Summary

Developed during a different industrial era, today’s education system was never designed to meet modern learners’ needs. This incongruity has heaped systemic problems upon individual educators, blunted the effectiveness of reforms, and shortchanged the nation’s most vulnerable young people — outcomes exposed and exacerbated by COVID-19. Building back better in a post-pandemic United States will require federal investments not only in schools, but in “learning ecosystems” that leverage and connect the assets of entire communities. Tasked with studying, seeding, and scaling these ecosystems in communities across the country, a White House Initiative on Community Learning Ecosystems would signal a shift toward a new education model, positioning the United States as a global leader in learning.

Summary

The coronavirus pandemic has forced a sudden acceleration of a prior trend toward the virtual provision of healthcare, also known as telemedicine. This acceleration was necessary in the short term so that provision of non-urgent health services could continue despite lockdowns and self- isolation. Federal and state policymakers have supported the shift toward telemedicine through temporary adjustments to health benefits, reimbursements, and licensure restrictions.

Yet if policymakers direct their attention too narrowly on expanding telemedicine they risk missing a larger—and as yet mostly unrealized—opportunity to improve healthcare in the United States: increasing the overall share of health services provided directly to the home. At-home healthcare includes not only telemedicine, but also medical house calls (home-based primary care) as well as models in which individuals within communities offer simple support services to one another (i.e., the “village” model of senior care, which could be extended to included peer- to-peer health service delivery). The advent of “exponential” technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI), blockchain, and the Internet of Things (IoT) is unlocking new possibilities for at- home healthcare across each of these models.

The next administration should act to reduce four types of barriers currently preventing at-home healthcare from reaching its full potential:

1. Labor-market barriers (e.g., unnecessarily restrictive scope-of-practice rules and requirements for licensing and certification)
2. Technical barriers (e.g., excessively slow and burdensome processes for regulatory approval, weak or absent standards for interoperability)
3. Financial/regulatory barriers (e.g., methodologies for determining eligibility for reimbursements that favor incumbents over innovators)
4. Data sharing / interoperability barriers (e.g., overly restrictive constraints related to data privacy and portability)

The surge in education technology use in response to COVID-19 represents a massive natural experiment: an opportunity to learn what works at scale, for which students, and under which conditions. However, without the right data standards in place we risk incomplete or inaccurate inferences from this experiment.

The COVID-19 pandemic has dramatically increased use of educational technologies. There is evidence that this “emergency onlining” will lead to learning loss, especially among underserved communities. To understand and address the extent of learning loss—as well as to explore and support potential future uses of educational technologies—the U.S. Department of Education (ED) must systematically implement established open-data standards that allow us to understand how students engage with learning technologies. Widescale implementation of these standards will make it possible to combine and analyze validated data sets generated by multiple technologies. This in turn will provide unprecedented, on-demand reporting and research capabilities that can be used to precisely identify gaps and create targeted interventions. Specifically, we recommend that ED mandate the use of the open Experience API (xAPI) standard for educational technology purchased with federal funds. We further recommend that ED invest time, talent, and resources to further develop this standard and pilot efforts to leverage educational-technology data for insights through the Institute for Education Sciences (IES) and other agencies.

Challenge and Opportunity

The COVID-19 pandemic rapidly forced schools across the country to close physical campuses and convert all instruction to an “emergency online” modality for much of 2020. The situation will likely persist well into 2021. The emergency shift to online teaching meant that many teachers had insufficient preparation to successfully adapt classroom-teaching methods for digital formats. Moreover, many students—especially those from low-income families or from historically underserved racial and ethnic groups—lack access to high-speed broadband and technology assets needed to fully participate in online learning. These factors are combining to create learning losses that exacerbate our existing digital divides that may persist for years.

Robust educational research and development is needed to fully understand the extent and distribution of learning loss, as well as to develop interventions for addressing it. Educational technologies—which record all student interactions, from logins to mouse-clicks to assignment submissions—could provide a wealth of data on how online education is succeeding and/or falling short. Unfortunately, these data are frequently recorded in a way that is unique to each application. This lack of consistency makes it difficult to integrate educational data or make comparisons between institutions

The time is ripe to introduce new requirements for learning technology designed to ensure that parents, educators, administrators, and stakeholders at every level can assess where students are at, what they know, and what will best help them to advance. These insights could also significantly reduce the day-to-day demands on teachers’ time and attention, enabling them to focus on deeper student questions. The technology needed to implement such requirements are already available in the open-source xAPI standard, which is currently in the final stages of approval as an IEEE standard. Further, there are xAPI “profiles” that define specific data requirements for processes common to educational technologies, such as playing a video. While the concept of a learning-data standard was recommended by ED as early as 2015, adoption has been uneven in practice. This situation must change for us to immediately address COVID19 learning loss as quickly and accurately as possible.

Plan of Action

To address the challenges outlined above, we recommend including xAPI as a federal procurement requirement to encourage adoption among educational software and service providers. Widespread adoption will mean that most—if not ultimately all—providers consistently and automatically generate only the educational data that conforms to standards established by ED. Establishing consistent standards for educational data will make it easier for all parties to contribute meaningfully to key datasets, and for researchers to develop tools to track and exchange meaningful data. These outcomes together will deliver deeper understandings of how our nation’s students are doing, inform efforts to close achievement gaps, and facilitate tracking of changes over time. We also recommend investing ED time, talent, and resources into further developing the xAPI standard and participating in pilot projects that demonstrate its utility. Each of these recommendations is detailed further below.

Recommendation 1. Mandate use of the xAPI standard for ED-funded procurement.

We recommend that ED mandate use of xAPI for all educational technology purchased through ED directly as well as through federal grants. ED should also establish a process for ensuring compliance, including conducting conformance tests on educational software and services from different providers.

The IEEE is in the final stages of publishing the open-source xAPI standard. Mandating its adoption would demonstrate cutting-edge ED leadership. Widespread adoption of the standard will provide a common approach to collecting evidence about how students, parents, and teachers interact with education platforms, paving the way for much more rigorous, consistent, and reliable educational research.

Recommendation 2. Develop xAPI profiles to facilitate data integration and improve data quality for the educational sector.

IEEE is standardizing documents that help automate the data governance needs for a type of educational solution (“application profiles”). Standards developers are rarely familiar with learning sciences and educational research. As a result, xAPI profiles will tend to be general in nature unless domain-specific experts get involved. For instance, medical experts have worked to develop the MedBiquitious xAPI Profiles for Medical Education. Human-resources experts have developed the Human Resources Open Standards (HROS) xAPI Profile and, and work is ongoing for an Assessment xAPI Profile that supports the U.S. Chamber of Commerce T3 initiative.

ED should invest time, talent, and funding to develop xAPI profiles that are aligned with current research and national priorities. An xAPI Profile effort could help to normalize data collection from a spate of popular 5th grade mobile math applications, that properly identify the relevant ED standards, competencies or objectives are challenged by a student, which could provide such app developers with the automation that would simplify generating better, aligned data. Works like this could change online classrooms into opportunities to embed better pedagogy into practice at scale.

