Education Researchers Warn Political Review of Government Grants May Reshape What’s Learned

The influential “science of learning” body of research was built over decades of government-sponsored research involving cognitive science, neuroscience, psychology, linguistics, and classroom studies.

Academic research organizations say the proposed 100-page overhaul of federal grant rules, which would add a new review by political appointees, could make it harder to produce important bodies of evidence in the future.

The federal Office of Management and Budget (OMB) says its proposed changes are intended to strengthen accountability, transparency and oversight of taxpayer-funded grants. The May 29 proposal would revise rules for issuing and overseeing grants, including those issued by the Department of Education and the National Science Foundation, the two largest sources of funding for academic research. OMB wants the final rule to take effect on October 1, according to the proposal.

But in letters submitted to OMB on July 13, the deadline for public comment, academic research groups said some provisions could have unintended and harmful effects by narrowing the questions researchers research, giving political considerations greater influence in funding decisions and interfering with research already being done. Education groups are not only calling for changes, but calling for the withdrawal of the entire reform proposal.

Opposition to educational research was detailed in three letters from the National Academy of Education, signed by 19 other academic and scientific organizations; the American Educational Research Association (AERA); and the Knowledge Alliance, a group representing about 20 academic research organizations.

Can researchers study differences in student outcomes?

One of the main concerns raised by educational researchers involves studies that examine whether academic outcomes differ between groups of students.

The proposed law would bar federal funds from supporting research related to what the administration calls “illegal diversity, equity and inclusion activities” and would limit funding for what are known as “disparate impact studies.” This analyzes whether seemingly neutral policies produce different outcomes for different groups.

The National Academy of Education, in a letter signed by 19 other academic and scientific organizations, warned that the law could block studies that examine racial or ethnic achievement gaps, and whether educational interventions help some students more than others.

“Whether academic interventions work differently for English language learners, whether behavior policy falls more heavily on students of color, or whether the gifted education system under-identifies students with disabilities – these are not difficult questions,” the organization wrote. “They are important questions for education policy research.”

The researchers also pointed to potential conflicts with existing education laws and programs that require demographic analysis. For example, the state’s $17 billion program for high-poverty schools known as Title I requires districts and states to test student outcomes by race, disability status, income and English learner status to identify and support groups of struggling students.

The proposed rule does not expressly prohibit all such analyses. But the researchers argue that the language around diversity, equity and inclusion and “disparate impact” is broad and vague enough to create uncertainty and discourage researchers from raising important lessons.

Who decides what counts as important research?

Academic researchers also oppose proposed changes that would increase political involvement in grant decisions.

The proposal would require agencies to consider compliance with government priorities, which can vary from administration to administration, and the undefined “national interest.” It also states that political appointees must review all grants before they are issued. Research organizations say the requirement could reduce the role of independent scientific review, where academic experts evaluate proposals based on quality, rigor and feasibility.

Researchers also worry that the Trump administration’s push for “gold standard science” in the proposal is ill-defined and could favor some methods over others. Educational research is not as straightforward as testing the effectiveness of a new drug and often uses a variety of methods – including surveys, interviews and sophisticated data analysis that attempt to replicate the experiment without randomly assigning students to a program or teaching style.

Among other changes, the OMB proposal calls for agencies to choose to award proposals with the lowest costs, which discourages large research universities. It would also reduce government funding for conference attendance and publishing costs, unless specifically authorized. Researchers will be required to provide written reasons for each grant application, in addition to their regulatory documents. Academic research organizations opposed all of these proposals.

The White House proposal emphasizes supporting research that can produce immediate results or innovative improvements. In response, the Knowledge Alliance pointed to the science of learning as an example of why real progress requires patience.

“Researchers are less likely to pursue important long-term questions that are essential to building the basic knowledge needed to advance science,” wrote Rachel Dinkes, president of the Knowledge Alliance. The science of learning “represents the accumulation of evidence over many years and across administrative districts, which has been important in improving student outcomes in learning.”

What happens when research goes wrong?

Academic research groups have also raised concerns about the effects of suspending or terminating grants after studies have begun.

The National Academy of Education has warned that the distractions could be particularly damaging to longitudinal studies, which rely on consistent data collection 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 outside universities. Government research grants often support partnerships between researchers and schools, provide professional learning or pay for student interventions. The consequences of abrupt termination are still fresh in the minds of educational researchers. When the Department of Education cuts dozens of research courses in 2025, for example, 1,600 high school students with disabilities lose services.

Restrictions on international research partnerships were another concern. Researchers argue that broader restrictions on international cooperation may affect US participation in international assessments such as PISA and TIMSS, which help policymakers compare the performance of US students with those of other countries.

The Trump administration’s proposal to overhaul the way the federal government awards and directs grants is drawing fire from the scientific community and research organizations in many fields, from medicine to climate science. These comments from the academic research community are just three of the 496,775 that have been submitted. A July 14 article in MedPage Today explained that research organizations deliberately flooded the OMB with comments to respond to, hoping to delay the rulemaking process or create an administrative record that could be used in future lawsuits to challenge the law.

OMB did not respond to questions about the complaints raised by the academic researchers.

This story is about objections of academic researchers to the proposed adjustment of federal grants was produced by The Hechinger reporta non-profit, independent media organization covering education. Sign up Evidence Points and so on Hechinger newsletters.