November 2025

K-12 Education Research

Early Action for States in Response to Recent Changes 

Paul Beach and Kristen Carroll

Note: This memo is part of a Bellwether series designed to help education advocates and state leaders — including those in governors’ offices, state education agencies and boards, and state legislatures — respond to shifts in policy and power at the federal level. This memo reflects federal policy developments through Oct. 17, 2025.

Nov. 18, 2025 (Correction): An earlier version of this analysis stated a Mathematica study on magnet schools was among the cancelled National Center for Education Research and National Center for Special Education Research grants. However, that specific grant was supported by the National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, which oversees evaluation studies.

Summary

Mississippi’s remarkable gains in fourth grade reading proficiency from 2013 to 2024 — referred to as the “Mississippi Miracle” — were made possible in part by federal investments in K-12 education research infrastructure. 1 The state’s 2013 Literacy-Based Promotion Act required that all interventions for students struggling to reach proficiency use “research-based reading instructional programming.” 2 To carry out these mandates, then-State Superintendent of Education Carey Wright partnered with the Regional Education Laboratory (REL) Southeast, one of 10 federally funded technical assistance centers supported by the U.S. Department of Education’s Institute of Education Sciences (IES), which helped the state gather data on literacy instruction, created resources for teachers, and provided evaluation support. 3 These efforts drew on a robust federal research base on reading development and instruction — much of it supported by IES through decades of studies on the “science of reading.” 4 Mississippi’s progress was documented by the federally supported National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), which showed the state achieved some of the largest reading gains in the nation from 2013 to 2024 among its lowest performers. 5

Mississippi’s experience highlights how IES-funded research fits within a broader ecosystem of evidence that policymakers and practitioners draw upon to inform decisions. State and district leaders rely on a wide array of evidence to make decisions, including empirical studies, local data, expert insights, professional judgment, and input from parents. The way this evidence influences policy, if it does at all, depends on the availability of evidence, how easy it is to interpret, and how relevant it is to the issue at hand. 6 IES-funded research often plays an indirect but critical role in this process by informing the intermediaries — advocates, analysts, and technical assistance providers — who help states interpret, adapt, and apply evidence to their own contexts.

However, the IES-funded research infrastructure that enabled Mississippi’s success now faces significant uncertainty. The large-scale cancellation of federal research grants, 7 ongoing personnel cuts, 8 proposed budget cuts to IES, 9 and the potential closure of the U.S. Department of Education 10 could make it more difficult for other states to replicate Mississippi’s success. This comes at a time when the most recent NAEP results show that U.S. students have not recovered from COVID-19 pandemic-era learning losses. 11 Beyond the urgent need to produce evidence that can be used to reverse these trends, ongoing changes to or reductions in IES-funded research could weaken the infrastructure that enables large-scale research, assessment, data collection, technical assistance, and dissemination that states, districts, and schools depend on to better serve students (Sidebar).

Sidebar: What Does Federal Support for K-12 Education Research Mean?

This memo defines K-12 education research broadly, consistent with the structure of IES. This definition includes not only empirical research studies (e.g., randomized controlled trials or longitudinal studies) but also the national and international assessments and other data, statistics, and reporting mechanisms that enable those studies, and the technical assistance and dissemination efforts that help translate findings into actionable guidance for states, districts, and schools.

This broader view underscores that federal support for K-12 education is not limited to funding research directly but extends to the infrastructure and dissemination efforts that ensure research evidence can inform educational practice and policy at scale.

 

The recent changes at the U.S. Department of Education and IES have also brought renewed attention to longstanding critiques of federal K-12 education research. Commentators have expressed that federal education research and development lacks coherence and has limited visibility among policymakers and practitioners. 12 Some scholars have long argued that IES privileges experimental designs at the expense of qualitative research and other approaches that can capture the complexity of teaching and learning. 13 Meanwhile, practitioners continue to lament that high-quality research rarely translates into classroom practice, leaving teachers without actionable insights. 14

Despite these perceived shortcomings, policy experts and researchers are calling for IES to be redesigned, rather than shuttered altogether, 15 and the U.S. Department of Education appears to be heading in that direction, issuing a recent request for information on redesigning IES. 16 Although the direction of IES remains uncertain, any significant reform effort will take time. State leaders should not wait for federal action — they can use this moment to strengthen their research infrastructure in ways that ensure evidence better informs improvements to policy and practice, regardless of federal shifts. 

This memo examines key federal changes to IES and outlines actions state leaders can take in response. The following recommended actions encourage state leaders to establish a long-term vision for K-12 education research and strengthen research infrastructure aligned with state and local priorities. 

  • Build a coherent research agenda.
  • Lean on external partners to conduct research.
  • Prioritize collecting what matters most.
  • Build state capacity to bridge research, policy, and practice. 

Federal Role in K-12 Education Research and Changes Under the Trump Administration 

Although states and districts maintain primary control over K-12 education policy and funding, the federal government has played a unique role in building and sustaining the nation’s K-12 education research infrastructure. Federal involvement provides the scale that no single state can achieve on its own, supporting national data collection, large-scale longitudinal studies, and the broad dissemination of research findings.  

