As the department undertakes this effort, especially in light of deep cuts to IES and that took place earlier this year, it’s important to recognize and protect what’s working in our federal education research and development system, as well as what needs improvement. If department leaders are serious about revisiting their approach to IES, there are concrete steps they can take to protect and strengthen education research and development, making it even more effective and efficient in the long run.

, a coalition of leading education research and development organizations across the country, sent a letter to U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon outlining actionable recommendations for the administration. These recommendations fall into three categories: prioritizing research that addresses pressing state and local needs; maximizing impact through coordination, scale, and infrastructure; and helping states and districts turn their knowledge into operational success through improved communication and support.

Education researchers, policymakers and educators should be part of the process of identifying the most urgent needs or research questions. To accomplish that, the department should establish learning agendas, which can help identify and align those priorities.

Once those needs are identified, the administration can create faster research tracks for high-need topics, using IES’s current grant program as a model for success. It can also streamline study approvals by decentralizing IES’s review processes and accelerating launch and response timelines. And it should lean on rapid-cycle tools like the School PULSE survey to deliver real-time data to states and districts.

To streamline the collection and use of data relevant to school communities across the country, the administration can pursue modernizations like the innovative 2024 creation of EDPass, which transformed the way states submit federal reports to EDfacts, reduced the burden of those submitting data and enabled faster public reporting. Programs like the Regional Education Laboratories and Comprehensive Centers (CCs) were already working in close partnership with states and districts; IES can restart these programs and build on their strengths by positioning RELs to identify key, local data and evidence needs, and using CCs to support the implementation of evidence-based policies and practices.

Building on ongoing efforts, the administration can act now to solve the “last mile” challenge: ensuring valuable data and evidence-based policies and programs make it into classrooms in ways that are clear and actionable. Harnessing new technologies such as artificial intelligence and social media, along with and approaches such as professional networks and coaching structures in school districts, can help reach teachers frequently and repeatedly to provide up-to-date, trustworthy information on what works, where and why.

The administration can require every applicable IES-funded research study on policy and practice to include a practitioner-facing implementation resource, and create a framework for recognizing states, districts, and even individual educators that are using research and evidence-based policy effectively to improve student achievement.  

At its best, the federal education research and development system generates valuable evidence on what works, supports states and districts in addressing their unique needs, collects and analyzes vital national data, and represents a critical cross-country link to share valuable insights and best practices across states and regions.

The recommendations outlined above – informed by researchers and educators on the front lines of supporting our nation’s students and families – will help ensure that every part of the system is more responsive to the needs of states and districts and can transform isolated success stories into scalable, sustained improvement. 

Our collective goal should be to build a federal education research and development system that is efficient, effective, and accountable. The administration can make progress toward that goal by working collaboratively with the researchers and educators, and by focusing on strategic updates to IES that will pave the way for stronger research and development now and, ultimately, better outcomes for students, educators and families across the country. 

Responding to lawsuits filed after the administration’s Department of Government Efficiency, led by billionaire Elon Musk, canceled more than 100 key research contracts in February, the department in June said it planned to reinstate 20 of the contracts. And a lawsuit will give a short reprieve to 10 federally funded . The department is also asking the public for guidance on how it can modernize the Institute of Education Sciences, its research, evaluation and statistics arm. 

“They’re not saying in any explicit way, but you see this ‘build-back,’” said a longtime assessment professional familiar with IES, who asked not to be named to preserve professional relationships.

The department likely realized that, despite the DOGE cuts, IES still had a lot of congressionally mandated work to do. “I think there were some ‘Oh shit!’ moments, but nobody would say that, because they’re not going to criticize DOGE or the president.”

, executive director of the American Educational Research Association, called the developments “cautiously encouraging,” noting also that NCES plans updates to several surveys and administrative data collections. And it’s releasing existing surveys such as , which analyze data each year from all U.S. colleges and universities that receive federal financial aid.

“On a scale of 1 to 10 — where IES was at 10 prior to the DOGE cuts and 1 a month ago — we would place it at 3 or 4 today,” said Chavous. 

But she added that “severe staff shortages” at the department “continue to threaten data quality and research progress. We remain deeply concerned about the long-term impacts of these cuts on researchers and others who rely on federally collected and supported data.”

Despite the Trump administration’s promise to shutter the Education Department, it seems to be looking for ways to keep its research activities moving forward. Last month, the administration published a , seeking public input on how it can modernize IES. That effort will stop temporarily during the current government shutdown.

The department has also brought in , a longtime Washington, D.C., education researcher, to take on the task of reforming IES. Northern, on leave from the conservative Thomas B. Fordham Institute, is expected to remain at the department until December. While her remit lasts just six months, it is giving researchers hope that having one of their own advising McMahon will yield positive results.

“I am more hopeful than I was three months ago that there will be some reinvention, rather than a death, of federal education research,” said a scholar at a top nonprofit research organization with several long-term federal contracts. “To me, it seems just absurd that the federal government would say, ‘We’re getting out of the realm of doing education research,’ because education is so fundamental to the future of the country.”

In interviews, several researchers and policy experts said they’re similarly optimistic, but most requested to remain anonymous, fearing that speaking out could jeopardize future funding and relationships with administration officials.

Of Northern, one researcher said she’s “very much someone who believes in empirical evidence. So I could not think of a better person to be advising the Trump administration on the future of IES.”

Mike Petrilli, Fordham’s president and , said he was pleased that McMahon would turn to her for guidance. “I always felt it was a good sign that they wanted somebody like Amber,” he said, viewing it as “an indication that they did want to rebuild” IES, not get rid of it.

Petrilli, who has on occasion of Trump since his first election in 2016, said he’s optimistic that “the people, the political appointees now at the Department of Education, understand the importance of research and evaluation and statistics.” But Musk’s DOGE operation, he said, was “able to do great damage, terrible damage, before anybody had a chance to stop them.”

Another person who works closely with researchers in the field, who asked not to be identified, said they have been assured by top administration officials that “There’s a lot that’s going to come back online — it’s just going to come back online in different ways that some of the field will be ready for, and other parts of the field will not be ready for.” The source said the department is looking into performance- and outcomes-based contracting, a more flexible system that lets agencies more clearly. 

Administration officials, meanwhile, have acknowledged “the chaos of the first six months,” which they don’t want to repeat, the source said. They’re in the process of shifting to “a different sort of phase where we want to see results for this money that we’re spending.”

In a statement, U.S. Education Department spokesperson Madi Biedermann said the Trump Administration “is committed to supporting a national education research entity that delivers usable, high-quality data and resources for educators, researchers, and other stakeholders. This has been clear in the Secretary’s repeated commitments to protect NAEP. NCES and IES were in desperate need of reform.”

McMahon in May told congressional lawmakers she had rehired “” of the approximately 2,000 department employees who were laid off last winter, though a department spokesperson disputed this.

Several people said they were surprised and heartened that IES last month began for eight — and possibly more — high-level assessment jobs at the National Center for Education Statistics, for work on the National Assessment of Educational Progress.

But several experts said there’s a lot of work to do if the administration genuinely wants to rebuild its research infrastructure, given DOGE’s deep cuts last winter, when the ad hoc agency trimmed the NCES staff from about 100 employees to three. 

“It’s hard to be too optimistic, given the limited resources that NCES has in particular,” said , a professor at the University of Tennessee at Knoxville who studies state higher education finance and the financial viability of higher education. 

Kelchen said the administration’s own priorities could make McMahon’s work more challenging, noting that an Aug. 7 executive order by President Trump forces NCES to undertake a massive that will collect data on admissions practices going back five years by race, sex and test scores, among other indicators. 

The order alleges that race-based admissions practices “are not only unfair, but also threaten our national security and well-being.”&�Բ�����;

The survey, said Kelchen, is “a massive data collection effort — and it’s hard to see how it ends up being successful, especially retroactively.”

Poor NAEP results

Several people said recent poor student results on NAEP have likely catalyzed much of the strong support for IES.

“They knew the NAEP results were going to be bad, and they got these NAEP job descriptions up quickly,” said one observer.

Several others agreed, but just as many said the recent poor results bring a new urgency to reshaping NAEP so that its next generation of tests are both high-quality and relevant to educators.

“NAEP is falling further and further behind in terms of the gold standard, which it hasn’t been for some time,” said a former IES official. “But what is the plan? What’s the vision? NAEP just confirms bad news all the time. So what are we going to have in terms of policies to correct it?” 

Another person familiar with NAEP predicted that even with NCES’s smaller staff, next year’s tests “will likely go off O.K.,” but that many reporting functions, such as score reports broken out by states, have been cut to shrink costs, making the results less useful. “It’s one thing to collect the data — it’s another thing to report it in a way that people can use.”&�Բ�����;

This person said NAEP is well-known for robust reporting platforms such as its , but IES has already said it will end future district-level reporting for 8th-grade history and science tests, among others. “If we’re short-handed there, then people will say, ‘What’s the value of NAEP?’”

Looking ahead, this person worries that cuts to functions like the , an extensive database on public K-12 education, and other efforts could compromise the actual tests after 2026. “If we don’t have good sampling and weighting, then NAEP is just a test. It’s not the Nation’s Report Card, because we need all those data to be able to make it a truly national picture.”

The ‘education improvement industrial complex’

A prime example of the changes taking place is the expected reinstatement of the 10 regional education labs, or RELs, which were funded to the tune of $336 million, but were closed in February after the department alleged, without offering much evidence, that a review “wasteful and ideologically driven spending.” It noted, for instance, that a lab based in Ohio had been advising schools there to undertake “equity audits.”

But educators nationwide have rallied to the labs’ defense, noting that in 2019 the REL Southeast, based at Florida State University, helped the state of Mississippi improve reading results so much that its fourth-graders rose from 49th in the nation to 29th — the so-called “Mississippi Miracle.”&�Բ�����;

The 10 labs will now be able to begin the process of restarting their work for the remainder of the federal contract, the department revealed in a in June. 

A researcher who works with school districts to design programs said the centers could be reconceived to be more helpful to teachers: “There’s so much money. And if you think about what the products were, it’s hard in all cases to imagine that amount of money was yielding such exceptional change in the educational system that we need to keep going exactly as-is.”

This person noted that outfits like the RELs often benefit from the support of an “education improvement industrial complex” that lobbies for continued funding. The DOGE cuts, this person said, badly undercut that support system.

At the same time, a few observers said IES more broadly should continue, no matter what the fate of the Education Department in this administration. 

“I believe firmly that there should be an Institute for Education Sciences, even if it is configured differently,” said , senior director of the University of Chicago Education Lab. “Perhaps unsurprisingly, I believe in the power of R & D — and I think we need it more than ever, given declining test scores and the implications that has for our international competitiveness.”

Achievement is dropping across the board on NAEP scores, she noted. “So we have to start investing in this area if we’re going to make progress.”

For his part, Kelchen, the Tennessee scholar, said the disruptions of the administration’s first nine months haven’t taken too much of a toll on his work. Aside from an IES grant proposal that simply never got reviewed, he conducts research without federal assistance and without using federal restricted use data, which typically contains confidential information that isn’t publicly released. Accessing it requires an . 

But he said the chaos is changing his classroom: Last spring, he taught a graduate course and remembered, “Half the nights we met for class, there was some big announcement coming out of the Department of Education that affected higher ed finance,” disrupting what he thought the class would talk about. In one case, he said, a Feb. 10 discussion of higher ed expenditures was cut short by the news of DOGE’s IES grant cuts “breaking halfway through class.”

More broadly, Kelchen said the uncertainty is making everyone at the university uneasy. “It’s an interesting time to be an academic department head, just given that enrollment’s uncertain, funding’s uncertain,” he said. “We could have normal international student enrollment in a year. We could have zero. We just don’t know about anything.”

But while some of the cuts are, in his words, “dumb,” and show a lack of experience among the cost-cutters, Schneider has also pushed against many critics’ assertions that the Trump administration will effectively destroy the agency. In his view, the cuts offer an opportunity “to clean out the attic” of old, dusty policies and revitalize essential research functions. Those include the National Assessment of Educational Progress, which he maintains has lost its way and grown prohibitively expensive while in some cases duplicating the work of independent researchers.

A conservative who has held top roles in both of the last two Republican administrations, as well as the most recent Democratic one, he’s the ultimate education insider — Schneider’s conversations often invoke an alphabet soup of government agencies, contractors and think tanks. Yet he’s unusually candid about his time in government, especially now that he is no longer there.

A political scientist by training, Schneider has spent nearly two decades in education research. He served three years as commissioner of the National Center for Education Statistics under President George W. Bush, then spent a decade as a vice president at the non-profit American Institutes for Research. He returned to government in 2018, appointed by President Trump to lead the Institute of Education Sciences, and stayed on until 2024 under President Biden.

