Why are British classrooms pushing ahead with American learning science while most U.S. schools make little use of the research? That’s the question veteran education journalist Greg Toppo set out to explore in his widely discussed article for The 74, ‘Cognitive Science,’ All the Rage in British Schools, Fails to Register in U.S.
In the U.K., he found a growing movement of teachers, school leaders, and policymakers who are reshaping instruction using cognitive science principles like retrieval practice and cognitive load theory – concepts developed largely by U.S. researchers, yet largely unknown to many American educators.
I was grateful for the opportunity to ask Greg about his reporting on the issue and to hear his take on education R&D under the Trump administration. Greg shared candid thoughts on whether the tension between research-backed innovation and entrenched classroom habits is finally coming to a head in U.S. classrooms, and whether this moment could mark a turning point.
Why are British schools running with American learning science? What’s driving their enthusiasm?
This, to me, is such an interesting development. My reporting shows that it’s both a bottom-up and top-down effort (in the U.K.), with individual teachers over the past 15 years discovering cognitive science on their own and spreading the word, mostly through blogs and conferences like ResearchED. At the same time, the government has begun to take it seriously and has instituted reforms aimed at improving classroom practices.
Can you walk us through a few of the most powerful practices from cognitive science that U.S. schools are overlooking? Why do they matter?
I wouldn’t say that U.S. schools are overlooking any practices specifically, but if you asked your typical U.S. public school teacher, I think he or she would not necessarily be implementing instruction that accommodates ideas like working memory, cognitive load, and metacognition. There are certainly exceptions – and believe me, I heard about them in my inbox – but in most undergraduate education programs, these are not mainstream ideas.
You write that in the U.K., even students are familiar with terms like “dual coding” and “retrieval practice.” Should American students also receive that kind of knowledge?
I’d leave that up to teachers to decide, but certainly the cognitive scientists I’ve talked to say they should at least be familiar with how their brains work and how to maximize their study time.
Is there a systemic explanation for why the U.S. lags in implementation? Is it about teacher prep programs? Politics? Institutional inertia?
My reporting, and that of several others, suggests that this simply isn’t a priority in most teacher preparation programs – that’s changing, but historically it hasn’t been something that most programs hold up as an important thing to study. One of the interesting things that a lot of people theorized – but that few wanted to go on record saying – is that many cognitive science principles are viewed by U.S. educators through a political lens and seen as too rigid and conservative, and insufficiently attuned to matters of race and class. It’s probably no accident that the British government that held up a lot of these principles as worth emulating was a Conservative one.
You’ve been covering education for years. Does this moment feel different in terms of public or political appetite for evidence-based teaching? Or are we still stuck in the same cycle of innovation without implementation?
To me, this feels like an inflection point. The work of journalists and writers like Emily Hanford, Holly Korbey, Mandy McLaren, and Natalie Wexler, taken together, is beginning to create an appetite for a different approach. I think Emily’s impact on the industry can’t be overstated. She has really offered us all a template for a different kind of inquiry.
One more thing I’ll say about this: I’ve been reporting on education, as you say, for years – nearly 30 years, to be precise. This piece stands alone. With perhaps one exception, every single person I called or emailed for it, on both sides of the Atlantic, was absolutely delighted to talk to me about this stuff – and excited about the prospect of hearing what their colleagues had to say. I can’t remember another story in which so many sources were so eager to talk, and at great length, about their work. There’s a real energy here that I think we’re just starting to register.
What do you think the recent defunding of the National Science Foundation and the Institute of Education Sciences means for the future of learning science research in the U.S.?
I’m really of two minds on this. I’ve had several conversations with former IES head Mark Schneider, who at times seems positively giddy about the dismantling of the department’s research apparatus. His point of view is that it lost its way years ago and was long overdue for a reboot. Actually, Emily’s latest piece gets at that, especially the need for researchers to communicate findings more effectively so that they have an impact on classroom practice.
That said, even Schneider worries that the DOGE cuts have been a little too deep in places, that we’ve thrown out the baby with the bathwater. It remains to be seen whether litigation – or common sense – brings back a semblance of the research infrastructure we once had.