A Brief History of Federal K-12 Education Research

Federal support for K-12 education research dates back to 1867 and the creation of a federal agency focused on descriptive data collection, statistics, and facts to describe the condition of education nationwide. This agency became a division and oversaw education statistics for nearly a century, first in the U.S. Department of the Interior (1869), then in the Federal Security Agency (1939), and later in the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (1953). This division was officially recognized as the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) in 1974. 17 When the U.S. Department of Education was established in 1979, NCES was incorporated into the Office of Educational Research and Improvement, which continued to support applied research and dissemination. The Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002 expanded the federal role in K-12 education research, placing NCES within IES at the U.S. Department of Education. 18

The Current Structure of Federal K-12 Education Research

This memo focuses on the main source of federal funding for K-12 education research — IES — which is organized into four national centers: 

  • NCES, which manages federal data collection, national and international assessments (including NAEP), and longitudinal studies. 
  • The National Center for Education Research (NCER), which funds basic and applied education studies through competitive grants. 
  • The National Center for Special Education Research (NCSER), which supports studies on students with disabilities. (Note: For more on changes to NCSER and federal shifts under the Trump administration that affect students with disabilities, see Bellwether’s July 2025 Students With Disabilities memo.) 
  • The National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance (NCEE), which oversees the What Works Clearinghouse and the Regional Educational Laboratories (RELs). 

Because IES sits at the center of the nation’s education research infrastructure and provides much of the evidence that states and districts rely on to guide decisions, shifts in its priorities and funding have direct implications for states’ ability to generate and use research evidence. It is important to note that federal investment in K-12 education research extends beyond IES. Other offices within the U.S. Department of Education and across the federal government also fund K-12 research aligned with their missions. For example, the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education within the U.S. Department of Education manages the Education Innovation and Research competitive grant program, 19 while the National Science Foundation, an independent federal agency, funds education research aimed at improving STEM teaching and learning in U.S. schools. 20 Though all sources of federal support are important for understanding the full landscape of K-12 education research, examining them all in detail is beyond the scope of this memo, which focuses specifically on IES and the implications of recent federal changes for states.

Historic Federal Funding Levels for IES and Potential Changes

During the past decade, IES’s budget has risen from $605 million in fiscal year (FY) 2017 to $793 million in FY25. 21 Both the Trump administration’s FY26 budget proposal 22 and the U.S. House of Representatives’ FY26 appropriation bill 23 would reduce overall IES funding (Figure).

 

Figure: Historical Federal Funding for IES and Potential Funding Level Changes

Note: The Figure does not include $128 million in one–time pandemic-relief funding for IES in 2020. Sources: U.S. Department of Education, “Fiscal Year 2026 Budget Summary;” U.S. Department of Education, IES, “Fiscal Year 2026 Budget Request;” Committee on Appropriations House of Representatives, “Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, 2026.”

The Trump administration’s FY26 budget request proposed reducing IES funding to $261 million, a cut of 67% compared with FY25, 24 while the current House appropriations bill would reduce IES funding to $740 million, a more modest 7% cut. 25 These proposals, paired with recent federal changes, have raised concerns over the continuity of federal K-12 education research data collections, the capacity to conduct program evaluations, the viability of large-scale research and development initiatives, and the ability to effectively disseminate research findings to policymakers and practitioners. 26

Recent Federal Changes to K-12 Education Research

The following sections describe a non-exhaustive array of federal changes to IES-funded research studies; national and international assessments; data, statistics, and reporting; and technical assistance and dissemination efforts. This memo focuses on those changes that may limit the K-12 data, evidence, and technical assistance available to state and local policymakers and educators. However, it is worth noting that more than half of the U.S. Department of Education’s staff has been laid off or bought out, occurring primarily in March 2025 and during the current government shutdown, 27 though a federal judge has temporarily halted these layoffs. 28 In addition, nearly $900 million in contracts to IES were canceled in February 2025. 29 Although the Trump administration has not offered detailed rationales for every grant or contract cancellation, the administration has stated that at least some of those actions stem from a shift in federal priorities away from diversity, equity, and inclusion. 30

Taken together, these developments suggest that the near-term capacity of the federal government to support K-12 education research and evidence use may be significantly diminished. However, the impact of these changes on states will depend on where future cuts occur, how the U.S. Department of Education uses its remaining capacity, and the structure and priorities of any redesigned IES. As federal roles shift, states will need to monitor these changes closely and consider what actions to take in response.

Research Studies

The Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002 established NCER with the mission “to sponsor sustained research that will lead to the accumulation of knowledge and understanding of education” and promote best practices in scientific research. 31 The current House appropriations bill maintains $245 million for research, development, and dissemination, 32 while the U.S. Department of Education has signaled a narrower focus for research funding priorities (Table 1). 33 

Table 1: Description of Federal Support for Education Research Studies
Historical Federal Role 
Summary of Changes 
Historical Federal Role 

National Longitudinal Studies 
NCES’s longitudinal research began with the National Longitudinal Study of the High School Class of 1972. Since then, NCES has conducted a series of longitudinal studies across different student cohorts. The purpose of these studies is to follow students throughout their academic careers to assess how students’ personal, familial, social, institutional, and cultural factors may affect their development. 34 Current national longitudinal studies include:

  • High School Longitudinal Study and High School and Beyond Longitudinal Study 35
  • Early Childhood Longitudinal Study 36
Summary of Changes 

  • In February 2025, a contract to the Research Triangle Institute for the High School and Beyond Longitudinal Study of 2020, initially for $44 million, was abruptly canceled. Similarly, a contract to WESTAT, INC. for the design of the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of 2022-23, was canceled. 37
  • The abrupt stop to the High School and Beyond Longitudinal Study disrupts the data collection for the current cohort, the ninth-grade class of 2022. The first follow-up with these students was expected for school year (SY) 2025-26, when most students would be in their senior year of high school. 38
Historical Federal Role 

Education Resources Information Center (ERIC)
ERIC is a free education information system and research database, with a current collection of more than 2 million education documents including K-12 education research studies and analyses. 39
Summary of Changes 

The current federal contract for ERIC runs through 2028. However, the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) requested that ERIC cut its annual budget from $5.5 million to $2.25 million. In April 2025, it was reported that the administration would end ERIC after it refused to approve the disbursement of funds. 40 However, the administration changed course and is continuing the online library with half its budget. 41
Historical Federal Role 