Through it all, he has remained an independent voice even while in office, telling ����Ӱ�� in 2023, for instance, that the reason Biden hadn’t fired him along with other Trump appointees was that education research wasn’t considered important enough for the president to bother. 

Over the course of six years at IES, he tried — mostly unsuccessfully, he admits — to reform the department into “a modern science and statistics agency.” He’s honest about his limitations, saying he “tried really hard to modernize the place” without much success. While Musk and his cost-cutters last month took a chainsaw to IES, he observes, when he led it, “I didn’t even have a scalpel. I had a dull butter knife.”

While many education advocates are decrying Trump’s bid to eliminate the Education Department, Schneider has said carefully breaking it up could actually produce “a more efficient, dynamic and responsive school system — all things the Department of Education has been hard-pressed to do.”

Schneider sat down for a wide-ranging conversation last week with ����Ӱ��’s Greg Toppo. They discussed the difficulties of reforming what he considers a hidebound agency, the opportunities of starting over and what the future might hold for NAEP, also known as the Nation’s Report Card. 

Now a non-resident senior fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, he is cagey when pressed about returning to IES in a second Trump term. Schneider notes that the deep cuts have left no actual agency to run. “Who wants to go in there and head a 20-person unit?” But leading a revamped IES, he admits, would present “a wonderful challenge.”

At the end of the day, though, he says it remains an open question whether the next step in the Trump administration’s plans is rebuilding or neglect.

The conversation has been edited for length and clarity.

����Ӱ��: I wanted to start with something you said about Musk’s crew a couple of weeks ago — namely that given your work to reform IES, you were “a little envious” they could “do it all in one day.” Let’s drill down. Is that what you had in mind when you were there? Or did this go further?

Schneider: [Laughs.] Let me try to figure out the best way of putting this. The issue, of course, is that IES was a 23-year-old institution. A lot of stuff got locked in. None of this is surprising: Institutions get locked down and they keep doing the same thing over and over again. I tried hard to change things. It was almost impossible. I tried to get Congress to create ARPA Ed — [National Center for Advanced Development in Education, an agency to develop and scale innovative, cutting-edge practices and tools]. A lot of people worked really hard, but we were never able to get it through Congress.

Whether Congress will ever do anything is a different question. But the fact of the matter is that even though people were in favor of it and we had a lot of political support, we still couldn’t get it across the finish line. Well, now the National Center for Education Research doesn’t exist anymore. There’s one person left there. So whether or not this is naive, we don’t need NCADE anymore. We should rebuild NCER to look like ARPA Ed. We don’t need any legislation for that, because it’s in the purview of the director to do that. That’s an amazing opportunity. We can just create a modern research funding organization with no need for congressional action.

My colleague Kevin Mahnken recently talked to Doug Harris from Tulane. He said IES is “being knocked over by these cuts.” I think beneath a lot of this is people like Doug worried that this administration is simply anti-science. It sounds like you are saying the opposite. Should this give people like Doug a little hope?

As of right now, we have no indication except every once in a while some words bubble out: “Oh, we are going to rebuild IES. We are looking for a future direction for IES.” But there is no concrete plan. So the proof is going to happen in the next several months. If the department says, “Yes, we are redoing NCER, we are redoing NCES,” which are the two biggest units that are most in need of repair, and they announce plans to rebuild them in a modern way, then we’re fine. But if nothing ever happens and we end up with three people at NCES and one person at NCER, we’ve got a problem.

You have no sense one way or another?

You probably hear the same things I do. I have no concrete information about any plans to rebuild. I hear rumors. But until concrete plans are announced and actions are undertaken, then we should maintain a healthy skepticism. That said, I still believe that if this administration wants to modernize IES, they have an opportunity that no one’s ever had before — since 2002.

Since they created it.

Congress created IES in 2002, and it was a brand new, innovative organization that radically changed the way education research was done. Well, 23 years later, that opportunity repeats itself. So my hope, and maybe this is naive, is that we grab that opportunity. We know a lot more about education research. We know a lot more about modern statistical data collections — and we learned a lot from NCES. For example, the lack of timeliness hurt them endlessly. So now it’s like an open field. Let’s build a better edifice now than what we had a year ago.

Let’s talk about the nuts and bolts of this vision. One of the first shocks to the system we got was in February when DOGE canceled all those federal contracts. And one of the hardest hit was AIR, where you spent 10 years. I wonder to what extent your views have been shaped by being an insider there. Is this a sector that needs a shock to the system?

There are at least two parts of that question. So there’s the question of the quality of the work. AIR does good work. I don’t think there’s any question. The big contract houses are capable of doing quite good work. However, people are really pissed off about the overhead rate [also known as indirect costs covering expenses] that these contract houses and universities charge. The overhead rate is just too high. When I was at IES after the pandemic, AIR got rid of their building on Thomas Jefferson St. [in affluent Georgetown] — a huge, expensive building. Many, many people ended up working at home, and the rest went with much less — and much cheaper — office space.

So after AIR shed that big office space, I called up [Contracts and Acquisition Management], the contracts management people in the department, and I said, “You know, the overhead is based on many factors, but office space and parking are major components. They’ve reduced the cost of their offices — they didn’t get rid of them, but they downsized and went to cheaper places. So let’s renegotiate their overhead rate.” [He imitates CAM officers]: “No, no, no, no, no, no.” I couldn’t get CAM to even consider reducing the overhead rate to reflect the lower cost.

Just to be clear: You couldn’t get the department to lower the cost?

The department had to reopen the negotiations. And they would not. I’m not sure what the right word is. It’s laziness, corruption. This was wrong. Why were we paying such high overhead rates when their costs went down? And you know as well as I do that many, many, many organizations got rid of office space and reduced their costs. So why wasn’t CAM renegotiating overhead rates? I never was able to get a good answer. 

But that’s a department problem, not an AIR or Mathematica problem.

Yes and no. Clearly the department had within its authority to reopen those negotiations. But the problem, of course, is that the agencies end up getting captured by the people they’re supposed to regulate, the people they’re supposed to monitor. [Test developer] ETS and NAEP are an even clearer example: How much money went to ETS to do things that they weren’t capable of doing? 

Such as?

Such as building the platform for NAEP. The software. This is not firsthand, so it could be hearsay, but the people from DOGE looked at the platform that ETS had built for NAEP, and they just said, “What is this? This is not the way modern software is built.” And I believe that’s because we used ETS, which is a testing company, not a tech company, to build the platform. And again, that has to do with the overly close relationship between NCES and ETS.

This is not just an Ed and contractor issue. We know this exists in other places besides education: the close relationship between the contractors and the agencies that are supposed to be supervising them. This is a well-known problem. The companies capture the government agency. [Editors Note: Asked to respond to Schneider’s comments, Christine Betaneli, an associate vice president at ETS, released the following statement Tuesday: “ETS delivers nearly 50 million tests every year across the US and around the world on robust technology platforms. We have consistently delivered innovations on NAEP suited to the specific requests of NCES. We’re incredibly proud of the unmatched quality we have provided to the American people in supporting the Nation’s Report Card. We will continue to innovate on behalf of America’s teachers, parents and children who rely on this critical data to improve access to quality education nationwide.”]

How do you prevent that from happening in the next iteration of this department? Is it just by bringing in totally new people? Is it by changing the contours of the contracts? Is it by doing things totally differently?

There are a couple of things. First of all, there’s a serious cultural issue. That’s clear. I will tell you another story, and this will give you some more depth to how bad this can be. When I first showed up at IES, we brought in [consulting firm] McKinsey & Co. to do an analysis of how to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the organization. They went around and interviewed people — staffers, program officers — to try to get some idea of what was going on. And remember, this is an outside consulting company we hired. They interviewed one of the program officers who said to this outside consultant, “I’m never giving up this contract. You will have to pry it out of my dead hands.” I mean, that’s a stupid thing to say, but it’s also illegal. This is a long-term project officer who admitted to an outside person that they had been totally captured, totally in bed with the contract shop. That a veteran project officer would say this to an outside consultant says there’s something really, really wrong.

So the culture is a problem. Is the scope of what the department does a problem as well? 

Yeah. 

Is a breakup necessary to change the culture?

Do we need to break up IES and move all these pieces around? If the goal is to shrink the department, or make the department go away, then we have to find homes for these activities. But when I wrote that last summer, I was not envisioning the disappearance of 90% of the workforce.

I believe if we don’t get congressional approval to end the department, it’s going to be around. But I keep thinking about both NCES and NCER, the two largest units, and there’s now an open field. I’ve always had problems with NCES. As a major federal statistical agency, like many other federal statistical agencies, they just kept falling further and further behind. But we can now imagine, we can actually execute, rebuilding NCES as a modern, lean and mean statistical agency.

For example, the state longitudinal data systems. I’ve written about a different vision of how to build that. The [Trial Urban District Assessments, NAEP tests given in 27 urban school systems] are incredibly expensive. Nobody can tell me how much they cost. I’ve asked many, many times how much they are, and the fact of the matter is, we don’t need them anymore, because we have other ways of getting estimates for these large cities. I’m talking about Tom Kane and Sean Reardon [who have developed an detailing achievement nationwide]. They compute the exact same statistics that TUDA does.

So that actually leads me to my next question: What is your vision for something like NAEP? Can a lot of it go away?

For me, the most important thing about NAEP is the state-by-state comparisons. They’re important because governors hold the keys to so much education reform, and they care about the comparisons. When NAEP came out several months ago, Louisiana, Mississippi, Florida, they all cared about these things. Virginia had a 50-minute release event with the governor, [Virginia Education Secretary] Aimee Guidera and the Superintendent of Schools [Lisa Coons]. That’s three of the heaviest hitters in the world of education, all lined up, talking about the importance of the state-by-state comparisons and what they were doing to address Virginia’s on NAEP. 

That alone is an amazing demonstration of the power of the state-by-state comparisons. Do we need a $185 million-a-year NAEP to generate the trend line and the state-by-state comparisons? 

I’ll give you another example: There are at least three different sub-domains in NAEP math. I’ve never seen anybody talk about those sub-scores. How much does that cost? Why do we keep doing it? We just need to bring some sanity to what we’ve built over 50 years that have grown up over time, the cost of those things, the backwardness of many of those things, and say, “Hey, we don’t have to keep doing this.” And part of the reason we don’t have to keep doing this — I mean, it’s a sad thing to say — is because the people in NCES who were committed to this are gone. 

I don’t want to leave that point without addressing institutional memory and knowledge. A lot of the people who are gone know how these things work. Getting rid of those people might have changed the culture, but it also might have hollowed out the agency’s ability to get the next NAEP report out. Does that keep you up at night? 

Clearly, that’s the horns of a dilemma. But where is the time, where’s the energy, where are the people to rethink this stuff? Part of the problem was that there was not sufficient rethinking. The machine worked. It got out on time. Many problems were solved by just raising more money. I attended NAGB [National Assessment Governing Board] meetings for 10 years. Every time there was a budget presentation, inevitably, the budget was in the red. And so then we have to cut this, and we have to cut that. And it was never like, “What is it that we need to preserve, instead of going to Congress and asking for another $30 million and getting $10 million?” That wasn’t the thought process.

So I went to OMB [the Office of Management and Budget], and asked them to take the appropriation that Congress gave for NAEP and put 10% aside in a separate fund for R&D. I asked Congress to do this, and then OMB, because there was no commitment by the leadership of NCES and NAEP to spend that kind of money on R&D. Instead, it was always, “We need this money for the operations. We need money to do this other task.” As a result, NAEP lost its leading edge. The demands of running the operation are real. But if you never stop to think about what you’re doing, then you’re going to end up behind.

But to many, the way these agencies were trimmed doesn’t seem any smarter. There was a lot of cutting with a chainsaw rather than a scalpel. My sense is that’s going to require a great deal of work just to bring back basic functions. Am I right?

The years that I was at IES, I didn’t even have a scalpel. I had a dull butter knife. There are so many quotes about this: “Breaking things is easy, rebuilding things is hard.” From Hamilton: “Winning is easy, governing is hard.” All of that is true. And it’s just so much easier to just say, “No, no, no, no, no,” than to start rebuilding. Mancur Olson, a brilliant economist, wrote a book called . He had his finger right on the pulse. Over time, what happens is that you start accumulating all these lobbyists and all these interest groups and all this stasis, and it just builds up and builds up and nothing can get done, because you end up with this incredible superstructure of groups and people who are totally vested in the status quo. And he says, every once in a while, you just need to just blow the shit up and rebuild.

There’s a lot of concern about the rebuilding. How do you calm people’s fears that there is no rebuilding coming?

Look, there’s nothing we can do right now except wait and lobby Congress and the department that the rebuild is important. And I hope they know that the rebuild is important. Again, you can just give things away: Give NCES to BLS [the Bureau of Labor and Statistics] etc., but some of that stuff is going to require congressional action. Good luck on that. In some ways, again, we have an open field. Let’s take the opportunity to build that back in a much more modern, efficient way.

