "foreshocks." But recognizing a a foreshock is impossible without seeing the seismic event that follows. So trying to formulate day-to-day seismologic predictions after any earthquake event can also be confounding.

Why even try to predict earthquakes?

One could easily draw the conclusion at this point that we walk away from the issue, shaking our heads. But mathematicians, computer scientists, physicists, geologists, engineers, and social scientists working together on this issue do provide value, each adding something that could improve the scientific community's understanding of this obviously complex issue.

As instruments become increasingly refined and data proliferate around the world, scientists also gain a better understanding of the consequences of earthquakes.

"It is true that scientists know very little about earthquake predictions," said Junping Wang, program director in NSF's mathematics division. "But this is exactly why we need to support earthquake research. Researching is the only way we can ever hope to build models that help to improve earthquake prediction and build a resilient society."

As they conduct more research in seismology, scientists are able to gain more and better knowledge that can benefit local policymakers looking to enhance preparedness and emergency response to earthquakes and cascading disasters.

"There are still plenty of opportunities where scientific and mathematical research can improve our knowledge," Wang said. "Understanding why an earthquake happened and how it happened helps us build better models, even if they can't tell us a specific date and time. With increased knowledge comes better preparedness."

Earthquake advice from a mathematician

"We can only tell people that there is a certain risk in a certain window of time," Newman said. "Then it's a matter of preparedness."

He cites the example of the Northridge earthquake that rocked the UCLA Mathematical Sciences Building in 1994. Architects designed expansion joints in different sections of the building because they knew that, at some point, it would have to cope with the trauma of earthquakes. In that case, some of the offices went through an "unexpected expansion," but Newman notes that ultimately the repairs were "essentially cosmetic."

Newman, who carries the distinction of being a member of UCLA's mathematics, physics and geology departments, routinely takes students to the San Andreas Fault--and specifically Vazquez Rocks, a set of formations exposed by seismic activity--for their research. He emphasizes that to prevent the fallout of earthquakes like the recent one in Nepal, policymaking that establishes building codes and individual preparedness are essential.

"If you live here, you have to earthquake-proof your home and your business. You need to be able to take care of yourself," he said. "And then when an earthquake does occur, hopefully, it will just be an inconvenience."

-- Ivy F. Kupec,
Investigators
William Newman
Vladimir Keilis-Borok
Related Institutions/Organizations
University of California-Los Angeles

PRESIDENT OBAMA'S REMARKS REGARDING THE COUNCIL OF THE GREAT CITY SCHOOLS MEETING

FROM:  THE WHITE HOUSE
March 16, 2015
Remarks by the President After Meeting with the Council of the Great City Schools
Roosevelt Room

11:51 A.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT:  I want to thank the Council of the Great City Schools.  This is an organization that represents the superintendents, the board members and educators from some of the largest school districts in the country.  And we just had a terrific conversation about some of the extraordinary progress that’s being made at the local levels.

The good news is that we are seeing, as a consequence of some of the reforms that we’ve initiated and partnered with at the state and local levels, we’re seeing improved reading scores, improved math scores, improved graduation rates.  We’re seeing improvement in some of the previously lowest-performing schools.

And this organization I think has taken on the challenge and has been able to begin a process of turning school districts around and making sure that young people are getting the kind of education that they need to be able to compete in the 21st century.  That’s the good news.

The challenge that we face is that this is a monumental task and it requires resources.  And I’m very proud of what we’ve been able to do in terms of helping schools to initiate improvements in how they train teachers, in how they engage kids in the classroom, in how they start moving education around math and science and technology; how they reach populations that are particularly difficult to reach; how they’re bringing new technology into the classroom.  But all that is dependent on a budget and approach at the federal level that says we care about all kids and not just some.

Now, the Republican House and Senate are about to put forward their budget.  My hope is that their budget reflects the priorities of educating every child.  But I can tell you that if the budget maintains sequester-level funding, then we would actually be spending less on pre-K to 12th grade in America’s schools in terms of federal support than we were back in 2000.  And that’s adjusting for inflation.  The notion that we would be going backwards instead of forwards in how we’re devoting resources to educating our kids makes absolutely no sense.

In addition, we’ve got a major debate obviously taking place about the reauthorization of the major education act that shapes federal policy towards our schools.  There is, I think, some useful conversations taking place between the chairman of relevant committee, Lamar Alexander, and Patty Murray.  But there’s some core principles that all the leaders here believe in:  Making sure that we continue to provide resources to the poorest school districts and not creating a situation where we can suddenly shift dollars from wealthy districts -- or from poorer districts to wealthy districts, or alternatively, that education aid suddenly can start going to sport stadiums or tax cuts at the state level.  That's something that these school districts feel very strongly about

Making sure that we continue to focus on low-performing schools and that they are getting additional resources.  Making sure that we are continuing to assess in a smart way, on an annual basis, how young people are performing, and that we're disaggregating so that we can see in various subgroups how young people are performing, to make sure they’re on track.  That's something that people here care very much about.

Making sure that we've got high standards and high expectations for all our kids, and making sure that we are providing the resources to teachers and principals to meet those high standards.  That's going to be important.