Additional Research Study Grant Programs
NCER, NCSER, and NCEE fund numerous educational research grants with the goal of enhancing students’ education from pre-K through adult education. Since 2002, IES has funded more than 400 projects focused on education technology, studies on mathematics learning and teaching, and over 245 projects in social-behavioral research. 42 These research grants focus on a range of topics, and new grants arise as students and schools experience new challenges in teaching, learning, and organizing school systems. 43
Summary of Changes 

The cancellation of current NCER, NCSER, and NCEE grants impacted several ongoing studies, including a $3 million grant to MDRC to conduct an impact evaluation of education products that provide supplemental math instruction in low-performing schools and a contract originally valued at $6 million to Mathematica studying the impact of magnet schools. 44 These are just two examples of many grant-funded research projects canceled in 2025.  
Historical Federal Role 

Peer Review Panels
IES scientific peer review guarantees that research, evaluation, and statistics reports undergo independent peer review before being made public. 45 In an effort to ensure objectivity, peer review activities are conducted by the Office of Sciences, outside of IES. 46
Summary of Changes 

A February 2025 letter from Congressional Democrats to the U.S. Department of Education indicated that the current administration has canceled NCER and NCSER peer review panels that support and evaluate rigorous research, including literacy and special education. 47

National and International Assessments

The Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002 stipulates that NCES “must collect, report, analyze, and disseminate statistical data related to education at all levels (preschool through postsecondary) in the United States and other nations.” 48 Historically, this includes national and international assessments (Table 2). The current House appropriations bill maintains $193 million for assessment, the same amount allocated in FY25. 49

Table 2: Description of Federal Support for National and International Assessments
Historical Federal Role 
Summary of Changes 
Historical Federal Role 

National Assessments 

  • NAEP: Known as “The Nation’s Report Card,” NAEP is a nationally representative assessment of student achievement, with tests in 10 subjects, including reading and mathematics, among others for Grades 4, 8, and 12. 50 NAEP has a variety of use cases for states, including but not limited to measuring progress relative to peer states and setting education priorities. 51 NAEP also includes district-level assessments, including the Trial Urban District Assessment (TUDA), which focuses on K-12 education and achievement in urban districts. 52
Summary of Changes 

Current reports and budgetary allocations indicate that NAEP will continue to receive funding during FY26. Although the administration of NAEP likely will remain funded, there are reports that contracts for analyzing and reporting the data have been canceled. 53 As a result, the timeliness of NAEP data releases may be disrupted during future assessment cycles, and the amount of data shared may be limited — potentially affecting policymakers’ ability to observe long-term trends. These disruptions also could affect TUDA and the ability for large districts to understand their performance relative to those of their peers.
Historical Federal Role 

International Assessments 

  • Program for International Student Assessment (PISA): PISA is an international assessment that measures 15-year-olds’ skills in reading, math, and science. 54
  • Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS): TIMSS is an international study that measures fourth- and eighth-graders’ math and science knowledge. 55
  • Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS): PIRLS is a global study that evaluates fourth-grade literacy. 56
  • International Computer and Information Literacy Study (ICILS): ICILS is a computer-based international assessment of eighth-grade students’ capacities to use information communications technologies productively for a range of different purposes. 57
Summary of Changes 

The following February 2025 contract cancellations imply that U.S. participation may be ending in several international assessments:  

  • A WESTAT, INC. contract originally totaling $43 million enabling participation in PISA has been canceled. 58
  • Multiple contracts that support PIRLS, ICILS, and TIMSS participation and the development and management of the next round of the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement have also been canceled. 59

Data, Statistics, and Dissemination

The Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002 states that NCES’s mission, as a “statistics center,” is “to collect and analyze education information and statistics in a manner that meets the highest methodological standards” (Table 3). 60 The act mandates that NCES report statistics in a timely manner, maintain objectivity, be nonideological, and ensure its reports are “useful to practitioners, researchers, policymakers, and the public.” 61 In FY25, Congress appropriated $121.5 million to “Statistics” within IES’s budget. 62 The current House appropriations bill includes $122.5 million for statistics. 63

Table 3: Description of Federal Support for Data, Statistics, and Reporting
Historical Federal Role 
Summary of Changes 
Historical Federal Role 

Common Core of Data
The Common Core of Data is the U.S. Department of Education’s primary database on public elementary and secondary education. This annual, comprehensive statistical database includes all public elementary and secondary schools, local education agencies (LEAs), and state education agencies in the U.S. The Common Core of Data consists of six surveys that must be annually completed by states. 64
Summary of Changes 

A Knowledge Alliance memo to Congress and the administration describes that The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) terminated contracts for the collection of the nonfinancial elements of the Common Core of Data in February 2025. 65 Nonfinancial data include school, student, and staff characteristics (e.g., grade, sex, and race/ethnicity). 66 This cancellation could make it “impossible” for IES to administer NAEP because these data are necessary to construct a comparable sample across states. 67
Historical Federal Role 

Digest for Education Statistics
The Digest of Education Statistics (Digest) was formed in 1962 to collect, compile, and publish data on U.S. education each year. 68 Today, the Digest includes data tables on a wide range of topics, including the number of schools, enrollment in those schools, teacher characteristics, education attainment levels, and much more. 69
Summary of Changes 

In June 2025, Brookings reported a sharp decline in the number of tables included in the Digest of Education Statistics. The U.S. Department of Education has stated that it will now release data on a rolling basis. 70
Historical Federal Role 