It seems like a lot of people, especially on the right, are talking in terms of the department reaching its sell-by date. But if you can change the culture and remove the barnacles, or whatever you want to call them, what’s the point of breaking it up?

As they say, that’s above my pay grade. [Laughs.] I’m writing a whole series of papers about what can be done and I think they’re all reasonable and in the realm of the possible. I have not had any contact with anybody in the department about any of my visions or plans. But there are ways to rebuild this so it looks like a modern science and statistics agency.

Would you like to lead it at some point?

If there’s anything there. [Laughs.] There’s nothing there. What do we have, 20 people left in that whole organization? NAGB is moving into [the Lyndon Baines Johnson Building, the department’s headquarters in Washington, D.C.] because it’s pretty much empty. And I assume IES will also end up moving into LBJ, but the fact of the matter is all of these places are ghost towns now.

Before the pandemic, we were trying to argue, incredibly, about creating 10 more desks for the growth of IES. And then, of course, after the pandemic, there was nobody left. Nobody came back to the office. The place was pretty much empty already. And then the executive order had everybody coming back to the office — and then everybody got fired. I don’t know what happened in between “You must be back in the office five days a week,” and “By the way, you’re fired.” I don’t know what it was like. I know from friends it was not a fun place to be.

If I’m reading between the lines correctly here, it sounds like you’d like to lead IES, but you’d like someone to rebuild it first.

First of all, I’m not answering that question. Many people have asked me if I would go back. But I have a lovely life. I live an eight-minute walk from AEI. AEI is a very generous organization. They’ve never said no to any reasonable request I’ve had, so it’s extremely pleasant, extremely easy. But I spent six years at IES. I tried really hard to modernize the place. For someone who wants to create the next version of IES, there are incredible challenges, but the rewards of doing it would be amazing. But they’ve already eviscerated the unit. Who wants to go in there and head a 20-person unit? But if there is a taste to rebuild IES to look like a modern organization, that’s a wonderful challenge. 

Could what you’re describing just as easily be done privately?

A lot of people are talking about that: How can philanthropy stand up and take over the role that IES used to have? Even the biggest foundations don’t have the kind of money IES had. IES spent over $100 million a year supporting education research, just from NCER. There’s no foundation that has that kind of money, and I’m not even sure if there’s a coalition of foundations that could come up with anywhere near that kind of money for research.

So there’s an indispensable role for research funded by IES or the Department of Education or some part of the federal government. But the return on that investment was not sufficient. I don’t know if part of the suspicion of IES was just a gut-level reaction to “Too big, too big, too big,” and how much of it was, “Hey, we have spent all these billions of dollars over the last 20 years and what have we got to show? We have declining NAEP scores. We don’t have any evidence of increasing achievement, etc, etc.” I’m not sure if the antagonism towards education research was because it wasn’t working or because it’s just that we were anti-science. I truly don’t know.

Years ago, we looked at how many math interventions have any evidence of success. It turned out to be about 15%. This was a very depressing number, until you start looking around at what the success rate is in any science: 10% of clinical trials work, 90% fail. And then of course, we’re learning that even among the 10% that work, there’s an incredible amount of dishonesty, lying, cheating. The “replication crisis” — we’ve glommed onto that term — says there’s a lot of stuff going on in the sciences that are not kosher. So at one level, the antipathy towards the Department of Education is, “This is not a function that the federal government should be involved in. This is all state and local.” O.K., I got that, and I believe a lot of that is true. But even in the most extreme form of federalism, there is a role for government support of research. There is a government role for statistics. And the question then is: How do we focus that to help states and local governments, parents, teachers, students achieve more? A lot of what happened was that that tight focal point just disappeared.  

If I’m translating what you’re saying correctly, you don’t know how we got to this point in terms of the mechanisms of the cuts, and you don’t know what people were thinking. But in a way, you’re saying it’s not really important, because we needed to get this done.

We needed to get this done. A lot of what was done was incredibly important and was needed. There’s no question about it. But we’re going to come back to the same theme over and over again: For six years I had a butter knife, and then these guys show up in a day with a chainsaw and they cleared out all the detritus and all the underbrush. But what do we do now? That’s what matters.

Already, the president’s team has announced the cancellation of dozens of contracts through the Institute for Education Sciences, the Department of Education’s research arm. Over 1,300 of the department’s employees, amounting to roughly half of its workforce, have been terminated, casting doubt on whether key functions like national testing initiatives can carry on without interruption. And the future of dedicated learning hubs, including one credited with triggering a breakthrough in reading instructions, is in serious doubt. 

The wave of cuts and firings was the unspoken agenda item at the 50th annual convening of the , one of the most prominent professional organizations for education researchers. In mid-March, amid three days of panels and paper sessions touching on every conceivable topic in K–12 schooling, hundreds of academic economists, education activists, graduate students, and district staffers exchanged concerns about the future of public insight into schools.

Ironically, those worries emerged just as AEFP unveiled a critical new tool: its of education policy research, gathering and distilling the findings of thousands of studies. Its 50 chapters address a bevy of questions ranging from preschool to higher education, including the makeup of local school boards, performance of charters and school vouchers, teacher preparation programs, the effects of education spending, and more. The Association hopes the extensive and growing site, an update of previous printed versions, can provide educators and lawmakers alike with something akin to a Wikipedia for research.

Leading the effort is Tulane University economist Douglas Harris, a veteran researcher who also heads the and the . An expert on charter schooling, Harris has been one of America’s most productive scholars studying how district, state, and national policies shape what kids learn — and addressing some of the most contested questions in the field, including whether school choice actually improves the delivery of education.

In a conversation with ����Ӱ��’s Kevin Mahnken at the conference in Washington, Harris talked about the origins of the Live Handbook project, how its creators intend to ward off ideological bias, and why IES and other federal research efforts are irreplaceable supports in the U.S. education infrastructure.

“In some sense,” he said, “the Live Handbook is a monument to IES, at a time when IES is being knocked over.”&�Բ�����;

What’s the purpose of this project?

The idea is to make research more useful and make researchers more useful. One of our purposes is to just get research summarized and discussed in a way that’s actually accessible to a broad audience, and another is to connect researchers to policymakers and journalists. If you’re looking for an expert on an issue, you can find their names in these articles, click on them to get their information, and just email that person. 

We’re hoping users create these networks of expertise and connect them with people who need that expertise. 

I have to say, it sounds like you’re trying to put education journalists out of work.

So I think this will be very useful for journalists, who will be able to find something much easier and link to it in their stories. And hopefully, when somebody is searching for a topic, the handbook will come up as the top result, which will make it build further. The more reach it has, the more people will want to write for it, and the more existing authors will want to update it — which is another important part of the document. It’s not just static, it’ll be updated every year, and all the authors will be expected to continue working on it. If they decide they don’t want to do that, they’re going to hand it back to us, and we can turn over the authorship to somebody else.

That kind of arrangement is actually unusual from the standpoint of intellectual property. We weren’t sure how that was going to work at the beginning, or if it was even legal to do it that way. But it turns out that, as long as everyone is clear about it, you can write the agreement that way. Part of the motivation for this project was to marry the traditional handbook with Wikipedia, but with Wikipedia, there’s no issue with authorship.

I didn’t realize you took inspiration from Wikipedia.

Well, there had been some talk of doing another handbook, which we’d been doing just about every decade. They were all about 700 pages long, there’d be 30 or 40 chapters written both for and by academics. We’d mostly use them as syllabi and readings for education policy classes, but the only real audience was other AEFP members. 

The other inspiration emerged from at Education Research Alliance-New Orleans. We had something like 40 studies on our website, and was like an integrated summary. All this evidence was just for the relatively narrow topic of school reform in New Orleans. 

The question we were asking ourselves, and which you should always ask if you’re writing something, was who our intended audience was. What we realized that we didn’t have to choose between researchers and policymakers. The beginning of each entry looks like a policy brief, and non-researchers will probably stop when they get to the last key finding. But if you want more detail, you just click on that finding, which takes you to the longer discussion that would have been included in a printed version of the handbook. If you want even more than that, you can click on the endnotes, which will hyperlink you to the underlying studies themselves. 

So you’re serving everybody: At the top, policymakers are your main audience, but by the time you get to the bottom, the researchers and experts in the field can dig in.

Up to this point, would you say that education research has been effectively communicated to the public, and that it has informed how politicians create policy and oversee schools?

Uh, hard no. [Laughs] We have not done a good job with those things.

There have certainly been moves toward that. There’s something called the Research Practice Partnership movement, which is supposed to develop genuine partnerships between the research and policy worlds, and it’s great. But they’re really hard to create and sustain, and they tend to be very localized. We wanted to do something that had broader research.

We’ve also got the What Works Clearinghouse, which is federally funded. If you look at those releases, though, they never realized their potential. They were too slow, they were written by committee, not very readable. All of this was aiming in the right direction, but not hitting the target well. There was clearly a hole there that we’re now trying to fill. 

As you mentioned, the is a federal resource that’s only a few decades old — although, given reports that its funding has been cut, it may not get much older. Is the need for a live handbook related to the fact that the social science around education outcomes doesn’t go back very far?

The federal government certainly led the way in moving toward evidence- based policy. And everything I just mentioned emerged out of that orientation, which was mandated by law around the time of No Child Left Behind and is still in effect today. 

There is also a natural demand, in the sense that people want to do the right thing. They want to make their K–12 schools and colleges better, and they want advice. But advice is usually pretty ad hoc; it depends on who’s in your network, who’s got a friend in a school nearby, and what they’re hearing. There will always be a place for that, but having actual evidence at the root of those conversations has a lot of potential to improve things.

Can you think of an area of research where the evidence has managed to break out of academic discourse and influence the public? 

Research doesn’t drive most conversations about policy and practice, but it can have influence at the margins and create new ideas. The science of reading is the example that comes to mind immediately. Russ Whitehurst, who became the first director of IES, is a psychologist, and he was the one who the reading research. Almost all the underlying evidence for that is IES-funded research, which is noteworthy under the current circumstances.

Another example would be class-size reduction. There was a lot of interest in that for a while, until it became clear that, while it works pretty well, it’s also . The school funding debates, and whether money matters in student learning, would be another case.

I think people can get their arms around class sizes and budgets being important issues in schooling. But even for someone like me, who has experience consulting research, it can be very difficult to weigh the evidence that various experts marshal on questions like teacher evaluation or early childhood education.

That’s the hole we want to fill, right there. We want you to do that google search and come to what we’re doing because we have answers to those questions.

We’ve got 50 chapters in this first round, and the plan is to update each of those next year while adding another 25. Part of it depends on funding, and growth is very time-intensive. We have to do all the things that a publisher does, putting it on the website and creating PDF versions and all that. But the idea is to grow the handbook so that it becomes comprehensive, both in terms of covering every part of education — early childhood through higher education — and also trying to cover all the key policy areas.

How comprehensive is comprehensive? There are really old, but foundational studies, like on segregation and achievement gaps, which were conducted when methods were much more crude. Are you trying to include that kind of evidence? 

What we’re doing is an awful lot without also trying to write the history of education research. The most recent research is obviously more relevant because context matters. The world is changing around us, and that affects education. So we want more recent studies.

Another important thing to remember is that recent studies tend to be methodologically better — again, partly because of IES and the principles and demands that IES has placed upon us. We’re telling authors to focus on the most recent and best studies, because those are going to be more useful to the field.

In some areas, like school finance, the debate among leading researchers still burns very hot. I’m sure it’s difficult to arrive at anything like a consensus, so are you just trying to represent the state of play?

It’s a challenge. From the beginning, we didn’t expect that we would release these chapters and people would say, “Oh, you’re exactly right!” Sometimes they’ll say, “Wait a second, I don’t agree with that.”

I wrote the charter school section, and we showed it to a group of policymakers and practitioners who are advising us. We brought them into the design process to make it more useful to them, and when I was doing a show-and-tell a couple of weeks ago, somebody said, “I’m not sure I agree about your point on charter schools!”

We knew that was going to happen. So we’ve advised the authors to present different sides of the debate — the major positions that are pretty widely known — and, if a key finding falls clearly on one side, then at least address what the other side of the argument is. We’re being really clear about the evidence base, and I can’t just say, “Such-and-such is true of charter schools because I feel like it.” It has to be because one group of charter studies is stronger than another group of studies, or there’s something really unusual about the context of some studies that make them less convincing. Basically, there has to be a reason that addresses the different sides of arguments.

What structures have you put in place to prevent a kind of ideological drift?

