🏫 A DARPA for education
Mend don't end the US Department of Education by taking a page from venture capital
“President-elect Trump has repeatedly pledged to dismantle the Department of Education, a decision that could radically reshape learning across America.” - Axios, 11.13.2024
Would abolishing the $100 billion US Department of Education — it mainly gives money to K–12 schools, especially in poor areas, and manages student financial aid for college students — be an Up Wing thing (pro-productivity growth, pro-technological progress, pro-economic opportunity) or a Down Wing thing (the opposite of all that great stuff I just mentioned)?
Here’s the Up Wing context I’m using to answer this question: Think of the American economy as a vast, distributed supercomputer comprising many interconnected networks. We call these networks “companies, “cities,” and “universities.” (These networks generate economic growth by rearranging matter into more complex, valuable forms — what I call “processing information” in my 2023 book — like turning sand into semiconductors, the foundation of the Digital Economy.) Countries with larger, denser networks have higher "computational capacity" to create complex products and generate wealth. Key to economic growth is strengthening these networks and their connections.
At the heart of these networks are the most sophisticated information processors we know: human beings. To riff off the famous line from the film Soylent Green, economic growth is made from people. Networks of human minds, nourished by strong public policy, are the bedrock of innovation. That’s why, for instance, improving teacher quality by replacing just the bottom slice of teachers with merely average ones could boost US economic growth by nearly a percentage point.
This Up Wing vision leads me to suggest ending the Department of Education — well, at least as we know it. A radical 21st-century upgrade is the only realistic path forward if you’re dissatisfied with the status quo. Conservatives have been trying to kill the department since it was created in 1979 as a pricey sop to teachers’ unions.
Still, there simply aren’t enough votes in the GOP-dominated Senate to make it happen without also killing the filibuster. What’s more, as my AEI colleague Rick Hess recently pointed out, “There’s a contingent of Trump-aligned education conservatives who’d much rather use the department to promote their vision the same way the Obama or Biden teams did.”
Here are some ideas for a major Education Department revamp, courtesy of a recent analysis by Mark Schneider. He’s a colleague at AEI, professor emeritus at Stony Brook University, and formerly the director of the Institute of Education Sciences, the research arm of the Education Department that evaluates federal programs and collects education data:
Student aid programs → Treasury Department. "With its FAFSA failure, the department has proven it cannot effectively administer student aid programs. Its extensive student loan portfolio must be moved to the Treasury Department — and this should happen regardless of the Education Department’s eventual fate.”
IES (research and evaluation) → National Science Foundation. "Moving IES into NSF would also allow the establishment of a unit like DARPA, but for education research and development... enabling better research using AI, machine learning and cutting-edge data science methods."
Regional education labs & Comprehensive Centers → Either merge or terminate. "There is far too much overlap between these and the Department of Education's Comprehensive Centers... the labs and the centers appear to be much the same program, just duplicated, thanks to bureaucratic bloat and turf wars."
National Center for Education Statistics → Bureau of Labor Statistics. "The current bureau has a long history of managing the collection and distribution of sensitive data and is committed to the timely release of information — which puts it in stark contrast to NCES, which is several years behind in releasing crucial data."
Remaining programs → State-controlled block grants. "This would enhance the role of the states, which are constitutionally charged with providing education and know better than the federal government what their students need."
The notion of an education unit modeled (closely, I hope) after the Defense Advanced Projects Research Agency certainly gets my Up Wing sense tingling. DARPA is famous for its lean, fast-moving approach that is more Silicon Valley than Washington agency. Run by roughly a hundred project managers on short-term contracts, DARPA focuses on building practical solutions rather than conducting basic research. These managers assemble networks of outside experts to tackle specific challenges, keeping bureaucracy minimal. The results speak for themselves: DARPA can claim partial credit for transformative innovations including Moderna's COVID-19 vaccine, weather satellites, drones, stealth aircraft technology, and even the internet itself.
The version of DARPA for education floating around Washington is called the National Center for Advanced Development in Education and would have the goal of rapidly developing and implementing practical solutions in classrooms. As described in the New Essential Education Discoveries Act proposed last summer by US Sens. Michael Bennet, a Colorado Democrat, and John Cornyn, a Texas Republican, the NCADE would be “dedicated to developing and disseminating cutting-edge practices and tools – such as voice recognition software to assess emerging readiness gaps and dyslexia, and digital learning platforms – to help students recover lost learning time from the pandemic.”