Making sure that we are investing in special education and English learning for large portions of our student population that may need extra help.  That's going to be critically important.

So the set of principles that are reflected in my budget and I hope will be reflected in the Republican budget -- but if it is not, then we're going to have to have a major debate.  We are making too much progress now in terms of graduation rates, improved reading scores, improved math scores, increasing standards, increasing access to the resources the kids need for us to be going backwards now.  And this is something worth fighting for.

So I am very grateful for all the folks here for the work they’re doing.  I hope that people get familiar with some of the stories of progress that have been made.  If you look at what’s happened in the D.C. public schools, or you look at the efforts that are being made in places like Fresno, which it’s a poor city in a poor school district, but despite that is seeing real strides; if you look at what’s going on in Cleveland where I'll be visiting tomorrow [Wednesday] -- these are school districts that, despite enormous challenges, have made real progress.

And the idea that we go backwards on that progress, in some cases for ideological reasons, as opposed to because of what the evidence says, that's something that -- that's not the kind of legacy we want to leave for the next generation.  And I'm going to continue to fight to make sure that this progress continues.

So I want to thank everybody who’s around this table and know that they’re going to have a strong partner in my administration.

All right?  Thank you very much, everybody.

END
11:59 A.M. EDT

EDUCATION DEPARTMENT ANNOUNCES RESULTS FOR 2013 NEAP ASSESSMENTS FOR READING AND MATH

FROM:  U.S. EDUCATION DEPARTMENT 
Results for 2013 NAEP Mathematics and Reading Assessments Are In

Results from the 2013 NAEP assessments show fourth- and eighth-graders making progress in mathematics and reading.

Nationally representative samples of more than 376,000 fourth-graders and 341,000 eighth-graders were assessed in either mathematics or reading in 2013. Results are reported for public and private school students in the nation, and for public school students in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Department of Defense schools.

Average mathematics scores for fourth- and eighth-graders in 2013 were 1 point higher than in 2011, and 28 and 22 points higher respectively in comparison to the first assessment year in 1990.

Hispanic students made gains in mathematics from 2011 to 2013 at both grades 4 and 8.
Fourth- and eighth-grade female students scored higher in mathematics in 2013 than in 2011, but the scores for fourth- and eighth-grade male students did not change significantly over the same period.
OThe average reading score for eighth-graders was 2 points higher in 2013 than in 2011, but the score for fourth-graders did not change significantly from 2011. Reading scores were higher in 2013 than in 1992 at both grades.

White, Black, Hispanic, and Asian/Pacific Islander eighth-graders scored higher in reading in 2013 than in 2011.

Both male and female eighth-graders scored higher in reading in 2013 than in 2011.

Public school students in Tennessee, the District of Columbia, and Department of Defense schools scored higher in 2013 than in 2011 in both subjects and grades.

Mathematics scores were higher in 2013 than in 2011 at both grades in Hawaii, Tennessee, the District of Columbia, and Department of Defense schools.
Reading scores were higher in 2013 than in 2011 at both grades in Iowa, Tennessee, Washington, the District of Columbia, and Department of Defense schools.

U.S.-MEXICO FORUM ON HIGHER EDUCATION

FROM: U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
United States-Mexico Bilateral Forum on Higher Education, Innovation, and Research
Fact Sheet
Office of the Spokesperson
Washington, DC
May 2, 2013

Today President Obama and President Pena Nieto announced the formation of a Bilateral Forum on Higher Education, Innovation, and Research to expand economic opportunities for citizens of both countries and to develop a 21st century workforce for our mutual economic prosperity. The Presidents reaffirmed their belief that greater educational opportunities will further our shared goals in all areas of the rich and extensive partnership between the United States and Mexico.

Through the High-Level Forum on Higher Education, Innovation, and Research, the U.S. and Mexican Governments will encourage broader access to quality post-secondary education for traditionally underserved demographic groups, especially in the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields. They will also expand educational exchanges, increase joint research on education and learning, and share best practices in higher education and innovation.

This forum will build upon the many positive educational and research linkages that already exist through federal, state, and local governments, public and private academic institutions, civil society, and the private sector. It will bring together government agency counterparts to deepen cooperation on higher education, innovation, and research. It will also draw on the expertise of the higher education community in both countries.

The United States and Mexico have a long history of educational collaboration. More than 18,000 Mexican and U.S. university students study in each other’s countries annually. The Mexico-U.S. Commission for Educational and Cultural Exchange (COMEXUS) oversees the Fulbright-Garcia Robles Scholarship Program, the flagship program in U.S.-Mexico academic exchanges, through which more than 4,000 Mexicans and Americans have participated in bilateral exchange programs since 1990. Fulbright and other exchange students from Mexico contribute to President Obama’s hemisphere-wide goal of seeing 100,000 Latin American and Caribbean young people studying in the United States and 100,000 young Americans studying across the Western Hemisphere. Through U.S.-Mexican public-private partnerships such as Jóvenes en Acción (Youth in Action), Mexican public high school students build leadership, English, and communication skills, learning ways to serve their communities. In addition, federal and state officials from Mexico and the United States work together to improve the quality of education for migrant students in both countries.