The research behind the influential “science of reading” movement has been built over decades of federally supported research spanning cognitive science, neuroscience, psychology, linguistics, and classroom instruction.
Education research organizations say the proposed 100-page overhaul of federal grant rules, which would add new review by political appointees, could make it harder to produce such important evidence in the future.
The federal Office of Management and Budget (OMB) says the proposed changes are intended to strengthen accountability, transparency and oversight of taxpayer-funded subsidies. The May 29 offer will revise the rules for issuing and overseeing grants, including those awarded by the Department of Education and the National Science Foundation, two major sources of federal funding for education research. OMB wants the final rule to take effect by Oct. 1, according to the proposal.
But in letters sent to OMB on July 13, the public comment deadline, education research groups argued that some regulations could have unintended and harmful effects by narrowing the questions researchers study, giving political considerations too much influence in funding decisions and disrupting research already underway. Education groups are pushing not only for changes, but for the entire overhaul proposal to be withdrawn.
Objections specific to educational research are detailed in three letters from National Pedagogical Academysigned by 19 other educational and scientific organizations; on American Educational Research Association (AERA); and on Knowledge Alliancea group representing about 20 organizations that conduct research in the field of education.
Can researchers study differences in student outcomes?
One of the most significant concerns raised by educational researchers involves studies that examine whether educational outcomes differ between groups of students.
The proposed rule would prohibit federal funds from supporting research related to what the administration calls “unlawful diversity, equity and inclusion activities” and would limit funding for what is known as “disparate impact research.” They analyze whether policies that may seem neutral produce different results for different groups.
The National Academy of Education, in a a letter signed by 19 other education and research organizations, warned that the rule could bar studies examining racial or ethnic gaps in achievement and whether educational interventions help some students more than others.
“Whether reading intervention works differently for English language learners, whether discipline policies fall more heavily on students of color, whether gifted education programs fail to identify students with disabilities—these are not side questions,” the organization wrote. “They are central empirical questions of education policy research.”
The researchers also pointed to possible conflicts with existing education laws and programs that require demographic analysis. For example, the roughly $17 billion federal program for high-poverty schools, known as Title I, requires states and districts to examine student outcomes by race, disability status, income and English learner status to identify and support struggling groups of students.
The proposed rule does not expressly prohibit all such analyses. But the researchers say the language around diversity, equity and inclusion and “disparate impact” is broad and vague enough to create uncertainty and discourage researchers from proposing important studies.
Who decides what is considered valuable research?
Education researchers also object to proposed changes that would increase political involvement in grant decisions.
The proposal would require agencies to consider compliance with federal priorities, which can change from administration to administration, and the “national interest,” which is undefined. It also states that political appointees must review all grants before they are issued. Research organizations argue that this requirement could diminish the role of independent scientific review when subject matter experts evaluate proposals based on quality, rigor and feasibility.
Researchers also worry that the Trump administration’s insistence on a “gold standard of science” in the proposal is undefined and could privilege some methods over others. Research in education is not as simple as testing the effectiveness of a new drug and often uses a variety of approaches—including surveys, interviews, and sophisticated data analysis—that attempt to replicate an experiment without randomly assigning students to a program or learning style.
Among other changes, the OMB proposal calls for agencies to give preference to grant proposals with low overhead costs, which puts large research universities at a disadvantage. It would also reduce federal funding for conference participation and publication costs, unless specifically approved. Researchers will be required to provide a written rationale for each grant request by adding to their regulatory documents. Educational research organizations objected to all these proposals.
The White House proposal emphasizes support for research that can produce immediate results or breakthrough innovations. In response, the Knowledge Alliance pointed to the science of reading as an example of why real progress requires patience.
“Researchers would be less likely to pursue important long-term questions that are critical to creating the fundamental knowledge needed for scientific breakthroughs.” Rachel Dinkis wrotepresident of the Knowledge Alliance. The Science of Reading “reflects the accumulation of evidence over many years and across multiple administrations that is central to improving student achievement in reading.”
What happens when the study is interrupted?
Education research groups have also expressed concern about the consequences of suspending or terminating grants after studies have begun.
The National Academy of Education has warned that outages can be particularly damaging to longitudinal studies that depend on the consistent collection of data over time. Losing a year of data collection, the group argued, could permanently damage the value of the study.
The researchers also pointed to effects beyond universities. Federal research grants often fund partnerships between researchers and schools, provide professional training, or pay for interventions for students. The implications of the sudden disruption are fresh in the minds of educational researchers. When the Department of Education ends dozens of research studies in 2025, for example, 1,600 high school students with disabilities lost services.
Restrictions on international research partnerships were another concern. The researchers say broad restrictions on foreign cooperation could affect U.S. participation in international assessments such as PISA and TIMSS, which help policymakers compare the performance of American students with that of other countries.
The Trump administration’s proposal to overhaul the way the federal government awards and oversees grants has drawn fierce opposition from scientific societies and research organizations in many fields, from medicine to climate science. These comments from the education research community are just three of them 496,775 which have been filed. A July 14 article in MedPage Today explained that the research organizations deliberately overwhelmed OMB with comments to respond to, hoping either to delay the rulemaking process or to create an administrative record that could be used in future lawsuits to challenge the rule.
OMB did not respond to questions about objections raised by education researchers.
This story about the objections of educational researchers to the proposed revision of federal grants is produced by The Hechinger Reportan independent, nonprofit news organization that covers education. Sign up for Evidence points and others Hechinger Bulletins.
