The next presidential administration should establish a comprehensive Cyber Workforce Action Plan to address the critical shortage of cybersecurity professionals and bolster national security. This plan encompasses innovative educational approaches, including micro-credentials, stackable certifications, digital badges, and more, to create flexible and accessible pathways for individuals at all career stages to acquire and demonstrate cybersecurity competencies.

The initiative will be led by the White House Office of the National Cyber Director (ONCD) in collaboration with key agencies such as the Department of Education (DoE), Department of Homeland Security (DHS), National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), and National Security Agency (NSA). It will prioritize enhancing and expanding existing initiatives—such as the CyberCorps: Scholarship for Service program that recruits and places talent in federal agencies—while also spearheading new engagements with the private sector and its critical infrastructure vulnerabilities. To ensure alignment with industry needs, the Action Plan will foster strong partnerships between government, educational institutions, and the private sector, particularly focusing on real-world learning opportunities.

This Action Plan also emphasizes the importance of diversity and inclusion by actively recruiting individuals from underrepresented groups, including women, people of color, veterans, and neurodivergent individuals, into the cybersecurity workforce. In addition, the plan will promote international cooperation, with programs to facilitate cybersecurity workforce development globally. Together, these efforts aim to close the cybersecurity skills gap, enhance national defense against evolving cyber threats, and position the United States as a global leader in cybersecurity education and workforce development.

Challenge and Opportunity

The United States and its allies face a critical shortage of cybersecurity professionals, in both the public and private sectors. This shortage poses significant risks to our national security and economic competitiveness in an increasingly digital world.

In the federal government, the cybersecurity workforce is aging rapidly, with only about 3% of information technology (IT) specialists under 30 years old. Meanwhile, nearly 15% of the federal cyber workforce is eligible for retirement. This demographic imbalance threatens the government’s ability to defend against sophisticated and evolving cyber threats.

The private sector faces similar challenges. According to recent estimates, there are nearly half a million unfilled cybersecurity positions in the United States. This gap is expected to grow as cyber threats become more complex and pervasive across all industries. Small and medium-sized businesses are particularly vulnerable, often lacking the resources to compete for scarce cyber talent.

The cybersecurity talent shortage extends beyond our borders, affecting our allies as well. As cyber threats from adversarial nation states become increasingly global in nature, our international partners’ ability to defend against these threats directly impacts U.S. national security. Many of our allies, particularly in Eastern Europe and Southeast Asia, lack robust cybersecurity education and training programs, further exacerbating the global skills gap.

A key factor contributing to this shortage is the lack of accessible, flexible pathways into cybersecurity careers. Traditional education and training programs often fail to keep pace with rapidly evolving technology and threat landscapes. Moreover, they frequently overlook the potential of career changers and nontraditional students who could bring valuable diverse perspectives to the field.

However, this challenge presents a unique opportunity to revolutionize cybersecurity education and workforce development. By leveraging innovative approaches such as apprenticeships, micro-credentials, stackable certifications, peer-to-peer learning platforms, digital badges, and competition-based assessments, we can create more agile and responsive training programs. These methods can provide learners with immediately applicable skills while allowing for continuous upskilling as the field evolves.

Furthermore, there’s an opportunity to enhance cybersecurity awareness and basic skills among all American workers, not just those in dedicated cyber roles. As digital technologies permeate every aspect of modern work, a baseline level of cyber hygiene and security consciousness is becoming essential across all sectors.

By addressing these challenges through a comprehensive Cyber Workforce Action Plan, we can not only strengthen our national cybersecurity posture but also create new pathways to well-paying, high-demand jobs for Americans from all backgrounds. This initiative has the potential to position the United States as a global leader in cyber workforce development, enhancing both our national security and our economic competitiveness in the digital age.

Evidence of Existing Initiatives

While numerous excellent cybersecurity workforce development initiatives exist, they often operate in isolation, lacking cohesion and coordination. ONCD is positioned to leverage its whole-of-government approach and the groundwork laid by its National Cyber Workforce and Education Strategy (NCWES) to unite these disparate efforts. By bringing together the strengths of various initiatives and their stakeholders, ONCD can transform high-level strategies into concrete, actionable steps. This coordinated approach will maximize the impact of existing resources, reduce duplication of efforts, and create a more robust and adaptable cybersecurity workforce development ecosystem. This proposed Action Plan is the vehicle to turn these collective workforce-minded strategies into tangible, measurable outcomes.

At the foundation of this plan lies the NICE Cybersecurity Workforce Framework, developed by NIST. This common lexicon for cybersecurity work roles and competencies provides the essential structure upon which we can build. The Cyber Workforce Action Plan seeks to expand on this foundation by creating standardized assessments and implementation guidelines that can be adopted across both public and private sectors.

Micro-credentials, stackable certifications, digital badges, and other innovations in accessible education—as demonstrated by programs like SANS Institute’s GIAC certifications and CompTIA’s offerings—form a core component of the proposed plan. These modular, skills-based learning approaches allow for rapid validation of specific competencies—a crucial feature in the fast-evolving cybersecurity landscape. The Action Plan aims to standardize and coordinate these and similar efforts, ensuring widespread recognition and adoption of accessible credentials across industries.

The array of gamification and competition-based learning approaches—including but not limited to National Cyber League, SANS NetWars, and CyberPatriot—are also exemplary starting points that would benefit from greater federal engagement and coordination. By formalizing these methods within education and workforce development programs, the government can harness their power to simulate real-world scenarios and drive engagement at a national scale.

Incorporating lessons learned from the federal government’s previous DoE CTE CyberNet program, the National Science Foundation’s (NSF) Scholarship for Service Program (SFS), and the National Security Agency’s (NSA) GenCyber camps—the Action Plan emphasizes the importance of early engagement (the middle grades and early high school years) and practical, hands-on learning experiences. By extending these principles across all levels of education and professional development, we can create a continuous pathway from high school through to advanced career stages.

A Cyber Workforce Action Plan would provide a unifying praxis to standardize competency assessments, create clear pathways for career progression, and adapt to the evolving needs of both the public and private sectors. By building on the successes of existing initiatives and introducing innovative solutions to fill critical gaps in the cybersecurity talent pipeline, we can create a more robust, diverse, and skilled cybersecurity workforce capable of meeting the complex challenges of our digital future.

Plan of Action 

Recommendation 1. Create a Cyber Workforce Action Plan.

ONCD will develop and oversee the plan, in close collaboration with DoE, NIST, NSA, and other relevant agencies. The plan has three distinct components:

1. Develop standardized assessments aligned with the NICE framework. ONCD will work with NIST to create a suite of standardized assessments to evaluate cybersecurity competencies that:

• Cover the full range of knowledge, skills, and abilities defined in the NICE framework.
• Include both theoretical knowledge tests and practical, scenario-based evaluations.
• Be regularly updated to reflect evolving cybersecurity threats and technologies.
• Be designed with input from both government and industry cybersecurity professionals to ensure relevance and applicability.

2. Establish a system of stackable and portable micro-credentials. To provide flexible and accessible pathways into cybersecurity careers, ONCD will work with DoE, NIST, and the private sector to help develop and support systems of micro-credentials that are:

• Aligned with specific competencies in the NICE framework: NIST, as the national standards-setting body, will issue these credentials to ensure alignment with the NICE framework. This will provide legitimacy and broad recognition across industries.
• Stackable, allowing learners to build towards larger certifications or degrees: These credentials will be designed to allow individuals to accumulate certifications over time, ultimately leading to more comprehensive qualifications or degrees.
• Portable across different sectors and organizations: The micro-credentials will be recognized by both government agencies and private-sector employers, ensuring they have value regardless of where an individual seeks employment.
• Recognized and valued by both government agencies and private-sector employers: By working closely with the private sector—where credentialing systems like those from CompTIA and Google are already advanced—the ONCD will help ensure government-issued credentials are not duplicative but complementary to existing industry standards. NIST’s involvement, combined with input from private-sector leaders, will provide confidence that these credentials are relevant and accepted in both public and private sectors.
• Designed to facilitate rapid upskilling and reskilling in response to evolving cybersecurity needs: Given the rapidly changing landscape of cybersecurity threats, these micro-credentials will be regularly updated to reflect the most current technologies and skills, enabling professionals to remain agile and competitive.

3. Integrate more closely with more federal initiatives. The Action Plan will be integrated with existing federal cybersecurity programs and initiatives, including:

• DHS’s Cybersecurity Talent Management System
• DoD’s Cyber Excepted Service
• NIST’s NICE framework
• NSF’s CyberCorps SFS program
• NSA’s GenCyber camps

This proposal emphasizes stronger integration with existing federal initiatives and greater collaboration with the private sector. Instead of creating entirely new credentialing standards, ONCD will explore opportunities to leverage widely adopted commercial certifications, such as those from Google, CompTIA, and other private-sector leaders. By selecting and promoting recognized commercial standards where applicable, ONCD can streamline efforts, avoiding duplication and ensuring the cybersecurity workforce development approach is aligned with what is already successful in industry. Where necessary, ONCD will work with NIST and industry professionals to ensure these commercial certifications meet federal needs, creating a more cohesive and efficient approach across both government and industry. This integrated public-private strategy will allow ONCD to offer a clear leadership structure and accountability mechanism while respecting and utilizing commercial technology and standards to address the scale and complexity of the cybersecurity workforce challenge.

The Cyber Workforce Action Plan will emphasize strong collaborations with the private sector, including the establishment of a Federal Cybersecurity Curriculum Advisory Board composed of experts from relevant federal agencies and leading private-sector companies. This board will work directly with universities to develop model curricula that incorporate the latest cybersecurity tools, techniques, and threat landscapes, ensuring that graduates are well-prepared for the specific challenges faced by both federal and private-sector cybersecurity professionals.

To provide hands-on learning opportunities, the Action Plan will include a new National Cyber Internship Program. Managed by the Department of Labor in partnership with DHS’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) and leading technology companies, the program will match students with government agencies and private-sector companies. An online platform will be developed, modeled after successful programs like Hacking for Defense, where industry partners can propose real-world cybersecurity projects for student teams.

To incentivize industry participation, the General Services Administration (GSA) and DoD will update federal procurement guidelines to require companies bidding on cybersecurity-related contracts to certify that they offer internship or early-career opportunities for cybersecurity professionals. Additionally, CISA will launch a “Cybersecurity Employer of Excellence” certification program, which will be a prerequisite for companies bidding on certain cybersecurity-related federal contracts.

The Action Plan will also address the global nature of cybersecurity challenges by incorporating international cooperation elements. This includes adapting the plan for international use in strategically important regions, facilitating joint training programs and professional exchanges with allied nations, and promoting global standardization of cybersecurity education through collaboration with international standards organizations.

Ultimately, this effort intends to implement a national standard for cybersecurity competencies—providing clear, accessible pathways for career progression and enabling more agile and responsive workforce development in this critical field. 

Recommendation 2. Implement an enhanced CyberCorps fellowship program.

ONCD should expand the NSF’s CyberCorps Scholarship for Service program as an immediate, high-impact initiative. Key features of the expanded CyberCorps fellowship program include:

1. Comprehensive talent pipeline: While maintaining the current SFS focus on students, the enhanced CyberCorps will also target recent graduates and early-career professionals with 1–5 years of work experience. This expansion addresses immediate workforce needs while continuing to invest in future talent. The program will offer competitive salaries, benefits, and loan forgiveness options to attract top talent from both academic and private-sector backgrounds.

2. Multiagency exposure and optional rotations: While cross-sector exposure remains valuable for building a holistic understanding of cybersecurity challenges, the rotational model will be optional or limited based on specific agency needs. Fellows may be offered the opportunity to rotate between agencies or sectors only if their skill set and the hosting agency’s environment are conducive to short-term placements. For fellows placed in agencies or sectors where longer ramp-up times are expected, a deeper, longer-term placement may be more effective. Drawing on lessons from the Presidential Innovation Fellows and the U.S. Digital Corps, the program will emphasize flexibility to ensure that fellows can make meaningful contributions within the time frame and that knowledge transfer between sectors remains a core objective.

3. Advanced mentorship and leadership development: Building on the SFS model, the expanded program will foster a strong community of cyber professionals through cohort activities and mentorship pairings with senior leaders across government and industry. A new emphasis on leadership training will prepare fellows for senior roles in government cybersecurity.

4. Focus on emerging technologies: Complementing the SFS program’s core cybersecurity curriculum, the expanded CyberCorps will emphasize cutting-edge areas such as artificial intelligence in cybersecurity, quantum computing, and advanced threat detection. This focus will prepare fellows to address future cybersecurity challenges.

5. Extended impact through education and mentorship: The program will encourage fellows to become cybersecurity educators and mentors in their communities after their service, extending the program’s impact beyond government service and strengthening America’s overall cyber workforce.

By implementing these enhancements to the CyberCorps program as a first step and quick win, the Action Plan will initiate a more comprehensive approach to federal cybersecurity workforce development. The enhanced CyberCorps fellowship program will also emphasize diversity and inclusion to address the critical shortage of cybersecurity professionals and bring fresh perspectives to cyber challenges. The program will actively recruit individuals from underrepresented groups, including women, people of color, veterans, and neurodivergent individuals.

