Recommendations on the Reauthorization of ESRA

In early April, Chairman Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Ranking Member Bill Cassidy (R-LA) of the Senate Health, Labor, Education, and Pensions Committee put out a bipartisan request for information (RFI) to education stakeholders on what the Committee should consider during the reauthorization of the Education Sciences Reform Act (ESRA). ESRA authorizes the federal government’s efforts to conduct research on the U.S. education system, primarily carried out by the Institute of Education Sciences (IES). Senators specifically asked for feedback on how to increase the effectiveness of existing federal education research, mobilize this research to more effectively reach educators and system leaders, and bolster partnerships between the federal government, states, and school systems in utilizing education research to improve teaching and learning.

New Classrooms submitted comments in response to the RFI, which focus on the importance of creating a robust federal R&D education ecosystem in order to shift from our current factory operating model of schooling to one that focuses on student-centered learning. We strongly believe that IES can play an important role at the federal level to develop and advance new approaches to teaching and learning. We also advocate for the creation of a new, fifth center at IES — the National Center for the Advanced Development in Education (NCADE) — to specifically focus on the development side of R&D. You can read our letter to the Senate Health, Labor, Education, and Pensions Committee below.

Dear Chairman Sanders and Ranking Member Cassidy,

We respectfully submit this letter in response to the bipartisan Request for Input (RFI) to provide the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) recommendations on the reauthorization of the Education Sciences Reform Act (ESRA). 

New Classrooms is a national nonprofit on a mission to personalize education for each and every student to support and advocate for policies that truly enable schools to meet a student’s unique strengths and needs. Our organization is actively engaged in building capacity for schools to make personalized learning a reality through the use of innovative learning models, supporting demand for these models, and advocating for policies that create the space for these approaches to emerge. 

As the Committee deliberates on increasing the effectiveness of federal education research and development (R&D) programs, we are specifically providing comments for questions #1, #4, #5, #8, and #10.  

For more than 100 years, our nation’s central approach to schooling has oriented around an individual teacher guiding the instruction of a cohort of same-aged students through a uniform curriculum, often with the aid of a textbook. This industrial paradigm model has made it nearly impossible to meet the unique strengths and needs of each student.

In recent years, COVID-19 unleashed multiple new challenges for schools to confront, including the need to address its profound impact on students’ academic and mental health. While it is vital to address immediate challenges, it is also critical to begin focusing on a longer-term vision for schooling. This new vision must move beyond the constraints of the industrial paradigm so the sector can reliably and systematically provide our nation’s youth with an education that enables all of them to realize their full potential.

Breakthroughs in brain science, artificial intelligence, and other advances in technology are continually opening up new possibilities to both support student learning and make educator roles more attractive and sustainable. Truly realizing new possibilities requires fundamentally reimagining elements of our existing school paradigm in order to transition to something new and better. 

Innovative learning models are an approach to learning that looks beyond the age-based classroom to emphasize mastery in a subject through personalized learning. These models – which can be subject-specific, grade span-specific, or apply more broadly as innovative schools – enable a different way of ‘doing school’ in ways that drive both excellence and equity. As a holistic, school-based program, these models integrate teachers and technology so that schools can systematically support a personalized approach to education. Innovative learning models are developed organizations that leverage research and development and then partner with schools to support high-quality implementation.

Unfortunately, the K-12 sector is not built to organically enable this type of paradigm shift. School operators generally do not have the design capacity to alone fundamentally reimagine learning—particularly if that involves sophisticated uses of technology. Nor do individual teachers, who simply cannot be expected to design the classroom of tomorrow while also managing the classroom of today. And unlike in sectors such as energy, defense, and healthcare, there is not a robust and sustainably funded R&D ecosystem at the federal level focused on building for the future. 

That is why making the shift to student-centered learning is going to require a new type of coordinated effort centered on reimagining what schooling can be and then bringing that vision to life. We strongly believe that the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) – through Congressional authority in reauthorizing the ESRA – can play this role at the federal level to develop and advance new approaches to teaching and learning. Specifically, we believe that there should be a new, fifth center created to specifically focus on the development side of R&D.

Question #1: What specific changes could Congress make to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of Federal education research and statistics programs carried out by the Institute of Education Sciences (IES)-including the four National Education Centers, the National R&D Centers, the Statewide Longitudinal Data Systems program, and the Regional Educational Laboratories to ensure IES provides research and evidence back to schools and institutions of higher education in a timelier manner to help improve teaching and learning, and postsecondary access and success?

Reliable funding mechanisms to support education research and development (R&D) are essential for transitioning away from the current industrial paradigm to a more student-centered model of schooling. There are current bright spots in our nation where organizations have had success in developing and implementing innovative learning models in many school communities. However, they simply cannot emerge at a scalable and transformational level without a strong public investment. That is why we strongly support the creation of a new center at the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) – the National Center for the Advanced Development in Education (NCADE) – to allow the agency to better help schools serve the unique strengths and needs of their students. Unlike the current Federal education research and statistics programs at IES, this center should prioritize the development, not just the research, of new approaches to teaching and learning.