Recommendation 3. Invest in applied research and development.

ED should partner with schools and educational technology companies to invest in applied research that demonstrates insights from standardized educational data. ED should also work with partners to invest in public repositories of code to make it easier for all stakeholders to leverage insights. Such investments should focus both on the short term (e.g., providing immediate insights about use of educational technology and learning loss during the COVID-19 pandemic) and long term (e.g., providing examples of potential applications that could be scaled and replicated in the future). Such investments would not only advance our understanding of education, but would also help to develop a market for further development of data-based educational products. IES and ED’s Office of Educational Technology should partner to identify topics and approaches to conduct this cutting-edge research.

There are multiple examples of research using educational-process data that these investments could build on. IES recently issued a request for proposals (RFP) to use National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) process data to identify students with disabilities, to understand how those student use available accommodations, and to determine which are most successful. Predictive models of student dropout risk, course design analytics to identify areas for improvement, and course-taking patterns are all being conducting using this data at relatively small scale through academic societies, such as the Society for Learning Analytics Research (SoLAR) and the International Educational Data Mining Society. All stand to benefit and leverage this data to dramatically improve research.

SoLAR recently published a position paper describing current challenges with these data.4 Larger educational-research societies such as the American Educational Research Association (AERA) and the National Council on Measurement in Education (NCME) have launched specialized groups focused on working with educational-process data.

By investing in this area, ED could help to nurture this area of research and make a difference in the lives of students, parents, teachers and schools across the country. This approach would help to motivate better data quality and enable technologists to build more robust learning applications, thereby helping us to stem the COVID-19 learning loss as quickly as possible using contemporary science and technology.

Summary

Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) models can solve well-specified problems, like automatically diagnosing disease or grading student essays, at scale. But applications of AI and ML for major social and scientific problems are often constrained by a lack of high-quality, publicly available data—the foundation on which AI and ML algorithms are built.

The Biden-Harris Administration should launch a multi-agency initiative to coordinate the academic, industry, and government research community to support the identification and development of datasets for applications of AI and ML in domain-specific, societally valuable contexts. The initiative would include activities like generating ideas for high-impact datasets, linking siloed data into larger and more useful datasets, making existing datasets easier to access, funding the creation of real-world testbeds for societally valuable AI and ML applications, and supporting public-private partnerships related to all of the above.

Summary

America’s leadership in space exploration and utilization could greatly accelerate by using a fundamentally different approach to in-space operations than that which exists today. Most of today’s spacecraft are locked into their launch configurations, with little or no ability to be updated or serviced once in space. But by leveraging recent and emerging capabilities to manufacture, assemble, and service spacecraft in space, we can dramatically improve the cost-effectiveness, productivity, and resiliency of our space systems.

To achieve this, the Biden-Harris Administration should launch a new Advanced Space Architectures Program (ASAP) to enable a new generation of in-space operations. ASAP would operate under a public-private consortium model to leverage government investment, engage a broad community, and bring in the support of international partners. In this memo, we propose two specific missions that the next administration could undertake early to initiate the ASAP program and demonstrate its efficacy. Initiating ASAP as soon as possible will help the new administration’s mission to build back better: for our economy, for science and exploration, for international leadership in mitigating the climate crisis, and for the security of our nation.

To overcome the unprecedented backlog of court cases created by the pandemic, courts must be reimagined. Rather than strictly brick-and-mortar operations, court must consider themselves digital platforms. To accomplish this, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) – with support from 18F, U.S. Digital Service, the Legal Services Corporation, and the State Justice Institute – must build and fund professional and technical capacity at the state level to develop and adopt standardized digital infrastructure for courts and other justice agencies. Due to the replicable nature of this solution across states, the federal government is perfectly positioned to lead this effort, which will be more cost effective than if each court system attempted this work on their own. The estimated cost is $1 billion. 

This once-in-a-generation investment will allow courts to collect granular, raw data, which can help overcome the current backlog, increase access to the justice system, inform policies that drive down mass incarceration, improve transparency, and seed a public and private revolution in justice technology that improves access to justice for all Americans.

Challenge and Opportunity

The COVID-19 pandemic brought physical shutdowns to American courts and an unprecedented backlog of cases. In Connecticut, pending civil and criminal cases jumped 200 percent, and many trials are not scheduled to start until 2021. As of June, New York City had 39,200 criminal cases in backlog. Meanwhile, San Diego, California has 20,000 criminal cases waiting to be heard. These are just a small sample of a widespread national trend.

In an attempt to manage this moment, courts rapidly moved online and opened Slack channels and Zoom accounts. Quick action like this should be applauded. However, these solutions are undercut by the justice system’s long-term lack of investment in digital infrastructure.

Across the country, courts fail at data collection, publication, and use. States like California, Colorado, and Florida passed laws in recent years to collect more data created by the justice system, but they are in the minority. Many states still operate on paper and have little-to-no digital data. In Massachusetts, a state that spent over $75 million to digitize court infrastructure, courts still don’t electronically track judges’ decisions, bail rates, or even a party’s gender. Nationally, a 2015 study found that 26 state court systems could not provide “an accurate report on how many cases were filed and disposed in any given year” — the most basic of court data. Meanwhile, public trust in the courts recently fell by double digits and the U.S. ranks 36th globally on access to civil justice— behind Rwanda and on par with Kazakhstan.

This lack of reusable data puts a ceiling on our understanding of individual courts and what courts can do with technology. Without data, software solutions like those that help analyze a court’s caseload, automate court processes, or provide assistance to people representing themselves without an attorney, are out of reach. While the relationship between data and improved court understanding and efficiency has been well-known for at least 30 years, the existing failures of the justice system compounded by the pandemic demand sweeping action.

Plan of Action

To fix this systemic problem at its foundation, the DOJ should support state courts in the adoption of open data standards, modern data collection methods, and application programming interfaces (APIs). Collectively, this is the digital infrastructure needed to help courts manage the tens of thousands of cases that have piled up, become more efficient, and increase access to justice.

This approach is different from how justice system actors currently conceptualize managing information. Currently, agencies generally think about data only in its finished form: a court order, a pamphlet, or a website. Thinking as a digital platform requires justice system leaders to consider data not only in its end form, but as raw data that is accurate, publicly available, secure, and reusable.

To make this a reality, the reconstituted Office of Access to Justice in the DOJ, with support from 18F, U.S. Digital Service, the Legal Services Corp., and the State Justice Institute, needs to offer grant and technical support so local court systems can digitize court data and services. To do this, three layers must be created: information, platform, and presentation. This proposal supports the creation of the first two layers, setting the foundation for the development of the third.

The information layer encompasses all of a justice system’s structured and unstructured data, including case filing and case outcome data. Creating this layer means collecting and cleaning the standardized data that exists across court systems, but also turning unstructured data – like court rules and orders that are usually housed in PDFs or on paper – into structured data. Creating this layer is time-consuming and painstaking, but the process is replicable across jurisdictions, which is why funding and technical support from the federal government is important and more cost effective than relying on each state to recreate this process. The National Center for State Courts published open data standards for courts in 2019. By using these standards across the country, court-to-court and state-to-state comparisons become possible, which can better inform local need and complementary federal support.