To achieve this, the program will partner with organizations like Girls Who Code and the Hispanic IT Executive Council to promote cybersecurity careers and expand the applicant pool. The Department of Labor, in conjunction with the NSF, will establish a Cyber Opportunity Fund to provide additional scholarships and grants for individuals from underrepresented groups pursuing cybersecurity education through the CyberCorps program.

In addition, the program will develop standardized apprenticeship components that provide on-the-job training and clear pathways to full-time employment, with a focus on recruiting from diverse industries and backgrounds. Furthermore, partnerships with Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Hispanic-Serving Institutions, and Tribal Colleges and Universities will be strengthened to enhance their cybersecurity programs and create a pipeline of diverse talent for the CyberCorps program.

The CyberCorps program will expand its scope to include an international component, allowing for exchanges with allied nations’ cybersecurity agencies and bringing international students to U.S. universities for advanced studies. This will help position the United States as a global leader in cybersecurity education and training while fostering a worldwide community of professionals capable of responding effectively to evolving cyber threats.

By incorporating these elements, the enhanced CyberCorps fellowship program will not only address immediate federal cybersecurity needs but also contribute to building a diverse, skilled, and globally aware cybersecurity workforce for the future.

Implementation Considerations

To successfully establish and execute the comprehensive Action Plan and its associated initiatives, careful planning and coordination across multiple agencies and stakeholders will be essential. Below are some of the key timeline and funding considerations the ONCD should factor into its implementation.

Key milestones and actions for the first two years

Months 1–6:

• Create the Cyber Workforce Action Plan as a roadmap to implementing ONCD’s NCWES.
• Form interagency working group and private-sector advisory board.
• NIST’s Information Technology Laboratory, in collaboration with industry partners, will begin the development of the standardized assessment system and micro-credentials framework.
• Initiate the Federal Cybersecurity Curriculum Advisory Board.
• Launch the expanded CyberCorps fellowship program recruitment.

Months 7–12:

• Implement pilot programs for standardized assessments and micro-credentials.
• Begin first cohort of expanded CyberCorps fellows.
• Launch diversity and inclusion initiatives, including the “Cyber for All” awareness campaign.
• Initiate the National Cybersecurity Internship Program.
• Begin development of the Cybersecurity Employer of Excellence recognition program.

Months 13–18:

• Pilot standardized assessments and micro-credentials system in select agencies and educational institutions, with full rollout anticipated after evaluation and adjustments based on feedback.
• Expand CyberCorps program and university partnerships.
• Implement private-sector internship and project-based learning programs.
• Launch the International Cybersecurity Workforce Alliance.

Months 19–24:

• Implement tax incentives for industry participation in workforce development.
• Establish the Cybersecurity Development Fund for international capacity building.
• Conduct first annual review of diversity and inclusion metrics in federal cyber workforce.

Program evaluation and quality assurance

Beyond these key milestones, the Action Plan must establish clear evaluation frameworks to ensure program quality and effectiveness, particularly for integrating non-federal education programs into federal hiring pathways. For example, to address OPM’s need for evaluating non-federal technical and career education programs under the Recent Graduates Program, the Action Plan will implement the following evaluation framework:

• Alignment with NICE framework competencies (minimum 80% coverage of core competencies)
• Completion of NIST-approved standardized technical assessments
• Documentation of supervised practical experience (minimum 400 hours)
• Evidence of quality assurance processes comparable to registered apprenticeship programs
• Regular curriculum updates (minimum annually) to reflect current security threats
• Industry partnership validation through the Cybersecurity Employer of Excellence program

The implementation of these criteria will be overseen by the same advisory board established in Months 1-6, expanding their scope to include program evaluation and certification. This approach leverages existing governance structures while providing OPM with quantifiable metrics to evaluate non-federal program graduates. 

Budgetary, resource, and personnel needs

The estimated annual budget for the proposed initiative ranges from $125 million to $200 million. This range considers cost-effective resource allocation strategies, including the integration of existing platforms and focused partnerships. Key components of the program include:

• Staffing: A core team of 15–20 full-time employees will oversee the centralized program office, focusing on high-level coordination and oversight. Specialized tasks such as curriculum development and assessment design will be contracted to external partners, reducing the need for a larger in-house team.
• IT infrastructure: Rather than building new systems from scratch, the initiative will use existing platforms and credentialing technologies from private-sector providers (e.g., CompTIA, Coursera). This significantly reduces upfront development costs while ensuring a robust system for managing assessments and credentials.
• Marketing and outreach: A smaller but targeted budget will be allocated for domestic and international outreach to raise awareness of the program. Partnerships with industry and educational institutions will help amplify these efforts, reducing the need for a large marketing budget.
• Grants and partnerships: The program will provide modest grants to universities to support curriculum development, with a focus on fostering partnerships rather than large-scale financial commitments. This allows for more cost-effective collaboration with educational institutions.
• Fellowship programs and international exchanges: The expanded CyberCorps fellowship will begin with a smaller cohort, scaling up based on available funding and demonstrated success. International exchanges will be limited to strategic, high-impact partnerships to ensure cost efficiency while still addressing global cybersecurity needs.

Potential funding sources

Funding for this initiative can be sourced through a variety of channels. First, congressional appropriations via the annual budget process are expected to provide a significant portion of the financial support. Additionally, reallocating existing funds from cybersecurity and workforce development programs could account for approximately 25–35% of the overall budget. This reallocation could include funding from current programs like NICE, SFS, and other workforce development grants, which can be repurposed to support this broader initiative without requiring entirely new appropriations.

Public-private partnerships will also be explored, with potential contributions from industry players who recognize the value of a robust cybersecurity workforce. Grants from federal entities such as DHS, DoD, and NSF are viable options to supplement the program’s financial needs. To offset costs, fees collected from credentialing and training programs could serve as an additional revenue stream.

Finally, the Action Plan and its initiatives will seek contributions from international development funds aimed at capacity-building, as well as financial support from allied nations to aid in the establishment of joint international programs.

Conclusion

Establishing a comprehensive Cyber Workforce Action Plan represents a pivotal move toward securing America’s digital future. By creating flexible, accessible career pathways into cybersecurity, fostering innovative education and training models, and promoting both domestic diversity and international cooperation, this initiative addresses the urgent need for a skilled and resilient cybersecurity workforce.

The impact of this proposal is wide-ranging. It will not only reinforce national security by strengthening the nation’s cyber defenses but also contribute to economic growth by creating high-paying jobs and advancing U.S. leadership in cybersecurity on the global stage. By expanding access to cybersecurity careers and engaging previously underutilized talent pools, this initiative will ensure the workforce reflects the diversity of the nation and is prepared to meet future cybersecurity challenges.

The next administration must make the implementation of this plan a national priority. As cyber threats grow more complex and sophisticated, the nation’s ability to defend itself depends on developing a robust, adaptable, and highly skilled cybersecurity workforce. Acting swiftly to establish this strategy will build a stronger, more resilient digital infrastructure, ensuring both national security and economic prosperity in the 21st century. We urge the administration to allocate the necessary resources and lead the transformation of cybersecurity workforce development. Our digital future—and our national security—demand immediate action.

The next presidential administration should develop a teacher education and resource center that includes vetted, free, self-guided professional learning modules, resources to support data-based classroom activities, and instructional guides pertaining to different learning disciplines. This would provide critical support to teachers to better understand and implement data science education and use of AI tools in their classroom. Initial resource topics would be: 

• An Introduction to AI, Data Literacy, and Data Science
• AI & Data Science Pedagogy
• AI and Data Science for Curriculum Development & Improvement 
• Using AI Tools for Differentiation, Assessment & Feedback
• Data Science for Ethical AI Use 

In addition, this resource center would develop and host free, pre-recorded, virtual training sessions to support educators and district professionals to better understand these resources and practices so they can bring them back to their contexts. This work would improve teacher practice and cut administrative burdens. A teacher education resource would lessen the digital divide and ensure that our educators are prepared to support their students in understanding how to use AI tools so that each and every student can be college and career ready and competitive at the global level. This resource center would be developed using a process similar to the What Works Clearinghouse, such that it is not endorsing a particular system or curriculum, but is providing a quality rating, based on the evidence provided. 

Challenge and Opportunity

AI is an incredible technology that has the power to revolutionize many areas, especially how educators teach and prepare the next generation to be competitive in higher education and the workforce. A recent RAND study showed leaders in education indicating promise in adapting instructional content to fit the level of their students and for generating instructional materials and lesson plans. While this technology holds a wealth of promise, the field has developed so rapidly that people across the workforce do not understand how best to take advantage of AI-based technologies. One of the most crucial areas for this is in education. AI-enabled tools have the potential to improve instruction, curriculum development, and assessment, but most educators have not received adequate training to feel confident using them in their pedagogy. In a Spring 2024 pilot study (Beiting-Parrish & Melville, in preparation), initial results indicated that 64.3% of educators surveyed had not had any professional development or training in how to use AI tools. In addition, more than 70% of educators surveyed felt they did not know how to pick AI tools that are safe for use in the classroom, and that they were not able to detect biased tools. Additionally, the RAND study indicated only 18% of educators reported using AI tools for classroom purposes. Within those 18%, approximately half of those educators used AI because they had been specifically recommended or directly provided a tool for classroom use. This suggests that educators need to be given substantial support in choosing and deploying tools for classroom use. Providing guidance and resources to support vetting tools for safe, ethical, appropriate, and effective instruction is one of the cornerstone missions of the Department of Education. This education should not rest on the shoulders of individual educators who are known to have varying levels of technical and curricular knowledge, especially for veteran teachers who have been teaching for more than a decade.

If the teachers themselves do not have enough professional development or expertise to select and teach new technology, they cannot be expected to thoroughly prepare their students to understand emerging technologies, such as AI, nor the underpinning concepts necessary to understand these technologies, most notably data science and statistics. As such, students’ futures are being put at risk from a lack of emphasis in data literacy that is apparent across the nation. Recent results from the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP), assessment scores show a shocking decline in student performance in data literacy, probability, and statistics skills – outpacing declines in other content areas. In 2019, the NAEP High School Transcript Study (HSTS) revealed that only 17% of students completed a course in statistics and probability, and less than 10% of high school students completed AP Statistics. Furthermore, the HSTS study showed that less than 1% of students completed a dedicated course in modern data science or applied data analytics in high school. Students are graduating with record-low proficiency in data, statistics, and probability, and graduating without learning modern data science techniques. While students’ data and digital literacy are failing, there is a proliferation of AI content online; they are failing to build the necessary critical thinking skills and a discerning eye to determine what is real versus what has been AI-generated, and they aren’t prepared to enter the workforce in sectors that are booming. The future the nation’s students will inherit is one in which experience with AI tools and Big Data will be expected to be competitive in the workforce.

Whether students aren’t getting the content because it isn’t given its due priority, or because teachers aren’t comfortable teaching the content, AI and Big Data are here, and our educators don’t have the tools to help students get ready for a world in the midst of a data revolution. Veteran educators and preservice education programs alike may not have an understanding of the essential concepts in statistics, data literacy, or data science that allow them to feel comfortable teaching about and using AI tools in their classes. Additionally, many of the standard assessment and practice tools are not fit for use any longer in a world where every student can generate an A-quality paper in three seconds with proper prompting. The rise of AI-generated content has created a new frontier in information literacy; students need to know to question the output of publically available LLM-based tools, such as Chat-GPT, as well as to be more critical of what they see online, given the rise of AI-generated deep fakes, and educators need to understand how to either incorporate these tools into their classrooms or teach about them effectively. Whether educators are ready or not, the existing Digital Divide has the potential to widen, depending on whether or not they know how to help students understand how to use AI safely and effectively and have the access to resources and training to do so.

The United States finds itself at a crossroads in the global data boom. Demand in the economic marketplace, and threat to national security by way of artificial intelligence and mal-, mis-, and disinformation, have educators facing an urgent problem in need of an immediate solution. In August of 1958, 66 years ago, Congress passed the National Defense Education Act (NDEA), emphasizing teaching and learning in science and mathematics. Specifically in response to the launch of Sputnik, the law supplied massive funding to, “insure trained manpower of sufficient quality and quantity to meet the national defense needs of the United States.” The U.S. Department of Education, in partnership with the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, must make bold moves now to create such a solution, as Congress did once before.

Plan of Action

In the years since the Space Race, one problem with STEM education persists: K-12 classrooms still teach students largely the same content; for example, the progression of high school mathematics including algebra, geometry, and trigonometry is largely unchanged. We are no longer in a race to space – we’re now needing to race against data. Data security, artificial intelligence, machine learning, and other mechanisms of our new information economy are all connected to national security, yet we do not have educators with the capacity to properly equip today’s students with the skills to combat current challenges on a global scale. Without a resource center to house the urgent professional development and classroom activities America’s educators are calling for, progress and leadership in spaces where AI and Big Data are being used will continue to dwindle, and our national security will continue to be at risk. It’s beyond time for a new take on the NDEA that emphasizes more modern topics in the teaching and learning of mathematics and science, by way of data science, data literacy, and artificial intelligence. 

