Today, I submitted written testimony to the House Appropriations Committee’s Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies.
Chairman Rogers, Ranking Member Meng, and members of the Subcommittee:
My name is Dan Lips. I am a senior fellow at the Foundation for American Innovation, a think tank focused on promoting innovation, strengthening governance, and advancing national security. A focus of my research has been identifying opportunities to promote advanced talent development in STEM education and to increase the return on investment of federal education research and development (R&D).
I write to respectfully recommend that the Subcommittee include report language to direct the National Science Foundation (NSF) to promote advanced talent development in STEM education for American elementary and secondary students. First, I encourage the Committee to direct NSF to reestablish the Young Scholars Program, which was established during the Cold War to provide talented American high school students with summer enrichment opportunities. Second, I suggest the Subcommittee include report language directing the EDU Directorate to establish an Open Education Technology Fund to provide open-source education technologies that increase STEM education learning opportunities for American K-12 students. Third, I recommend the Subcommittee direct the EDU Directorate to establish an AI-powered STEM Education Research Evidence Hub to inform parents, teachers, and school leaders about STEM education best practices.
During the twentieth century, the United States enacted national policies, including the National Defense Education Act of 1958, aimed at identifying and developing students with the potential for advanced coursework in STEM fields. However, for more than a half century, national education policy has broadly neglected advanced education. Restoring a national focus on identifying and nurturing K-12 students with the potential for high achievement in STEM fields is necessary for supporting national security and economic competitiveness, promoting scientific and technological discovery, and enabling human flourishing.
NSF has broad statutory authority to strengthen the effectiveness of its STEM education programs and to increase the return on investment from EDU Directorate expenditures on STEM education initiatives. To reverse the nation’s longstanding neglect of advanced talent development in K-12 education, I recommend that the Subcommittee prioritize the following issues in the report accompanying the FY2027 funding bill:
1. Direct NSF To Reestablish the Young Scholars Program
NSF launched the Young Scholars Program in 1988, using $3.7 million in funding to create enrichment programs in science, engineering, and mathematics for talented students in grades 7 through 12 outside school and during the summer. But after serving roughly 18,000 students, the program ended in 1996. Reestablishing this program to provide summer learning opportunities for American high school students with advanced academic potential in STEM subjects would strengthen the pipeline of students who would be prepared to pursue advanced STEM courses and work in postsecondary education and the workforce. Critically, such a program would establish mentoring relationships between STEM experts and high school students. This would ensure that the nation’s best and brightest students have guidance as they prepare for postsecondary education. To reestablish this program, I suggest the following report language:
In the 1980s and 1990s, NSF operated a Young Scholars Program that provided academic enrichment opportunities for promising K-12 students with the potential for high academic achievement in STEM subjects. The Committee encourages NSF to reestablish the Young Scholars Program. NSF shall brief the Committee within 180 days of enactment on a plan to reestablish this program.
2. Establishing an Open Education Technology Initiative
Past reviews of federally funded research about education, including those funded by NSF, raise questions about the extent to which research evidence is being translated into best practices and implemented in American classrooms. The value and return on investment from federally funded education R&D projects over several decades is largely unknown. In some cases, such as the federal government’s clear recommendations in support of the “science of reading,” best practices identified through federally funded R&D have actually been ignored by stakeholders within the public education sector.
Congress should explore new ways to use R&D expenditures to improve K-12 education, such as by sponsoring the development of open-source, freely available technologies that can improve learning options for American students. For example, Congress should encourage NSF to use EDU Directorate grant funding to direct the development of open education technology tools, similar to the successful model of the Open Technology Fund funded by the Department of State’s U.S. Agency for Global Media. NSF could effectively transform certain EDU STEM grant expenditures into an “Open Education Technology Fund” to support the development of open-source education tools that would expand learning opportunities for American children. Funded tools could include STEM education technologies, curricula, and services that could be made broadly available to students, parents, teachers, and school leaders to improve learning options. A particular focus of Open Education Technology Fund projects could be advanced STEM instructional materials to give all American students access to higher levels of instruction. Such an approach could include a mandate to allow researchers to evaluate funded programs’ impact and encourage a focus on scaling evidence-based best practices identified through past research.
I respectfully suggest the following report language:
The Committee is concerned that NSF education R&D grants too often produce research findings that never reach students. The Committee encourages the Foundation to establish a new Open Education Technology Fund prioritizing research projects that involve the development of open-source education technologies (such as virtual courses, digital curricula, or AI-enabled learning tools) that are freely available to American students. Grant awards should prioritize the development of tools that expand access to advanced and accelerated STEM content for high-potential students who lack such opportunities in their local schools. NSF shall report to the Committee within 180 days on grants awarded under this framework and available evidence of their impact.
3. Establishing an “AI-powered STEM Education Research Evidence Hub” to Inform Parents, Teachers, and School Leaders About STEM Education Best Practices
To ensure that research is useful to policymakers and practitioners and to provide actionable insights that can support the educational needs of students, the Committee could require NSF’s EDU Directorate to establish an AI-Powered STEM Education Research Evidence Hub to review and synthesize research evidence and provide recommendations on best practices to parents, teachers, school leaders, and policymakers. Establishing such a tool has the potential to dramatically increase the return on investment from federally funded research.
I respectfully suggest the following report language:
The Committee is concerned that decades of federally funded education R&D have not translated into meaningful improvements in how American students are taught. NSF shall direct grantees to publicly report the outcomes of all current and recently completed education research projects in plain language accessible to parents, teachers, and school leaders. Further, within 180 days of enactment, NSF shall launch a publicly available STEM education research evidence hub that leverages artificial intelligence to synthesize research findings and make evidence-based best practices accessible to parents, teachers, and school leaders.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit written testimony.