As Schneider argues:
The NEED act is an opportunity to create a modern research organization focused on high-risk–high-reward work with the potential to dramatically change education R&D. Just as important, as NCADE succeeds, it will act as a “skunk works” that can lead to change across IES and in the nation’s education R&D infrastructure.
If there were ever a time to think about education R&D, it’s right now. A new digital technology has entered the chat, one with far more potential to revolutionize school and learning than PCs in the classroom or handing every student an iPad. Integrating artificial intelligence into our education system might be job No. 1 for an educational DARPA.
The Conservative Futurist: How To Create the Sci-Fi World We Were Promised
“With groundbreaking ideas and sharp analysis, Pethokoukis provides a detailed roadmap to a fantastic future filled with incredible progress and prosperity that is both optimistic and realistic.”
Micro Reads
▶ Economics
The Trump Economic Awakening - WSJ Opinion
Looking Backward, Looking Forward - Annual Reviews
Manhattan Institute’s “Lifetime Fiscal Impact of Immigrants” Report Shows Upside to Immigration - Cato
The Compliance Doom Loop - Silicon Continent
▶ Business
▶ Policy/Politics
▶ AI/Digital
Should we be fretting over AI’s feelings? - FT Opinion
Musk’s AI Nightmares Could Blunt Trump’s Tech Ambitions - Bberg Opinion
Prospects on Risks, Liabilities and Artificial Intelligence, Empowering Robots at Workplace Level - SSRN
▶ Biotech/Health
Two Paths To Molecular Nanotechnology - Jacob Rintamaki
▶ Clean Energy/Climate
A New Fusion Prototype Floats Into Action - Spectrum
The race to commercialise nuclear-powered batteries - Chemistry World
▶ Space/Transportation
The US Is Losing the Air Taxi Race to China - Bberg Opinion
▶ Up Wing/Down Wing
▶ Substacks/Newsletters
Is Alibaba's Qwen the Open-Source AI Winner? - AI Supremacy
Defending Economic Productivity and Capitalism for Climate Adaptation and Mitigation - Part 2 - Breakthrough Journal
Abundance, Progress, and the Future of American Politics - Virginia’s Newsletter
Nordhaus Reflects on Technology and Climate Change - Conversable Economist
Launch to the Stars in 2050 After 25 Years of SpaceX Starship - next BIG future
In general, I think the federal DOE does more harm than good, and the good is not accomplished in a very cost-effective way.
The one thing a federal DOE could do is fund Randomized Controlled Trials to identify which teaching techniques are most effective. Public schools are the perfect means to do so as the sample sizes are enormous and the classroom offer something like a control. They would also be very inexpensive compared to current spending. This could have a huge bang-for-the-buck impact on education. Currently, we devote very little funding to identify what works.
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/the-iron-law-of-policy-evaluation
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/the-case-for-randomized-trials-in
The U.S. Department of Education (DOE) contributes approximately 8% to 11% of funding for K-12 public schools, with the majority of financial support coming from state and local sources.  Despite being a smaller portion of overall funding, federal contributions are crucial for specific programs and support services.
Potential Impacts of Eliminating Federal Funding:
1. Reduction in Targeted Programs: Federal funds often support programs aimed at assisting low-income students, special education services, and initiatives like Title I and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Removing federal funding could jeopardize these programs, disproportionately affecting vulnerable student populations.
2. Increased Financial Pressure on States and Localities: States and local governments would need to compensate for the loss of federal funds, potentially leading to higher taxes or reallocation of existing resources, which could strain budgets and impact other public services.
3. Widening Educational Inequities: Federal funding helps mitigate disparities between affluent and less affluent districts. Without it, schools in lower-income areas might face significant challenges in providing quality education, exacerbating existing inequities.
States and Regions Most Affected:
The impact of removing federal funding would vary across states, depending on their reliance on these funds. For instance, in 2021, Montana received 31.8% of its total revenue from federal aid, the highest in the nation, followed by New Mexico (30.7%), Kentucky (30.1%), Louisiana (29.8%), and Alaska (29.0%).  These states would likely face more significant challenges in replacing federal education funds.
Within states, rural and economically disadvantaged regions often depend more heavily on federal support. The loss of federal funding could lead to program cuts, staff reductions, and diminished educational resources in these areas, further disadvantaging students in need.
While federal funding constitutes a smaller percentage of overall K-12 education financing, its removal would have substantial negative effects, particularly on programs serving vulnerable populations and in states and regions with higher dependency on federal aid.