Previously, the Department of Education has created resource repositories to support the dissemination of information to the larger educational praxis and research community. One such example is the What Work Clearinghouse, a federally vetted library of resources on educational products and empirical research that can support the larger field. The WWC was created to help cut through the noise of many different educational product claims to ensure that only high-quality tools and research were being shared. A similar process is happening now with AI and Data Science Resources; there are a lot of resources online, but many of these are of dubious quality or are even spreading erroneous information. 

To combat this, we suggest the creation of something similar to the WWC, with a focus on vetted materials for educator and student learning around AI and Data Science. We propose the creation of the Teacher Education Clearinghouse (TEC) underneath the Institute of Education Sciences, in partnership with the Office of Education Technology. Currently, WWC costs approximately $2,500,000 to run, so we anticipate a similar budget for the TEC website. The resource vetting process would begin with a Request for Information from the larger field that would encourage educators and administrators to submit high quality materials. These materials would be vetted using an evaluation framework that looks for high quality resources and materials. 

For example, the RFI might request example materials or lesson goals for the following subjects:

• An Introduction to AI, Data Literacy, and Data Science
  • Introduction to AI & Data Science Literacy & Vocabulary
  • Foundational AI Principles
  • Cross-Functional Data Literacy and Data Science
  • LLMs and How to Use Them
  • Critical Thinking and Safety Around AI Tools
• AI & Data Science Pedagogy
• AI and Data Science for Curriculum Development & Improvement 
• Using AI Tools for Differentiation, Assessment & Feedback
• Data Science for Safe and Ethical AI Use
• Characteristics of Potentially Biased Algorithms and Their Shortcomings

A framework for evaluating how useful these contributions might be for the Teacher Education Clearinghouse would consider the following principles:

• Accuracy and relevance to subject matter
• Availability of existing resources vs. creation of new resources
• Ease of instructor use
• Likely classroom efficacy
• Safety, responsible use, and fairness of proposed tool/application/lesson

Additionally, this would also include a series of quick start guide books that would be broken down by topic and include a set of resources around foundational topics such as, “Introduction to AI” and “Foundational Data Science Vocabulary”. 

When complete, this process would result in a national resource library, which would house a free series of asynchronous professional learning opportunities and classroom materials, activities, and datasets. This work could be promoted through the larger DoE as well as through the Regional Educational Laboratory program and state level stakeholders. The professional learning would consist of prerecorded virtual trainings and related materials (ex: slide decks, videos, interactive components of lessons, etc.). The materials would include educator-facing materials to support their professional development in Big Data and AI alongside student-facing lessons on AI Literacy that teachers could use to support their students. All materials would be publicly available for download on an ED-owned website. This will allow educators from any district, and any level of experience, to access materials that will improve their understanding and pedagogy. This especially benefits educators from less resourced environments because they can still access the training they need to adequately support their students, regardless of local capacity for potentially expensive training and resource acquisition. Now is the time to create such a resource center because there currently isn’t a set of vetted and reliable resources that are available and accessible to the larger educator community and teachers desperately need these resources to support themselves and their students in using these tools thoughtfully and safely. The successful development of this resource center would result in increased educator understanding of AI and data science such that the standing of U.S. students increases on such international measurements as the International Computer and Information Literacy Study (ICILS), as well as increased participation in STEAM fields that rely on these skills.

Conclusion

The field of education is at a turning point; the rise of advancements in AI and Big Data necessitate increased focus on these areas in the K-12 classroom; however, most educators do not have the preparation needed to adequately teach these topics to fully prepare their students. For the United States to continue to be a competitive global power in technology and innovation, we need a workforce that understands how to use, apply, and develop new innovations using AI and Data Science. This proposal for a library of high quality, open-source, vetted materials would support democratization of professional development for all educators and their students.

The 2022 release of ChatGPT and subsequent foundation models sparked a generative AI (GenAI) explosion in American society, driving rapid adoption of AI-powered tools in schools, colleges, and universities nationwide. Education technology was one of the first applications used to develop and test ChatGPT in a real-world context. A recent national survey indicated that nearly 50% of teachers, students, and parents use GenAI Chatbots in school, and over 66% of parents and teachers believe that GenAI Chatbots can help students learn more and faster. While this innovation is exciting and holds tremendous promise to personalize education, educators, families, and researchers are concerned that AI-powered solutions may not be equally useful, accurate, and effective for all students, in particular students from minoritized populations. It is possible that as this technology further develops that bias will be addressed; however, to ensure that students are not harmed as these tools become more widespread it is critical for the Department of Education to provide guidance for education decision-makers to evaluate AI solutions during procurement, to support EdTech developers to detect and mitigate bias in their applications, and to develop new fairness methods to ensure that these solutions serve the students with the most to gain from our educational systems. Creating this guidance will require leadership from the Department of Education to declare this issue as a priority and to resource an independent organization with the expertise needed to deliver these services.  

Challenge and Opportunity

Known Bias and  Potential Harm

There are many examples of the use of AI-based systems introducing more bias into an already-biased system. One example with widely varying results for different student groups is the use of GenAI tools to detect AI-generated text as a form of plagiarism. Liang et. al  found that several GPT-based plagiarism checkers frequently identified the writing of students for whom English is not their first language as AI-generated, even though their work was written before ChatGPT was available. The same errors did not occur with text generated by native English speakers. However, in a publication by Jiang (2024), no bias against non-native English speakers was encountered in the detection of plagiarism between human-authored essays and ChatGPT-generated essays written in response to analytical writing prompts from the GRE, which is an example of how thoughtful AI tool design and representative sampling in the training set can achieve fairer outcomes and mitigate bias. 

Beyond bias, researchers have raised additional concerns about the overall efficacy of these tools for all students; however, more understanding around different results for subpopulations and potential instances of bias(es) is a critical aspect of deciding whether or not these tools should be used by teachers in classrooms. For AI-based tools to be usable in high-stakes educational contexts such as testing, detecting and mitigating bias is critical, particularly when the consequences of being incorrect are so high, such as for students from minoritized populations who may not have the resources to recover from an error (e.g., failing a course, being prevented from graduating school). 

Another example of algorithmic bias before the widespread emergence of GenAI which illustrates potential harms is found in the Wisconsin Dropout Early Warning System. This AI-based tool was designed to flag students who may be at risk of dropping out of school; however, an analysis of the outcomes of these predictions found that the system disproportionately flagged African American and Hispanic students as being likely to drop out of school when most of these students were not at risk of dropping out). When teachers learn that one of their students is at risk, this may change how they approach that student, which can cause further negative treatment and consequences for that student, creating a self-fulfilling prophecy and not providing that student with the education opportunities and confidence that they deserve. These examples are only two of many consequences of using systems that have underlying bias and demonstrate the criticality of conducting fairness analysis before these systems are used with actual students. 

Existing Guidance on Fair AI & Standards for Education Technology Applications

Guidance for Education Technology Applications

Given the harms that algorithmic bias can cause in educational settings, there is an opportunity to provide national guidelines and best practices that help educators avoid these harms. The Department of Education is already responsible for protecting student privacy and provides guidelines via the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) Evidence Levels to evaluate the quality of EdTech solution evidence. The Office of Educational Technology, through support of a private non-profit organization (Digital Promise) has developed guidance documents for teachers and administrators, and another for education technology developers (U.S. Department of Education, 2023, 2024). In particular, “Designing for Education with Artificial Intelligence” includes guidance for EdTech developers including an entire section called “Advancing Equity and Protecting Civil Rights” that describes algorithmic bias and suggests that, “Developers should proactively and continuously test AI products or services in education to mitigate the risk of algorithmic discrimination.” (p 28). While this is a good overall guideline, the document critically is not sufficient to help developers conduct these tests. 

Similarly, the National Institute of Standards and Technology has released a publication on identifying and managing bias in AI . While this publication highlights some areas of the development process and several fairness metrics, it does not provide specific guidelines to use these fairness metrics, nor is it exhaustive. Finally demonstrating the interest of industry partners, the EDSAFE AI Alliance, a philanthropically-funded alliance representing a diverse group of companies in educational technology, has also created guidance in the form of the 2024 SAFE (Safety, Accountability, Fairness, and Efficacy) Framework. Within the Fairness section of the framework, the authors highlight the importance of using fair training data, monitoring for bias, and ensuring accessibility of any AI-based tool. But again, this framework does not provide specific actions that education administrators, teachers, or EdTech developers can take to ensure these tools are fair and are not biased against specific populations. The risk to these populations and existing efforts demonstrate the need for further work to develop new approaches that can be used in the field. 

Fairness in Education Measurement

As AI is becoming increasingly used in education, the field of educational measurement has begun creating a set of analytic approaches for finding examples of algorithmic bias, many of which are based on existing approaches to uncovering bias in educational testing. One common tool is called Differential Item Functioning (DIF), which checks that test questions are fair for all students regardless of their background. For example, it ensures that native English speakers and students learning English have an equal chance to succeed on a question if they have the same level of knowledge . When differences are found, this indicates that a student’s performance on that question is not based on their knowledge of the content. 

While DIF checks have been used for several decades as a best practice in standardized testing, a comparable process in the use of AI for assessment purposes does not yet exist. There also is little historical precedent indicating that for-profit educational companies will self-govern and self-regulate without a larger set of guidelines and expectations from a governing body, such as the federal government. 

We are at a critical juncture as school districts begin adopting AI tools with minimal guidance or guardrails, and all signs point to an increase of AI in education. The US Department of Education has an opportunity to take a proactive approach to ensuring AI fairness through strategic programs of support for school leadership, developers in educational technology, and experts in the field. It is important for the larger federal government to support all educational stakeholders under a common vision for AI fairness while the field is still at the relative beginning of being adopted for educational use. 

Plan of Action 

To address this situation, the Department of Education’s Office of the Chief Data Officer should lead development of a national resource that provides direct technical assistance to school leadership, supports software developers and vendors of AI tools in creating quality tech, and invests resources to create solutions that can be used by both school leaders and application developers. This office is already responsible for data management and asset policies, and provides resources on grants and artificial intelligence for the field. The implementation of these resources would likely be carried out via grants to external actors with sufficient technical expertise, given the rapid pace of innovation in the private and academic research sectors. Leading the effort from this office ensures that these advances are answering the most important questions and can integrate them into policy standards and requirements for education solutions. Congress should allocate additional funding to the Department of Education to support the development of a technical assistance program for school districts, establish new grants for fairness evaluation tools that span the full development lifecycle, and pursue an R&D agenda for AI fairness in education. While it is hard to provide an exact estimate, similar existing programs currently cost the Department of Education between $4 and $30 million a year. 

Action 1. The Department of Education Should Provide Independent Support for School Leadership Through a Fair AI Technical Assistance Center (FAIR-AI-TAC) 

School administrators are hearing about the promise and concerns of AI solutions in the popular press, from parents, and from students. They are also being bombarded by education technology providers with new applications of AI within existing tools and through new solutions. 

These busy school leaders do not have time to learn the details of AI and bias analysis, nor do they have the technical background required to conduct deep technical evaluations of fairness within AI applications. Leaders are forced to either reject these innovations or implement them and expose their students to significant potential risk with the promise of improved learning. This is not an acceptable status quo.  

To address these issues, the Department of Education should create an AI Technical Assistance Center (the Center) that is tasked with providing direct guidance to state and local education leaders who want to incorporate AI tools fairly and effectively. The Center should be staffed by a team of professionals with expertise in data science, data safety, ethics, education, and AI system evaluation. Additionally, the Center should operate independently of AI tool vendors to maintain objectivity.

There is precedent for this type of technical support. The U.S. Department of Education’s Privacy Technical Assistance Center (PTAC) provides guidance related to data privacy and security procedures and processes to meet FERPA guidelines; they operate a help desk via phone or email, develop training materials for broad use, and provide targeted training and technical assistance for leaders. A similar kind of center could be stood up to support leaders in education who need support evaluating proposed policy or procurement decisions.  

This Center should provide a structured consulting service offering a variety of levels of expertise based on the individual stakeholder’s needs and the variety of levels of potential impact of the system/tool being evaluated on learners; this should include everything from basic levels of AI literacy to active support in choosing technological solutions for educational purposes. The Center should partner with external organizations to develop a certification system for high-quality AI educational tools that have passed a series of fairness checks. Creating a fairness certification (operationalized by third party evaluators)  would make it much easier for school leaders to recognize and adopt fair AI solutions that meet student needs. 

Action 2. The Department of Education Should Provide Expert Services, Data, and Grants for EdTech Developers 

There are many educational technology developers with AI-powered innovations. Even when well-intentioned, some of these tools do not achieve their desired impacts or may be unintentionally unsafe due to a lack of processes and tests for fairness and safety.

Educational Technology developers generally operate under significant constraints when incorporating AI models into their tools and applications. Student data is often highly detailed and deeply personal, potentially containing financial, disability, and educational status information that is currently protected by FERPA, which makes it unavailable for use in AI model training or testing. 

Developers need safe, legal, and quality datasets that they can use for testing for bias, as well as appropriate bias evaluation tools. There are several promising examples of these types of applications and new approaches to data security, such as the recently awarded NSF SafeInsights project, which allows analysis without disclosing the underlying data. In addition, philanthropically-funded organizations such as the Allen Institute for AI have released LLM evaluation tools that could be adapted and provided to Education Technology developers for testing. A vetted set of evaluation tools, along with more detailed technical resources and instructions for how to use them would encourage developers to incorporate bias evaluations early and often. Currently, there are very few market incentives or existing requirements that push developers to invest the necessary time or resources into this type of fairness analysis. Thus, the government has a key role to play here.