The platform layer gives the data utility. This includes the adoption of data management processes and software and APIs. This creates a multitude of benefits. Most significantly, it allows courts to quantify and manage the case backlog by giving them ready access to usable information about what types of cases are pending, for how long, and why. Having readily useable data will also increase transparency by allowing administrators, policymakers, and researchers to dig into how courts function.

Publicly available, structured data also lowers the barrier to entry for entrepreneurs and researchers building solutions to mass incarceration and the access-to-justice gap, thus creating the presentation layer. We’ve already seen this in other markets: data from weather.gov informs weather forecasts on our devices and local government transit data populates real-time information on map applications. For courts, this layer may include a court data portal where the public can see, in real time, what’s happening at the court. The presentation layer could come in the form of a text message reminder system that helps people appear for their court date, which would decrease bench warrants and pre-trial detention. This data will also assist the adoption of online dispute resolution software, which allows courts to quickly resolve high-volume, low-stakes cases without requiring in-court hearings, saving time, money, and trouble.

Conclusion

By focusing on data infrastructure, localities will have the information to uncover and tackle the most pressing issues that they face. However, if the justice system continues on its current path, fewer people will have access to the courts, people will continue to languish in prison, and faith in the justice system will continue to erode.

The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the urgent need to address lags in American pharmaceutical manufacturing. An investment of $5 billion over five years will improve U.S. pharmaceutical manufacturing infrastructure, including the development of new technologies that will enable the responsive, end-to-end, on-demand production of up to half of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) list of 223 essential medicines by year two, and the entire portfolio by year five. Spearheading improvements in domestic manufacturing capacity, coupled with driving the advancement of new adaptive, on-demand, and other advanced medicine production technologies will ensure a safe, responsive, reliable, and affordable supply of quality medicines, improving access for all citizens, including vulnerable populations living in underserved urban communities, rural areas, and tribal territories.

Challenge and Opportunity

Urgent Need to Strengthen U.S. Pharmaceutical Manufacturing

COVID-19 has served as a wake-up call and an opportunity to bring pharmaceutical manufacturing into the 21st century. Production factory closures, shipping delays, shutdowns, trade limitations, and export bans have severely disrupted the supply chain. Yet the demand for vaccines and COVID-19 treatment options worldwide continues to increase. However, recent advances in manufacturing technology can be deployed to create a 21st century domestic pharmaceutical manufacturing economy that is distributed, flexible, and scalable, while producing consistent high-quality medicines that Americans rely on.

To improve national security and achieve the goal of medicine production self-sufficiency, the Biden-Harris Administration has an opportunity to address legacy issues plaguing the pharmaceutical manufacturing industry and usher in a technology revolution that will leapfrog our legacy 19th century industrial manufacturing processes. The Biden-Harris Administration should prioritize:

Improving the domestic production of small-molecule medicines, including Key Starting Materials (KSMs) and Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients (APIs) in order to reduce dependence on foreign manufacturers. China and India together supply 75- 80 percent of the APIs imported to the U.S.¹ In March, during the largest spring spike in U.S. COVID-19 cases, India restricted the export of 26 APIs as well as finished pharmaceuticals. The U.S is the leading market for generic pharmaceuticals, with 9 out of every 10 prescriptions filled being for generic drugs in 2019, and a projected market value of $415 billion by 2023.² An aggressive race to the bottom in terms of price has driven the vast majority of supply chain manufacturing overseas, where lower production costs and government subsidies, particularly for exports, benefit foreign suppliers.

Improving the scale, efficiency, and effectiveness of domestic biopharmaceutical manufacturing. The past decade has ushered in a significant shift in the nature of pharmaceutical products: there is now a greater prevalence of large molecule drugs, personalized therapeutics, and a rise in treatments for orphan diseases. New approaches to developing vaccines, such as the mRNA COVID-19 vaccine, are setting a new paradigm for future vaccines using DNA, RNA, adenoviruses, and proteins. There is an urgent need to scale up the domestic manufacturing of biologics, including vaccines, to address biomedical threats. In addition, innovation in manufacturing technology is critical to improving both scalability and time to market. New technology will improve yields while lowering costs and reduce waste through green chemistry.

Additional benefits associated with establishing a robust domestic manufacturing base, including distributed manufacturing capability, include:

Reducing vulnerabilities associated with an over-reliance on centralized manufacturing and processing models. In the food industry, a COVID-19 outbreak in just a few chicken and pork processing plants led to a nationwide shortage of these important foods. A more flexible, resilient distributed manufacturing model, such as one utilizing additive manufacturing and 3-D printing, would have prevented the need for such a disruptive response. 3-D printing, for example, has successfully delivered more than 1,000 parts to local hospitals during the pandemic.

Improving the reliability of facilities and the quality of products for the U.S. market through the development and deployment of advanced manufacturing technologies. Low-cost, offshore manufacturing raises quality risks; more than half of FDA warning letters issued between 2018 and 2019 were sent to facilities in India or China.4 There are numerous examples of risks to both the health and security of U.S. citizens in the recent past. In 2007, a Chinese company deliberately contaminated the blood thinner Heparin and 246 Americans died. In 2015, the FDA banned 29 products after inspecting a Chinese pharmaceutical factory, although it exempted 14 products over U.S. shortage concerns. And in 2018, a Chinese vaccine maker sold at least 250,000 substandard doses of vaccine for diphtheria, tetanus, and whooping cough.

Improving access for vulnerable populations living in underserved urban communities, rural areas, and tribal territories. COVID-19 created unprecedented pressure on the federal system when requests from 56 State, Local, Tribal, and Territorial (SLTT) authorities nearly simultaneously requested medical supplies. According to testimony presented by the RAND Corporation, the quantities of material in the Strategic National Stockpile (SNS) were not nearly enough to fill all of the requests, resulting in a heated competition and a failure to deliver products to all of the different parts of the United States equitably.

Reducing critical drug shortages that have plagued U.S. health systems for more than a decade. With COVID-19 cases on the rise, and hospitalizations increasing in more than 40 states, critical drug supplies are waning, with 29 out of 40 drugs used to combat the coronavirus currently in short supply. In addition, 43% of 156 acute care medicines used to treat various illnesses are running low. In 2019 the U.S. experienced 186 new drug shortages; 82% of which were classified as being due to “unknown” reasons, largely because of the intentional opacity and secrecy of the upstream supply chain. According to the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy (CIDRAP) the U.S. health system spends more than $500 million a year on estimated costs related to drug shortages, with approximately $200 million in direct costs and up to $360 million on indirect costs.

