The research behind the influential “science of reading” movement was built over decades through federally funded research spanning cognitive science, neuroscience, psychology, linguistics, and classroom studies.
Education research organizations say a proposed sweeping 100-page overhaul of federal grant rules, which would add new review by political appointees, could make it harder to produce similar large bodies of evidence in the future.
The federal Office of Management and Budget (OMB) says the proposed changes aim to increase accountability, transparency and oversight of taxpayer-funded grants. THE Proposal of May 29 would revise rules for awarding and monitoring grants, including those awarded by the Department of Education and the National Science Foundation, two major sources of federal funding for education research. The OMB wants the final rule to take effect by Oct. 1, according to the proposal.
But in letters submitted to OMB on the July 13 deadline for public comments, education research groups argued that some provisions could have unintended and harmful consequences by narrowing the issues researchers study, giving too much influence to political considerations in funding decisions, and disrupting research already underway. Educational groups are calling not only for changes, but also for the entire overhaul proposal to be removed.
Specific objections to education research were detailed in three letters from the National Academy of Education, signed by 19 other educational and scientific organizations; the American Educational Research Association (AERA); and the Knowledge Alliance, a group representing about 20 organizations that conduct education research.
Could researchers study differences in student outcomes?
One of the most important concerns raised by education researchers concerns studies that examine whether academic outcomes differ between groups of students.
The proposed rule would prohibit federal funds from supporting research related to what the administration calls “unlawful diversity, equity, and inclusion” activities and limit funding for what are called “disparate impact studies.” These analyze whether policies that might appear neutral produce different results for different groups.
The National Academy of Education, in a letter signed by 19 other education and scientific organizations, warned that the rule could prohibit studies examining racial or ethnic achievement gaps and whether educational interventions help some students more than others.
“Whether a reading intervention works differently for English learners, whether a disciplinary policy falls more heavily on students of color, whether a gifted education program underidentifies students with disabilities — these are not fringe issues,” the organization wrote. “These are central empirical questions in education policy research. »
The researchers also pointed out possible conflicts with existing laws and educational programs that require demographic analysis. For example, the roughly $17 billion federal program for high-poverty schools, known as Title I, requires states and districts to examine student outcomes by race, disability status, income and English learner status to identify and support groups of struggling students.
The proposed rule does not explicitly prohibit any such analysis. But researchers argue that the language around diversity, equity, inclusion and “disparate impacts” is broad and vague enough to create uncertainty and discourage researchers from proposing important studies.
Who decides what constitutes valuable research?
Education researchers also oppose proposed changes that would increase political participation in grant decisions.
The proposal would require agencies to consider alignment with federal priorities, which could change from administration to administration, and the “national interest,” which is undefined. It also states that political appointees must review all grants before they are awarded. Research organizations argue that this requirement could reduce the role of independent scientific review, when subject matter experts evaluate proposals based on their quality, rigor and feasibility.
Researchers also worry that the Trump administration’s push for “gold standard science” in the proposal is undefined and could favor some methods over others. Educational research is not as simple as testing the effectiveness of a new drug and often uses a variety of approaches, including surveys, interviews, and sophisticated data analyzes that attempt to replicate an experiment without randomly assigning students to a program or teaching style.
Among other changes, the OMB proposal calls for agencies to give preference to grant proposals with low overhead costs, which puts large research universities at a disadvantage. It would also reduce federal funding for conference attendance and publication costs unless specifically approved. Researchers would be required to provide written justification for each grant request, in addition to their regulatory documents. Educational research organizations have opposed all of these proposals.
The White House proposal emphasizes supporting research that can produce immediate results or breakthrough innovations. In response, the Knowledge Alliance cited the science of reading as an example of why true progress requires patience.
“Researchers would be less likely to address important, long-term questions that are essential to creating the foundational knowledge needed for scientific breakthroughs,” wrote Rachel Dinkes, president of the Knowledge Alliance. The Science of Reading “reflects the accumulation of evidence over many years and across multiple jurisdictions that has played a critical role in improving student reading achievement.”
What happens when the search is interrupted?
Education research groups have also expressed concerns about the consequences of suspending or terminating grants after studies begin.
The National Academy of Education has warned that the disruptions could be particularly damaging to longitudinal studies, which rely on consistent data collection over time. According to the group, losing a year of data collection could permanently harm the value of a study.
The researchers also pointed to effects beyond universities. Federal research grants often fund partnerships between researchers and schools, provide professional learning, or fund student interventions. The consequences of abrupt layoffs are fresh in the minds of education researchers. When the Department of Education ended dozens of research studies in 2025, for example, 1,600 high school students with disabilities lost services.
Another concern is restrictions on international research partnerships. The researchers argued that broad limits on foreign collaborations could affect U.S. participation in international assessments such as PISA and TIMSS, which help policymakers compare the performance of U.S. students with that of other countries.
The Trump administration’s proposal to overhaul how the federal government awards and oversees grants is drawing fierce opposition from scientific societies and research organizations in many fields, from medicine to climate science. These comments from the education research community are just three of 496,775 which have been submitted. A July 14 article in MedPage Today explained that research organizations intentionally flooded the OMB with comments to respond to, hoping to either slow down the rulemaking process or create an administrative record that could be used in future lawsuits to challenge the rule.
The OMB did not respond to questions about the objections raised by education researchers.
Contact staff writer Jill Barshay at 212-678-3595, jillbarshay.35 on Signal or barshay@hechingerreport.org.
This story about education researchers’ objections to a proposed overhaul of federal grants was produced by The Hechinger reportan independent, nonprofit news organization that covers education. Register for Proof points and others Hechinger Newsletters.
The article Education researchers warn that political scrutiny of federal grants could reshape what is studied appeared first in the Hechinger Report.