Our editorial board helps with that. It’s a very wide-ranging group where you have some people who are seen as more on the left, and some who are more on the right. There are people from different disciplines. We’ve encouraged authors to include studies from outside their disciplines; quantitative people should include qualitative work, and vice-versa.

The board is there to enforce that and make sure we were getting the right range of perspectives, so that when there are disagreements, someone can say, “Hold on a second, you’re missing something.” We’re not going to be perfect in the first round, but the process is set up to be updated and receive feedback. If you’re reading a piece and have a question, or you want to debate some point, you can click the feedback link and explain it. We’ll send all that information to authors, and once a year, they’ll be expected to go through those comments. If we see significant issues with a piece, we’ll push them to update it.

And I imagine the various writers and editors can weigh in on other entries as well. 

Here’s the way we handle these discussions: I wrote the charter schools chapter, which was edited by . He’s the one pressing me on the evidence there, but I’m the editor for his section on school vouchers. We view those topics a little bit differently, but that’s a way we enforce objectivity. We recognize that everybody’s subject to that sort of bias.

That’s an interesting pairing. From my perspective, the public debate around charter schools — which has been extremely contentious in the past — has become somewhat quiescent, while the voucher issue has just roared into prominence over the last few years.

There are a lot of studies in play on vouchers, so Pat will probably have to update his chapter next year, and every year after that. Much of the research in that area is old and based on the city-based voucher programs in places like Milwaukee or Washington. Then you had the four states where we could study statewide voucher programs, which are probably the most relevant to the current discussion. And we’ll also be including three or four national studies that we’ve got going at the REACH Center, which I lead.

Part of the problem with the way the new voucher programs are set up is that, in a sense, they’re designed not to be studied. There’s no state testing requirement, so we don’t have test-based outcomes, and you’re confined in what you can study. Still, there will be a lot of interest in that topic.

What do you make of the cuts to federally supported research that have been announced over the last month?

It’s a very big deal. If you look at the endnotes for this handbook, probably half of them have a basis in IES. Either the studies themselves were funded by IES, or they’re using IES-funded data sets, or they’re written by researchers who were in the IES pre-doc or post-doc programs. There was a whole set of training programs that were designed to develop the next generation of scholars. So in some sense, the Live Handbook is a monument to IES, at a time when IES is being knocked over. 

It’s very worrisome, and I think we’re at a really uncertain time. I don’t think IES is going to go away. But we don’t really know what direction it’s headed in or how long it will take to get there, given that they just fired essentially everybody. The best-case scenario is that they hire a new director who’s allied with the administration and who has sympathy and a desire to build it back up. There’s no question that there are ways the institute could be made better, but there are also a lot of things you’d want to keep about the old structure. 

It’s good to have decisions made by people who are researchers and know the field. It’s good to have policymakers involved in decisions about what gets funded, which has been true for a long time. Should the research process be faster? Sure, we could find ways to do that. So it’s possible that IES comes out better at the end of this. But will it? It’s a huge question right now. 

There’s obviously a lot of concern at a conference like this, where people have seen IES as the root of so much of the work we’re doing.

Virtually every researcher I’ve spoken to has said something similar. People will generally concede that improvements can be made, but where the process calls for a scalpel, DOGE is using a dump truck.

I think that’s right. In the amount of time they had, they couldn’t have possibly learned what grants or contracts should be kept. If you’re trying to do it based on reason, there’s no way to do it in a matter of weeks. It’s been very arbitrary, just searching for keywords and things like that. It’s no way to fix anything, it’s a way to knock things down.

Something people don’t realize is how long it took to build IES to begin with, and to gain support for it. It started, I believe, back in 2001, and it took a long time to build up the staff and the expertise. Especially in terms of data collection, it’s just underestimated how much expertise goes into what IES does. All these contracts with Mathematica and AIR depend on those organizations’ very significant internal capacity in areas like getting schools and students to respond to surveys. It doesn’t just happen. There’s so much expertise that goes into those tasks, which you’ve now destroyed.

Even if they succeed in making things better in other ways, that’s going to make it much harder to build back the things they should want to keep. It’ll be like a wave pushing against them.

Mark Schneider, the IES director under both Presidents Trump and Biden, told me that the original intention was for the institute to grow much more substantially than it has, until it more closely resembled a $40 billion agency like the NIH. Even though that hasn’t happened, it has punched above its weight in expanding the knowledge base about schools.

Oh, absolutely. When you think about what a good organization of any kind spends on R&D, it’s a much greater proportion than the IES budget relative to total education spending. IES has about a $1 billion budget, and the United States spends something like $700 billion per year on education. So that’s less than .2 percent. It’s less than any standard you could come up with.

It’s always been underfunded, and they use those resources well. Collecting data, for example, creates so many positive spillover effects because once you’ve collected it, anyone can use it. The pre-doc and post-doc programs are really important for producing people who can work at school districts and state agencies, which need professionals who are really trained in research. That may go away too. 

One of the things that doesn’t get enough attention is that the federal government was very involved in creating the state longitudinal data systems, which have played an enormous role in just about every area of policy research. The federal government gives money to the states to create those systems and make them available, and they allow us to link schools and programs to student outcomes. Without that, you’ve got nothing. 

You mentioned that IES was instrumental in generating research on the science of reading, too.

That’s probably the best example of the organizational influence. It’s not so much about the data they were collecting, but it was related to the projects they were funding. It’s also a good example of something Republicans support. They’re all about the science of reading, but what’s happening is that they’re basically undercutting the next science of reading. 

There might be some research studies that don’t seem very useful, but in a way, that’s the point of research. You don’t know what’s useful until you actually do it. We don’t know what the next science of reading is going to be. Hopefully, the Live Handbook will help find it, but we’d find it faster with IES underpinning the research that will get us there. 

She ensured that all K-3 teachers were trained in the “Science of Reading” and hired literacy coaches at schools that had the highest percentage of low-achievers. 

To guide the effort, Wright turned to the , based at Florida State University, one of nationwide. Little-known even among many educators, the labs, created by Congress in 1965, work with states and school districts to implement research-based practices.​

By 2019, Wright and her colleagues had pulled off what is now known as the “Mississippi Miracle,” with students in this deep red state making greater literacy gains than in any other. Fourth-graders in Mississippi rose from 49th in the nation to 29th — adjusting for demographics, it now ranks near the top of the U.S. in both fourth-grade reading and math, behind just Florida and Texas, according to the .

“They were huge partners with us,” Wright said of the lab in an interview this week. “It’s just this amazing group of researchers and content-area specialists.”&�Բ�����;

But that distinction wasn’t enough to save the Regional Educational Laboratory Southeast — or the nine other RELs, as they’re called. On Thursday, the U.S. Education Department announced that it had $336 million in contracts with the labs, saying auditors had uncovered “wasteful and ideologically driven spending not in the interest of students and taxpayers.”

It cited one lab’s work advising schools in Ohio to undertake “equity audits,” but provided no other examples.

The move has left researchers and literacy advocates shaking their heads. A director at a top research firm with many federal contracts, who asked not to be identified to avoid retaliation, said she got the sense from the sudden, broad cuts that “no one went in and took a really careful look at where the RELs were being helpful.”

While some lab projects likely haven’t led to improvements in practices or student outcomes, she’s doubtful that department officials even pored over such data. “Someone decided that this whole program needed to go.”

An Education Department spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Since the centers are mandated by Congress, the department has said it will offer contracts to new bidders, but several observers said they were skeptical of this claim.

Understanding early literacy

While Mississippi’s 2013 law mandated that Wright implement research-supported teaching, as state superintendent “you can’t really be in every classroom making sure that’s happening,” said Rachel Dinkes, CEO of the , an advocacy group that pushes for evidence-based policy.

That’s where the lab came in: It developed tools that allowed Wright to gather data about what was actually happening in classrooms, tell lawmakers about its effectiveness and ask for more money to continue the work.

It focused primarily on helping teachers learn about the Science of Reading, implementing a survey that evaluated their knowledge of early literacy skills — as well as instructions for literacy coaches to observe classrooms. 

Together, these allowed Wright to track teachers’ engagement with students and identify where teachers needed improvement.

“They helped us develop resources that our teachers could use, that our leaders could use,” Wright said. “If there was something that we wanted to have evaluated programmatically, they would come in and evaluate that for us to inform our decision making. I mean, I can’t say enough about how important they were.”

Wright also implemented tough reforms that weren’t always popular, such as a policy of retaining students in third grade as a “last resort.” In 2019, third-graders, or more than one in four, failed the state’s literacy promotion test, also known as the “third-grade reading gate.”

In a 2023 op-ed in ����Ӱ��, Wright and co-author Kymyona Burk, a senior policy fellow for early literacy at , said previous research is clear that students who aren’t reading at grade level when they enter fourth grade “are not prepared for a critical transition — reading to learn — and have dramatically lower odds of succeeding in school or even graduating.”

A from the lab found that teachers’ understanding of early literacy skills rose substantially, from the 48th percentile of teachers to the 59th. In schools that Wright targeted for extra help, average teacher ratings on instructional quality also rose, from the 31st percentile to the 58th. 

The lab also connected Mississippi educators to others in the region, Wright said, offering “a chance for us to learn from each other, share what we were doing — share strategy, share resources and kind of help each other grow.”

Though Wright hesitated to credit REL Southeast for this achievement, several observers have noted of late that states in the Deep South now in improved literacy. In this year’s NAEP report, released last month, four Southern states — Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi and South Carolina — turned in the largest gains in fourth-grade reading from 2019 to 2024. All four are member states of REL Southeast.

In all, Wright said, she worked with lab personnel for nine years, until she left Mississippi in 2022. She called them “a group of expert partners” ready to help and beloved by her staff, who relied upon them heavily. 

“Imagine having content experts at your beck and call for no charge,” she said. “They were really, I thought, just gems of somebody’s creation.”

Losing the labs, Wright said, is “a huge disappointment” for states focused on evidence- and research-based practices. “To not have a reliable partner is a real loss for a state chief.”

The move to zero out funding for the labs may also stand in opposition to a few priorities of the Trump administration itself. In a 74 op-ed last July, Wright, along with Penny Schwinn, a former Tennessee education commissioner, praised RELs as centers that stand ready “to generate and apply evidence to improve student outcomes,” even if too few leaders take advantage of them. 

Schwinn now awaits Senate confirmation as deputy secretary of education.

Driven by community needs

Last week’s move has thrown several major research organizations into turmoil. 

In a statement, Jannelle Kubinec, CEO of the research group , which runs two RELs, said the cancellation halts a project in Alaska to support student mental health, one in Nevada that addresses chronic absenteeism, another in Oregon that works to strengthen literacy instruction and one in Utah to address early-career teacher attrition.

The research organization , which runs two RELs, said cancellation of the contracts shuts down support for “a wide range of evidence-based work” requested by state and local education leaders, including a project helping teachers in Nebraska improve differentiated math instruction, one helping teachers in New Jersey use evidence-based practices for writing instruction, and one in Maryland that helps educators prepare high school students with disabilities to transition to adult life.

Mathematica also said its labs have worked with South Dakota and Wyoming to combat teacher shortages in rural districts via apprenticeships.

Dinkes noted another instance in which a REL had a huge impact: In Michigan, state leaders turned to their regional lab to find out why so many certified teachers were no longer teaching. It undertook a survey of 60,000 teachers and that they wanted, among other things, higher salaries, better promotion opportunities and more access to full-time jobs. They also wanted smaller class sizes and student loans, as well as easier, less costly ways to renew their certification.

The state tweaked laws affecting several of these factors and expanded the number of certified teachers who opted to teach. 

Several observers noted that the RELs are, in a sense, a response to long standing GOP complaints about federal education policy’s top-down focus: They actually help local educators apply research to problems they themselves identify as crucial.

“The REL work is driven by the state’s or the community’s needs,” said Dinkes. “It is not directed by the Hill.”

Many states don’t have the research capability to undertake big projects like remaking literacy on their own, said Sara Schapiro, executive director of the , a coalition of non-profit, private and philanthropic organizations that advocate for more R&D investment. “The RELs were really set up as the infrastructure to help them do that.”

She said the labs “are a really good example of this notion of returning responsibility of different functions to the states,” where local leaders can drive a research agenda. 

Several people with knowledge of the situation also said it’s ironic that the RELs would get caught up in a battle over DEI and “woke” ideology, since much of their equity work is driven by states and school districts “seeing disparities and outcomes for their students,” said the research director who asked not to be named. “They’re trying to figure out how they can best address those disparities, and so they’ve come to the REL team with requests for help in that area.”

Dinkes, the Knowledge Alliance CEO, said the impact of the labs’ work is “not abstract — it has a direct impact on schools, communities and what parents know.” She said the way the federal contracts were severed, in the fourth year of a five-year cycle, in most cases, “derails years of work” that was having a direct impact on students. 