Stabilize pricing by enabling ‘just in time’ manufacturing capability that reduces the need to stockpile large supplies of medicines and is more responsive to surges in demand. Furthermore, complex supply chains, procurement mechanisms, and the consolidation of U.S. buyers create ‘pay-to-play’ schemes that contribute to chronic drug shortages by driving manufacturers out of the market and contribute to price volatility. New technologies that enable responsive and efficient approaches to surges in demand, or to address drug shortages, will also stabilize pricing over time. Today, one in four Americans cannot afford their medication. Mylan, for example, increased the price of EpiPen by more than 500%, from $94 for a two-dose pack in 2007 to $608 in 2018.

21st Century Problems Require 21st Century Solutions

Advanced manufacturing technologies such as continuous flow, which allows for drugs to be produced in a continuous stream, can reduce the time it takes to manufacture a drug and ensure quality through advanced controls and process analytic technologies. These technologies can enable remote monitoring during production and real-time release testing. In addition, miniaturized manufacturing units that could easily fit in existing pharmacies would facilitate a distributed network for producing medicines that is flexible enough to rapidly pivot and make any therapeutic required for national security or emergency preparedness with short lead times. A distributed network of on-demand pharmaceutical manufacturing devices will improve supply availability without the need to stockpile large quantities of medications.

Automation will play a key role in advanced pharmaceutical manufacturing, as will 3-D printing. Automation will reduce manufacturing overheads and ensure quality, scalability, and increased outputs. It allows advanced connectivity of equipment, people, processes, services, and supply chains. The 3-D printing of pharmaceutical products, meanwhile, is accelerating following the FDA’s approval of the first 3-D printed drug in 2015. This technology accommodates personalized doses and dosage forms and other emerging technologies that enable bespoke tablet sizes, dosages, and forms (suspension, wafers, gel strips, etc.) to optimize patient compliance and ease of use. Another major advantage is the possibility of redistributed manufacturing–printing medicine much closer to the patient. 3-D printing and on-the-spot drug fabrication will have major implications in medical countermeasures and for medications with limited shelf-life.

Finally, investing in advanced biopharmaceutical manufacturing infrastructure and innovation would establish the capacity to produce domestically through a network of high-tech, end-to-end manufacturing and development solutions, which will ensure that the medicines of today and tomorrow, such as new vaccines, can be made quickly, safely, and at scale.

Plan of Action

The Biden-Harris Administration should launch a national adaptive pharmaceutical manufacturing initiative focused on the ambitious goal of achieving medicine production self-sufficiency. The Presidential Initiative should be led by an Ambassador who reports to the Secretary of Defense. The Secretary of Defense is already leading a whole-of-government effort to assess risk, identify impacts, and propose recommendations in support of a healthy manufacturing and defense industrial base – a critical aspect of economic and national security. The Department of Defense (DoD) coordinates these efforts in partnership with the Departments of Commerce, Labor, Energy, and Homeland Security, and in consultation with the Department of the Interior, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and the Director of National Intelligence.

Clear deliverables and timeline-dependent milestones are critical to the success of this initiative. New local manufacturing solutions — such as state-of-the-art facilities and devices for automated end-to-end pharmaceuticals to be deployed in a trailer — can augment ongoing efforts to reduce manufacturing ramp-up time, the need for strict environmentally controlled secure storage facilities, and waste from expired medications. Having stand-alone or mobile devices for automated end-to-end pharmaceuticals would empower local authorities to manage delivery and distribution protocols, ensuring that local populations have the lifesaving medicines they need when they need them.

To this end, the DoD, in collaboration with HHS and the FDA, should launch a national initiative to increase U.S. manufacturing capacity and accelerate the development of new technology, with an emphasis on the adoption of advanced analytical capabilities to ensure quality. These platforms should be able to produce precursors, APIs, and final drug products (small molecule and biologics) in multiple forms, enabling rapid response priority medicines on demand, targeting the creation of a self-sustaining domestic supply chain of the 223 medicines on the FDA Essential Medicines list, as well as new vaccines and medicines coming off patent in the next 5 years.

The establishment of a national pharmaceutical manufacturing network will facilitate a U.S. strategic asset that changes how we source, manufacture, and distribute medicines. This robust domestic network will mitigate drug shortages, ensure quality, and allow rapid response to emergency scenarios. Importantly, it re-establishes a domestic pharmaceutical manufacturing industry that relies less on overseas suppliers, advances our country’s innovation prowess, and will create thousands of new U.S. jobs.

Recommendations for the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Defense

To enable a more resilient, responsive and adaptive U.S. pharmaceutical supply chain and achieve medicine production self-sufficiency, the following actions are recommended.

First, sign an executive order that directs the formation of a Joint Interagency Task Force (JIATF) DoD, HHS and FDA, led by a Presidential appointee (Ambassador), with a $5 billion, 5-year funding commitment, to establish a more robust domestic responsiveness that includes advanced manufacturing technologies for biologics and small molecules. A key objective of the executive order and the formation of a JIATF is to ensure the U.S. can produce medicines stateside with improved responsiveness.

This initiative will:

• Identify a portfolio of products that can be rapidly deployed at a national, state or local level utilizing advanced manufacturing platforms, identify associated research and development agenda needs, and determine how this aligns with other initiatives such as the Strategic National Stockpile.
• Support targeted synthetic biology research and development to enable faster manufacturing of low-cost, on-demand vaccines and precision immunotherapies.
• Support the advanced development of green, modular, on-demand small-molecule manufacturing technologies that would accommodate small batch lines, with an ability to scale and produce higher volume when needed. • Support targeted advanced development of sensor technologies that can monitor online and real-time quality control.
• Support the acquisition and/or establishment of new U.S.-based manufacturing facilities.
• Support green technology solutions.
• Establish a center for excellence in advanced manufacturing at the FDA, to support and advance regulatory science.
• Identify new business models to support the economically sustainable domestic adoption and deployment of new manufacturing technology.
• Enact push and pull incentives to direct new medical countermeasure development funded by HHS (Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, BARDA) and other federal agencies to utilize adaptive manufacturing practices as appropriate.

Key milestones and deliverables of this initiative include the following:

1. By year 2, ensure that 50% of the FDA’s Essential Medicines are manufactured from end-to-end in the United States, to include starting materials and APIs.
2. By Year 5, the FDA will have the capability to manufacture all Essential Medicines in the United States.
3. In this same time frame, the quality of every dose of the medicines produced can be provided to the FDA for oversight.
4. All starting materials are sourced domestically or from trusted allied nations.

Conclusion 

Expanding critical U.S. pharmaceutical manufacturing infrastructure and establishing an adaptive, transparent on-demand pharmaceutical manufacturing capability guarantees safe, secure, high-quality, and reliable supply of affordable drugs and would create thousands of new U.S. high-paying jobs. By utilizing green technology, it could reduce hazardous material waste by as much as 30 percent over conventional manufacturing. It would also improve transparency and supply chain efficiencies that could reduce shortages, lower costs, and improve the quality of medicines. A distributed, modular, on-demand manufacturing network capable of making biologics and small molecules cannot be disrupted by the loss of centralized facilities, natural disasters, pandemics, or adversarial actions. New local on-demand manufacturing solutions will reduce manufacturing ramp-up time, the need for strict environmentally-controlled secure storage facilities, and waste from expired medications. It will empower local authorities to manage delivery and distribution protocols, ensuring that local populations have the lifesaving medicines they need when they need them. In addition, it would offer the potential to improve warfighter resilience and recovery by providing the groundwork for producing medicines on demand, and at the point of care, whether it be on a C-5, submarine, or at a forward combat support hospital.