The Projections of Education Statistics and the Condition of Education 
The Projections of Education Statistics (Projections) and the Condition of Education (Condition) are two other NCES annual reports. Projections was first released by NCES in 1964, while the Condition debuted in 1975. 71 Projections provides decades-long forecasts for key statistics, including student enrollment, teachers, and resources. 72 While the Digest is oriented around producing data tables, the Condition aims to summarize these data in a manner that helps policymakers make sense of data trends and monitor progress. 73
Summary of Changes 

The Condition report is required by the Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002 to be published by June 1 each year. 74 In 2025, the U.S. Department of Education missed the deadline, releasing it on June 2. The report is missing several standard data tables, including statistics on private schools, teacher mobility, school principals, and financial aid. 75 Reports indicate that a significant amount of data will be cut in future editions. 76
Historical Federal Role 

Surveys 
Longitudinal data collection is required by Section 153 of the Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002. 77 To meet this mandate, NCES historically has funded numerous nationally representative surveys. 78 Some IES funded surveys include:

  • National Teacher and Principal Survey: This survey tracks teacher and principal characteristics, working conditions, and workforce trends. 79
  • Teaching and Learning International Survey: This survey asks international teachers and school principals about teaching, learning, and their professional environment. 80
  • School Survey on Crime and Safety: This survey is the primary source for school crime and safety data, including safety incidents, school staff training and prevention practices, and parent and community involvement. 81
  • Private School Survey: This survey started in 1989 and is designed to collect data on the number of private schools, teachers, and students across the country. 82 
Summary of Changes 

A February 2025 letter from Congressional House Democrats to the U.S. Department of Education lists the National Teacher and Principal Survey among the canceled statistics studies. 83 In addition, the following contracts supporting survey design and distribution have been canceled:  

  • A contract supporting the mailout operations for the National Household Education Survey, National Teacher and Principal Survey, School Survey on Crime and Safety, and Private School Survey was canceled. 84 This contract originally totaled $1.4 million, but the reported savings are $671,000. 85
  • An American Institutes for Research contract originally totaling $3 million supporting the descriptive data collection for the National Teacher and Principal Survey has also been canceled. 86
  • A contract awarded to Activate Research for $6.7 million for the Teaching and Learning International Survey, which compares the working experiences of U.S. teachers with those in other countries, has been canceled. 87
  • An American Institutes for Research contract originally totaling $400,000 to support collection of data via the School Survey on Crime and Safety has been canceled. 88

Technical Assistance and Dissemination

The Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002 created NCEE, which supports technical assistance and dissemination of research through programs such as the RELs, the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC), and Statewide Longitudinal Data Systems (Table 4). 89

Table 4: Description of Federal Support for Education Technical Assistance and Dissemination
Historical Federal Role 
Summary of Changes 
Historical Federal Role 

WWC
WWC reviews and disseminates scientific evidence on education interventions for policymakers and educators. The WWC works to translate scientific evidence into accessible and useful information for educators. WWC provides a central source of scientific evidence on what works in education. 90
Summary of Changes 

In February 2025, DOGE canceled contracts related to continuing the WWC, 91 leading to reduced support for WWC activities. These contracts, totaling more than $15 million, went to independent agencies tasked with supporting WWC online training, synthesizing research evidence from preschool through postsecondary, and reviewing student assessments. 92 
Historical Federal Role 

RELs 
The U.S. has a network of 10 regional applied research and outreach centers that help bridge evidence and practice. 93 These RELs began their work in 1965, and over time their focus has shifted from general education improvement to at-risk children to addressing the disconnect between researchers and practitioners. 94
Summary of Changes 

  • In February 2025, all 10 RELs were canceled by DOGE. 95 Two parties, Maryland-based Child Trends Incorporated and New Hampshire-based RMC Research Corporation, sued the Trump administration, claiming that the cancellation of the contracts was unlawful. In August 2025, a federal judge in Maryland concluded that the administration did violate federal law by shuttering the REL programs. The federal judge ordered that the administration provide a plan outlining how they will relaunch the technical assistance programs by Aug. 20, 2025. 96 The administration has said it will issue new solicitations, 97 but no additional details could be found as of Oct. 17, 2025.
  • The current House appropriations bill proposes the elimination of federal funding for the RELs. 98
Historical Federal Role 

Statewide Longitudinal Data Systems
The Statewide Longitudinal Data Systems program was first mandated by the Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002 99 and provides competitive grants to help states design, develop, and implement longitudinal data systems that connect student-level education data from early learning through postsecondary and into the workforce. Statewide Longitudinal Data Systems have been used to develop dashboards allowing families to compare college programs, drive policy alignment between education and economic development, and help employers anticipate workforce trends. 100
Summary of Changes 

Although the Statewide Longitudinal Data Systems program was allocated $38.5 million in FY25, 101 the current House appropriations bill allocates $28.5 million to Statewide Longitudinal Data Systems. 102 There have been no additional updates on the administration’s plans to maintain and/or reform the Statewide Longitudinal Data Systems program. 

Additional Federal Actions Affecting K-12 Education Research

Several other federal actions and policy signals, including the following, could also result in significant changes to longstanding federal support for K-12 education research across the country.  

Executive Order to Close the U.S. Department of Education

In March 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order 14242, directing the secretary of education to “take all necessary steps to facilitate the closure of the U.S. Department of Education and return authority over education to the States.” 103 Although permanently closing the U.S. Department of Education requires congressional approval, the executive order has created uncertainty and speculation about whether core research, assessment, data, technical assistance, and dissemination functions will be moved to other federal agencies such as the U.S. Department of Labor, or whether they will be eliminated altogether. 104 Though the administration has emphasized that some programs would continue, the executive order and subsequent announcements provide few details on how transitions will be carried out, leaving open questions about future oversight and federal support for K-12 education research.