The Department of Education should also fund a new grant program that tasks grantees with developing a robust and independently validated third-party evaluation system that checks for fairness violations and biases throughout the model development process from pre-processing of data, to the actual AI use, to testing after AI results are created. This approach would support developers in ensuring that the tools they are publishing meet an agreed-upon minimum threshold for safe and fair use and could provide additional justification for the adoption of AI tools by school administrators.

Action 3. The Department of Education Should Develop Better Fairness R&D Tools with Researchers 

There is still no consensus on best practices for how to ensure that AI tools are fair. As AI capabilities evolve, the field needs an ongoing vetted set of analyses and approaches that will ensure that any tools being used in an educational context are safe and fair for use with no unintended consequences.

The Department of Education should lead the creation of a a working group or task force comprised of subject matter experts from education, educational technology, educational measurement, and the larger AI field to identify the state of the art in existing fairness approaches for education technology and assessment applications, with a focus on modernized conceptions of identity. This proposed task force would be an inter-organizational group that would include representatives from several different federal government offices, such as the Office of Educational Technology and the Chief Data Office as well as prominent experts from industry and academia. An initial convening could be conducted alongside leading national conferences that already attract thousands of attendees conducting cutting-edge education research (such as the American Education Research Association and National Council for Measurement in Education).

The working group’s mandate should include creating a set of recommendations for federal funding to advance research on evaluating AI educational tools for fairness and efficacy. This research agenda would likely span multiple agencies including NIST, the Institute of Education Sciences of the U.S. Department of Education, and the National Science Foundation. There are existing models for funding early stage research and development with applied approaches, including the IES “Accelerate, Transform, Scale” programs that integrate learning sciences theory with efforts to scale theories through applied education technology program and Generative AI research centers that have the existing infrastructure and mandates to conduct this type of applied research. 

Additionally, the working group should recommend the selection of a specialized group of researchers who would contribute ongoing research into new empirically-based approaches to AI fairness that would continue to be used by the larger field. This innovative work might look like developing new datasets that deliberately look for instances of bias and stereotypes, such as the CrowS-Pairs dataset. It may build on current cutting edge research into the specific contributions of variables and elements of LLM models that directly contribute to biased AI scores, such as the work being done by the AI company Anthropic. It may compare different foundation LLMs and demonstrate specific areas of bias within their output. It may also look like a collaborative effort between organizations, such as the development of the RSM-Tool, which looks for biased scoring. Finally, it may be an improved auditing tool for any portion of the model development pipeline. In general, the field does not yet have a set of universally agreed upon actionable tools and approaches that can be used across contexts and applications; this research team would help create these for the field.

Finally, the working group should recommend policies and standards that would incentivize vendors and developers working on AI education tools to adopt fairness evaluations and share their results.

Conclusion

As AI-based tools continue being used for educational purposes, there is an urgent need to develop new approaches to evaluating these solutions to fairness that include modern conceptions of student belonging and identity. This effort should be led by the Department of Education, through the Office of the Chief Data Officer, given the technical nature of the services and the relationship with sensitive data sources. While the Chief Data Officer should provide direction and leadership for the project, partnering with external organizations through federal grant processes would provide necessary capacity boosts to fulfill the mandate described in this memo.As we move into an age of widespread AI adoption, AI tools for education will be increasingly used in classrooms and in homes. Thus, it is imperative that robust fairness approaches are deployed before a new tool is used in order to protect our students, and also to protect the developers and administrators from potential litigation, loss of reputation, and other negative outcomes.

This action-ready policy memo is part of Day One 2025 — our effort to bring forward bold policy ideas, grounded in science and evidence, that can tackle the country’s biggest challenges and bring us closer to the prosperous, equitable and safe future that we all hope for whoever takes office in 2025 and beyond.

The incoming presidential administration of 2025 should champion a policy position calling for strengthening of the connection between K-12 schools and community workplaces. Such connections result in a number of benefits including modernized curricula, more meaningful lessons, more motivated students, more college and career readiness, more qualified applicants for local jobs, more vibrant communities, and a stronger nation. The gains associated with education-workplace partnerships are certainly not exclusive to STEM disciplines of study but given the high-demand for talent in STEM business and industry, the imperative may be greatest in science and mathematics, and the applied domains of engineering and technology. 

The rationale for a policy priority around K-12 and workplace partnerships centers around waning public confidence in the ability of schools to prepare tomorrow’s workforce. A perceived disconnect between what gets taught and what learners need in order to thrive on the job threatens individual livelihoods, family and community stability, and national competitiveness in an ever-more rapidly evolving global economy. Bridges are needed that unite education and workplaces, putting students and their teachers to work beyond the classroom. A new administration should:

1. Expand externships for teachers in community workplaces. The best way to help every student to explore and to be inspired about career horizons is to prepare and inspire their teachers to represent to them the opportunities that await. Externships in community workplaces sharpen teachers’ content knowledge and skills and equip them to portray the exciting careers that await students. The existing Research Experiences for Teachers (RET) federal infrastructure can be adapted for supporting externships. 
2. Deploy Competency-Based Education (CBE) at scale. America’s prevailing school model inhibits the expansion of experiential, or Work-Based Learning (WBL) in workplaces. The school day is a regimented sequence of seat-time tallies toward a seven-period stack of classes yielding little if any time to immerse learners in relevant experiences at workplaces. Or as one advocacy organization phrased it, “Today’s high school transcript is a record of time and activity, but not a very good measure of knowledge, skills, and dispositions. It doesn’t capture experiences or work products that provide evidence of growth and accomplishment.” An internet search of Work-based Learning nets over 3 billion hits. It’s one of the hottest topics in education. But those hits reveal a weakness to the WBL “movement”: it is almost entirely focused on career and technical education, a branch of general education serving about one-fourth of all students. Going forward, core area teachers and classes must take part. To do so, mathematics, science and other required and college preparatory courses need flexibility from seat time and content delivery. When teachers, schools and districts adopt Competency-Based Education, this allows more time for the other 75% of learners to earn credits by acquiring the knowledge and skills of a subject area while doing, making and working. Models exist for doing so.  

Concerted federal policy promoting the connection between K-12 schools and community workplaces sends a strong, bipartisan message to both education and employer sectors of the nation that the myriad advantages to learners, employers, and communities of cross-sector collaboration will now be the norm, not the exception. Moreover, it requires no new or novel and untested programmatic priorities – they are already at play in forward-thinking communities. Teacher externships dot the American landscape and will fit neatly into a new RET mold (coupling Research Experiences for Teachers with Regional Externships for Teachers as menu options). Competency-Based Education, with guidelines for Work-Based Learning, is already on paper in most U.S. states. Now is prime time to expand these life-changing educational reforms for all young Americans. 

Such expansions would fit neatly into existing federal structures; federal agencies have long supported competency-based education (U.S. Department of Education), Work-based Learning (U.S. Department of Labor), and Teacher-Externships (U.S. Department of Energy, and National Science Foundation). The current national landscape of teacher-externships, while promising, is  fraught with inconsistency and low participation: presently there are thousands of local teacher-externship models of wide variation in duration and rigor operated by school districts, local business organizations, higher education institutions, and regional education groups. Federal research-based guidelines and example-setting is a desperately needed function for standardizing high-quality experiences. Federal guidance and promotion could also help expand those experiences from the present low-capacity  (estimating 10 teachers per year in 5,000 local programs equates to 50,000 teacher-externs annually while there are over 3 million K-12 educators nationwide, meaning 60 years to reach all practitioners) to greater volume through more workplace and educator involvement.

Similarly, the national portrait for competency-based education leading to work-based learning presents a golden opportunity to usher educational transformation. At present, many schools and districts implement CBE to limited degrees in specific courses (typically Career and Technology Education, or CTE) for certain students (non-college bound). The potential for far greater impact across courses and the entire student spectrum awaits federal guidance and support.   

Challenge and Opportunity  

Urgency for Action

Thousands of businesses in towns and cities across the United States use science, mathematics and technology to engineer global goods while struggling to find and employ local talent. Thousands of schools across the U.S. teach science, mathematics, engineering and technology yet struggle to inspire their students toward local career opportunities. These two seemingly parallel universes overlap like the acetate pages of an anatomy textbook—muscle over bone—while largely failing to unite for mutual benefit. Iowa for example, is home to 4,273 global manufacturers depending on 263,870 employees to move product out the door. Pella Window, John Deere, Vermeer, Diamond-Vogel, Collins Aerospace, Winnebago, Tyson and others scramble to fill roughly 15,000 STEM job openings (p. 61) at any given time. The good news is that 75% of the state’s high school graduates profess interest (p. 29) in STEM careers. The bad news is that just 37% of graduates (p. 30) intend to live and work in Iowa. That is unless they’ve enjoyed a work-based learning experience and/or had a teacher who had spent a summer in industry. The Iowa experience parallels that of many rural and urban regions across the country: students whose teacher externed find more relevance in STEM classes applied to local jobs, And students who enjoy work-based learning are more likely to pursue careers locally after graduation. In combination, these two programs serve up a culture of connectedness between the world of work and the world of education, generating a win-win outcome for educators, employers, families, communities, and most importantly, for students.       

Opportunity for Impact

Immersing students and their teachers in workplace experiences is not a new idea. Career and technology education (CTE) has been a driving force for WBL for over 100 years. More recently, federal policy during the Obama administration re-shaped the blueprint for Perkins reauthorization by encouraging models that “better focus on real world experiences” (p. 3). And under the Trump administration the federal STEM education strategic plan called for a new and renewed emphasis on “…education-employer partnerships leading to work-based learning…” (p. 4). The key word here is “new”, and it’s not being emphasized enough: the status quo remains centered on CTE when it comes to teachers and students connecting with the work world, leaving out nearly three-quarters of all students. High school internships, for example, are completed by only about two percent of U.S. students, and CTE programs are completed by approximately 22 percent of white students but 18 percent of Black and 16 percent of Hispanic students. The national standards upon which states and districts base their mathematics and science curricula, including the Common Core and the Next Generation Science Standards, are not much help. They urge applied classroom problem-solving but fail to promote WBL for students or teachers. Today, the vast majority of K-12 student WBL opportunities—internships, apprenticeships, job shadows, collaborative projects, etc., take place through the CTE wing of schools. Likewise, most teacher-externship programs engage CTE educators almost exclusively. 

The potent WBL tools of career-technical education transposed over to core subject area students and teachers can invigorate mathematics, science and computing class, too. 

Impact Opportunity for Externships

As one former extern put it, “If you send one kid on an internship, it affects that one kid. If you send a teacher, the impact reaches their 200 students!” Especially for today’s rapidly growing and economically vital career sectors including Health Science, Information Technology, Biotech, Manufacturing, Agriculture, Data Analytics, Food, and Nature Resources, teacher externships can fuel the talent pipeline. Iowa has been conducting just such an experiment for a decade, making this type of professional development available to core discipline teachers. “Surveyed teacher-externs agreed or strongly agreed that it affected the way they taught, their understanding of 21^st century [transportable] skills through math and science, and they agreed or strongly agreed that more students expressed an interest in STEM careers as a result of their having participated in the externship (p. 12). Nearly all participating teachers (93%) described the externship as “more valuable than any other PD in which they had ever taken part” (p. 13).

Specific impacts on teachers included the following: 

• Greater awareness of the importance of 21st century skills—critical thinking, technology, and collaboration—and greater integration of these skills into teaching practice.
• Improved knowledge of and skills in using technology. 
• Greater understanding of the workplace expectations students will encounter.
• Increased professional confidence.
• Improved capacity to use real-world examples in the classroom.
• Better advising for students about STEM jobs.

Specific impacts on their students include the following: 

• Increase in science and STEM career interest.
• Highest gain for female interest in science, math, and a STEM career compared to before-externship (p. 29).

Beyond the direct effects upon students and their teachers, externships in local workplaces leave lasting relationships that manifest year after year in tours, projects, mentorships, equipment support, summer jobs, etc. Teacher testimonials speak to the lasting effects. 

Impact Opportunity for CBE and WBL

Although rarely implemented, every U.S. state now allows Competency-Based Education. Broadly defined, CBE is an education model where students demonstrate mastery of concepts and skills of a subject to advance and graduate, rather than log a set number of hours seat-time and pass tests. Students move at individualized pace, concepts are accrued at variable rates and sequences, teachers operate as facilitators, and the work is more often projects-based—much of it occurring outside classroom walls. CBE solves the top inhibitor to Work-Based Learning for non-CTE, core content areas of study including science, mathematics, and computing: it frees up time. 

Utah, Washington, and Wyoming are considered leaders in the CBE arena for crafting policy guidelines sufficient for a few schools to pilot the model. In Washington, 28 school districts are collaborating to establish at least one CBE school in each, the Mastery-Based Learning Collaborative (MBLC). 

Another trailblazer in CBE, North Dakota, was recently recognized by the Education Commission of the States for legislating a series of changes to school rules to disinhibit CBE and WBL: (a) A competency-based student graduation pathway and allowance for outside work to count for course credit; (b) Level state support per student whether credits are earned inside or outside the classroom; and  (c) Scholarships that honor demonstrated competency equally to the standard credits and grades criterion.  