Wright, who now leads Maryland schools, was until last week planning to partner with the about essentially recreating the literacy and math work she did in Mississippi. 

Reached by phone after a legislative hearing in Annapolis, Wright said she had just begun developing a relationship with the Mid-Atlantic lab, led by Mathematica, when word of the cancelled contracts came down. 

“We were thinking, ‘This is great. We can establish another partnership with another REL.’ But that is not going to be the case now. It’s a real shame.”

The 12-11 vote fell along party lines, with the Republican chairman of the committee, Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, calling McMahon “the partner this committee needs to improve the nation’s education system.”

Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, an Independent who is the committee’s ranking member, said he liked McMahon personally. “I respect the work she has done in building a large and successful business.” But he said no matter who the education secretary is, “he or she will not have the power” to make consequential decisions. A small group of people in The White House, he said, will be “calling the shots.”

Sanders was referring to massive cuts at the department by auditors deputized by billionaire Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency.

Along with other Democrats, Sanders criticized White House plans to dismantle the U.S. Education Department, which he said “provides vital resources for 26 million kids who live in high-poverty school districts. These are the kids who most need our help.”

During her confirmation hearing last week, McMahon said she supported dismantling the department, but admitted that the administration needs congressional support to do it. 

“We’d like to do this right,” she told the committee. “We’d like to make sure that we are presenting a plan that I think our senators could get on board with.”

Sanders on Thursday said that was misguided. “Is it a perfect entity?” he said. “No. Is it bureaucratic? Yes. Can we reform it? Yes. Should we abolish it? No.”

Likewise, Sen. Tim Kaine, a Virginia Democrat, said he’d vote no on McMahon’s nomination for that reason. “I can’t vote for somebody who will willfully engage in the destruction of the very agency she wants to lead. That is disqualifying.”

McMahon’s nomination proceeds as the administration sends decidedly mixed signals on its education agenda. President Trump has nominated two experienced, well-regarded educators — North Dakota state Superintendent Kirsten Baesler and former Tennessee education chief Penny Schwinn — as top lieutenants to McMahon, even as Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency decimates the department’s research arm, slashing millions of dollars in contracts in search of waste, fraud and abuse. At a press conference last week, Trump called the department “a con job.”&�Բ�����;

McMahon, for her part, has said she supports DOGE’s work, saying, “It is worthwhile to take a look at the programs before money goes out the door.”&�Բ�����;

While she’s expected to easily earn confirmation in the Republican-controlled Senate, with support among conservative groups, McMahon faces opposition from education and civil rights groups that more broadly oppose the White House education cuts. 

The conservative group last week said Trump was smart to nominate McMahon to lead the department “in what we hope is a short tenure” as she works to shutter it.

Conservative commentator Rick Hess McMahon’s WWE experience gives her the right background for the top job: “Considering that it’s an agency that’s long been plagued by low morale and accused of being too chummy with the unions and the college cartel,” he wrote, “there’s a strong case that what’s needed is an outsider with a strong managerial track record.”

By contrast, the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights on Wednesday urged lawmakers to reject her nomination, saying in a co-signed by more than 240 groups that she’s “unprepared and unqualified” to lead the agency. Her confirmation would be “disastrous for students, their families, and educators,” the group said. 

Worth more than $3 billion

One of 13 billionaires tapped to lead Trump’s administration, McMahon has held tightly to Trump’s key education priorities: advancing private school choice, preventing trans students from competing in sports consistent with their gender identity and fighting antisemitism. 

McMahon’s confirmation has taken longer to schedule than those of most other cabinet nominees as the education committee waited for her to complete ethics paperwork detailing vast financial assets and ties to far-right organizations. Her net worth totals more than $3 billion.

As a board member of Trump Media & Technology Group, which runs the president’s Truth Social platform, she earns $18,400 quarterly. Politico reported that she also received stock in the company worth more than $800,000 in late January. McMahon is also on the advisory council for the Daily Caller, a conservative media outlet that has given her favorable coverage. 

If confirmed, McMahon has promised to step down from her board positions, forfeit any shares in Truth Social that she doesn’t yet fully own and divest from those that she does within three months. She also earns interest income from education-related municipal bonds that fund school construction across the country and has pledged to divest from those as well.

A vote before the full Senate has yet to be scheduled.

In the fall, the group won a National Science Foundation grant of nearly $1.5 million to teach elementary and middle-schoolers about climate-related issues in the U.S. Gulf Coast. The eagerly anticipated award came through NSF’s program.

But when she checked her NSF funding dashboard, the balance was $1.

Educators and researchers nationwide have been suffering similar shocks as the Trump administration raises a microscope — and in some cases an ax — to billions of dollars in federal research grants and contracts. On Monday, it said it had canceled dozens of Institute of Education Sciences contracts, worth an estimated $881 million and covering nearly the institute’s entire research portfolio, according to several sources. 

Last week, the NSF through billions of dollars in already-awarded grants in search of keywords that imply the researchers address gender ideology, diversity, equity and inclusion — all themes by the administration.

The moves — as well as a broader of all federal aid, which a judge has temporarily reversed — have spread uncertainty, fear and anger through the education research community. 

“It is incredibly exhausting,” said the research director of a national nonprofit with several active NSF grants and contracts. She asked to remain anonymous in order to speak freely. “It’s definitely absorbing all of our time right now.”&�Բ�����;

Interviews with more than a dozen key stakeholders found that researchers with studies already in the field are being forced to suddenly pause their research, not knowing if or when it will resume. Nearly all spoke only on condition of anonymity, fearing that speaking out publicly could jeopardize future funding.

While the administration has said the moves are an attempt to rein in federal spending that doesn’t comport with its priorities and values, it has offered no explanation for cuts to bedrock, non-political research around topics like math, literacy, school attendance, school quality and student mental health.

“It’s hard to believe this administration is serious about stopping the alarming decline of U.S. student achievement and competitiveness when it puts the kibosh on federally funded research and access to data,” said Robin Lake, director of the at Arizona State University. “How will policy makers and educators know the bright spots to replicate and what practices are harmful? How will parents make informed choices? How will teachers know the best ways to teach math and prepare students for the jobs of the future?”

CRPE currently receives no federal funding, she said, so the recent moves won’t affect it immediately. But its ongoing work tracking pandemic recovery, studying the impact of social media, AI and school choice rely on “a broad national infrastructure of data, subject experts, and rigorous field studies,” Lake said. “The broad-based destruction of this infrastructure will affect us all and will cripple our efforts to make American students competitive in the world economy.”

Ulrich Boser, CEO of , a Washington, D.C.-based organization that works in education research, likened the recent moves to remodeling a house to make it more efficient. “Would you just cancel all of your contracts with gas, water, electricity, and then just redo them? It’s not a logical way of doing things. It’s just haphazard.”

An Education Department spokesperson did not immediately reply to a request for comment.

The Learning Agency, which has contracts to, among other things, provide a that answers questions about IES’s What Works Clearinghouse, this week warning that GOP-backed plans to shut down the Education Department could mean the loss or delay of more than $70 billion in funding for students. 

Boser recalled that the recent debacle with college aid took place simply because the Education Department tried to . “It caused massive delays, most harmful to the kids we care about most.” Now take that dynamic, he said, and imagine what gutting an entire Cabinet-level agency could do. 

The recent NSF moves to review grant language are already having an effect: An academic dean at a leading graduate school of education said researchers at the institution are now reframing new funding proposals “in ways that allow them to ask the questions that they want” without being scrutinized — or eliminated altogether — “based on a ‘Ctrl-F review’ process.” Ctrl-F is a keyboard combination used to quickly search a document for keywords.

“I don’t think there’s an upside to the chaos and uncertainty that is being experienced in real time,” the dean said.

Likewise, the director of a research center that has long focused on K-12 education reform said the new administration has brought turmoil to a community that typically performs “non-ideological, empirical” research on issues like literacy and math.

 “I feel like every day there’s new confusion,” he said, adding that restrictions on DEI could also chill a basic function of education research: studying the results of interventions on diverse student populations — students of different races, ethnic backgrounds, economic levels and geographic locations.

“What ‘DEI’ means is really very ambiguous,” he said. “So if you are studying something and you look at differential outcomes between groups, is that DEI? I don’t know.”&�Բ�����;

A ‘Man-Made Disaster’

The federal government funds billions of dollars in research each year for K-12 and higher education, but rarely has it scrutinized practitioners to this extent, said the leader of a nonprofit that advocates for better education research. 

She described conversations with scholars who are operating via grants through NSF, IES and elsewhere who “just have no idea what’s going on — they can’t get through to program officers. Sometimes program officers have been put on administrative leave. It’s just a huge amount of chaos, and overall [it] just creates this chilling effect” for both current grantees and future ones.

“This is a man-made disaster,” she said.

Mike England, an NSF spokesman, said the agency “is working expeditiously to conduct a comprehensive review of our projects, programs and activities to be compliant with the existing executive orders.” He referred a journalist to an outlining recent executive orders “and their impact on the U.S. National Science Foundation community.”

An Education Department official on Tuesday said any IES contracts required by law will be re-issued for new competition, but Mark Schneider, who served as the agency’s director in Trump’s first term, said in an interview that the current chaos represents an opportunity to “make something good” in the research realm.

“What we should really do is say, ‘We’ve fallen into a rut for decades in the way we go about doing business,’” he said. “‘We are not focused on the highest reward. We’re not focused on mission-critical work.’ ” 

Now a nonresident senior fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, Schneider has already suggested breaking the Education Department up and distributing its work to other agencies. He said the new administration has the opportunity to refocus to provide “data that the nation needs.”

Schneider noted that the National Center for Education Research last year handed out 42 research grants worth well over $100 million. “If we look at those grants, how many of those are really mission-critical?” He predicted that few focus on improving literacy instruction, which recent NAEP results suggest is in crisis.

The department did not release a list of zeroed-out programs, but a document online indicates that they include research covering a wide range of topics including literacy but also math, science, mental health, attendance, English acquisition and others. Also on the chopping block: contracts for The Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (), a test given to students every four years in 64 countries and a key indicator of U.S. competitiveness.

‘I just don’t want more asterisk years’

The long-term impact of research pauses could be devastating, said the senior advisor to a research advocacy group — comparable to the interruption of the COVID epidemic, which shut many researchers out of schools for months, diluting the effectiveness of their research and, in some cases, requiring them to insert asterisks for the years when no data was available.

“I just don’t want more asterisk years,” she said. 

Several researchers said an even bigger fear is the prospect of key education, labor and other data sets such as NAEP being made unavailable. While NAEP data collection was unaffected by the recent moves, contracts to analyze the data and report it publicly were canceled, to be offered to new bidders. So far, U.S. Education Department data haven’t been affected, but public health data — including guidance on contraception, a fact sheet about HIV and transgender people; and lessons on building supportive school environments for transgender and nonbinary students — have from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s website due to President Trump’s order to strip “gender ideology” from websites and contracts.

Amy O’Hara, a research professor at Georgetown University’s McCourt School for Public Policy, cautioned that removing data from public websites would “have a chilling effect on what can be done, what can be measured, what services we deliver to our communities.”

Even if some research funds are restored and researchers can go back to work, O’Hara said, she worries about the uncertainty created at the collegiate graduate school level, as well as for researchers who are early in their careers. “If their funding is disrupted and their access to data is disrupted, they have an incentive to walk away,” she said. “And if they walk away and find other work to do, what is going to be compelling to bring them back?”

CRPE’s Lake put it more bluntly: “I’m a very pragmatic researcher and I believe the feds could do much better in how they fund and support research. But a wholesale end to federal investment in education research feels like a cop-out. The hard but necessary work is making smarter investments.”

The Trump administration’s gutting of the on Monday temporarily disables an essential source of data on a host of basic information — everything from high school graduation rates and school safety to which neighborhoods have the highest quality schools. At its most basic, it tells Americans how well U.S. schools educate young people, at a time when the public is more focused than ever on basic questions of achievement.

Advocates for a more focused and efficient federal education infrastructure view the move as an opportunity to rid the institute of old, inefficient and ineffective ways of doing research, even as researchers and industry leaders say the cuts will stop many key studies, trials and interventions in their tracks.

The move could also complicate Senate for Education Secretary nominee Linda McMahon, setting the stage for contentious questioning Thursday.

One industry insider called Monday’s actions “pretty devastating to the research infrastructure,” with several others saying administration officials canceled 189 contracts. But even that was unclear after Monday’s chaos. An administration official said the number totaled 89, citing from the Department of Government Efficiency that put the dollar total at $881 million. The department didn’t issue any official statements or breakdowns of the cuts. 

Most sources with knowledge of the cuts asked not to be named in order to speak freely about them — and in a few cases to preserve their ability to compete for future contracts.

DOGE, an informal agency led by billionaire Elon Musk, has spent the past few weeks slashing federal programs at President Trump’s direction.