Summary

Putting a price on carbon is fundamental to achieving U.S. climate goals for 2050. Many options for carbon price-setting exist, and in this policy brief we propose a tax-and-dividend approach that mitigates the challenging impacts that carbon policies have on poor and suburban/rural communities, particularly those in Middle America. Such a plan will be a net gain for low-income households, in contrast to other proposed climate change policies which will adversely affect the poor. Furthermore, it has been shown that even a modest carbon tax can have large benefits in terms of cost-effectiveness.

For that reason, we propose the following:

• Introduce a carbon tax-and-dividend plan as part of any federal climate policy.
• Use revenue to offset impacts on low-income households, taking into account enormousregional disparities.
• If political dynamics favor regulatory standards, consider coupling such standards with amodest carbon tax whose revenue can be used to offset their regressive effects.

Summary

The Biden-Harris Administration should establish a National DeepTech Capital Fund (NDTC Fund) to bridge capital gaps and enable more DeepTech entrepreneurs to bring promising and beneficial technologies to market. 

Greater investment in DeepTech is critical in order to return the United States to the forefront of advanced science and technology research and development (R&D). “DeepTech” refers to companies and innovators building science-based, or R&D-based, products and services including hardware and advanced materials, robotics, manufacturing, and biotech. U.S. government investment in technology has declined by two-thirds in the past decades. Private capital typically eschews investment in advanced technologies, due to a combination of the additional expertise needed for and risks inherent to advanced-technology investment. Silicon Valley’s early days were cushioned by government risk capital at a time when the private sector could not see the value of investing in R&D. But relying entirely on Silicon Valley to drive investment in innovation has led the U.S. to a point where it risks being replaced by other innovation centers such as China. A National DeepTech Capital Fund would encourage and enable investment in companies building solutions to society’s greatest challenges, while ensuring that the United States remains at the center of global innovation.

(To see full list of citations, download the PDF version)

Competitive job markets are critical to the success of the national economy, spurring innovation while boosting wages and labor equality. The moment is ripe for the new administration to foster competitive job markets by banning noncompete agreements (noncompetes). New empirical evidence shows that noncompetes have harmful effects on job mobility, wages, competition, entrepreneurship, and equality. Yet noncompetes are widely included in employment contracts. And inconsistent state rules on noncompetes (and their enforcement) have led to employee confusion and disputes among state courts.

A tough, consistent federal strategy to eliminate noncompetes is needed. Several recent federal and state initiatives addressing noncompetes have created momentum that the new administration can build on to rapidly address this issue. The Biden-Harris administration should (1) adopt a federal ban on noncompetes, (2) actively educate the public about their labor-mobility rights (and actively support those rights), and (3) take proactive steps to ensure compliance with labor-mobility policy. Specific steps the new administration could consider include:

• Barring noncompete agreements through legislation or executive order. If barring all noncompetes is not yet feasible, a federal ban on noncompetes imposed on low-wage and unskilled workers would be a good first step.
• Issuing executive orders that (i) restrict or eliminate government contracting with companies that use noncompetes; and (ii) require employers in states that restrict noncompetes not to sign noncompetes with employees in those states, and/or to give prominent notice of the unenforceability of noncompetes in those states.
• Requiring employment contracts to include a notice about employees’ right to leave their employer.
• Banning secrecy imposed by employers regarding salary information.
• Requiring the Department of Labor, Federal Trade Commission, and Department of Justice Antitrust Division to collaborate to actively enforce laws and policies governing noncompetes nationwide.

Challenge and Opportunity

Noncompetes Hurt Workers and the Economy

Noncompete agreements are contracts that prohibit employees from working for or becoming a competitor for a certain period of time. By restricting employees from switching employers or starting their own competing businesses, noncompetes have harmful economic effects. They depress wages, reduce entrepreneurship, and impede efforts to correct inequities in labor markets. In the past decade, a wealth of research—including diverse empirical, experimental, and theoretical studies—have revealed the adverse effects of noncompete contracts and similar restrictions on the free movement of human capital. As a 2018 article states, “policymakers, economists, and legal scholars…overwhelmingly conclude that the harms of noncompetes far outweigh their potential benefits.” The research shows that lifting noncompete restrictions—thereby increasing job mobility—is good for entrepreneurship, wages, industry and regional economic growth, and equality.

Entrepreneurship

Increased enforcement of noncompetes favors large, incumbent firms. Studies find that markets become more concentrated when noncompetes are adopted and enforced. When employees sign noncompetes with established firms, start-up companies have difficulty recruiting talent. Indeed, a ban on noncompetes in California generated greater and faster innovation because employees with good ideas that their employer did not want to use were able to take those ideas elsewhere.

Wages

Noncompetes decrease wages. Employers calibrate compensation largely based on competing external offers. When external offers are reduced, employers face less pressure to increase wages. In 2015, Hawaii passed a law banning noncompete and non-solicitation clauses from employment contracts in the high-tech industry. A recent study found that Hawaii ban increased employee mobility in the high-tech sector by 11% and increased new-hire salaries by 4%. Noncompetes even decrease wages for employees who have not signed them. In a market that enforces noncompetes, wages and mobility are lower for everyone, including those not directly bound by noncompetes. These impacts can last a long time. A 2017 study found that post-employment restrictions have persistent wage-suppressing effects that last throughout a worker’s job and employment history. 

Equality

Restrictions on job mobility have a disproportionate negative effect on certain demographics. In job markets, discovering one is competitive depends on the frequency with which one is exposed to information about one’s comparative options in the market. In job markets where workers don’t often move from job to job, the “price” of labor (i.e., the terms and conditions of an employee’s contract) will lag behind an employee’s true market value. If an employee discovers their undervalued labor compensation by receiving an external (better) offer from a competitor employer, the employee can use that information to negotiate a higher salary with their current employer. If the current employer offers to match the higher salary, the competitor employer can come back with an even higher offer. This process continues until one employer backs down, leaving the employee better and more fairly compensated as a result.

The existence of noncompetes cause this process to break down by taking away employee bargaining power. Noncompetes harm equality in several ways as a result. First, noncompetes exacerbate the gender pay gap. Women are more likely to have geographic constraints based on family and spousal obligations. Noncompetes that restricts employee capacity to compete within a region therefore disproportionately hurt woman. Second, taking away employee capacity to entertain outside offers can cause historical pay gaps to persist or widen. Employees cannot discover their true value without external offers. The more external offers are available, the more equity norms and competitive pressures from mobility drive employers to raise wages as retention efforts. Third, white women and people of color are more likely to have non-monetary preferences for a workplace that is free of discrimination and hostility and that values diversity. For example, if a woman discovers that her employer systematically allows harassment of its female employees, she will have a strong interest in examining other opportunities in the market. A noncompete restricting her mobility will prevent her from escaping the discriminatory workplace.

