Today, I submitted written testimony to the House Appropriations Committee, Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies. Click here to download a full PDF of the testimony.
Chairman Aderholt, Ranking Member DeLauro, and members of the Subcommittee:
My name is Dan Lips. I am Head of Policy at Lincoln Network and a member of the Alliance for Learning Innovation coalition.[1] I am writing to respectfully urge that the Subcommittee prioritize research and development (R&D) programs and activities within the Department of Education's FY2024 budget. Recognizing the challenging fiscal and macroeconomic environment that Congress faces, I recommend offsetting increased spending on education R&D activities by reducing or eliminating programs within the Education Department’s budget that are unlikely to improve student learning or national competitiveness.
In addition, Congress has an opportunity to increase the nation’s return on investment from federal education R&D activities by improving transparency and ensuring that best practices and research findings are made broadly available to teachers, school leaders, parents, and other stakeholders. This would be particularly valuable for R&D projects focused on improving science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) and computer science learning, particularly given the longstanding bipartisan federal support for improving American competitiveness. Toward that end, I respectfully encourage the Subcommittee to include language in the report accompanying the funding bill requiring the Department to improve transparency about best practices identified through federal education R&D programs. To inform future appropriations and Department activities, the Subcommittee should also include report language requiring the Department to leverage the data collection capabilities and authorities of the Institute of Education Sciences to monitor access to STEM and computer science learning opportunities. Moreover, the Committee should include language in its report accompanying the bill to direct the Department to study how the National Assessment of Educational Progress could evaluate American students’ academic performance in STEM and computer science education subjects in the future.
Background
Improving elementary and secondary STEM education has been a longstanding priority for national security and American competitiveness. Today, the United States faces new challenges focusing national attention on the need to improve STEM education. Widespread school closures during the pandemic caused historic learning losses in American students’ academic achievement.[2] Renewed great power conflict has reenergized national concerns about American competitiveness. Ongoing technological innovation raises new questions about the future of the American workforce.
Since the 1950s, the United States has sought to improve STEM education to strengthen American economic and national security, inclduding by investing in federal education R&D. While elementary and secondary education remains largely decentralized in the United States, the federal government has sought to promote excellence in STEM fields by funding research and development of initiatives to improve STEM education, and by training teachers.
My 2022 review of the history of federal education R&D activities revealed that, unfortunately, federally-funded R&D activities and findings have often not informed classroom practices in American schools and, further, that R&D findings are often implemented only if they align with stakeholders’ and powerful interest groups’ priorities.[3] For example, in the 1970s, the largest national evaluation of classroom instruction in history found that direct instruction was a superior method for teaching children, but was broadly ignored by policymakers, school administrators, postsecondary institutions that train teachers, and other public education stakeholders.[4] My ongoing review of current federal education R&D activities focused on improving STEM and computer science (which will be published this spring) found that while there is significant federal activity aimed at improving STEM education and national competitiveness, it is unclear whether and to what extent these initiatives are advancing national goals. For example, federal education R&D projects focused on improving STEM education generally have not been effectively analyzed and reported on to identify potential lessons learned and promote best practices for the education stakeholders who might implement them.
Recommendations
To address these problems and increase the return on investment of federal education R&D activities, I respectfully ask the subcommittee to consider the following recommendations.
First, the Subcommittee should require the Department of Education to annually report findings and lessons learned from its education R&D activities, including Education Innovation and Research program, and make this information available to other agencies, Congress, and the public. This report language is needed because the Department of Education should improve the transparency of its R&D programs by regularly publishing findings of federally funded research and by publishing third-party evaluations on its website. The Department should also use its communications capabilities to spotlight promising STEM education models to inform stakeholders about potential models. Identifying potential best practices and models that can be replicated by other agencies, school districts, and schools should be a focus of federal education R&D initiatives to increase the return on investment from federal expenditures.
Second, the Subcommittee and Committee should require additional interagency coordination among the Department of Education, the National Science Foundation, and other agencies to inform federal grant awards and to ensure that research findings and best practices identified through education R&D activities are shared and acted upon. The Department of Education and National Science Foundation, for example, provide substantial funding for education R&D programs; however, it is unclear whether these activities are coordinated and if findings from R&D programs are shared. Improving coordination among agencies involved in federal education R&D activities has the potential to increase the return on investment from federal expenditures and to scale promising activities to improve STEM achievement. In addition, the Department of Defense (DOD) should coordinate with the Department of Education and NSF to identify opportunities for DOD to use best practices from education R&D activities to improve learning opportunities for the children of military personnel.
Third, the Subcommittee should require the Department of Education to leverage the data collection capabilities and authorities of the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) to monitor access to STEM and computer science learning opportunities. For example, the National Center for Education Statistics should survey access to STEM and computer science courses and teachers in elementary and secondary schools to identify potential gaps and opportunities to improve equity and access. IES could also use the current school pulse panel to provide snapshots of STEM education access and achievement in K-12 schools. Greater transparency about the condition of STEM and computer science education in American schools could inform future federal education R&D activities and other education interventions.
Fourth, the Subcommittee should require the Department of Education to study and report to Congress on the feasibility of expanding the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) to include STEM and computer science education assessments in the future. Given the longstanding national security concerns regarding U.S. students’ performance and workforce talent gaps in STEM and computer science fields, Congress and the Department of Education should expand future NAEP tests to include additional assessments focused on computer science or other emerging technology fields. There is a precedent for this type of assessment, since NAEP has administered a “Technology and Engineering Literacy” test as recently as 2018.[5] Conducting future assessments in STEM, computer science and emerging technology subjects could yield important insights about American students’ achievement levels and progress, and identify opportunities for improvement.
Conclusion
The United States faces significant economic, educational, and national security challenges. Effective federal education R&D has the potential to improve learning opportunities for American students and national competitiveness. The nation cannot afford not to identify and share best practices that have the potential to help the nation’s students and achieve our national K-12 education goals.
[1] Alliance for Learning Innovation, https://www.alicoalition.org/.
[2] National Assessment of Educational Progress, U.S. Department of Education, NAEP Long-Term Trend Results: Reading and Mathematics (2022), https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/highlights/ltt/2022/.
[3] Dan Lips, “The Case for Reforming and Strengthening Federal Education R&D,” Lincoln Network (March 23, 2022), https://lincolnpolicy.org/2022/the-case-for-reforming-and-strengthening-federal-education-rd/.
[4] Cathy L. Watkins, “Project Follow Through: A Case Study of Contingencies Influencing Instructional Practices of the Educational Establishment,” Cambridge Center for Behavioral Studies 1(997), https://www.behavior.org/resources/901.pdf.
[5] National Assessment of Educational Progress, “NAEP Report Card: Technology & Engineering Literacy (TEL): Highlights from the 2018 Assessment,” accessed February 27, 2023, https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/tel_2018_highlights/.
