A Blueprint For The Federal Role In Education Research And Development
When the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) released its results last month, revealing in stark detail the struggles of American children with reading and math, the nation collectively gasped. Some pointed to these findings as justification for maintaining a strong federal role in education, while others—including President Trump through his recent Executive Order to dismantle the Department of Education—cited them as evidence that states should have greater autonomy.
Despite these differing interpretations, everyone acknowledges one crucial point: NAEP, commonly known as the Nation's Report Card, delivers the definitive, comparable data on student learning across the country. This vital assessment helps educators and policymakers address two fundamental questions that drive education research and development (R&D): Are children learning, and what specific strategies can we implement to better support their academic growth?
Yet, the Institute of Education Sciences (IES)—the federal agency responsible for administering this vital assessment—is badly diminished. In February, Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency canceled nearly $1.5 billion in contracts and grants for core data and research activities, many of which are Congressionally mandated. Then, just weeks ago, Secretary of Education Linda McMahon announced she would terminate 50% of the overall Department of Education staff, with IES losing approximately 90% of its personnel.
These cuts and changes—in contracts, grants, and staffing—will profoundly change the capacity and impact of IES, the primary actor in federal education R&D. We should all be concerned about the impact on the quality of data, research, and technological advancement the federal government supports—and more importantly, its unintended effects on America's 50 million students.
Yet, in this challenging moment, I'm compelled to focus on the future. I see an opportunity to work with stakeholders on both sides of the aisle to update—not upend—the federal government's approach to supporting education R&D. As the leader of the Alliance for Learning Innovation (ALI), I'm working with partners and our coalition members to draft a blueprint envisioning a revitalized and rebuilt federal education R&D system. From conversations with state education leaders and many others, I hear consistent themes about what the federal government is best positioned to do so that it can support states to dramatically improve student outcomes.
So far, ALI has identified three essential pillars that can form the basis for rebuilding the federal education R&D infrastructure. The federal government should:
President Trump ran on an education platform that would 'let the States run our educational system as it should be run,' and Secretary McMahon echoed his call to 'return education to the states.' Republicans and Democrats will debate the exact role the federal government should play in education, but both can agree that state and local education leaders should be empowered to make the best use of data and evidence to improve outcomes in their communities.
IES has a mandate from Congress to 'widely disseminate information on scientifically valid research, statistics, and evaluation on education, particularly to State educational agencies and local educational agencies' and to provide them with technical assistance to effectively implement research-backed approaches.
In an updated education R&D ecosystem, the federal government must retain its essential role in supporting states and local school districts to know and apply evidence-based practices. However, the federal approach can be improved to be more responsive to community needs.
First, federally-supported education research should primarily address urgent national challenges, like chronic absenteeism and lagging math and literacy achievement. This will help guide state and local policy and the adoption of effective, proven practices and interventions. Responsive, large-scale research investments will build a robust, actionable evidence base for state- and district-level education leaders to follow.
Second, the federal government can more effectively translate research findings into practical, applicable information for educators and families. For instance, the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) is a valuable repository of evidence-based programs and approaches, but some teachers and parents may find it too academic to be useful. A reimagined federal infrastructure for education R&D must make resources like the WWC much more accessible—and this must involve seeking and incorporating input from the practitioners, families, and students it seeks to serve. As proposed in a recent article in The 74, IES could give educational interventions A-F ratings so that it's easy to understand what has a strong evidence base and what does not, and it could convene experts, like the National Reading Panel, to resolve key education debates and provide clear, evidence-based guidance. This could also be done for writing, math, and science.
IES facilitates national data collection that provides the source of truth about how our students are performing. As I laid out above, NAEP is the only national test that shows how students are faring within a state and across the nation to hold states to a common standard for achievement. Additionally, IES manages the Common Core of Data, a comprehensive database of the nation's public elementary and secondary schools and districts. Without the Nation's Report Card or the Common Core of Data, policymakers, educators, and the public are in the dark about our schools–and progress becomes more difficult.
While NAEP must be preserved in the new version of IES, there is an opportunity to modernize another critical data investment: the Statewide Longitudinal Data Systems (SLDS) program. This is an essential grant program that helps states track data from early learning through the workforce. Updates to the SLDS program, as proposed in the bipartisan New Essential Education Discoveries (NEED) Act, could incentivize and support states to integrate data across multiple systems and agencies, including education, workforce, and nutrition, to provide a more holistic picture of factors influencing learning outcomes. States could use an improved SLDS to promote and generate accurate data in usable formats that help students, families, educators, and policymakers make informed decisions.