Noncompetes are on the Rise

The use of noncompetes is on the rise in the United States. Employment agreements routinely prohibit workers from accepting a competitor’s job offer, and/or from working in a competing business for a specified period in a certain geographic area. The Treasury Department recently estimated that nearly 30 million workers are bound by noncompete provisions. A study of executive employment contracts found that 70% of the firms investigated imposed noncompetes on their top employees. A forthcoming 2021 study found that noncompetes are also common for non-executive employees with base salaries below $100,000 per year. A 2019 report noted that “the use of noncompetes is so pervasive that even volunteers in non-profit organizations, in states that do not even enforce them, are asked to sign away their post-employment freedom.”

Workers currently have limited recourse when it comes to contesting noncompetes. Court decisions in cases involving noncompetes are highly unpredictable, and litigation can be prohibitively expensive and burdensome for individual employees. Some states—recently including Massachusetts, Washington, Maryland, and New Hampshire—have passed laws voiding most noncompetes, but this state-specific legislative patchwork can be difficult for workers to understand. Many employees, especially those outside the professional class, end up complying with noncompetes even if they aren’t enforceable in the state in which they work (or are planning to move for a new job). Moreover, more and more people are employed at companies with a national presence. Such companies often demand adherence to a noncompete nationwide, even for employees in a state that won’t enforce noncompetes. Inconsistent state rules have also led to conflicts across state lines when an employee bound by a noncompete moves to a state that doesn’t enforce them. This has resulted in a “race to the courthouse” when employees change jobs, as each side tries to get its own state law to apply. It has even led to the unseemly spectacle of courts in different states attempting to prohibit each other from enforcing their respective state policies. Finally, the complex legal landscape surrounding noncompetes further entrenches established companies. Companies with substantial legal and financial resources can be more aggressive in using noncompetes to drive out competition even when their legal claims are on weak grounds. Incumbents may even use a reputation for suing employees who leave as a strategy to deter other employees from leaving.

National Leadership is Needed

Noncompetes aren’t just bad for workers, but for our economy and society as a whole. We do better when workers can easily move between jobs. Increased mobility makes it easier for employees to find employers that most value their skills, and for employers to find employees who are good fits. But without guaranteed labor mobility, the anti-competitive impulses of individual firms create a collective-action problem. Smart policy is needed to ensure everyone benefits from a continuous, high-quality, and flexible labor pool over time. The problem of noncompetes is not a problem that can be solved by states on their own. National leadership is needed. Several federal bills limiting the use of noncompetes (either entirely or just for low-wage workers) have already been drafted. The White House issued a Call for Action in 2016 urging states to limit the use of post-employment restrictions. Also in 2016, the U.S. Treasury Department issued a report on noncompetes warning that when noncompetes are enforced, “innovations spread more slowly, possibly inhibiting the development of industrial clusters like Silicon Valley.” In 2020, the Federal Trade Commission convened a meeting to consider a rule prohibiting noncompete clauses. But so far the FTC has taken no action.

The Biden-Harris Administration can build on this momentum to eliminate noncompetes in the United States once and for all.

Plan of Action

To support talent mobility and enhance human capital, the Biden-Harris Administration should (1) adopt a federal ban on noncompetes, (2) actively educate the public about their labormobility rights (and actively support those rights), and (3) take proactive steps to ensure compliance with labor-mobility policy. Below, we recommend specific steps that the new administration could take towards these goals.

Adopt a Federal Ban on Noncompetes

A federal ban on noncompetes could potentially be achieved by a Federal Trade Commission (FTC) rule barring noncompetes, action through the Department of Justice (DOJ), an executive order, and/or legislation. If barring all noncompetes is not yet politically feasible, targeting noncompetes imposed on low-wage and unskilled workers would be a good first step. 

FTC rule/DOJ action

The FTC and the DOJ’s Antitrust Division have only recently started to consider anti-competitive practices in the labor market to be within their scope of regulating competition and unfair trade practices. The FTC could use its regulatory power under Section 5 of the FTC Act’s prohibition on “unfair methods of competition” to issue a federal rule to ban noncompetes nationwide in appropriate circumstances, such as concentrated markets. The FTC could enforce this rule by bringing action against employers who use, or seek to use, noncompetes to restrict employee mobility in ways that interferes with competition. 

Moreover, California’s Section 16600 and Section 1 of the federal Sherman Act share the language of prohibiting contracts “in restraint of trade.” The California law has been consistently interpreted to ban employment noncompetes. Using this interpretation as precedent, the DOJ could leverage the language in Section 1 of the Sherman Act to ban employment noncompetes nationwide in appropriate circumstances, such as in concentrated markets.

Executive Order

The Biden-Harris administration can also issue executive orders that (1) restrict or eliminate government contracting with companies that employ noncompetes; (2) require employers in states that restrict noncompetes not to sign them with employees in those states, and/or to give prominent notice of the unenforceability of noncompetes in those states.

Legislation

Two recently proposed federal bills propose legislative solutions to the problem of noncompetes. The Workforce Mobility Act proposed in 2018 would prohibit and prevent enforcement of noncompetes for employees who “engage in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce.” Under the proposed bill, employers would be fined for each employee subject to a violation of this law, or for each week the employer was in violation. The House version of the bill goes further, specifically stating that noncompetes may violate antitrust laws.

The Mobility and Opportunity for Vulnerable Employees (MOVE) Act of 2015—proposes a full or partial ban on noncompetes, in addition to barring noncompete agreements entirely for low-wage workers. The bill would also require companies to notify job applicants ahead of time if they would be asked to sign a noncompete if hired.

The new administration could work with Congress to revive and pass one or both of these bills. Any federal bill governing noncompetes should also grant employees a private right of action for damages if they are asked to sign an overly broad noncompete agreement.

Actively Support and Publicize Labor-Mobility Rights

Even in states that ban noncompetes, a significant number of employers still require employees to sign them. For example, employers in California—a state that bans noncompetes—insert noncompetes into their employment contracts at rates similar to non-California employers. Because employees in these states may not be aware that noncompetes are illegal, unlawful noncompetes can have a significant deterrent effect on employee mobility. The administration should act to educate the public about their labor-mobility rights, and to crack down on employers unlawfully promulgating noncompetes. The Biden-Harris administration should issue an executive order directing the Department of Labor, FTC, and the DOJ Antitrust Division to collaborate to actively enforce existing labor-mobility laws, and to pursue some or all of the actions below.