Finally, a school that typifies the power of CBE across subject areas, supported by the influential XQ Institute, is a metropolitan magnet model called Iowa BIG in Cedar Rapids. Enrollees choose local projects in partnership with an industry partner. Projects, like real life, are necessarily transdisciplinary. And project outcomes (i.e., mastery) determine grades. Outcomes include:

• Average ACT scores of 22 (21 is state average, just under 20 is national average).
• 97 percent of graduates report feeling at least somewhat prepared for the future.
• 92 percent cite “collaboration [and] working in groups” as strengths most developed.

Yet, for all its impact and promise, Iowa BIG, like many CBE pilots, struggles to broaden offerings (currently limited to English, social studies, and business credits), and enrollment (roughly 100 students out of a grade 11-12 regional population over ten-times that amount). As discussed in the next section, CBE programs can be significantly constrained by local, state, and federal policies (or lack thereof).

Challenges Limiting Impact

The limited exposure of American K-12 students to teachers who enjoy an Externship, or to Competency-Based Education leading to Work-Based Learning testifies to the multiple layers of challenge to be navigated. At the local district level, school schedules and the lack of communication across school   – business boundaries are chief inhibitors to WBL, while educator professional development and crediting/graduation rules suppress CBE. At the state level, the inhibitors reveal themselves to be systemic: funding of and priority needs for educator professional development, a lack of a coherent and unifying profile of a graduate, standardized assessments, and graduation requirements retard forward movement on experiential partnerships. Logically, federal challenges have enormous influence on state and local conditions: the paucity of research and development on innovative instructional and assessment practices, inadequate communication of existent resources to drive WBL and other national education imperatives, insufficient support for the establishment of state and regional intermediary structures to drive local innovation, and non-complimentary funding programs that if coordinated could significantly advance K-12 –workplace alignment.  

The pace of progress at the local school level is ultimately most strongly influenced by federal policy priority. The policy is well-established by the federal STEM education strategic plan Charting a Course for Success: America’s Strategy for STEM Education, a report by the Committee on STEM Education of the National Science and Technology Council, Pathway 1: Develop and Enrich Strategic Partnerships (p. 9). The plan was developed through and embraced for its bipartisan approach. Refocusing on its fulfillment will make the United States a stronger and more prosperous nation.

Plan of Action

The federal government’s leadership is paramount in driving policy toward education-workplace alignment. Specific roles range from investment to asset allocation to communication, specific to both teacher externships and CBE leading to WBL.

(1) Congress should legislate that all federal agencies involved in STEM education outreach (those represented on the Committee on STEM Education [Co-STEM] and on the Subcommittee on Federal Coordination in STEM Education [FC-STEM]) establish teacher-externship programs at their facilities as capacity and security permit. The FC-STEM should designate an Inter-agency Working Group on Teacher-Externships [IWG-TE]  to be charged with developing a standard protocol consistent with evidence-based practice (e.g., minimum four-week, maximum eight-week summer immersion, authentic work experience applying knowledge and skills of their teaching discipline, close mentorship and supervision, the production of a translational teaching product such as a lesson, unit, or career exploratory component, compensation commensurate with qualifications, awareness and promotion activities, etc.). The IWG-TE will provide an annual report of externships activity across agencies to the FC-STEM and Co-STEM. 

(2) Within two years of enactment, all agencies participating in teacher externships shall develop and implement an expansion of the externships model to localities nationwide through a grant program by which eligible LEAs, AEAs, and SEAs may compete for funding to administer local teacher-externship programs in partnership with local employers (industry, nonprofit, public sector, etc.) pertinent to the mission and scope of the respective agency. For example, EPA may fund externs in state natural resource offices, and NASA may fund externs in aerospace industry facilities. The IWG-TE will include progress and participation in the grant program as part of their annual report.

(3) The IWG-TE shall design and administer an assessment instrument for components (1) and (2) that details participation rates by agency, demographics of participants, impact on participants’ teaching, and evidence of impact on the students of participants related to interest in and capability for high-demand career pursuit. An external expert in teacher-externships administration may be contracted for guidance in the establishment of the externships program and its assessment. 

As to funding, the agencies charged with implementation are those already conducting outreach, so it could be that initially no new dollars accompany the mandate. However, for the second component (grants), new funding would definitely be needed. A budget line request in 2027 seeking $10 million to be distributed proportionally to agencies based on numbers of externs – determined by the Office of Science and Technology Policy in close consult with FC-STEM – such that a goal of 1500 total externs be supported nationwide at an estimated cost of $6,000 each, plus administrative costs. In summary:

Teacher Externships

• The next administration should work with Congress to authorize the use of the RET infrastructure (NOAA, NASA, Dept. of Energy, NSF, and other variants) across agencies to administer Teacher-Externships at federal facilities.
• Congress should authorize a new grant program where agencies participating in teacher externships develop and administer grant programs by which eligible LEAs, AEAs, and SEAs may compete for funding to administer local teacher-externship programs in partnership with local employers.

Competency-based Education leading to Work-Based Learning

• Congress should ensure that a reauthorized WIOA could support the establishment and operation of state or regional intermediaries like The Center in Iowa and the MBCL in Washington state to conduct professional development and facilitate information exchange. 
• Increase R&D on knowledge transfer and mobilization around CBE via funding for  Education Innovation and Research and the Advancing Research in Education Act.
• ED and DOL should issue joint guidance to allow for flexible use in combination with WIOA, Perkins V, ESSA and other federal resources to expand CBE and WBL.

Recommendations supporting both innovations

• For all awarded R&D proposals across all member agencies of CoSTEM, encourage Externships and WBL as Broader Impact functions.
• Establish a single, searchable resource specific for finding federal activities and resources for Externships, CBE, and WBL.
• Sustain the call for strategic partnerships of education and workplace as a national imperative in the updated 2025 federal STEM strategic plan. 

Conclusion 

Teachers prepared to connect what happens between 8:00 am and 3:00 pm to real life beyond school walls reflect the future of education. Learners whose classrooms expand to workplaces hold our best hopes as tomorrow’s innovators. Studying forces and vectors at the amusement park make Physics come alive. Embryo care at the local hatchery enlivens biology lessons. Pricing insurance against actuarial tables adds up in Algebra. Crime lab forensics gives chemistry a courtroom. Designing video games that use AI to up the action puts a byte in computer study. And all such experiences fuel passions and ignite dreams for STEM study and careers. Let America put learners and their teachers to work beyond classrooms to bridge the chasm between classrooms and careers. This federal policy priority will be a win-win for learners, their families and communities, employers, and the nation.

This action-ready policy memo is part of Day One 2025 — our effort to bring forward bold policy ideas, grounded in science and evidence, that can tackle the country’s biggest challenges and bring us closer to the prosperous, equitable and safe future that we all hope for whoever takes office in 2025 and beyond.

Thanks to Melissa Moritz, Patricia Saenz-Armstrong, and Meghan Grady for their input on this memo.

Teaching our young children to be productive and engaged participants in our society and economy is, alongside national defense, the most essential job in our country. Yet the competitiveness and appeal of teaching in the United States has plummeted over the past decade. At least 55,000 teaching positions went unfilled this year, with long-term annual shortages set to double to 100,000 annually. Moreover, teachers have little confidence in their self-assessed ability to teach critical digital skills needed for an AI enabled future and in the profession at large. Efforts in economic peer countries such as Canada or China demonstrate that reversing this trend is feasible. The new Administration should announce a national talent surge to identify, scale, and recruit into innovative teacher preparation models, expand teacher leadership opportunities, and boost the profession’s prestige. “America’s Teachers Innovate” is an eight-part executive action plan to be coordinated by the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), with implementation support through GSA’s Challenge.Gov and accompanied by new competitive priorities in existing National Science Foundation (NSF), Department of Education (ED), Department of Labor (DoL), and Department of Defense education (DoDEA) programs. 

Challenge and Opportunity 

Artificial Intelligence may add an estimated $2.6 trillion to $4.4 trillion annually to the global economy. Yet, if the U.S. is not able to give its population the proper training to leverage these technologies effectively, the U.S. may witness a majority of this wealth flow to other countries over the next few decades while American workers are automated from, rather than empowered by, AI deployment within their sectors. The students who gain the digital, data, and AI foundations to work in tandem with these systems – currently only 5% of graduating high school students in the U.S. – will fare better in a modern job market than the majority who lack them. Among both countries and communities, the AI skills gap will supercharge existing digital divides and dramatically compound economic inequality. 

China, India, Germany, Canada, and the U.K. have all made investments to dramatically reshape the student experience for the world of AI and train teachers to educate a modern, digitally-prepared workforce. While the U.S. made early research & development investments in computer science and data science education through the National Science Foundation, we have no teacher workforce ready to implement these innovations in curriculum or educational technology. The number of individuals completing a teacher preparation program has fallen 25% over the past decade; long-term forecasts suggest at least 100,000 shortages annually, teachers themselves are discouraging others from joining their own profession (especially in STEM), and preparing to teach digital skills such as computer science was the least popular option for prospective educators to pursue. In 2022, even Harvard discontinued its Undergraduate Teacher Education Program completely, citing low interest and enrollment numbers. There is still consistent evidence that young people or even current professionals remain interested in teaching as a possible career, but only if we create the conditions to translate that interest into action. U.S. policymakers have a narrow window to leverage the strong interest in AI to energize the education workforce, and ensure our future graduates are globally competitive for the digital frontier. 

Plan of Action 

America’s teaching profession needs a coordinated national strategy to reverse decades of decline and concurrently reinvigorate the sector for a new (and digital) industrial revolution now moving at an exponential pace. Key levers for this work include expanding the number of leadership opportunities for educators; identifying and scaling successful evidence-based models such as UTeach, residency-based programs, or National Writing Project’s peer-to-peer training sites; scaling registered apprenticeship programs or Grow Your Own programs along with the nation’s largest teacher colleges; and leveraging the platform of the President to boost recognition and prestige of the teaching profession. 

The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) should coordinate a set of Executive Actions within the first 100 days of the next administration, including: 

Recommendation 1. Launch a Grand Challenge for AI-Era Teacher Preparation 

Create a national challenge via www.Challenge.Gov to identify the most innovative teacher recruitment, preparation, and training programs to prepare and retain educators for teaching in the era of AI. Challenge requirements should be minimal and flexible to encourage innovation, but could include the creation of teacher leadership opportunities, peer-network sites for professionals, and digital classroom resource exchanges. A challenge prompt could replicate the model of 100Kin10 or even leverage the existing network. 

Recommendation 2. Update Areas of National Need 

To enable existing scholarship programs to support AI readiness, the U.S. Department of Education should add “Artificial Intelligence,” “Data Science,” and “Machine Learning” to GAANN Areas of National Need under the Computer Science and Mathematics categories to expand eligibility for Masters-level scholarships for teachers to pursue additional study in these critical areas. The number of higher education programs in Data Science education has significantly increased in the past five years, with a small but increasing number of emerging Artificial Intelligence programs.  

Recommendation 3. Expand and Simplify Key Programs for Technology-Focused Training

The President should direct the U.S. Secretary of Education, the National Science Foundation Director, and the Department of Defense Education Activity Director to add “Artificial Intelligence, Data Science, Computer Science” as competitive priorities where appropriate for existing grant or support programs that directly influence the national direction of teacher training and preparation, including the Teacher Quality Partnerships (ED) program, SEED (ED), the Hawkins Program (ED), the STEM Corps (NSF), the Robert Noyce Scholarship Program (NSF), and the DoDEA Professional Learning Division, and the Apprenticeship Building America grants from the U.S. Department of Labor. These terms could be added under prior “STEM” competitive priorities, such as the STEM Education Acts of 2014 and 2015 for “Computer Science,”and framed under “Digital Frontier Technologies.” 

Additionally, the U.S. Department of Education should increase funding allocations for ESSA Evidence Tier-1 (“Demonstrates Rationale”), to expand the flexibility of existing grant programs to align with emerging technology proposals. As AI systems quickly update, few applicants have the opportunity to conduct rigorous evaluation studies or randomized control trials (RCTs) within the timespan of an ED grant program application window. 

Additionally, the National Science Foundation should relaunch the 2014 Application Burden Taskforce to identify the greatest barriers in NSF application processes, update digital review infrastructure, review or modernize application criteria to recognize present-day technology realities, and set a 2-year deadline for recommendations to be implemented agency-wide. This ensures earlier-stage projects and non-traditional applicants (e.g. nonprofits, local education agencies, individual schools) can realistically pursue NSF funding. Recommendations may include a “tiered” approach for requirements based on grant size or applying institution. 

Recommendation 4. Convene 100 Teacher Prep Programs for Action

The White House Office of Science & Technology Policy (OSTP) should host a national convening of nationally representative colleges of education and teacher preparation programs to 1) catalyze modernization efforts of program experiences and training content, and 2) develop recruitment strategies to revitalize interest in the teaching profession. A White House summit would help call attention to falling enrollment in teacher preparation programs; highlight innovative training models to recruit and retrain additional graduates; and create a deadline for states, districts, and private philanthropy to invest in teacher preparation programs. By leveraging the convening power of the White House, the Administration could make a profound impact on the teacher preparation ecosystem. 