Redesigning IES

In September 2025, the U.S. Department of Education issued a public request for information (RFI) seeking input on “redesigning” IES. 105 Around the same time, new grant-making priorities were announced, signaling a narrower focus for future federal research funding. Instead of supporting a broad portfolio of education research, the department highlighted five themes: math and career education, evidence-based literacy, school choice, artificial intelligence (AI), and patriotic education. 106 Though these priorities suggest a narrower focus than in previous grant portfolios, the RFI and related announcements offer little clarity on how nonprioritized areas of education research will be supported. As a result, questions remain about the extent to which IES will address urgent, nonprioritized issues facing states, districts, and schools.

Shifting K-12 Research Responsibility to States Amid Cuts

Although the Trump administration has not explicitly encouraged states to take on more K-12 education research responsibilities, its deep cuts to federal research contracts and the planned closure of the U.S. Department of Education strongly suggest that states will be left to fill gaps in research, data, technical assistance, and dissemination that were previously supported at the federal level. At the same time, states face steep proposed reductions in overall K-12 funding, including cuts to Title I and other formula and competitive grants. 107 These cuts will force states to make hard choices about whether to preserve critical programs and initiatives or invest in building research capacity. In effect, states are being asked to do more with less: to build evidence while also covering for the loss of federal funding that once supported direct services to students.

Cuts to K-12 Education Research in Other Agencies

Although most federal education research is funded and coordinated through the U.S. Department of Education, other federal agencies also fund K-12 education research. The National Science Foundation’s August 2025 solicitation for its STEM K-12 program revealed a 50% reduction in STEM education research and an 85% cut to STEM education research grants totaling more than $100 million. 108 The National Science Foundation plans to shift funds toward AI, limiting support for classroom-based studies. 109 Research funded by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the National Institutes of Health also reaches public schools. For example, a project focused on designing programs that address addictive behaviors and promote health literacy in high schools was canceled by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services in May 2025. 110 Compounding these reductions, the U.S. Department of Education has cut positions (effective December 2025) outside of its core K-12 research in the Office of Civil Rights that may impact civil rights data collection. 111

Actions State Leaders Can Take Now to Support K-12 Education Research

Significant uncertainty surrounds IES and the future of federal involvement in K-12 education research. On the one hand, the widespread cancellations of IES research grants and contracts, 112 anticipated reductions in funding for IES, 113 continued personnel cuts, 114 and the proposed closure of the U.S. Department of Education 115 may all lead to less research, data, and technical assistance available to states, districts, and schools. On the other hand, it appears that IES will still receive funding in FY26, and researchers are expressing cautious optimism 116 that the federal government will continue to support K-12 education research based on the recent request for information to redesign IES. 117

The result of a redesigned IES could vary widely, from an agency that produces research and data more closely aligned with state and local needs to one with diminished capacity to support large-scale research and development, maintain key education data, and provide essential technical assistance. Given this range of possibilities, this memo encourages state leaders to take proactive actions to strengthen their research infrastructure — actions that will improve evidence-based decision-making and better prepare states for future federal shifts.

1. Build a coherent research agenda.

States should begin by strengthening their research functions in targeted and sustainable ways. Initially formed to be compliance monitors, most state education agencies (SEAs) today oversee a wide array of responsibilities (e.g., enforcing state and federal laws, distributing funds to districts and schools, and leading school accountability and improvement efforts). SEAs, however, often struggle to deliver on these functions given limited staff and funding. 118 Moreover, SEAs differ in their ability to conduct and use research, and the ways these efforts are influenced by the broader K-12 education research community remain unclear. 119

The first step to strengthening research infrastructure is assessing the SEA’s current research capacity by determining what staff, data systems, and analytic tools are already in place and what their purpose is. From there, SEAs should develop a research agenda with input from state and local stakeholders to identify the most pressing needs for research and evidence. This agenda should explicitly connect to policy and practice priorities (e.g., educator workforce stability, chronic absenteeism, and pandemic learning loss). 

With a research agenda in place, SEAs can then assess what questions they can answer now with existing data and staff capacity, which areas require additional resources or expertise, and which projects are best suited for partnerships with external organizations. This staged approach ensures that SEAs build momentum on immediate, answerable questions while setting the groundwork for longer-term research needs. 

2. Lean on external partners to conduct research.

Forming creative partnerships will be key to answering research questions that states lack the capacity or funding to answer on their own. States should formalize partnerships with postsecondary institutions and nonprofit research organizations to conduct research studies. By engaging externally, SEAs can extend their research reach, bring in new expertise, and align future research studies to their most pressing priorities. The following partnerships vary widely in scope and cost, from simple agreements that create access to expertise, to multiyear collaborations that build shared research agendas.  

  • Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs): SEAs should consider entering into MOUs with external organizations to form partnerships without significant financial commitments. For example, states can partner with education, public policy, psychology, economic, and other departments in state postsecondary institutions to match student and faculty projects with the state’s K-12 research needs.
  • Data-Sharing Agreements: More formal arrangements that govern how student or program data can be accessed and used for research purposes can increase the range and depth of evidence available to policymakers and practitioners. For example, the Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research (CALDER) has data-sharing agreements with more than 10 states, which has resulted in numerous policy-relevant research studies. 120
  • Individual Commissioned Studies: Contracted projects where an SEA pays a research or evaluation organization to conduct a specific analysis or produce a report can allow agencies to access specialized expertise outside of internal capacity. For example, the California Department of Education contracted with WestEd to evaluate the state’s system of support for improving low-performing LEAs. 121
  • Research-Practice Partnerships: Although not as common as partnerships between researchers and school districts, multiyear collaborations between SEAs and research institutions can produce evidence and resources in direct support of state priorities. For example, the Tennessee Education Research Alliance, housed at Vanderbilt University, partners with agencies throughout the state to translate research on teacher pipelines, teacher workforce, and other issues into actionable findings. 122

SEAs can build research capacity over time by starting with small, low-cost partnerships and expanding into deeper, sustained collaborations. Early projects can generate the evidence needed to attract additional funding and support a more coherent, long-term research agenda aligned with state and local priorities.  