“It’s apocalyptic, is all I can say,” said the director of one federal office who asked not to be identified so he could speak candidly.

DOGE workers for the past week have essentially U.S. Education Department offices in downtown Washington, D.C., accessing sensitive information systems. On Friday, private security personnel blocked a group of House Democrats from entering the building, setting up a videotaped confrontation that .

Several sources said Monday’s moves don’t affect what’s widely considered a key IES function: the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), known familiarly as the . NAEP will continue to be administered, sources said, but contracts to analyze the data and report it publicly were canceled and will be offered to new bidders.

An Education Department official on Tuesday told ����Ӱ�� that any IES contracts required by law will be re-issued for new competition.

On the chopping block: a host of programs including the What Works Clearinghouse, Common Core of Data, the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) database of colleges and universities, and many others. The programs provide Americans with wide-ranging data on school quality, effective school interventions and college data on finances, tuition, financial aid, enrollment, completion and graduation rates, among other indicators. 

Dana Tofig, a spokesman for the , confirmed that AIR had received notices of termination on multiple IES evaluation and statistics contracts. The notices, he said late Monday, “are still coming in.”

A person familiar with AIR’s work said the lost contracts amount to “millions of dollars.”&�Բ�����;

Tofig called the cancellations “an incredible waste of taxpayer dollars” already appropriated by Congress.

“These investments inform the entire education system at all levels about the condition of education and the distribution of students, teachers, and resources in school districts across America,” he said. “Many of these contracts are nearing completion and canceling them now yields the taxpayers no return on their investment.”

The terminated evaluation and data contracts, Tofig said, are “exactly the work that determines which programs are effective uses of federal dollars, and which are not.”&�Բ�����;

One person who was not broken up about Monday’s events is Mark Schneider, a former longtime federal education official, who said his expectation is that much of the key research work will resume under new contracts. He couldn’t immediately confirm that, but said his understanding was that, with the exception of NAEP and one or two other untouched programs, “every other contract, as far as I know, has been canceled.”&�Բ�����;

Schneider, who served as an IES director in the first Trump administration and stepped down last spring after more than three years under President Biden, estimated that about three-fourths of the institute’s 100 or so employees would be affected. The move amounts to the temporary dissolution of two key Education Department operations: the National Center for Education Statistics and the National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance.

One source with knowledge of the move described an emergency meeting on Monday in which IES employees heard of the contract cancellations. “I think they thought that IES’s independence was going to allow it to kind of squeak through,” he said. “And I think the leadership was just beyond shocked. I mean, they hadn’t been talking about any of this stuff happening.”

In some ways, the move echoes those taking place at other agencies — Trump has essentially dismantled the , putting most of its more than 2,000 employees on paid leave, though a federal judge last week paused the move until Friday. 

The administration on Saturday also ordered the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to . The agency, created by President Obama after the 2008 financial crisis, has long been a target of conservatives.

In late January, Trump issued an executive order that directed all federal agencies to temporarily pause grants, loans and federal assistance, but 22 states and the District of Columbia sued, challenging the legality of the move and eventually blocking it. A federal judge on Monday said the administration with that ruling and ordered federal agencies to immediately restore any paused or withheld dollars. 

Schneider, the former IES director, said Monday’s developments don’t mean the end of the agency, but rather “an opportunity to clean out the attic” and revitalize essential research functions that the department has long neglected.

“There’s a bunch of stuff that’s been accumulating for all these decades and they’re built on old technology,” he said. “They’re not even measuring the things that we care the most about.”

‘How people decide where to buy houses’

News of the canceled contracts took education researchers and officials by surprise Monday afternoon, with at least two members of the National Assessment Governing Board, which sets NAEP policy, saying they were just hearing about it through colleagues — or via the rumor mill.

An official at a trade organization that represents research firms said that in many cases, classroom interventions such as tech tools being studied in real time will also disappear.

The official also said shutting down the Common Core of Data will dramatically affect “every single real estate site” on the Internet that helps users probe neighborhoods on the basis of school quality. “That’s how people decide where to buy houses.”

Felice Levine, executive director of the , said the group was “deeply concerned” about Monday’s actions, saying NCES provides nonpartisan and unbiased information on important education indicators. “The robust collection and analysis of data are essential for ensuring quality education,” she said.

But another person with knowledge of IES’s inner workings, who requested anonymity to speak freely, agreed with Schneider that the nation needs “a different kind of approach to R&D to think about how we want to move forward.”&�Բ�����;

Data from many recent large assessments, including NAEP, suggest that “things are not going the way they need to in this recovery, and it’s time to start thinking about what a research agenda can look like — particularly if the department decides that they’re going to move in a direction where we’re going to have block grants to states,” as many state superintendents in Republican-led states have requested in recent weeks.

That, she said, will require a commitment to research focused on effective teacher practice, among other indicators. That won’t happen with the current system. “I think we’ve gotten to a point with the current IES structure where things have been done the way they’ve been done for so long that no one can roll it back. That’s a real challenge.”&�Բ�����;

Schneider, IES’s most recent director and now a nonresident senior fellow at the conservative , has recently suggested breaking up the entire Education Department and moving its major functions to other Cabinet-level agencies.

He admitted on Monday that the changes are “pretty serious,” but said the agency needed “a full shake-up” to become more effective.

He noted, for instance, that IPEDS, “the premier system” for reporting on colleges, is “totally archaic,” costing about $9 million annually but is, in his view, based on old technology, hard to use and provides little value.

“What does a modern system look like, and how do we get that?” he asked. “To just throw everything away is easy. To try to imagine how to rebuild some of these essential data systems that the nation needs so that they’re modern, efficient, effective — that’s a much harder challenge, and that’s the challenge I hope that we rise to meet.”

In a broadcast Tuesday on LinkedIn, Schneider admitted that “given how much work I put into reforming IES with only marginal success, that they could do in one day … I’m a little envious.”

But he said DOGE’s technique of “moving fast and breaking things” in this case might be “dumb” for a few reasons: While he favors, for instance, getting rid of the IPEDS contract, he noted that the department can’t publish its College Scorecard, which it wants to protect, without it. The department also can’t effectively produce NAEP reports without the Common Core of Data.

“If you break X, you’re actually breaking Y and Z,” he said. “I mean, that’s a lack of experience, a lack of information.”

In an interview with ����Ӱ��, Schneider wouldn’t immediately say whether he’d accept an offer to lead IES again.

An industry insider who asked to remain anonymous in order to speak freely said she has worked well with Schneider in the past and predicted that if he were once again in charge of IES, she might have faith that his leadership could start “a different conversation” about research. “But I just don’t see it yet.”

If she and her colleagues were dealing with “rational policy actors” in the Trump administration, she said, she might believe that improvement is possible. But the new administration doesn’t represent “a sort of regular Republican world,” she said. “We’re in a world in which they’re slashing and burning everything.”

The Institute of Education Sciences turns 21 this year. After five years at its helm, Director Mark Schneider is hoping to shepherd its transition to maturity.

When he was appointed by President Trump in 2017, Schneider took over an agency designed to reveal the truth of how schooling is delivered in the United States. IES houses four research centers that measure the effects of educational interventions from preschool to university, and through the National Assessment of Educational Progress — the agency’s most recognizable research product, often referred to as the Nation’s Report Card — it delivers regular updates on the state of student achievement.

But Schneider sees a new role for federal research endeavors. Through the use of public competitions and artificial intelligence, the director wants IES to help incubate breakthrough technologies and treatments that can help student performance take a giant leap forward in the coming years. Rapid-cycle experimentation and replication, he hopes, will help reverse more than a decade of stagnation in K–12 performance.

Late in his six-year term, Schneider is candid about his status as one of the few holdovers from the previous administration still serving in government. In part, he quips, that’s because education research isn’t considered important enough for a Trump appointee to be fired. But he’s also labored to win the trust of Congress and cultivate bipartisan support for a vision of educational improvement powered by data.

Now he believes that vision could soon be realized. In December, Congress approved a substantial increase in IES’s budget to potentially fund a fifth national center that some have dubbed a “DARPA” for education research (based on the Pentagon’s ). Further legislation is needed to authorize a branch for advanced development in education sciences, but potential research strands are already being theorized.

Schneider — a political scientist who left academia for leadership and research roles at the American Institutes for Research and the American Enterprise Institute — has a commanding perspective on the federal education bureaucracy, serving as the head of the National Center for Education Statistics in the 2000s. His sometimes tart observations about Washington’s research efforts, and the future of IES, can be found on his .

In a wide-ranging conversation with ����Ӱ��’s Kevin Mahnken, Schneider spoke with surprising openness about the Department of Education (which “operates like a bank” in its grantmaking capacity), the “horrifying” reality of university master’s programs (“It’s a money machine, and so you create more of them”), and why he believes some concerns about data privacy are overblown (“If I were really worried about this, I wouldn’t wear an Apple watch.”) 

Above all, he said, the task ahead is to develop a research base that can yield transformative educational tools on the order of COVID vaccines and ChatGPT.

“The goal, using this foundation, is to look at things that pop out, that would not exist otherwise,” Schneider said. “If we can do this with vaccines, if we can use it with chatbots, then what’s our foundation?”

The conversation has been edited for length and clarity.

����Ӱ��: Tell me a little about what you’re anticipating this year in terms of legislation to establish a DARPA-type program for education.

Mark Schneider: There are two parts of the . The first is to set up the National Center for Advanced Development in Education, NCADE, and the other is for major reinvestment in . Most people focus on the first part, but the second is also really important because we spent a billion dollars building those data systems over the last 18 years. The whole thing is a great system, but it needs to be rebuilt.

What needs to be modified in those systems?

It’s old technology. I think the first round of money for them went out the door in 2006. [Gestures at iPhone sitting on the table] Can you imagine having a technology system that was built in 2006? So they need to be modernized, but the more important thing is that we now have a much more expansive vision of what they can do after almost 20 years of work. 

The example I point to is absenteeism. States have really good records on attendance because money flows based on average daily attendance, and they have to take counts. They know who are chronic absentees, but they don’t know why. It could be food insecurity, health, migration status, could be a dozen things or more. But if we use these longitudinal data systems as a backbone and then plug in information from criminal justice, health, Social Security, we would have a much better sense of what’s going on with any student in a given school. The strength of Statewide Longitudinal Data Systems [SLDS] has always been tracking students over time.

The biggest problem, of course, is that as you merge more data, the issues of privacy become more intense because it’s easier and easier to identify people when there’s more information. We’re nowhere near good enough at privacy protection, but we’re getting way better, and there are so many more ways of protecting privacy than there were 20 years ago.

Given the lengthy timetables of federal projects like the SLDS, do you ever feel like you’re painting the Golden Gate Bridge, and now that you’ve finally established these tools, it’s already time to overhaul them?

Well, we spent a $1 billion building this, and right now, we’re spending about $35 million per year on grants to states to do things with it. What percentage of $1 billion is going back into maintenance and expansions? It’s pocket change. So you always have to remember that this is a state-owned system, designed to help them do their work. And to take an example, Tennessee is surrounded by seven other states, and they end up doing their own collaborations and data exchanges.

Is the inherent federalism of that approach, especially layered over the archaic technology, difficult to manage? How did it play out during the pandemic, for instance, when real-time data was so hard to generate?

The trickiness had nothing to do with SLDS, though. It had to do with the world we woke up to in March 2020.

For me, SLDS is like an exemplar of a federal system where the states assume almost all responsibility. But again, we have more capacity compared with most states. There are states like Massachusetts that are doing an unbelievably good job, and other states are not. Our role there is providing the resources to enable states to a) experiment like Massachusetts and b) bring states that have little capacity up to speed. 

Probably the most alarming federal data coming out of the COVID era has been the release of scores from the National Assessment of Educational Progress, which showed huge drops in achievement in reading and especially math. Did those results match what you were expecting?

By the time NAEP landed, we had NWEA results and others that suggested it was going to be a debacle. We knew the scores were going to go down by a bunch. But NAEP is NAEP — it’s national, it’s rock-solid in terms of its methodologies and its sample. So it’s indisputable that this was an awful situation, right?

To connect the dots with SLDS: One of the problems with the system is that it was conceived as a data warehouse strategy. And I tried and tried, but nobody caught that this was a stupid way of phrasing its purpose. I said, “We don’t need a data warehouse. What goes into a warehouse, a forklift?” We want an Amazon model where we also have retail stores, and you can go in and find stuff. 

I understand that states are very hesitant to let random academics and researchers have access to very private data. But as we rebuild the SLDS, we need to make sure that there are use requirements as part of the deal — always, always consistent with privacy protections, but we have to use these more. It’s a little tricky because some states have a history of opening up the doors and letting in researchers, and others just don’t. In the state of Texas, it can depend on who the attorney general is. 