In this new era, a big opportunity for IES is the development side of R&D, investing and helping scale cutting-edge educational tools and approaches. With the advent of high-performing large language models and other advancements in artificial intelligence, IES should invest in bold research that explores the frontiers of emerging technologies and how they can spur innovation in America's classrooms.
IES already started to do this through its Accelerate, Transform, and Scale Initiative, which has been carrying out DARPA-inspired, interdisciplinary R&D to solve the biggest challenges in education. In partnership with the private sector, IES should double down on this type of R&D. It's a downpayment to ensure the U.S. remains globally competitive and at the leading edge of innovation.
The cuts made to federally-supported education R&D in just the last few weeks have been devastating. Yet, I know that IES performs vital, Congressionally-required work, and I am hopeful that others will join me to stand up for and help shape its future. We can't lose sight of why IES exists in the first place: to improve the quality of education students receive. Let's ensure student achievement continues to be our north star–and if the Trump administration is willing, start rebuilding.
Connect with Sara Schapiro on LinkedIn.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Chicago Tribune
27 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
California Gov. Newsom signs legislation calling for special election on redrawn congressional map
SACRAMENTO, Calif — California voters will decide in November whether to approve a redrawn congressional map designed to help Democrats win five more U.S. House seats next year, after Texas Republicans advanced their own redrawn map to pad their House majority by the same number of seats at President Donald Trump's urging. California lawmakers voted mostly along party lines Thursday to approve legislation calling for the special election. Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom, who has led the campaign in favor of the map, then quickly signed it — the latest step in a tit-for-tat gerrymandering battle. 'We don't want this fight and we didn't choose this fight, but with our democracy on the line, we will not run away from this fight,' Democratic Assemblyman Marc Berman said. Republicans, who have filed a lawsuit and called for a federal investigation into the plan, promised to keep fighting it. California Assemblyman James Gallagher, the Republican minority leader, said Trump was 'wrong' to push for new Republican seats elsewhere, contending the president was just responding to Democratic gerrymandering in other states. But he warned that Newsom's approach, which the governor has dubbed 'fight fire with fire,' was dangerous. 'You move forward fighting fire with fire and what happens?' Gallagher asked. 'You burn it all down.' In Texas, the Republican-controlled state Senate was scheduled to vote on a map Thursday night. After that, Republican Gov. Greg Abbott's signature will be all that is needed to make the map official. It's part of Trump's effort to stave off an expected loss of the GOP's majority in the U.S. House in the 2026 midterm elections. What states are doing in the battle over congressional maps as Texas pursues plan President Donald Trump soughtOn a national level, the partisan makeup of existing districts puts Democrats within three seats of a majority. The incumbent president's party usually loses congressional seats in the midterms. The president has pushed other Republican-controlled states including Indiana and Missouri to also revise their maps to add more winnable GOP seats. Ohio Republicans were also already scheduled to revise their maps to make them more partisan. The U.S. Supreme Court has said the Constitution does not outlaw partisan gerrymandering, only using race to redraw district lines. Texas Republicans embraced that when their House of Representatives passed its revision Wednesday. 'The underlying goal of this plan is straight forward: improve Republican political performance,' state Rep. Todd Hunter, the Republican who wrote the bill revising Texas' maps, said. On Thursday, California Democrats noted Hunter's comments and said they had to take extreme steps to counter the Republican move. 'What do we do, just sit back and do nothing? Or do we fight back?' Democratic state Sen. Lena Gonzalez said. 'This is how we fight back and protect our democracy.' Republicans and some Democrats championed the 2008 ballot measure that established California's nonpartisan redistricting commission, along with the 2010 one that extended its role to drawing congressional maps. Democrats have sought a national commission that would draw lines for all states but have been unable to pass legislation creating that system. Trump's midterm redistricting ploy has shifted Democrats. That was clear in California, where Newsom was one of the members of his party who backed the initial redistricting commission ballot measures, and where Assemblyman Joshua Lowenthal, whose father, Rep. Alan Lowenthal, was another Democratic champion of a nonpartisan commission, presided over the state Assembly's passage of the redistricting package. Newsom on Thursday contended his state was still setting a model. 'We'll be the first state in U.S. history, in the most democratic way, to submit to the people of our state the ability to determine their own maps,' Newsom said before signing the legislation. Former President Barack Obama, who's also backed a nationwide nonpartisan approach, has also backed Newsom's bid to redraw the California map, saying it was a necessary step to stave off the GOP's Texas move. 'I think that approach is a smart, measured approach,' Obama said Tuesday during a fundraiser for the Democratic Party's main redistricting arm, noting that California voters will still have the final say on the map. Bipartisan group led by ex-Obama officials 'rolling the dice' on new remapping plan for Illinois legislatureThe California map would last only through 2030, after which the state's commission would draw up a new map for the normal, once-a-decade redistricting to adjust district lines after the decennial U.S. Census. Democrats are also mulling reopening Maryland's and New York's maps for mid-decade redraws. However, more Democratic-run states have commission systems like California's or other redistricting limits than Republican ones do, leaving the GOP with a freer hand to swiftly redraw maps. New York, for example, can't draw new maps until 2028, and even then, only with voter approval. In Texas, outnumbered Democrats turned to unusual steps to try to delay passage, leaving the state to delay a vote by 15 days. Upon their return, they were assigned round-the-clock police monitoring. California Republicans didn't take such dramatic steps but complained bitterly about Democrats muscling the package through the Statehouse and harming what GOP State Sen. Tony Strickland called the state's 'gold-standard' nonpartisan approach. 'What you're striving for is predetermined elections,' Strickland said. 'You're taking the voice away from Californians.'