The administration should also consider announcing additional incentives or planning grants for regional or state-level teams in 1) catalyzing K-12 educator Registered Apprenticeship Program (RAPs) applications to the Department of Labor and 2) enabling teacher preparation program modernization for incorporating introductory computer science, data science, artificial intelligence, cybersecurity, and other “digital frontier skills,” via the grant programs in Recommendation 3 or via expanded eligibility for the Higher Education Act.  

Recommendation 5. Launch a Digital “White House Data Science Fair”

Despite a bipartisan commitment to continue the annual White House Science Fair, the tradition ended in 2017. OSTP and the Committee on Science, Technology, and Math Education (Co-STEM) should resume the White House Science Fair and add a national “White House Data Science Fair,” a digital rendition of the Fair for the AI-era. K-12 and undergraduate student teams would have the opportunity to submit creative or customized applications of AI tools, machine-learning projects (similar to Kaggle competitions), applications of robotics, and data analysis projects centered on their own communities or global problems (climate change, global poverty, housing, etc.), under the mentorship of K-12 teachers. Similar to the original White House Science Fair, this recognition could draw from existing student competitions that have arisen over the past few years, including in Cleveland, Seattle, and nationally via AP Courses and out-of-school contexts. Partner Federal agencies should be encouraged to contribute their own educational resources and datasets through FC-STEM coordination, enabling students to work on a variety of topics across domains or interests (e.g. NASA, the U.S. Census, Bureau of Labor Statistics, etc.).

Recommendation 6. Announce a National Teacher Talent Surge at the State of Union

The President should launch a national teacher talent surge under the banner of “America’s Teachers Innovate,” a multi-agency communications campaign to reinvigorate the teaching profession and increase the number of teachers completing undergraduate or graduate degrees each year by 100,000. This announcement would follow the First 100 Days in office, allowing Recommendations 1-5 to be implemented and/or planned. The “America’s Teachers Innovate” campaign would include:

A national commitments campaign for investing in the future of American teaching, facilitated by the White House, involving State Education Agencies (SEAs) and Governors, the 100 largest school districts, industry, and philanthropy. Many U.S. education organizations are ready to take action. Commitments could include targeted scholarships to incentivize students to enter the profession, new grant programs for summer professional learning, and restructuring teacher payroll to become salaried annual jobs instead of nine-month compensation (see Discover Bank: “Surviving the Summer Paycheck Gap”).

Expansion of the Presidential Awards for Excellence in Mathematics and Science Teaching (PAMEST) program to include Data Science, Cybersecurity, AI, and other emerging technology areas, or a renaming of the program for wider eligibility across today’s STEM umbrella. Additionally, the PAMEST Award program should resume  in-person award ceremonies beyond existing press releases, which were discontinued during COVID disruptions and have not since been offered. Several national STEM organizations and teacher associations have requested these events to return.

Student loan relief through the Teacher Loan Forgiveness (TLF) program for teachers who commit to five or more years in the classroom. New research suggests the lifetime return of college for education majors is near zero, only above a degree in Fine Arts. The administration should add “computer science, data science, and artificial intelligence” to the subject list of “Highly Qualified Teacher” who receive $17,500 of loan forgiveness via executive order.

An annual recruitment drive at college campus job fairs, facilitated directly under the banner of the White House Office of Science & Technology Policy (OSTP), to help grow awareness on the aforementioned programs directly with undergraduate students at formative career choice-points.

Recommendation 7. Direct IES and BLS to Support Teacher Shortage Forecasting Infrastructure

The IES Commissioner and BLS Commissioner should 1) establish a special joint task-force to better link existing Federal data across agencies and enable cross-state collaboration on the teacher workforce, 2) support state capacity-building for interoperable teacher workforce data systems through competitive grant priorities in the State Longitudinal Data Systems (SLDS) at IES and the Apprenticeship Building America (ABA) Program (Category 1 grants), and 3) recommend a review criteria question for education workforce data & forecasting in future EDA Tech Hub phases. The vast majority of states don’t currently have adequate data systems in place to track total demand (teacher vacancies), likely supply (teachers completing preparation programs), and the status of retention/mobility (teachers leaving the profession or relocating) based on near- or real-time information. Creating estimates for this very brief was challenging and subject to uncertainty. Without this visibility into the nuances of teacher supply, demand, and retention, school systems cannot accurately forecast and strategically fill classrooms.

Image: AmericanProgress.org

Recommendation 8. Direct the NSF to Expand Focus on Translating Evidence on AI Teaching to Schools and Districts.

The NSF Discovery Research PreK-12 Program Resource Center on Transformative Education Research and Translation (DRK-12 RC) program is intended to select intellectual partners as NSF seeks to enhance the overall influence and reach of the DRK-12 Program’s research and development investments. The DRK-12 RC program could be utilized to work with multi-sector constituencies to accelerate the identification and scaling of evidence-based practices for AI, data science, computer science, and other emerging tech fields. Currently, the program is anticipated to make only one single DRK-RC award; the program should be scaled to establish at least three centers: one for AI, integrated data science, and computer science, respectively, to ensure digitally-powered STEM education for all students. 

Conclusion 

China was #1 in the most recent Global Teacher Status Index, which measures the prestige, respect, and attractiveness of the teaching profession in a given country; meanwhile, the United States ranked just below Panama. The speed of AI means educational investments made by other countries have an exponential impact, and any misstep can place the United States far behind – if we aren’t already. Emerging digital threats from other major powers, increasing fluidity of talent and labor, and a remote-work economy makes our education system the primary lever to keep America competitive in a fast-changing global environment. The timing is ripe for a new Nation at Risk-level effort, if not an action on the scale of the original National Defense Education Act in 1958 or following the more recent America COMPETES Act. The next administration should take decisive action to rebuild our country’s teacher workforce and prepare our students for a future that may look very different from our current one.

This action-ready policy memo is part of Day One 2025 — our effort to bring forward bold policy ideas, grounded in science and evidence, that can tackle the country’s biggest challenges and bring us closer to the prosperous, equitable and safe future that we all hope for whoever takes office in 2025 and beyond.

This memo was developed in partnership with the Alliance for Learning Innovation, a coalition dedicated to advocating for building a better research and development infrastructure in education for the benefit of all students. Read more education R&D memos developed in partnership with ALI here.

Congress should approve a new allowable use of Title I spending that specifically enables and encourages school districts to use funds for activities that support and drive equity-focused innovation. The persistent equity gap between wealthy and poor students in our country, and the continuing challenges caused by the pandemic, demand new, more effective strategies to help the students who are most underserved by our public education system.

Efforts focused on the distribution of all education funding, and Title I in particular, have focused on ensuring that funds flow to students and districts with the highest need. Given the persistence of achievement and opportunity gaps across race, class, and socioeconomic status, there is still work to be done on this front. Further, rapidly developing technologies such as artificial intelligence and immersive technologies are opening up new possibilities for students and teachers. However, these solutions are not enough. Realizing the full potential of funding streams and emerging technologies to transform student outcomes requires new solutions designed alongside the communities they are intended to serve. 

To finally close the equity gap, districts must invest in developing, evaluating, and implementing new solutions to meet the needs of students and families today and in a rapidly changing future. Using Title I funding to create a continuous, improvement-oriented research and development (R&D) infrastructure supporting innovations at scale will generate the systemic changes needed to reach the students in highest need of new, creative, and more effective solutions to support their learning. 

Challenge and Opportunity

Billions of dollars of federal funding have been distributed to school districts since the authorization of Title I federal funding under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), introduced in 1965 (later reauthorized under the Every Student Succeeds Act [ESSA]). In 2023 alone, Congress approved $18.4 billion in Title I funding. This funding is designed to provide targeted resources to school districts to ensure that students from low-income families can meet rigorous academic standards and have access to post-secondary opportunities. ESEA was authorized during the height of the Civil Rights Movement with the intent of addressing the two primary goals of (1) ensuring traditionally disadvantaged students were better served in an effort to create more equitable public education, and (2) addressing the funding disparities created by differences in local property taxes, the predominant source of education funding in most districts. These dual purposes were ultimately aimed at ensuring that a student’s zip code did not define their destiny.

The passing of ESEA was a watershed moment. Prior to its authorization, education policy was left mostly up to states and localities. In authorizing ESEA, the federal government launched ongoing involvement in public education and initiated a focus on principles of equity in education.

Further, research shows that school spending matters: Increased funding has been found to be associated with higher levels of student achievement. However, despite the increased spending for students from low-income families via Title I, the literature on outcomes of Title 1 funding is mixed. The limited impact of Title I funds on outcomes may be a result of municipalities using Title I funding to supplant or fill gaps in their overall funding and programs, instead of being used as an additive funding stream meant to equalize funding between poorer and richer districts. Additionally, while a taxonomy of options is provided to bring rigor and research to how districts use Title funding, the narrow set of options has not yielded the intended outcomes at scale. For instance, studies have repeatedly shown that school turnaround efforts have proven particularly stubborn and not shown the hoped-for outcomes.

The equity gap that ESEA was created to address has not been erased. There is still a persistent achievement gap between high- and low-income students in the nation. The emergence of COVID in 2020 uprooted the public education system, and its impact on student learning, as measured by test scores, is profound. Students lost ground across all focus areas and grades. Now, in the post-pandemic era, students have continued to lose ground. The “COVID Generation” of students are behind where they should be, and many are disengaged or questioning the value of their public education. Chronic absenteeism is increasing across all grades, races, and incomes. These challenges create an imperative for schools and districts to deepen their understanding of the interests and needs of students and families. The quick technological advancements in the education market are changing what is possible and available to students, while also raising important questions around ethics, student agency, and equitable access to technology. It is a moment of immense potential in public education. 

Title I funds are a key mechanism to addressing the array of challenges in education ranging from equity to fast-paced advancements in technology transforming the field. In its current form, Title I allocation occurs via four distribution criteria. The majority of funding is allocated via basic grants that are determined entirely on individual student income eligibility. The other three criteria allocate funding based on the concentration of student financial need within a district. Those looking to rethink allocation often argue for considering impact per dollar allocated, beyond solely need as a qualifying indicator for funding, essentially taking into account cost of living and services in an area to understand how far additional funding will stretch in order to more accurately equalize funding. It is essential that Title I is redesigned beyond redoing the distribution formula. The money allocated must be spent differently—more creatively, innovatively, and wisely—in order to ensure that the needs of the most vulnerable students are finally met.

Plan of Action

Title I needs a new allowable spending category approved that specifically enables and encourages districts to use funds for activities that drive equity-focused innovation. Making room for innovation grounded in equity is particularly important in this present moment. Equity has always been important, but there are now tools to better understand and implement systems to address it. As school districts continue to recover from the pandemic-related disruptions, explore new edtech learning options, and prepare for an increasingly diverse population of students for the future, they must be encouraged to drive the creation of better solutions for students via adding a spending category that indicates the value the federal government sees in innovating for equity. Some of the spending options highlighted below are feasible under the current Title I language. By encouraging these options tethered specifically to innovation, district leadership will feel more flexibility to spend on programs that can foster equity-driven innovation and create space for the new solutions that are needed to improve outcomes for students.

Innovation, in this context, is any systemic change that brings new services, tools, or ways of working into school districts that improve the learning opportunities and experience for students. Equity-focused innovation refers to innovation efforts that are specifically focused on improving equity within school systems. It is a solution-finding process to meet the needs of students and families. Innovation can be new, technology-driven tools for students, teachers, or others who support student learning. But innovation is not limited to technology. Allowing Title I funding to be used for activities that support and foster equity-driven innovation could also include:

• Improving data systems and usage: Ensure that school districts have agile data systems equipped to identify student weaknesses and determine the effectiveness of solutions. As more solutions come to market and are developed internally, both AI and otherwise, school systems will be able to better serve students qualifying for Title I funding if they can meaningfully assess what is and is not working and use that information to guide strategy and decision-making.
• Leadership development: Support the research and development, futurist, and equitable design skills of systems to enable leaders to guide innovation from within districts alongside students and families.
• Testing new solutions: Title I funding currently can be spent primarily on evidence-based programs; enabling the use of funding for innovative pilots that have community support would provide space to discover more effective solutions. 
• Incentivizing systemic district innovation: School districts could use funding to support the creation of innovation offices within their administration structure that are tasked with developing an innovation agenda rooted in district and student needs and spearheading solutions. 
• Building networks for change: District leaders charged with creating and sustaining new learning models, school models, and programs often do so in isolation. Allowing districts to fund the creation of new programs and support existing organizations that bring together school system innovators and researchers to capture and share best practices, promising new solutions, and lessons learned from testing can lead to better adoption and scale of promising new models. There are already networks that exist, for instance, the Regional Education Laboratory Program. Funding could be used to support these existing networks or to develop new networks specifically tailored to meet the needs of leaders driving these innovations.