Modeled after the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), NCADE would support large-scale, innovative projects that require a more nimble and responsive program management approach than currently in place. Specifically, NCADE would fund projects developed by innovative organizations, selected based on their potential to create dramatic breakthroughs in learning and teaching, especially for the most underserved populations. Like DARPA, NCADE would be oriented toward ambitious ideas across the academic, public, and private sectors. It would build on bipartisan interest in expanding education R&D, with a specific focus on the development of new approaches which puts outcomes for kids at the center of its work. The Center should focus on breakthrough technologies, new pedagogical approaches, and innovative learning models. This federal investment would spark innovation at State Education Agencies (SEA) and Local Education Agencies (LEA) and help build local infrastructure to sustain the work. 

Currently, the ecosystem of providers developing innovative learning models that fall outside of the K-12 industrial paradigm is extremely limited. Social entrepreneurs focused on innovative learning models must overcome several key barriers to entry, including the need to raise philanthropic capital to support research and development, outreach, and general operations. Even then, philanthropic funding is limited, difficult to sustain throughout a model development cycle, and generally oriented around industrial-paradigm solutions that can be scaled immediately. The combination of a high up-front cost to develop a new learning model and the potential for a slow pace of adoption can make it difficult to rationalize investment. It is simply more economically viable to build solutions for the market as it is, as opposed to taking the risks associated with the development of breakthrough solutions. Moreover, the traditional work of institutions of higher education in supporting K-12 is largely organized around teacher training, research, and scholarship and generally not toward the development of new and scalable approaches for teaching and learning.

The profound barriers to the supply of innovative learning models can be overcome through comprehensive efforts aimed at lowering the barriers to entry for model providers and increasing the funding available for research and development, outreach, distribution capacity and support services. This will require both patient capital and a supportive ecosystem into which new model providers can be recruited. This can be achieved through emphasizing the importance of development in the reauthorization of the Education Science Reform Act (ESRA) by establishing and providing robust funding of NCADE. 

It is essential that the work at NCADE is primarily focused on building off of basic research already being undertaken at IES and utilizing evidence-based solutions to build robust models. By prioritizing development of innovative learning models and other innovative education tools, NCADE has the potential to help school communities to reimagine education and personalize the learning journey for their students.

Question #4: What policies or practices implemented by other Federal research agencies could inform improvements to IES’ core functions, including policies and practices related to  strengthening the researcher pipeline and differentiating the types of institutions that receive IES grants? 

The Institute for Education Sciences (IES) could be strengthened by taking lessons from Advanced Research Project Agency (ARPA) models. That is why New Classrooms recommends that, through the ESRA reauthorization, Congress authorize a National Center for Advanced Development in Education (NCADE). This would be a new, fifth Center housed within IES, modeled after the successful Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and other ARPA models (e.g., ARPA-E for energy, ARPA-H for health).

NCADE would support large-scale, innovative projects that require a more nimble and responsive program management approach than currently in place. Specifically, NCADE would fund projects developed by innovative organizations, selected based on their potential to create dramatic breakthroughs in learning and teaching, especially for the most underserved populations. Like DARPA, NCADE would be oriented toward ambitious ideas across the academic, public, and private sectors. It would build on bipartisan interest in expanding education research and development (R&D), with a specific focus on the development of new approaches which puts outcomes for kids at the center of its work. The Center would focus on breakthrough technologies, new pedagogical approaches, and innovative learning models that would enable more efficient, reliable, and valid forms of measurement of student learning assessments. This federal investment would spark innovation at state and local levels, and help build local infrastructure to sustain the work. 

High-reward and scalable R&D programs at other government agencies – such as DARPA and ARPA-H – currently operate under a mantra of “failing fast.” In comparison, IES has historically moved at an incremental pace when undertaking education R&D. Instead, innovators in the education sector need to be incentivized to take risks and learn from these failures. NCADE should allow for the rapid testing of solutions and simultaneously be thinking about scale and implementation as a way to deliver more innovative solutions for our educators and students.

Question #5: How could Congress ensure better coordination among all Federal agencies conducting education research outside of IES?

At present, partnerships between the learning science research and the development of such solutions is woefully lacking. Moreover, emergent education innovations such as model providers continue to face a formidable challenge in enabling the scale of these practices due to a lack of partnerships that generate an appropriate ecosystem for distribution. To truly enable and bolster partnerships that ultimately improve teaching and learning, Congress should ensure that such partnerships are in place. Therefore, the Institute of Education Science (IES) should be given the authority and resources to serve as the federal leader to build a more robust research and development (R&D) infrastructure to more effectively utilize and scale emergent developments in education.