It can be striking come out of, for instance, Wake County, North Carolina.

It’s because they’ve opened the data to more people. And that’s part of the deal, but Wake County is not the United States. We need more. 

My days of active research are behind me, but the possibilities built into these data are incredible. I thought I was going to be able to do a deal with Utah, where there’s an organization doing early childhood interventions; all the evidence is that they’re good, but we need to see if “good” sticks. Well, SLDS is perfectly designed to figure out if interventions stick. I thought this work in Utah would allow us to identify students in their early childhood interventions, work with the state to track those students over time, and find out if those very positive pre-K results — it’s a very inexpensive intervention with great results in the early years — stick. We have the means to do it. We just need to do it.

It seems like efforts like that would be complicated by the growing political salience of data security.

It’s everywhere, and for good reason. I’m not really a privacy hawk, but all the privacy protections need to consider benefits versus costs. In too many places, we’ve concentrated on the risk without considering the benefit. But that’s only half the equation. We have to be able to say, “This risk can be mitigated, and there could be huge benefits to come out of this.” 

This is what political systems do all the time — they balance risks against rewards. But we have to do it in a much more sophisticated way.

Why are you a privacy dove? There is something a little funny about how guarded people are about government intrusions when they so freely hand over their data to Amazon or whomever.

I have an Amazon Echo in every room in my house, and I know that they’re listening! Everyone has a story where they’re talking about something, and then they go on their Amazon account and see an advertisement related to the product they were talking about. It’s really scary, but I’ve only turned off the microphone on one of my devices because of the convenience of being able to say, “Alexa, turn on my lights, play the BBC.” For me, those benefits are worth getting a bunch of stupid advertisements.

If I were really worried about this, I wouldn’t wear an Apple watch or own an Apple phone. We all should be concerned about privacy, and especially when it comes to children. Obviously, the standards have to be high. But again, there are benefits to using a more comprehensive database, which is my vision of what SLDS would be. The technology issues are real, and it’s always a war of whether people hack it and we need to develop better mechanisms for protection. 

What are you trying to achieve, organizationally, with the proposed addition of an advanced research center?

IES is only 20 years old. My predecessor, , was the founding director, and he was brilliant. He set out to modernize the research and development infrastructure, and the coin of the realm. I was the NCES commissioner for three years, and I argued with him all the time about his model of RCTs, which are the gold standard. The way he saw it was — and he knew what he was doing, he’s really smart — “I can’t compromise this at the beginning. If I say, ‘Maybe we do this, maybe we do that,’ then nobody goes in the direction I want, and they just wait me out.”

The problem with the model was that RCTs, as they were originally introduced, were about average effects across populations. But to use a specific example, we’ve now moved into individualized medicine — it’s about what works for you, and under what conditions. So the mantra of IES now is, “What works for whom, and under what conditions?” Of course, we still have studies that look at main effects, but our work is all about identifying what works for individuals or groups of students. This requires a lot of changes about the way we think and how we do business.

My joke is that almost every science has . We don’t have a replication crisis, because we don’t replicate anything. Even if it works, we don’t replicate it! So a few years ago, we launched a replication RFA [request for applications]. IES was moving in that direction anyway, but we needed a much more systematic attention to replication. My mistake was we structured the replication this way: “Something worked in New York City, so give me another $5 million, and I’ll try it in Philadelphia.” Or, “It worked for some African American kids, let’s try it with Hispanic kids.” They were all big experiments, five years long. You can’t make progress that way.

Now we’re , which will be announced before the summer. I’m not sure how generalizable this will be, but the prize is based on using digital learning platforms to run experiments. The critical part is that you have to have 100,000 users on your platform to qualify. You run those experiments, you fail fast — that’s an incredibly important principle, fail fast — and the few things that work, you have to do multiple replications. The original plan was: experiment, replication, then another round of replications. At the end of which, the goal is to say, “Here’s an intervention that worked for these students, but not for these students.” Then you take what worked for those students and push it further. [On May 9, of the $1 million Digital Learning Challenge prize.]

It’s a systematic approach to rapid replication. Not everything in education research can be done in short order. Some things take a long time. But there are many, many things that last a semester or a school year, and at the end of that time, we have . This prize approach is just a different process for how we replicate. 

ChatGPT just opened up a whole world of discussion about the use of AI. But what happened with ChatGPT is like what we’re trying to do. The world has been doing AI for literally decades, but the last 10 years have seen increased computing power and more complexity in the models, and the foundational models have gotten bigger and bigger and bigger. We built an incredible foundation: machine learning, data science, AI. And all of a sudden, boom! ChatGPT is the first thing that caught the public’s attention, but it was built on this amazing foundation. Nobody knows what the next thing is that will break through, but they’re all being built on decades’ worth of work that established this foundation. It’s the same thing — the COVID vaccine could not have happened without that foundation.

What I’m trying to do is use IES resources to build this kind of foundation, which includes the learning platforms, rapid-cycle experimentation and replication, transformative research money. And the goal, using this foundation, is to look at things that pop out, that would not exist otherwise. That’s the goal: If we can do this with vaccines, if we can use it with chatbots, then what’s our foundation? What I hope is that, when we get NCADE going, we move this activity there and let it consolidate and interact. Then we start doing new, innovative research based on that foundation.

What are the kinds of research projects and outcomes that perhaps seem fantastical now, but could be realized in the way that MRNA vaccines have been?

The telos, the North Star, is individualized education. The first thing that is popping from this work is that IES is launching with the National Science Foundation, and it’s designed for students’ with speech pathologies. There in schools, so the demand for them is really high. We also do something incredibly stupid by burdening them with unbelievable paperwork.

This AI institute is funded by $20 million, split between IES and the NSF, and it has several prongs to it. The first is to develop an AI-assisted universal screener, because it takes time to diagnose exactly what students’ speech pathologies are — whether it has to do with sentence structure, vocabulary, pronunciation. Medicine has been doing this forever, by the way. The second prong is to use an AI toolbox to help design, update, and monitor the treatment plan. In other words, we’ve got a labor shortage, we know we need assessment and a treatment plan, and AI can do this. Or, AI should be able to do this, whether or not we can pull it off with this group. It’s a risk, like everything we do is a risk. But to me, this is a breakthrough.

I’m very optimistic that they’re going to pull it off, in part because of the third prong, which relates to the paperwork. It’s a lot of work, multiple forms, and it’s routine. Well, guess what can now type up routine paragraphs?

It seems like school districts, let alone Congress, could be really hesitant about deploying AI to write up after-incident reports, or what have you. Some regulatory structure is going to have to be created to govern the use of this technology.

I’m sure, like me, you’ve been monitoring the reaction to ChatGPT. There’s an extreme reaction, “Ban it completely.” Another extreme would be, “This is amazing, go for it!” And then there’s the right reaction: This is a tool that’s never going back in the box. So how do we use it appropriately? How do we use it in classrooms, and to free teachers from drudgery?

At least for the foreseeable future, humans will have a role because ChatGPT is often wrong. And the biggest problem is that we sometimes don’t know when it’s wrong. It’ll get better over time, I don’t think there’s a question about that, but it needs human intervention. Humans have to know that it’s not infallible, and they have to have the intelligence to know how to read ChatGPT and say, “That doesn’t work.”

Of course, it writes very boring prose.

But so do students.

And so do reporters.

Touché. You mentioned that you ran NCES over a decade ago. I’m wondering if you’ve noticed a change in Washington’s ambitions around using federal data to spur school improvement, especially now that the peak reform era is long gone.

It’s true that the level of skepticism is much greater. But the technology has also gotten way, way better. We hired the National Academies [of Science, Engineering, and Medicine] to do three reports for us to coincide with our 20th anniversary. was the most interesting one. It talks about new and somewhat less intrusive measures.

NCES is old. There are lots of arguments about when it started, but the modern NCES was actually a reaction to [sociologist and researcher] , who was intimately involved in the early design of longitudinal studies. They’ve gotten more complicated — the original was “” — and they’re all based on survey data, just going out and talking to people. Well, you know the fate of surveys: Response rates are falling and falling, and it’s harder to get people to talk. 

That’s how bad it’s gotten?

We were forced — “forced” makes it sound like it was a bad idea; and it did turn out to be a bad idea — to ask schools that were participating for a lot of information about IEPs [individualized education programs] and students with special needs. This gets back to that cost/benefit calculation because they would not share the classification of students with special needs, and they just refused to participate. So we ended up canceling that data collection. That was a leading indicator of the problem.

Increasingly, the question is what we can do to get the kind of data that these longitudinal studies generated without having to interview 15,000 or 18,000 kids. It requires a modification in the way you think, and it requires an expansive view of where the data lie. How much of the data that we’re asking students and parents and teachers about resides in state longitudinal data systems, for example? Could we drive the need for human interviewing to 5 percent or 10 percent of what we do now? It actually calls for a different thought process than, “Well, we always do ‘High School and Beyond’ this way!” But federal bureaucracies aren’t known for their innovative thinking, quite frankly. 

This adaptation might also mean that some of the unique things we get from surveys are going to have to go because no one will give them to you.

What, if anything, is the effect of changes in government on a massive organization like IES? You were appointed under President Trump, so the Department of Education has already undergone a really significant change, and now Congress has changed hands as well.

We’re not massive. We’re pretty small, actually.

We’re a science agency, and we were created when the Education Sciences Reform Act was authorized in 2002. I think the vision was that IES would grow not to the size of the  National Institutes for Health or the National Science Foundation, but on a trajectory that would put it into that kind of group. If you look at the original legislation, it’s still there. We have a board that is almost populated now, and the ex officio members include the director of the Census, the commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and somebody from NIH. You don’t create a board with those kinds of people on it unless you expect it to be a big, major player.

It never got there. The budget is up to $808 million, in part because we got a pretty big chunk of money in the omnibus package. But $30 million of that was for DARPA-Ed, which we don’t have yet. Ten million dollars of that is for the . So Congress is interested in modernization, and we have to prove that this investment is worthwhile. 

What about the difference at the top? Are there notably different attitudes between Secretary DeVos and Secretary Cardona with respect to IES’s mission?

I’ve gotten enormous support from the department. We would not have gotten the money for NCADE, we would not have gotten the money for School Pulse without that support. DeVos’s goal was to make the Education Department go away, so this administration is obviously much more expansive. They’ve been careful in their support of things, but again, NCADE wouldn’t have gotten this far without the full-throated backing of the department, and of the Office of Management and Budget and the White House.

I’m reminded of the parties’ divergent positions on the federal government’s role in education, and how close the Department of Education came to never being authorized.

Jimmy Carter is a really good ex-president and a good human being, but was not a very effective president. As you know, the establishment of the department was in response to support that he got from teachers’ unions. So there is a philosophical debate about the role of the federal government in education, and it’s not a slam dunk. There are things that are worth talking about. A huge chunk of the money that the department manages is Title IV, so it operates like a bank, and it’s by far the smallest cabinet department in terms of workforce.

The other thing I’m not sure people fully understand is that the department isn’t just a grant-making operation, it’s also a contract shop. I taught public policy for decades at Stony Brook University, and when I decided that I was never going back, they asked me to give a talk to my former colleagues — almost all of whom I’d hired — and graduate students. My opening remark set everyone back on their heels because I said, “I taught here for 20 years, and every one of my students should sue me for malpractice.” Nothing I taught had anything to do with the way the sausage is really made. 

You hear this all the time, and academics pooh-pooh it. But I’ve been on both sides of it, and it’s really true: Academic research and the sausage factory are the same. In 20 years of teaching public policy, I never once mentioned contractors. And contractors run the whole show. It’s the way we do business, and it’s even more interesting than just: “I run this agency, but here’s what you, the contractor, should do.” All too often, it’s the contractors doing the actual thinking.

There’s been a long argument over the 20 years, on and off, that I’ve been associated with this stuff. We should, and must, contract out the work and the implementation, but we should not be contracting out the thinking. And that’s easy to articulate, but what’s the dividing line? When are we surrendering our intellectual capital — our control of the ship, if you will — to contractors who now design the ship, build the ship and steer the ship? 

Are there concrete examples from education research where you can point to projects that have gone off-course?

NAEP is $185 million per year, and it gets renewed every five years. Do you know how long Educational Testing Services has had the contract? Forty years. There are reasons why they get this contract — they’re good! But this is decades of either minimal or zero competition. And as the test has gotten bigger and more complicated, even putting together a bid to compete costs millions of dollars. People ask, “Why would we spend millions of dollars to compete with ETS when they’ve had the contract for 40 years and we see no indication that it will ever be different?”

To me, this is a serious issue.

Given that NAEP is the foremost product of NCES, there’s probably very little scope for reimagining it beyond, say, changing the testing modality from pen-and-paper to computers.