Expanding Title I funding to make room for innovative ideas and solutions within school systems has the potential to unlock new, more effective solutions that will help close equity gaps, but spending available education funds on unproven ideas can be risky. It is essential that the Department of Education issues carefully constructed guardrails to allow ample space for new solutions to emerge and scale, while also protecting students and ensuring their educational needs are still met. These guardrails and design principles would ensure that funds are spent in impactful ways that support innovation and building an evidence base. Examples of guardrails for a school system spending Title I funding on innovation could include:

• Innovation agenda: There should be a clearly articulated, publicly available innovation agenda that lays out how needs are being identified using quantitative and qualitative data and research, the methods of how innovations are being developed and selected, the goals of the innovation and how the work will grow (or not) based on clearly defined metrics of success.
• Clear research & development process: New ideas, tools, and ways of working must come into the district with a clear R&D process that begins with student and community needs and then regularly interrogates what is and is not working, tries to understand the why behind what is working, and expands promising practices.
• Pilot size limits: Unproven and innovative ideas should begin as pilots in order to ensure they are tested, evaluated, and proven before being used more broadly.
• Timeline requirements for results: New innovation funded via Title I funding should have a limited timeline during which the system needs to show improvement and evidence of impact.
• Clear outcomes that the innovation is aiming for: Innovation is not about something new for the sake of something new. Innovation funding via Title I funding must be linked to specific outcomes that will help achieve the overarching programmatic goal of increasing educational equity in our country. 

While creating an authorized funding category for equity-focused innovation through Title I would have the most widespread impact, other ways to drive equitable innovation should also be pursued in the short term, such as through the new Comprehensive Center (CC), set to open in fall 2024, that will focus on equitable funding. It should prioritize developing the skills in district leaders to enable and drive equity-driven innovation. 

Conclusion

Investment in innovation through Title I funding can feel high risk compared to the more comfortable route of spending only on proven solutions. However, many ways of traditional spending are not currently working at scale. Investing in innovation creates the space to find solutions that actually work for students—especially those that are farthest from opportunity and whom Title I funding is intended to support. Despite the perceived risk, investing in innovation is not a high-risk path when coupled with a clear sense of the community need, guardrails to promote responsible R&D and piloting processes, predetermined outcome goals, and the data systems to support transparency on progress. Large-scale, federal investment in creating space for innovation through Title I funding in—an already well-known mode of district funding not currently realizing its desired impact—will create solutions within public education that give students the opportunities they need and deserve.

This action-ready policy memo is part of Day One 2025 — our effort to bring forward bold policy ideas, grounded in science and evidence, that can tackle the country’s biggest challenges and bring us closer to the prosperous, equitable and safe future that we all hope for whoever takes office in 2025 and beyond.

This memo was developed in partnership with the Alliance for Learning Innovation, a coalition dedicated to advocating for building a better research and development infrastructure in education for the benefit of all students. Read more education R&D memos developed in partnership with ALI here.

This memo proposes the modernization of the Enhancing Education Through Technology (E2T2) Program as part of the overdue Elementary and Secondary Education Act’s (ESEA) reauthorization. With the expiration of several programs that support technology-enabled teaching and learning—such as the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) fund, Emergency Connectivity Fund (ECF), and the Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP)—and the increasing prevalence of digital tools in educational settings, there is a pressing need for dedicated aid to states and districts. A reimagined E2T2 can address the digital use, design, and access divides identified in the 2024 National Educational Technology Plan (NETP).

Challenge and Opportunity 

The 2024 NETP, the U.S. Department of Education’s (ED) flagship educational technology (edtech) policy document, envisions a future where all students use digital tools actively to learn, all educators have support to design those classroom experiences, and all communities can readily access foundational connectivity, devices, and digital content. The original $1 billion E2T2, established under the No Child Left Behind Act, played a critical role in developing and implementing state and local plans that reflected this vision. For example, SETDA’s 2010 report examining all states’ investments found that the top E2T2 priorities were: 

1. Professional development (top priority in 34 states)
2. Increasing achievement and digital literacy (top priority in 6 states)
3. Increase access to technology (top priority in 4 states)

However, the program lost funding in 2011 and was excluded from the 2015 Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). Since then, edtech has been subsumed under broader block grants, such as the Student Support and Academic Enrichment Program (Title IV-A) and Supporting Effective Instruction Program (Title II-A), resulting in a dilution of focus and resources. Furthermore, the end of the current Administration coincides with several challenges: 

• Federal Program Expirations: ED’s ESSER fund, which supported technology-enabled teaching and learning, was fully obligated by September 2024. The Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) ECF, which provided $7.1 billion to purchase equipment, sunsetted in June 2024. Finally, the FCC’s ACP connected 23 million households to broadband at a discounted rate. Although many ACP recipients used the program to access schoolwork, the FCC exhausted its $14 billion in May 2024. A new program is necessary to sustain the significant gains made through these programs. 
• Unprepared for Emerging Technologies: As innovative tools like generative artificial intelligence (AI) make their way into educational environments, there is an increasing need to support states and districts by offering guidance and professional learning. While half of students aged 14-22 report using generative AI, including for schoolwork, 70% of educators have not yet received training on how to use AI effectively and responsibly. 
• Urgency for Digital Citizenship: Recent actions by the Surgeon General to recommend warning labels on social media, as well as bans on cell phones in schools approved by several states and local school boards, calls for additional capacity at the state and local levels to support digital citizenship education. 
• Educator Attrition: Due to increased pressures faced during the pandemic, educator attrition rates have increased. Although many policy solutions can help counter this issue, research suggests that educators who do not feel supported in their roles are more likely to leave the profession. With the average district now accessing nearly 3,000 different technology tools in a given school year, educators are more likely to feel lost in selecting and deploying the most appropriate options. States and districts require additional capacity to help educators navigate vast quantities of digital tools, thereby bolstering a feeling of professional support. 

Plan of Action

ESSA will be nine years old in December 2024, and the legislation included authorization levels for many programs only up until fiscal year 2020. The 119th Congress has an opportunity to examine the legislation and authorize new programs that respond to current challenges. 

A reimagined E2T2, authorized at a minimum of $1.8 billion, can be provided to states and districts through the ED’s Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE), which has experience in administering large national programs. A 1.5% national activities set-aside, reserved by OESE and the Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development (OPEPD), can offer means for evaluating the impact of the program, as well as providing technical assistance through convenings and federal guidance on impactful investment strategies.

Similar to the original E2T2, state education agencies should receive their share of funds via Title I formula upon submission of a long-range statewide edtech plan informed through adequate community input (e.g., see the U.S. Department of Commerce’s guidance on soliciting public comments and engaging community organizations). States should be permitted to reserve a maximum of 5% of funds received to carry out various coordination activities, including the establishment of a dedicated edtech office that reports to the chief state school officer and is responsible for governing program implementation. The remainder of the funds should be subgranted through a mix of formula and competitive grants to local educational agencies and consortia of eligible entities (e.g., districts, nonprofits, higher education institutions, community anchor institutions). 

Allowable uses should include activities to close the three digital divides articulated in the 2024 NETP. For example, the reimagined E2T2 can support the current national AI strategy by allowing funds to be invested toward closing the “digital use divide,” providing opportunities for students to build AI literacy skills and use AI tools to examine and solve community problems. Funds could also be used to close the “digital design divide” by providing educators with ongoing professional development and reinforcing their abilities to align instruction with the Universal Design for Learning principles. Finally, funds could be used to close the “digital access divide” by allowing schools to procure accessible technology solutions, support students’ universal broadband access, or establish a state or local cabinet-level edtech director position. 

In 2025, federal policymakers have an opportunity to begin critical discussions around the E2T2 modernization by taking specific action steps:

• The Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee and the House Education and Workforce Committee can introduce steps to reauthorize ESEA, as well as seek input from educators and education leaders on new program considerations. 

• The White House Domestic Policy Council and Office of Management and Budget can advocate for the reimagined E2T2 in the president’s annual budget request.
• The Secretary of Education, alongside ED’s Assistant Secretary for Policy, Evaluation, and Policy Development and Assistant Secretary for Legislation and Congressional Affairs, can engage the public and legislators to build support for the reimagined E2T2.

Conclusion

The reimagined E2T2 represents a critical opportunity to address many pressing challenges in K-12 education while preparing students for the future. As we approach the reauthorization of ESEA, as well as consider policy solutions to fully harness the promises of emerging technologies like AI, providing systems with dedicated support for closing the three digital divides can significantly enhance the quality and equity of education across the United States. 

This memo was developed in partnership with the Alliance for Learning Innovation, a coalition dedicated to advocating for building a better research and development infrastructure in education for the benefit of all students. Read more education R&D memos developed in partnership with ALI here.

This action-ready policy memo is part of Day One 2025 — our effort to bring forward bold policy ideas, grounded in science and evidence, that can tackle the country’s biggest challenges and bring us closer to the prosperous, equitable and safe future that we all hope for whoever takes office in 2025 and beyond.

The Federation of American Scientists (FAS) and Alliance for Learning Innovation (ALI) Coalition, in collaboration with the Aspen Strategy Group and Walton Family Foundation, released a new paper “Fortifying America’s Future: Pathways for Competitiveness,” co-authored and edited by Brienne Bellavita, Dan Correa, Emily Lawrence, Alix Liss, Anja Manuel, and Sara Schapiro. The report delves into the intersection of education, workforce, and national security preparedness in the United States, summarizing key findings from roundtable discussions in early 2024. These roundtable discussions gathered field experts from a variety of organizations to enrich the discourse and provide comprehensive recommendations for addressing this challenge. Additionally, a panel of topical experts discussed the subject matter of this report at the Aspen Security Forum on July 18th, 2024.

The United States faces a critical human talent shortage in industries essential for maintaining technological leadership, including workforce sectors related to artificial intelligence, quantum computing, semiconductors, 5G/6G technologies, fintech, and biotechnology. Without a robust education system that prepares our youth for future careers in these sectors, our national security and competitiveness are at risk. Quoting the report, Dr. Katie Jenner, Secretary of Education for the State of Indiana, reiterated the idea that “we must start treating a strong educational system as a national security issue” during the panel discussion. Addressing these challenges requires a comprehensive approach that bridges the gaps between national security, industry, higher education, and K-12 education while leveraging local innovation. The paper outlines strategies for creating and promoting career pathways from K-12 into high-demand industries to maintain the U.S.’s competitive edge in an increasingly global landscape, including:

• Leveraging the national security community to foster a sense of urgency around improving our education ecosystem.
  

National security has historically driven educational investment (think Sputnik) and remains a bipartisan priority, providing a strong foundation for new legislation addressing emerging technologies like AI. For example, the CHIPS and Science Act, driven by competition with China, has spurred states to innovate, form public-private partnerships, and establish Tech Hubs. 

• Providing federal incentives and highlighting successful state approaches, building coalitions around key industries, supporting states in developing K-12 pathways, and scale impactful place-based strategies.

Mapping out workforce opportunities in other critical sectors such as aviation, AI, computer science, and biosecurity can ensure that the future workforce is gaining necessary skills to be successful in high-need careers in national security. For example, Ohio created a roadmap for advanced manufacturing with the Governor’s Office of Workforce Transformation and the Ohio Manufacturers’ Association outlining sector-specific competencies.

• Supporting intermediaries to scale connections between K-12 education and the workforce.

Innovative funding streams, employer incentives, and specialized intermediaries promoting career-connected learning can bridge gaps by encouraging stronger cross-sector ties in education and the workforce. For example, Texas allocated incentive funding to Pathways in Technology Early College High Schools (P-TECH) encouraging explicit career-connected learning opportunities that engage young people in relevant career paths. 

• Launching a Technical Assistance Center and developing a Career Counseling Corps to assist states in creating pathways to key industries through place-based ecosystem support.

A Technical Assistance (TA) Center would offer tailored support based on each state’s emerging industries, guided by broader economic and national security needs. The center could bring together stakeholders such as community colleges, education leaders, and industry contacts to build partnerships and cross-sector opportunities. 

• Highlighting success stories and place-based strategies through a 50 State Bright Spots campaign. 

Virginia streamlined all workforce initiatives under a central state department, enhancing coordination and collaboration. The state also convenes representatives and cabinet members with backgrounds in workforce issues regularly to ensure alignment of education from K-12 through postsecondary.

• Strengthening education R&D by creating and funding an ARPA-ED to advance career-connected learning with innovative solutions, improve data systems, and promote evidence-based practices in career-connected learning.

Education R&D lacks sufficient investment and the infrastructure to support innovative solutions addressing defining challenges in education in the U.S. The New Essential Education Discoveries (NEED) Act would establish an agency called the National Center for Advanced Development in Education (NCADE) that would function as an ARPA-ED, developing and disseminating evidence-based practices supporting workforce pathways and skills acquisition for critical industries.

• Encouraging technology careers by introducing K-12 students to technology-related topics early and communicating the opportunities available in key industries.

Giving young students opportunities to learn about different careers in these sectors will inspire interest and early experiences with diverse options in higher education, manufacturing, and jobs from critical industries ensuring American competitiveness.Implementing these recommendations will require action from a diverse group of stakeholders including the federal government and leadership at the state and local levels. Check out the report to see how these steps will empower our workforce and uphold the United States’ leadership in technology and national security.