Require “right-to-leave” notice in employment contracts

The Biden-Harris Administration should require employment contracts to include a notice about employees’ right to leave their employer. The Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA), enacted by Congress in 2016, provides a model for this type of mandatory notice. The DTSA gives employees immunity from criminal or civil liability for reporting illegalities at a company even if reporting reveals trade secrets. The DTSA requires employers to include notice of this immunity in “in any contract or agreement with an employee that governs the use of a trade secret or other confidential information.” Similarly, the Federal Government should require employment contracts to include a clause about the rights of an employee to compete with their previous employer after leaving a job. This clause should be required for all contracts in states that ban noncompetes post-employment. If a federal noncompete ban is enacted, it should apply nationwide. The Federal Government could further promote market competition by amending the DTSA to include a notice on the limits of trade secrets explaining that general know-how and information that is readily ascertainable from public searches cannot be deemed secret and proprietary.

Enforce mobility rights beyond formal noncompetes

In employment contracts, restrictive covenants do not simply appear as a formally labeled “noncompete clause”. Employment contracts regularly include other restrictive provisions such as requirements for non-solicitation of customers and coworkers, pre-innovation assignment agreements, nondisclosure agreements, and non-disparagement clauses. Restrictions like these impose harms similar to noncompete clauses: preventing employee mobility, slowing innovation, stifling start-ups, and concentrating industries. Customer non-solicitation requirements in particular effectively function as noncompetes “because a business without clients is like a pool without water.” Coworker non-solicitation clauses essentially reduce the job opportunities of every former co-worker that the employee in question knows, regardless of whether those coworkers agreed to be part of a restrictive regime. Nondisclosure agreements, theoretically designed to protect trade secrets, are often structured to include not just proprietary knowledge, but also readily ascertainable knowledge about customers and coworkers. The knowledge that a departed employee would use to solicit a former coworker—knowledge pertaining to a person’s skills, talent, personality, experience, and salary—is not an employer’s trade secret and should not be restricted by contract. California courts have recently recognized that employee non-solicitation clauses comprise unlawful restraints on trade under Section 16600. The new administration can build on precedent set in California to control proliferation of overly restrictive provisions in employment contracts nationwide.

Ban salary secrecy

The ability to reveal one’s salary to co-workers and others in the industry is protected by both federal and state law. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) holds that prohibiting any employee—unionized or not—from discussing salaries violates their rights under the National Labor Relations Act to engage in concerted activity for mutual aid. The NLRB has specifically ruled that confidentiality agreements are invalid when they contain provisions that “prohibit employees from disclosing certain personnel information unless authorized by the Company.” Many state laws also make it illegal for any employer to prohibit pay discussions among employees. Digital platforms such as LinkedIn, Glassdoor, Salary.com, and SalaryExpert make compensation information easily searchable. Yet employers have attempted to claim that use of salary knowledge in recruitment efforts by a former employee of a co-worker can amount to a breach of a nondisclosure agreement. The administration should extend the NLRB rule beyond the context of labor unions, banning salary secrecy.

Ensure Compliance with Labor-Mobility Policy

As discussed above, litigation alone cannot address the widespread use of noncompete clauses. Employees often lack the money, time, expertise, or will needed to challenge a noncompete in court. The Federal Government must instead be proactive in understanding the effects that common employer practices and provisions have on labor mobility. Several state attorneys general have taken such a proactive stance. Illinois and New York in particular have recently investigated employers who required their employees to sign unenforceable contracts. These states used consumer laws worded similarly to the federal FTC Act as bases for prosecution. For example, Illinois’s Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act prohibits “unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices.” The state attorney general’s office explains that: “An ‘unfair practice’ is one that (1) offends public policy as established by statute, common law or otherwise, (2) is immoral, unethical, oppressive, or unscrupulous, or (3) causes substantial injury to consumers. A non-compete that violates existing common law or statutory restrictions could satisfy each prong of this test, creating a cause of action in states with similar consumer protection statutes or strong unfair competition laws.”80 The Department of Labor and the FTC should collaborate on investigating employers who require their employees to sign unjustifiable noncompetes, using the FTC Act as grounds for investigation.

Conclusion 

The modern economy depends on employee mobility. Our workforce needs to be able to respond to sudden disruptions like COVID-19, which radically shifted demand for workers, and to longer-term geographic and economic trends. Employees should have the freedom to take the jobs that are best for them, or to start new companies if they have innovative ideas that otherwise will never see the light of day. 

Unfortunately, companies are too often able to prevent employees from leaving, either because the law permits it in many states or because employees don’t know their rights. This control depresses wages and employee initiative. It reduces innovation and the adoption of new technologies. And it keeps people stuck in dead-end jobs when they have better alternatives available to them. The current hodgepodge of state laws and the threat of enforcement of a noncompete means that even states that ban noncompetes can’t get the full benefit of the protections they provide to their workers and innovators. It is time for the Federal Government to step in.

Summary

The United States needs to radically enhance its efforts to build community disaster resilience. The frequency and cost of billion-dollar weather and climate disasters have increased significantly over the past decade. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency’s estimates, the direct costs of disasters between 2018 and 2019 amounted to over $136 billion. And 2017 Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria resulted in over $265 billion in damage and displaced many communities. Moreover, accelerated urbanization and climate change continue to exacerbate communities’ vulnerability to climate disasters, rendering the current disaster mitigation, recovery, and emergency response policies untenable in the near future.

Resilience has served as an organizing principle for policymakers, first responders, and businesses in marshalling resources to reduce community vulnerability, stimulate recovery, and ensure reliable access to critical services (e.g., energy, water, shelter, food, health, ecosystems services and mobility) in the aftermath of climate disasters. However, the current set of reactive disaster recovery efforts and resilience policies have proven to be inefficient and costly, contributing to the widening of the `climate gap’ and entrenching vulnerability traps, particularly among marginalized and disadvantaged communities.

The Biden-Harris Administration should invest in information technology, data transparency and convergence research to build data-enabled predictive capabilities that anticipate shifts in communities’ demand for critical services under compound climate disasters, and inform effective resource allocation to equitably mitigate the impacts of climate change. These investments will not only enhance stewardship of taxpayer dollars, create jobs and bolster the economy, but will also shrink the rapidly widening climate gap and save lives.

The Biden-Harris Administration is committed to providing the best possible education to all students. Research has established that students of color experience benefits to social and emotional development and learning outcomes when taught by educators of color. Diverse educators and administrators are particularly important for schools with many students of color. Accordingly, schools across the country should prioritize hiring highly-effective teachers of color. This policy proposal identifies opportunities to recruit—and retain—highly effective K-12 educators of color.

As a first step, the Biden-Harris Administration should create an Under Secretary of Diversity at the Department of Education (ED), charged with organizing a White House Summit to establish the value of a diverse teacher workforce and convene leaders to identify best practices and a strategy for Federal Government support of state, local, and private programs. Following the summit, ED, led by the Under Secretary of Diversity, should revisit current programs that identify high need areas, such as math, science and special education to include the pressing need for diverse educators. Simultaneously, the administration must work with Congress to reauthorize the Higher Education Act, incorporating the previously introduced College Transparency Act to ensure robust data reporting and evaluate the effectiveness of financial incentives.