Axios
27 minutes ago
- Axios
Newsom signs California redistricting measures in response to Texas bill
California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed two redistricting bills into law on Thursday evening after a Democratic-controlled Legislature passed them earlier in the day. Why it matters: The legislation is in direct response to Texas' Republican-controlled House passing a new congressional map at the urging of President Trump, and the consequences of both could prove pivotal in the 2026 midterms and the 2028 presidential election.
Axios
27 minutes ago
- Axios
Argentina snafu with Noem leads Rubio, White House to seek better coordination on foreign policy
When Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem signed a visa-waiver accord with Argentinian officials last month, Marco Rubio — the National Security Director and Secretary of State — didn't get a heads-up until after the fact, according to five sources familiar with the situation. Now the White House and National Security Council want to make there's no repeat of such a scenario. Why it matters: All U.S. government workers must "clear the purpose and scope of any proposed call, conversation, meeting or trip with the NSC prior to engagement," according to an Aug. 8 memo penned by Rubio and White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles that was reviewed by Axios. "Any proposed agreements, directives or demands involving foreign leaders or countries must be notified, coordinated and approved through the interagency process at the White House, via the NSC," the memo said. "No commitments or statements binding the United States may be made without prior NSC approval." The big picture: Foreign policy under President Trump is conducted in a top-down fashion at breakneck speed in multiple high-stakes situations across the globe. That sometimes has led to occasions in which different departments and Cabinet secretaries aren't completely on the same page. The Argentina case wasn't the only such instance but it was the biggest one yet, the sources said. "This memo was not directed at any specific individual," White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a written statement. "It was sent to the president's entire top-tier team to emphasize the importance of a coordinated and deliberate approach to advancing the President's foreign policy agenda." The backstory: Noem traveled to Latin America last month and signed a July 28 " statement of intent" with Argentinian counterparts to readmit the country to the U.S. Visa Waiver Program to eventually enable citizens of that country to travel to the U.S. for 90 days without a waiver. Rubio, however, wasn't informed in advance and was "blindsided" and "annoyed" by the announcement, two sources who spoke with him said. "The policy itself isn't a problem, it was just a breach of protocol," one of the sources said. "Marco likes Kristi and he talks to her all the time. It's just that this is not a good way to conduct foreign policy if the lines of communication are like this." One source said the NSC was made aware of Noem's plans in Argentina, however, and speculated that it didn't reach Rubio's desk in Trump's streamlined NSC that has scrapped a slower, deliberative processes that would have avoided this situation. Sources in other departments say they weren't aware of any briefing on the visa waiver plan and that it didn't reach Rubio. The intrigue: Axios was first made aware of the situation in reporting an Aug. 14 story about the unusual work status of Noem's de facto chief of staff, Corey Lewandowski. Lewandowski, a former Trump campaign aide, is classified as a temporary employee. The White House is tracking his work hours at DHS amid suspicions he's worked more days than allowed. Last month's memo didn't single out Lewandowski but was partly prompted by his activities. House Democrats, also are investigating his work arrangement. "Corey went with Noem to Argentina and someone should've flagged this visa situation to Rubio," one official said. "It's not big deal. But it's one of those deals that could have been a problem." Earlier in the administration, Rubio and Trump's special envoy to Venezuela, Ric Grenell, appeared to be at loggerheads on occasion.