Twenty-two organizations and 29 individuals from across 12 states sent a letter calling on the U.S. Department of Education to take urgent action to protect students from the dangers of extreme heat on school campuses

WASHINGTON — With meteorologists predicting a potentially record-breaking hot summer ahead, a coalition of 22 organizations from across 12 states is urgently calling on the Department of Education to use its national platform and coordinating capabilities to help schools prepare for and respond to extreme heat. In a coalition letter sent today, spearheaded by the Federation of American Scientists and UndauntedK12, the groups recommend streamlining funding, enhancing research and data, and integrating heat resilience throughout education policies.

“The heat we’re experiencing today will only get worse. Our nation’s classrooms and campuses were not built to withstand this heat, and students are paying the price when we do not invest in adequate protections. Addressing extreme heat is essential to the Department of Education’s mission of equitable access to healthy, safe, sustainable, 21st century learning environments” says Grace Wickerson, Health Equity Policy Manager at the Federation of American Scientists, who recently authored a policy memo on addressing heat in schools.

Many schools across the country – especially in communities of color – have aging infrastructure that is unfit for the heat. This infrastructure gap exposes millions of students to temperatures where it’s impossible to learn and unhealthy even to exist. Despite the rapidly growing threat of extreme heat fueled by climate change, no national guidance, research and data programs, or dedicated funding source exists to support U.S. schools in adapting to the heat.

“Many of our nation’s school campuses were designed for a different era – they are simply not equipped to keep children safe and learning with the increasing number of 90 and 100 degree days we are now experiencing due to climate change. Our coalition letter outlines common sense steps the Department of Education can take right now to move the needle on this issue, which is particularly pressing in schools serving communities of color. All students deserve access to healthy and climate-resilient classrooms,” said Jonathan Klein, co-founder and CEO of UndauntedK12.

The coalition’s recommendations include:

1. Publish guidance on school heat readiness, heat planning best practices, model programs and artifacts, and strategies to build resilience (such as nature-based solutions) in partnership with the Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Emergency Management Agency, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NIHHIS, and subject-area expert partners.
   
2. Join the Extreme Heat Interagency Working Group led by the National Integrated Heat Health Information System (NIHHIS).
   
3. Use ED’s platform to encourage states to direct funding resources for schools to implement targeted heat mitigation and increase awareness of existing funds (i.e. from the Inflation Reduction Act and Bipartisan Infrastructure Law) that can be leveraged for heat resilience. Further Ed and the IRS should work together to understand the financing gap between tax credits coverage and true cost for HVAC upgrades in America’s schools.
   
4. Direct research and development funding through the National Center for Educational Statistics and Institute for Education Sciences toward establishing regionally-relevant indoor temperature standards for schools to guide decision making based on rigorous assessments of impacts on children’s health and learning.
   
5. Adapt existing federal mapping tools, like the NCES’ American Community Survey Education Tabulation Maps and NIHHIS’ Extreme Heat Vulnerability Mapping Tool, to provide school district-relevant information on heat and other climate hazards. As an example, NCES just did a School Pulse Panel on school infrastructure and could in future iterations collect data on HVAC coverage and capacity to complete upgrades.
   
6. Evaluate existing priorities and regulatory authority to identify ways that ED can incorporate heat readiness into programs and gaps that would require new statutory authority.

The Federation of American Scientists and UndauntedK12 and our partner organizations welcome the opportunity to meet with the Department of Education to discuss these recommendations and to provide support in developing much needed guidance as we enter another season of unprecedented heat. 

###

About UndauntedK12

UndauntedK12 is a nonprofit organization with a mission to support America’s K-12 public schools to make an equitable transition to zero carbon emissions while preparing youth to build a sustainable future in a rapidly changing climate.

About Federation of American Scientists

FAS envisions a world where cutting-edge science, technology, ideas and talent are deployed to solve the biggest challenges of our time. We embed science, technology, innovation, and experience into government and public discourse in order to build a healthy, safe, prosperous and equitable society. 

The Alliance for Learning Innovation (ALI) coalition, which includes the Federation of American Scientists, EdCounsel, and InnovateEdu, today celebrate the release of three task force briefs aimed at enhancing education research and development (“ed R&D”). With pressing issues such as declining literacy and math scores, chronic absenteeism, and the rise of technologies like AI, a strong ed R&D infrastructure is vital. In 2023, ALI convened three task forces to recommend ways to bolster ed R&D. The task forces focused on state and local ed R&D infrastructure, inclusive ed R&D, and the critical role of Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), Minority-Serving Institutions (MSIs), and Tribal Colleges and Universities (TCUs) in this ecosystem.

State and Local Education R&D Infrastructure

Supporting R&D at the local level encourages an environment of continuous learning, accelerating improvements to educational methods based on new evidence and pioneering research. Therefore, given that over 90% of K-12 education funding comes from state and local sources, the ALI task force recommends that capacity-building, vision alignment, and investment in state and local education agencies (SEAs and LEAs) is prioritized. Preparing these entities to leverage R&D resources within their specific locales, in rural and urban contexts, will enable the infrastructure to best meet the unique needs of communities and students across the country. Additionally, supporting human capacity and development, modernizing data systems, and strengthening collaborative partnerships and fellowships across research institutions and key stakeholders in the ecosystem, will set the stage for more context-specific and effective ed R&D infrastructure at the state and local levels.

Inclusive Education R&D

Traditional education R&D is often dominated by privileged institutions and individuals with outsized access to capital and opportunities, sidelining the needs and perspectives of historically marginalized communities. To address this imbalance, intentional efforts are needed to create a more inclusive R&D ecosystem. The task force recommends that government actors implement multidimensional measures of progress and simplify application processes for R&D funding. Continuing dialogue on equity and inclusion will create space for identifying possible biases in approaches and processes. In sum, inclusion is imperative to achieving greater equity in education and supporting all learners of diverse backgrounds and communities.

The Role of HBCUs, MSIs, & TCUs in Education R&D

Achieving collaborative infrastructure and inclusion in ed R&D requires the strong participation of Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), Minority-Serving Institutions (MSIs), and Tribal Colleges and Universities (TCUs). An equitable education R&D ecosystem must focus on the representation of these institutions and diverse student populations in research topics, grants, and funding to support learners from all backgrounds, particularly those of disadvantaged circumstances. Actionable steps include establishing diverse peer review panels, incentivizing grant proposals from minority-serving institutions, and creating specialized scholar programs. Additionally, programs should explicitly outline resource accessibility, leadership dynamics, funder relationships, grant processes, and inclusive language to dismantle structural inequalities and make the invisible visible.

Conclusion

Recommendations from the ALI task forces propose that sufficient funding, inclusivity, and diverse representation of higher education institutions are strong first steps in a path toward a more equitable and effective education system. The education R&D ecosystem must be a learning-oriented network committed to the principles of innovation that the system itself strives to promote across best practices in education and learning.

Across the country in small towns and large cities, rural communities and the suburbs, millions of young people are missing school at astounding rates. They’re doing it with such frequency that educators are now tracking “chronic absenteeism.” 

It’s an important issue the White House is prioritizing. On May 15, the Biden-Harris Administration will host a summit on addressing chronic absenteeism. You can watch the livestream here, starting at 9:30 am ET.

This brand of truancy – where students are absent more than 10 percent of the time – is a problem in every state: Between 2018 and 2022, rates of chronic absenteeism nearly doubled, meaning an estimated 6.5 million more students are chronically absent today than six years ago. The New York Times recently reported that “something fundamental has shifted in American childhood and the culture of school, in ways that may be long lasting.”

But, like so many other issues in our country, chronic absenteeism hits some places harder than others. According to the non-profit organization Attendance Works, students from low-income and under-served communities are “much more likely to be enrolled in schools facing extreme levels of chronic absence.” When Attendance Works crunched the numbers, it found that in schools where at least 75 percent of students received a free or reduced-price lunch, the rates of chronic absenteeism nearly tripled, increasing from 25 percent to 69 percent between 2017 and 2022.

This alarming trend has educators and policymakers scrambling for solutions, from better bus routes to automated messaging systems for parents to “early warning” attendance tracking. These are important pursuits, but alone they won’t solve the problem.

Why? Because experts and research show that chronic absenteeism is only a symptom of a larger, more complex problem. For too many young people of color, school can be out of touch with the lives they live, so they’ve stopped going, to the point that experts predict that attendance rates won’t return to pre-COVID levels until 2030.

In these schools, the curriculum can lack rigor and their inflexible policies can harm students’ mental health and stifle the inquisitive optimism they might otherwise bring to school each day. Enrichment programs are few and far between, and students lack meaningful relationships with faculty and staff. For many kids, school is irrelevant and unwelcoming. 

If schools and policymakers want to solve the problem of chronic absenteeism – particularly in under-served communities – then they must invest in new ideas, research, and tools that will make school a place where kids feel welcomed and engaged, and where learning is relevant. In short, a school needs to be a place where kids want to be. Every. Single. Day.

Teachers, principals, and superintendents know this, and they work to make their schools and classrooms warm, fun, and challenging. But they are swimming against the tide, and they cannot be expected to do this alone. The U.S. must direct and support its brightest minds and boldest innovators to attack this problem. It can do so by making a national investment in research and development efforts to explore new approaches to learning.

The U.S. has already made a big bet on innovation for sectors like defense and health – and in space exploration in the 1960s when JFK challenged the nation to put men on the moon. This kind of “imagine if…” R&D has not yet been applied to education. 

Let’s create a National Center for Advanced Development in Education (NCADE), inspired by DARPA, the R&D engine behind the Internet and GPS. This new center would enable informed-risk, high-reward R&D to come up with new approaches and systems that would make learning relevant and fun. It could also produce innovations and creative new ways to increase family engagement – a big factor that contributes to absenteeism – improve access to technology, and even test and assess alternative discipline programs aimed at keeping kids in school rather than suspending them.

As one example, a study shows that texting parents with attendance tips and alerts effectively reduces absenteeism. Another study worked with a school district to send over 32,000 texts to families and saw attendance increase by 15 percent.

As the nation’s schools face the daunting task of post-COVID recovery, efforts to stem chronic absenteeism that tinker around the edges won’t solve the problem. NCADE could drive the transformative solutions that are needed with a nimble, multidisciplinary approach to advance bold, “what if…” R&D projects based on their potential to transform education. 

Consider the possibilities of virtual reality. In partnership with edtech startup Transfr, several Boys & Girls Clubs are leveraging virtual reality to help students plan for their future careers. With VR technology, students can peek into a cell or stand on a planet’s surface. Imagine if NCADE could further develop an early concept for an AI-assisted “make your own song” program for students with speech-language development challenges. Or, it could support the creation of customized, culturally relevant assessments, made possible through machine learning, that make test-taking less intimidating. 

Chronic absenteeism is a complex problem caused by a number of factors, but the theme running through all of them is that for too many students, schools don’t offer the types of learning opportunities or supports that make learning engaging, meaningful, and relevant to their lives. It doesn’t have to be this way. Let’s act boldly to harness innovation and make school inviting, accessible, and worthwhile for all students.

A year and a half after its passage, money is starting to flow from the CHIPS and Science Act to create high-paying, high-tech jobs. In Phoenix, for example, the chip manufacturer Intel will receive billions to help build two new computer chip manufacturing plants that will transform the area into one of the world’s most important players in modern electronics. 

That project was one of several – totaling nearly $20 billion – announced recently with Intel for computer chip plants in Arizona, Ohio, New Mexico and Oregon. The company said the investments will create a combined 30,000 manufacturing and construction jobs.

With numbers like that, it’s easy to see why all of the attention and headlines for the legislation thus far have focused on the “CHIPS” part of the law. But now, it is time for Congress to put its bipartisan support behind the “and Science” or risk the momentum the law has created. 

That’s because both the law and the semiconductor industry recognize that the U.S. needs a bigger, more inclusive science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) workforce to fulfill the needs of a robust high-tech manufacturing industry. While CHIPS sets the conditions for a revitalized domestic semiconductor industry, it also calls for improved “access to education, opportunity, and services” to support and develop the workers needed to fill these new jobs.

The numbers show the U.S. lags behind its global competitors when it comes to math and science achievement. Middle school math scores are exceptionally low: only 26 percent of all eighth-grade students scored “proficient” on the math portion of the National Assessment of Education Progress in 2022. This presents big problems down the road for higher education.

To put it more bluntly: at a time when CHIPS is poised to ramp up demand for STEM graduates, the nation’s education system is unprepared to produce them. 

So what’s a fix? A good first step would be for Congress to pass the New Essential Education Discoveries (NEED) Act to improve the nation’s capabilities to conduct education research and development. NEED would create the National Center for Advanced Development in Education (NCADE), a new Center within the research arm of the U.S. Department of Education to develop innovative practices, tools, systems, and approaches to boost achievement among young people in the wake of the pandemic.

NCADE would enable an informed-risk, high-reward R&D strategy for education – the kind that’s already taking place in other sectors, like health, agriculture, and energy. It’s akin to the approach that fuels the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), which has led to innovations like GPS, the Internet, stealth technology, and even the computer mouse. Education needs something like this, and NEED will create it – a flexible, nimble research center pushing transformational education innovations.

The passing of the CHIPS and Science Act was a strong indication that Republicans and Democrats can work together to solve big, complex problems when motivated to do so. Passing the NEED Act will show that the same bipartisan spirit can ensure the long-term success of the law while simultaneously setting the course for vast and fundamental improvements to the nation’s schools and universities through improved R&D in education.