Challenge and Opportunity

A sense of belonging is widely accepted to be a basic human desire. Academic success can be heavily impacted by a sense of belonging in one’s academic environment. For students who do not feel that they belong, it can affect their mental and physical health, and future criminal activity. Schools have at least four racialized areas potentially affected by teacher composition: content, teaching methods, feedback type, and disciplinary practices. Teachers of color are one piece of the solution. Recognizing similarities between shared attributes and/or social identities of themselves and their teachers, connecting with people they can trust and be open with can help support a sense of belonging, which is critical to academic success.

Even as the demographics of the United States continue to shift, the teacher workforce remains overwhelmingly white, leading to a demand for teachers of color that far outweighs the supply. While certain states have had some success recruiting more teachers of color, individuals pursuing teaching careers face significant obstacles, causing many to leave the profession earlier than their white colleagues. For many first-generation students and students of color, the path to a profession in teaching can be perilous, with unsustainable wages and work conditions. Some federal programs designed to help teachers manage student debt and continue teaching have failed the very people who our students need to stay in the profession. The COVID-19 pandemic has only exacerbated current inequalities in educational outcomes, presenting additional challenges to all teachers, and particularly teachers of color.

Anecdotal evidence suggests that college students are very interested in teaching but lack supported pathways and incentives to pursue a career in the field. Many passionate and talented state, local, and private leaders are working to support highly effective teachers of color, and a strong evidence base shows the potential for successful small-scale programs. However, programs and successes are inconsistent and piecemeal across the country. The Biden-Harris Administration should build on these opportunities to create a strong federal infrastructure that establishes teaching career pathways and supports teachers of color in the classroom.

The success of our country in meeting the needs of the future STEM workforce and productive labor market will depend on our ability to effectively educate a diverse population. Technology is the future—and the present. In STEM and other core workforce areas, the United States is trailing behind other industrialized nations. As the workforce of the future continues to evolve, we need to prepare our students. In our memo, we involve the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH), as they, along with the Department of Education (ED), will want to prioritize the workforce of the future—ensuring that the United States is once again leading the world in breakthroughs in science and technology.

Plan of Action

On Day One, the incoming Secretary of Education should: 

Appoint an Under Secretary of Diversity, ED

On Day One, the Biden-Harris Administration should create a new leadership position at ED, an Under Secretary of Diversity. This individual will serve the role of a Chief Diversity Officer, tasked with examining the role of race at the agency, in curricula, teacher preparation and development, and in school and district leadership nationwide, and with ensuring that national education initiatives are inclusive and actively anti-racist. Once in place, the Under Secretary will launch a White House summit, revisit existing programs and practices at ED to increase support for highly effective teachers of color, and support passage of critical legislation.

Launch a White House Summit on how to recruit and retain a highly effective, diverse teacher workforce.

The Biden-Harris Administration should develop an interagency working group to coordinate efforts between ED, NSF, NIH, and the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC), as well as education funders and business leaders who have named teacher diversity as a clear priority, to convene leaders who have been successful in finding, developing, and retaining educators of color. This effort would be led by the Under Secretary of Diversity at ED and the Assistant Director for the Education and Human Resources Directorate at NSF.

A White House convening would establish that delivering the best education to students of color is a national priority. The broad goal would be to quickly generate new ideas and learn from best practices toward the goal of establishing a teacher workforce that mirrors the diversity of the American student population. The more specific goals would be:

• Identify early pathways for students of color to consider careers in education, beginning in high school.
• Increase the inclusion of minority teachers in federal task forces, advisory committees, and policy settings.
• Support effective, innovative traditional and alternative-certification models that ensure recruitment and retention of candidates of color.

The Department of Education should prioritize supporting highly effective teachers of color.

ED should revisit current programs to include diverse educators in the requirements for high-need areas. The department currently provides incentives for states and school districts to hire and for individuals to pursue teaching. A comprehensive plan to substantially increase the diversity of educators must also consider retention and the professional experience after training. ED should promote retention by providing incentives for school districts to hire cohorts of diverse educators in order to reduce isolation and provide support. A “best-practices” grant program to ensure deep investment in programming also warrants renewed attention.

ED should:

• Rebuild the Office of Civil Rights (OCR). Under the leadership of Betsy DeVos, without opportunity for public comment, OCR altered procedures, allowing the office to dismiss hundreds of civil rights complaints, disregarding ‘burdensome’ cases. These procedural changes should be reversed. Additionally, the office should ensure all data collection returns to 2016 levels of collection and rigor, including restoring special reports—such as the discipline report and the education equity report—to regular reporting levels.
• Issue a “Dear Colleague” letter to establish that supporting the recruitment and retention of diverse, highly qualified teachers is an agency priority. The agency should promote all federal programs available to aspiring and new teachers and amplify potential uses of Title I, II, and IV. Additionally, it should increase support to districts, including providing technical assistance and webinars.
• Immediately restore federal loan forgiveness for teachers. ED should expand the definition of Nationwide Teacher Shortage areas: districts should be enabled to consider the demand for culturally-competent educators in highly diverse schools, enabling teachers meeting these high-need categories to benefit from cancellation of up to 100 percent of Federal Perkins Loans, and other benefits.12 It should also simplify recertification requirements and reduce penalties for the Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education (TEACH) Grant Program.
• Enhance the Support Effective Educator Development and Teacher Quality Partnership Program. The Office of Elementary and Secondary Education should launch a grant competition designed to retain high quality teachers of color, including proposals to hire cohorts of teachers of color. The Department should double the current budget of these programs, given growing concerns about increased teacher shortages following the pandemic.
• Increase diversity within education research, including among its leadership. The Institute of Education Sciences (IES) should increase diversity of researchers, peer reviewers, and programs supporting researcher development and early career scholars of color. Relatedly, the President should appoint diverse members of the Board of Education Sciences. Increase rigor of review and add accountability to states education plans. This should include efforts to effectively support students of color and provide technical assistance to support state success. ED should update federal guidance for the use of Title Funding to support a diverse, highly-effective teacher pipeline. This should include residency programs and support for colleges and universities graduating effective teachers to high-need districts supported with Title I funding.
• Ensure that federal funding for “grow-your-own” programs is widely distributed. This initiative should particularly encourage partnerships with programs that have a track record of recruiting and retaining (beyond 5 teaching years) successful, diverse, and effective teachers. A growing body of scholarship is establishing the value of recruiting people from local communities that could successfully transition as teachers.

Urge Congress to Reauthorize the Higher Education Act (HEA), incorporating the previously proposed College Transparency Act (CTA).

Sustained federal investment in achieving diversity of K-12 educators that align with the diversity of our students will lead to improved social and emotional development and learning outcomes of our diverse population. CTA legislation is needed to enable the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) to develop and maintain a secure, privacy-protected postsecondary student-level data system in order to accurately evaluate student enrollment patterns, progression, completion, and post collegiate outcomes, as well as higher education costs and financial aid. The Higher Education Act should be reauthorized to expand access, improve affordability, and promote completion for all students, including prospective teachers of color. Reauthorization should include critical protections for the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program.