I agree on that, it’s largely the same technology that ETS invented 40 years ago. But the world has changed. It’s just gotten more and more expensive, but the amount of reimagining NAEP and its structure — whether or not we can do this cheaper and faster — is just lagging. It’s really frustrating. 

Even before COVID, there was a lot of pondering about the future of NAEP and the costs of administering it. The Long-Term Trends test was postponed between 2012 and 2020, right?

Yeah, but that’s an interesting case. The modern version of NAEP — which measures fourth- and eighth-grade reading and math — was authorized in 2002, I believe. It goes back to the ’70s, really, but we’ve been doing this version of it for 20 years. People love the Long-Term Trends test, but do we really need it when we’ve had 20 years of the main NAEP?

You’ve spent a lot of your career studying the value of higher education. Do you think we’re staring at a financial or demographic apocalypse for colleges and universities?

“Apocalypse” is way too strong a word. There are demographic trends such that the pool of students is shrinking, and there’s also incredible regional variation. The New England and mid-Atlantic states are experiencing much sharper declines than the South and the West. And of course, universities are not mobile; if you invest all this infrastructure in frigid Massachusetts or northern New York, and all the students move, you have to ask, “What do I do with all this infrastructure now?”

As to the value of a four-year degree, you and I operate in a sphere where everybody is highly literate. I read all the time, and I’m not talking about technical stuff. I read novels all the time because it’s an opportunity to live in a different world. But what’s the definition of literacy in the world we now live in, and what skills do we truly need? It’s still only a minority of people who go to four-year programs, but do we need to send even that many students to get four-year degrees? Most of them want jobs and family-sustaining wages, and do we need four-year degrees for that? The answer is obviously not, if you look at what’s happening in Maryland and Pennsylvania [where governors have recently removed degree requirements from thousands of state jobs]. 

The fact of the matter is, this is happening. To the extent that it’s happening, which I believe is necessary and important, the incentives for getting a bachelor’s degree start to decline. It becomes more of an individual question: “I’m going to spend five or six years at a four-year institution. It’s pretty much a cookie cutter, stamp-stamp-stamp experience, and I get a bachelor’s degree. Then, at a job interview, they ask what my skills are, and I can’t answer. Well, I can use ChatGPT!”

That’s quite grim. But is there a way to offer prospective students better information about the value they’re actually getting from college?

When I was at the American Institutes for Research, I ran something called , which was the first systematic attempt to crack all the work that had been done at the university level about what happens to students when they graduate. In the end, it’s the variation in programs that really matters — as soon as we started unpacking student outcomes, program by program, the programs that were technical were the winners. And the numbers were amazing. The first results we published came from and , and I swear to God, when I saw the results, I didn’t believe them. I thought we had an error in the data because associate’s degree holders were out-earning bachelor’s degree holders. 

We repeated this over and over and over again, in maybe 10 different states. It was always technical degrees coming out of community colleges that had the best earnings. In the state of Florida, I think the best postsecondary certificate was “Elevator Mechanic/Constructor.” There aren’t a lot of them, but the starting wage was $100,000! Then you start looking at sociology, English, psychology, and [gestures downward with his hand, makes crashing sound].

It turned out to be that these degree programs were increasingly becoming surrogates for skills. The worst outcome for all students was for those who went into liberal arts and general studies at community colleges. They’re doing that because they want to transfer to a four-year school, but only 20 percent of them actually transfer. They come out with a general education and no skills, and the labor market outcomes were a disaster. 

I was working with , which has employment records for millions of people and scrapes job advertisements, to start looking for what skills were in high demand. The beauty of it was that it was such good data, and even better, it was regional. Most people don’t move that often, so if I’m living and going to school in western Tennessee, it doesn’t help me at all to know what somebody’s hiring for in Miami. It basically asked, “How much money is each skill worth?” Things have probably changed since that time, but one of the highest-demand skills in almost every market was [the customer relationship manager software] , which was worth between $10,000 and $20,000. 

The other thing we did, which made me really popular, was look at the same outcomes for master’s programs. Colleges just create these programs, and the money goes to support everything that academics love: travel, course buyouts, graduate students. But the numbers are horrifying for most master’s programs. You create a master’s program, and they tend to be relatively cheap — and you don’t give TAs to master’s students, so it’s all cash. It’s a money machine, and so you create more of them. 

This brings me back to my previous question. If young people start seeing the value proposition of a four-year degree differently, and American fertility rates are producing fewer young people to begin with, it seems like the music eventually has to stop for the higher education sector. And if that happens, employers are going to have to rely on something besides the apparent prestige of a B.A. to distinguish between job candidates, right?

Both my daughters think I’ve become increasingly conservative because of what goes on in post-secondary education. Look at university endowments: All the money is hidden, but the subsidy we give to well-off students is humungous because their endowments are tax-free. Princeton has a huge endowment and a small student population; Harvard has a bigger endowment, but also a larger enrollment. When I was at the American Institutes for Research, we calculated the subsidy at Princeton per undergraduate student, and the subsidy was something in the vicinity of $100,000 per year. All hidden, nobody talks about it. Meanwhile the total subsidy for Montclair State University, which is down the road, was $12,000; the local community college was $3,000. This includes both state and federal money. What kind of system is this?

I testified at the Senate Finance Committee, and we got a small tax on endowments that was only for the very, very richest schools. I think it’s still on the books, but it was nowhere near as aggressive as it should have been. What I wanted was to take the money and set up a competitive grant program for community colleges because what they do is hard work, and they absolutely need the money. But what happened was that we got a much smaller tax that went into the general fund and didn’t go into improving anything. It was a disappointment.

This leads me to wonder what you make of the Biden administration’s student debt relief!

I’m not going to talk anymore. [Laughs] 

The other part of that same campaign was about property taxes. Georgetown and George Washington University, for example, don’t pay property taxes. Some universities acknowledge that they’re getting police services, fire, sewage, and so forth, and they negotiate something called a PILOT, a payment in lieu of taxes. One case was Harvard, which negotiated a PILOT with Boston that was way lower than what they would have otherwise paid, and ! A past college president told me once, “Your campaign to go after the endowments is never going to happen in a serious way. But if you start attacking our property tax exemption, that gets us worried.” 

Back when I thought some of this was actually going to stick, I . Washington, D.C.’s Office of Tax Revenue turns out to be a pretty good agency, and I asked them for a list of all the properties owned by Georgetown and George Washington. I just asked them to calculate the value of those properties, and what should be the payment given the commercial tax rate. It was a lot of money. The average residential property owner in Princeton, New Jersey, pays thousands of dollars more in taxes than they otherwise would because Princeton University doesn’t pay property taxes. 

Criticizing universities in the Washington Post doesn’t sound like a good way to make friends in your current position.

Well, I haven’t done anything like that in years. And of course, I was appointed by the previous administration, when none of this stuff was particularly poisonous.

So why did I survive when almost nobody else did? I don’t think education research is that important. I think I’m good at my job, and the reforms we’re pursuing — whether it’s establishing NCADE or revising the SLDS — are really strongly supported by the current administration, which I really appreciate. But I’m not important enough to be fired.

Isn’t that something of an indictment of federal policymakers, though? They should care more about education research!

Yeah, but then I would have been fired. [Laughs] 

I was affiliated with AEI [the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank], and I still have many friends there. But this NCADE proposal has Democratic backing in Congress. A lot of the work is still nonpartisan, or bipartisan. We work really hard at this, and some of the things we’re pushing are just so fundamentally important that it doesn’t matter which party you’re in.

Does partisanship make it harder to pursue the higher education issues you’re interested in, though?

I’m only the third IES director that’s been confirmed and served any length of time. Russ Whitehurst was totally focused on early childhood literacy, and John Easton cared the most about K–12. So even over these last five years, IES is predominantly still K–12 oriented.

My newest thing in postsecondary research is to collect data on , and I don’t think people understand how big that is in community college. A lot of it is people enrolling to use a swimming pool, or someone who takes three courses in musicology but isn’t interested in credit or a degree. But increasingly, non-credit activity is being used for non-credit certificates that are job- and career-related. Maybe you need three courses to upgrade my skills for auto body repair, or to upgrade your IT skills, but you don’t want a whole degree or to enroll in college. So you can do it on a non-credit basis.

We don’t even know how many non-credit certificates are being granted because we don’t collect any data on it. [the Integrated Postsecondary Data System, the federal government’s primary source of information on colleges and universities] is rooted in Title IV, and it doesn’t collect information about schools that don’t take federal grants or about non-credit activity. But it’s really big, and many people are betting time and energy and money to acquire non-credit certificates. We’re trying to do some work on that, and OMB is very hesitant to mandate any collections of data because of Title IV, but they’ve approved a voluntary data collection. I don’t do research anymore, but I’m trying to broker deals with researchers and states — Virginia has a beautiful data set, for instance — to find out what happens if you get a non-credit certificate. Indiana is another opportunity. 

Launching this stuff is hard because it’s pretty untraditional, and it requires strong state data systems and the willingness of states to work with independent researchers. And of the $808 million we’ve got, none of it is walking-around money; all of it is competitive, everything’s peer-reviewed. Which it should be, but I can’t just say, “Sure, sounds great, I’ll send you $50,000.”

The law, passed by bipartisan majorities and in the closing days of 2022, includes a $70 million boost to the Institute for Education Sciences, the Department of Education’s arm for statistics, research, and evaluation. Within that 9.6 percent bump — which brings IES’s overall budget to $808 million — $40 million are allocated for research, development, and dissemination, including an unspecified amount intended to foster “quick-turnaround, high-reward scalable solutions intended to improve education outcomes for all students.”

That initiative will be housed within the National Center for Education Research, one of , with the hope that it will eventually be spun off into a fifth such center. In an interview with ����Ӱ��, IES Director Mark Schneider described the infusion of money as a down payment toward “something the department’s been talking about for 20 years.”

“I will be pushing for a separate center,” Schneider said, adding that he and his colleagues were “ecstatic” with what Congress provided. “There’s no question about it, this is a major accomplishment. The department, IES, and many people outside have spent a lot of time and energy trying to get this established.”

The bill’s passage comes after what some in the academic community have called a decade of disinvestment in federal education research. In the wake of in the Obama administration, the Institute’s National Center for Education Statistics had to for administering the federal K–12 assessment known as “the Nation’s Report Card,” one of the U.S. Department of Education’s best-known products. 

More recently, the Institute announced that it would not be offering competitive grant programs in research methodology or systemic replication in education research in Fiscal Year 2023. Those technical-sounding competitions make up much of the federal government’s R&D infrastructure for K–12, contributing to the emergence of ideas and products that improve student learning.

In the hopes of reversing those developments — and spurring a nationwide recovery from COVID-related disruptions to school — Congressional Democrats and Republicans that would have created a “National Center for Advanced Development in Education.” That proposal would have authorized an organization with the specific intention of advancing scalable advances in teaching methods and technology, such as voice recognition software to assess dyslexia. While language authorizing the so-called “NCADE” was included in the House’s FY 2023 budget proposal, it didn’t make it into the bill that ultimately passed Congress. 

Rep. Suzanne Bonamici, an Oregon Democrat who co-sponsored the NCADE legislation last year, said in a statement that she would continue working to create a new center within IES in 2023. 

“The [IES] funding increase and language included in the omnibus is a win for innovation in education research,” Bonamici said. “This is an exciting opportunity to expedite the development and adoption of emerging technologies, helping more students and quickly closing learning gaps.”

The idea for a national K–12 center focused on research and development predates both the pandemic and the last few presidential administrations. President Obama’s 2012 budget proposal of such a body, invoking the example of DARPA, the advanced defense research agency that is credited with bringing about such technological innovations as weather satellites, GPS, and the internet. 

The comparative latitude granted to DARPA, which can contract with research partners across multiple sectors and maintains significant flexibility over project deadlines, differs somewhat from Washington’s existing K–12 research institutions. Felice Levine, executive director of the American Education Research Association, said in a statement that the funding offered in the omnibus bill would prove valuable to researchers, policymakers and professional educators at a time when millions of students have experienced setbacks to learning and social-emotional development.

The federal investment represents “a vote of confidence in the role high-quality education research needs to play in identifying and countering the devastating impacts of the pandemic on the nation’s students,” Levine said. 

Schneider added that he hopes to spend much of 2023 reorganizing the Institute — possibly by moving its work on prize competitions and transformative research, as well as the program into the newly established unit — before pushing Congress again to consider a new “NCADE” center.

“We’ve been pushing on this, we’ve been trying to increase the rapidity of our experiments, we’ve tried to make sure there’s replication, we’ve increased our demands for dissemination and scaling up,” Schneider said. “We have a really developed model of what a modern education R&D infrastructure looks like, and…I’m hoping this new unit will be a catalyst to continue to push that change, and ultimately the foundation for NCADE.”