3. Prioritize collecting what matters most.

Full or partial federal withdrawal from large-scale data collection and assessments would leave states with significant information gaps they cannot fully replace. States are at risk of losing the ability to compare student achievement with that of peer states through large-scale assessments like NAEP. States could also lose comparative information on a wider range of education indicators, such as teacher workforce trends, student demographics, student mobility, and many other variables collected by NCES. Many states have also relied on federal support to develop state longitudinal data systems, essential work that is still ongoing in many states. With federal data collection and assessment systems in flux, states should focus on the most essential data for their research agendas and pursue partnerships to replace or supplement lost capacity. The following recommended actions recognize that states vary in existing data infrastructure and readiness.  

  • Identify what the SEA is well positioned to collect and analyze: Every state administers statewide assessments and collects education data, meaning they are well positioned to fill some of the information gaps left by the federal government. For example, states should consider adding new data elements to existing surveys of schools and districts to capture data that will no longer be available at the federal level.
  • Strengthen and align state assessment systems: With reduced access to national and international comparisons, states should consider how their own assessments can provide comparable insights. For example, states could partner to align certain measures across assessments, creating regional benchmarks that partially replace NAEP or PISA comparisons. The Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium and Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers provide useful examples (and lessons learned) 123 on how states can approach these types of partnerships.
  • Determine what data collection requires within state partnerships: One area where states may feel the loss of federal data collections is in tracking teacher and principal workforce trends. Without this information, states will need to strengthen their own teacher data systems through partnerships with postsecondary institutions, licensure boards, or labor departments. For example, Colorado, Indiana, and Texas have developed strong data systems on teacher supply and demand, an area where many states struggle. 124
  • Form cross-state collaborations for greater scale and impact: With reduced federal investment in large-scale data collections, states risk losing common benchmarks and comparative information. By pooling infrastructure, expertise, and funding, states can generate richer insights than they can achieve in isolation. For example, more than 35 states participate in the Multi-State Data Collaborative, which focuses on using state administrative data to examine policy questions.125 Leveraging collaboratives like this for K-12 education is one way to replace elements of federal data collections.

By aligning new data collection and analysis with explicit research agendas, SEAs can focus on the most pressing needs rather than trying to replicate the federal role in full.  

4. Build state capacity to bridge research, policy, and practice.

As federal support for technical assistance and dissemination declines, states face the risk of losing the already limited infrastructure designed to explicitly bridge the gaps among research, policy, and practice. Just as SEAs must build coherent research agendas and prioritize essential data collection, they must also invest in strategies that ensure evidence is translated into usable knowledge for districts and schools. Without this bridge, even the best state-generated research or data will have little impact. The following recommended state actions provide options for preserving and strengthening key infrastructure for evidence translation.  

  • Build or designate a state-level body for evaluating the best available evidence: With reductions in the WWC, states should consider developing structures to review, synthesize, and translate evidence. For example, states could convene independent evidence review councils or partner with a postsecondary institution to annually review evidence related to a few targeted priorities, translate that evidence into promising practices, and produce implementation briefs for practitioners.
  • Develop regional or multi-state technical support networks as replacements for RELs: The RELs have long served states and districts with applied research, evaluation, and coaching support tailored to local needs. As those resources are reduced or disappear, states should collaborate to establish analogous regional centers or form cross-state research-practice partnerships that aim to translate evidence for districts and schools, offer coaching, and create guidance or tools for implementation. For example, during the pandemic, a cross-state research-practice partnership made up of SEA leaders created evidence-based guidance and resources for supporting multilingual students during remote learning. 126

Explicitly linking technical assistance and dissemination to state research and data priorities can allow states to make the most of scarce resources, fill gaps left by federal withdrawal, and build a system of continuous improvement that directly benefits schools and students. 

Conclusion

As the federal government explores redesigning IES, 127 and national leaders put forward competing visions for the future of federal K-12 education research, 128 states do not have to wait. The actions outlined in this memo offer a practical road map for states to strengthen their own research capacity, build durable partnerships, and translate evidence into policy and practice in ways that reflect local priorities, context, and needs. The ongoing changes at the U.S. Department of Education and IES represent not only a period of uncertainty, but also an opportunity for states to lead.

Acknowledgments, About the Authors, About Bellwether

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank our Bellwether colleagues John Bellaire, Daniela Torre Gibney, Melissa Steel King, Hailly T.N. Korman, and Jim Peyser for their input. Thank you also to the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation for its financial support of this project. 

Thank you to Amy Ribock, Kate Stein, Andy Jacob, McKenzie Maxson, Temim Fruchter, Julie Nguyen, and Amber Walker for shepherding and disseminating this work, and to Super Copy Editors. 

The contributions of these individuals and entities significantly enhanced our work; however, any errors in fact or analysis remain the responsibility of the authors.

About the Authors

Linea Koehler

PAUL BEACH

Paul Beach is an associate partner at Bellwether in the Policy and Evaluation practice area. He can be reached at paul.beach@bellwether.org.

Linea Koehler

KRISTEN CARROLL

Kristen Carroll is an associate partner at Bellwether in the Policy and Evaluation practice area. She can be reached at kristen.carroll@bellwether.org.


