A Blueprint For The Federal Role In Education Research And Development

Forbes

26-03-2025

Cuts and changes to the U.S. Department of Education—in contracts, grants, and staffing—will ... More profoundly change the capacity and impact of federal 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.