Specifically, Congress needs to support and focus on the mission of a National Center for Advanced Development in Education (NCADE) within the Institute for Education Sciences (IES). NCADE would support large-scale, innovative projects that require a more nimble and responsive program management approach than currently in place. Specifically, NCADE would fund projects developed by innovative organizations, selected based on their potential to create dramatic breakthroughs in learning and teaching, especially for the most underserved populations. Like the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), NCADE would be oriented toward ambitious ideas across the academic, public, and private sectors. It would build on bipartisan interest in expanding education R&D, with a specific focus on the development of new approaches which puts outcomes for kids at the center of its work. The Center should focus on breakthrough technologies, new pedagogical approaches, and innovative learning models. NCADE would catalyze the development of these new tools, and then partner with other federal agencies to ensure successful adoption and scalability. 

The National Science Foundation (NSF) is an essential partner for IES in a robust R&D ecosystem. Specifically, the CHIPs and Science Act authorized the Centers for Transformative Education Research and Translation to implement “promising evidence-based STEM education practices, models, programs, curriculum, and technologies.” The new centers at NSF could better support the implementation and scaling of education tools developed through NCADE by leveraging existing partnerships with states and schools. Enhanced collaboration would help with the translation of R&D efforts.

The U.S. Department of Education (USED) should also help to amplify the R&D work of IES at the state and local level. Congress could invest in the organizational capacity at USED through authorizing grant programs to allow for the implementation of innovative learning models to deliver on an education ecosystem that supports all educators and students. For example, formula grants could be awarded to state educational agencies and sub grants to local education agencies to incentivize the adoption and expansion of new tools developed by NCADE, such as innovative learning models. This program would facilitate the development and infrastructure needed, specifically tailored to state and local contexts that would scale evidence-based models and solutions.

Question #8: How could IES bolster partnerships with the full range of partners- including but not limited to educators, school systems, institutions of higher education, including minority- serving institutions, public and private entities, localities and States, researchers, and the Federal government-to more effectively utilize, scale, and commercialize education research to improve teaching and learning? 

Education innovators, such as model providers, currently face a formidable challenge in enabling the scale of new teaching and learning practices once they are ready for widespread adoption. The Institute of Education Science (IES) should work to bolster partnerships to create implementation pathways for promising innovative education developments that will help support scalability and commercialization. A proposed new center at IES focused on the development of new approaches to teaching and learning: the National Center for the Advanced Development of Education (NCADE) and approaches by supporting federal agencies will deliver an effective R&D ecosystem in the education landscape. (To learn more about NCADE and the supports around them, please refer to our responses to Questions #4 and #5).

A broad set of stakeholders has an essential role to play in the process of improving and learning. Students can have extraordinary insights on how they experience various design choices and invaluable ideas for how to improve upon challenges. Teachers can provide feedback on how the various tools and resources support implementation of innovative learning models, what worked or did not work as intended, where additional clarity or training may be necessary, or how students in the classroom engaged with the new approach. Parents and families, meanwhile, can reflect on how the school and developer communicate the vision and design of the innovative learning model and tools, as well as how well they meet the needs of their children and community. 

To learn from these important stakeholders, Congress should authorize a grant program focused on implementation which would be awarded to state educational agencies and sub grants to local education agencies to increase the adoption and expansion of new programs and tools developed by NCADE, such as innovative learning models. This program would facilitate the development and infrastructure needed, specifically tailored to state and local contexts that would scale evidence-based models and solutions. Researchers at IES would have an opportunity to measure the effectiveness of innovation strategies to maximize scale through implementation science. In addition, researchers will have the opportunity to collect a variety of outcomes data on students, to learn how to maximize the interventions to the fullest effect.

Question #10: How could the Federal government and IES provide more flexibility to the field of education research to pursue innovative solutions to the challenges we face in education? 

The Institute of Education Sciences (IES) has an important role to play to foster the development of breakthrough technologies, new pedagogical approaches, and innovative learning models that bundle together an interconnected set of tools, resources, systems, and scientifically validated instructional practices to shape learning experiences toward clear outcomes. These models can accelerate the pace of learning and create an education system that addresses individual student needs and improves equity. To do so, IES should provide more flexibility through the creation of a new center focused on the development of innovation solutions: the National Center for the Advanced Development in Education (NCADE). 

NCADE would support large-scale, innovative projects that require a more nimble and responsive program management approach than currently in place. Specifically, NCADE would fund projects developed by innovative organizations, selected based on their potential to create dramatic breakthroughs in learning and teaching, especially for the most underserved populations. Like the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), NCADE would be oriented toward ambitious ideas across the academic, public, and private sectors. It would build on bipartisan interest in expanding education research and development (R&D), with a specific focus on the development of new approaches which puts outcomes for kids at the center of its work. NCADE would catalyze the development of these new tools, and then partner with other federal agencies to ensure successful adoption and scalability. 

A center focused solely on development would free researchers at IES from the constraints of traditional R&D programs that move at a more incremental pace and often dictate singular focus on testing interventions to their point of success or failure. Instead, NCADE should focus on rapidly testing solutions and simultaneously be thinking about scale and implementation. Having the flexibility to fail fast and learn from mistakes will enable us to better address the long-standing inequities of our current operating model and produce outcomes that benefit all educators and students.

Thank you again for providing us the opportunity to comment on the potential reauthorization of the Education Science Reform Act (ESRA). We look forward to working with the Committee throughout this process.