Bellwether is a national nonprofit that exists to transform education to ensure systemically marginalized young people achieve outcomes that lead to fulfilling lives and flourishing communities. Founded in 2010, we work hand in hand with education leaders and organizations to accelerate their impact, inform and influence policy and program design, and share what we learn along the way. For more, visit bellwether.org.

© 2025 Bellwether
This report carries a Creative Commons license, which permits noncommercial reuse of content when proper attribution is provided. This means you are free to copy, display, and distribute this work, or include content from this report in derivative works, under the following conditions:

Attribution. You must clearly attribute the work to Bellwether and provide a link back to the publication at www.bellwether.org.
Noncommercial. You may not use this work for commercial purposes without explicit prior permission from Bellwether.
Share Alike. If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under a license identical to this one.

For the full legal code of this Creative Commons license, please visit www.creativecommons.org. If you have any questions about citing or reusing Bellwether content, please contact us.

Footnotes

  1. Greg Toppo, “Trump Cuts Research Lab That Helped Nurture ‘Mississippi Miracle,’” The 74, February 20, 2025, https://www.the74million.org/article/trump-cuts-research-lab-that-helped-nurture-mississippi-miracle/#:~:text=To%20guide%20the%20effort%2C%20Wright,based%20practices; Chad Aldeman, “There Really Was a ‘Mississippi Miracle’ in Reading. States Should Learn From It,” The 74, February 25, 2025, https://www.the74million.org/article/there-really-was-a-mississippi-miracle-in-reading-states-should-learn-from-it/.[↩]
  2. Miss. Code § 37-177-1 (2024), https://law.justia.com/codes/mississippi/title-37/chapter-177/section-37-177-1/.[↩]
  3. Toppo, “Trump Cuts Research Lab.”[↩]
  4. Ibid.; Dennis Ciancio, “The Importance of Comprehension in the Science of Reading,” Institute of Education Sciences blog, July 18, 2023, https://ies.ed.gov/learn/blog/importance-comprehension-science-reading/.[↩]
  5. Aldeman, “There Really Was a ’Mississippi Miracle.'”[↩]
  6. Elizabeth N. Farley-Ripple and Latrice Marianno, “Evidence Use in Education Policy and Practice,” in Handbook of Education Policy Research, ed. Lora Cohen-Vogel, Peter Youngs, and Janelle Scott (American Educational Research Association, 2025), 363–378, https://doi.org/10.2307/jj.31510356.[↩]
  7. Emma Kate Fittes and Maya Riser-Kositsky, “Sizing Up DOGE’s Education Contract Cuts: What’s Been Targeted,” Market Brief, March 12, 2025, https://marketbrief.edweek.org/regulation-policy/an-in-depth-look-at-doge-cuts-to-federal-education-contracts/2025/03.[↩]
  8. Mark Lieberman and Brooke Schultz, “Ed. Dept. Offices Will Be Virtually Wiped Out in Latest Layoffs,” EducationWeek, updated October 16, 2025, https://www.edweek.org/policy-politics/ed-dept-offices-will-be-virtually-wiped-out-in-latest-layoffs/2025/10; Brooke Schultz and Matthew Stone, “Ed. Dept. Will Shed Nearly Half Its Staff in Massive Reduction Under Trump,” EducationWeek, updated March 11, 2025, https://www.edweek.org/policy-politics/ed-dept-will-shed-nearly-half-its-staff-in-massive-reduction-under-trump.[↩]
  9. U.S. Department of Education Fiscal Year 2026 Budget Summary (U.S. Department of Education), https://www.ed.gov/media/document/fiscal-year-2026-budget-summary-110043.pdf.[↩]
  10. Exec. Order No. 14242, 90 Fed. Reg. 56 (March 20, 2025), https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/03/25/2025-05213/improving-education-outcomes-by-empowering-parents-states-and-communities.[↩]
  11. “NAEP Report Card: Mathematics,” The Nation’s Report Card, National Assessment of Educational Progress, https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/reports/mathematics/2024/g4_8/; “NAEP Report Card: Reading,” The Nation’s Report Card, National Assessment of Educational Progress, https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/reports/reading/2024/g4_8/.[↩]
  12. Chester E. Finn Jr., “Federal Education R & D: A Brief, Opinionated History (Part I),” Flypaper, Thomas B. Fordham Institute, April 17, 2019, https://fordhaminstitute.org/national/commentary/federal-education-r-d-brief-opinionated-history-part-i; Chester E. Finn Jr., “Federal Education R & D: A Brief, Opinionated History (Part II),” Flypaper, Thomas B. Fordham Institute, April 24, 2019, https://fordhaminstitute.org/national/commentary/federal-education-r-d-brief-opinionated-history-part-ii.[↩]
  13. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, “Chapter 2: Background,” in The Future of Education Research at IES: Advancing an Equity-Oriented Science, ed. Adam Gamoran and Kenne Dibner (The National Academies Press, 2022), 33, https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/26428/chapter/4#33.[↩]
  14. Thomas S. Dee, “High Quality Research Rarely Informs Classroom Practice. Why?,” EducationWeek, September 8, 2025, https://www.edweek.org/leadership/opinion-high-quality-research-rarely-informs-classroom-practice-why/2025/09.[↩]
  15. Dan Goldhaber, Ashley Jochim, Robin Lake, and Andrew J. Rotherham, “Mend, Don’t End, the Institute of Education Sciences,” The 74, February 21, 2025, https://www.the74million.org/article/mend-dont-end-the-institute-for-education-sciences/.[↩]
  16. Institute of Education Sciences (IES), U.S. Department of Education, Notice No. 46187, 90 Fed. Reg. 184 (September 25, 2025), https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/09/25/2025-18608/request-for-information-feedback-on-redesigning-the-institute-of-education-sciences-ies.[↩]
  17. “The National Center for Education Statistics: Who We Are,” National Center for Education Statistics, https://nces.ed.gov/national-center-education-statistics-nces/about.[↩]
  18. Ibid.[↩]
  19. “Education Innovation and Research,” Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, last reviewed October 15, 2025, https://www.ed.gov/grants-and-programs/grants-special-populations/grants-economically-disadvantaged-students/education-innovation-and-research.[↩]
  20. “NSF STEM K-12,” U.S. National Science Foundation, https://www.nsf.gov/funding/opportunities/stem-k-12-nsf-stem-k-12.[↩]
  21. Department of Education Institute of Education Sciences Fiscal Year 2026 Budget Request (U.S. Department of Education), https://www.ed.gov/media/document/fy-2026-congressional-justification-institute-of-education-sciences-110173.pdf.[↩]
  22. U.S. Department of Education, 2026 Budget Summary.[↩]
  23. H.R. Rep No. 119-271 (2025), https://www.congress.gov/committee-report/119th-congress/house-report/271/1.[↩]
  24. U.S. Department of Education, 2026 Budget Summary.[↩]
  25. H.R. Rep No. 119-271, 2025.[↩]
  26. Kevin Mahnken, “‘Back to the Dark Ages’: Education Research Staggered by Trump Cuts,” The 74, July 21, 2025, https://www.the74million.org/article/back-to-the-dark-ages-education-research-staggered-by-trump-cuts/#:~:text=PolicyImage.[↩]
  27. Lieberman and Schultz, “Ed. Dept. Offices;” Schultz and Stone, “Ed. Dept. Will Shed.”[↩]
  28. Brooke Schultz, “Judge Halts Trump Admin.’s Layoffs at Ed. Dept. and Other Agencies,” EducationWeek, updated October 15, 2025, https://www.edweek.org/policy-politics/judge-halts-trump-admin-s-layoffs-at-ed-dept-and-other-agencies/2025/10?utm_source=nl&utm_medium=eml&utm_campaign=eu&M=15314075&UUID=1e3ca93d2f670bfccafd52d554bb91a5&T=19935130.[↩]
  29. Ryan Quinn and Katherine Knott, “$900 Million in Institute of Education Sciences Contracts Axed,” Inside Higher Ed, February 12, 2025, https://www.insidehighered.com/news/faculty-issues/research/2025/02/12/900m-institute-education-sciences-contracts-axed.[↩]
  30. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Communications and Outreach, “U.S. Department of Education Cancels Additional $350 Million in Woke Spending,” press release, February 13, 2025, https://www.ed.gov/about/news/press-release/us-department-of-education-cancels-additional-350-million-woke-spending.[↩]
  31. Jeffrey J. Kuenzi and Rita R. Zota, “The Education Sciences Reform Act (ESRA): A Primer,” Congress.gov, March 20, 2023, https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R47481#_Toc130455954.[↩]
  32. H.R. Rep No. 119-271, 2025.[↩]
  33. Sarah Schwartz, “Math and Career Education Are Now Top Grant Priorities for Ed. Dept.,” EducationWeek, September 25, 2025, https://www.edweek.org/policy-politics/math-and-career-education-are-now-top-grant-priorities-for-ed-dept/2025/09.[↩]
  34. “High School and Beyond (HS&B) Longitudinal Study,” in NCES Handbook of Survey Methods, National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, updated August 2018, https://nces.ed.gov/statprog/handbook/pdf/hsb.pdf.[↩]
  35. “High School & Beyond Longitudinal Studies,” National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/hsb/.[↩]
  36. “Early Childhood Longitudinal Studies (ECLS) Program,” National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, https://nces.ed.gov/ecls/.[↩]
  37. Fittes and Riser-Kositsky, “Sizing Up.”[↩]
  38. “About High School & Beyond: 2022,” High School & Beyond Longitudinal Studies, National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/hsb/hsb22.asp#:~:text=With%20the%20sophomore%20cohort%2C%20information,began%20in%20the%20early%201980s.[↩]
  39. Jill Barshay, “A Treasure Trove of Education Reports and Studies Is Under Threat,” The Hechinger Report, April 21, 2025, https://hechingerreport.org/proof-points-eric-under-threat/.[↩]
  40. Ibid.[↩]
  41. Jill Barshay, “Education Department Restarts Online Library ERIC,” The Hechinger Report, April 28, 2025, https://hechingerreport.org/proof-points-restart-eric-ed-library/.[↩]
  42. “Research Programs,” U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, https://ies.ed.gov/funding/research/programs.[↩]
  43. “Education Research Grants,” U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, https://ies.ed.gov/funding/research/education-research-grants.[↩]
  44. Fittes and Riser-Kositsky, “Sizing Up.”[↩]
  45. Kuenzi and Zota, “Education Sciences Reform Act.”[↩]
  46. “Scientific Peer Review,” U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, https://ies.ed.gov/what-we-do/peer-review.[↩]
  47. “Bicameral Oversight Letter to ED re: DOGE Cuts to Important Education Research,” Committee on Education and Workforce, U.S. Congress, February 21, 2025, https://democrats-edworkforce.house.gov/imo/media/doc/bicameral_oversight_letter_to_ed_re_doge_cuts_to_important_education_research.pdf.[↩]
  48. Kuenzi and Zota, “Education Sciences Reform Act.”[↩]
  49. H.R. Rep No. 119-271, 2025.[↩]
  50. “History and Innovation in Assessment Design,” National Assessment of Educational Progress, updated August 12, 2025, https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/about/timeline.aspx#:~:text=; An Overview of NAEP, NCES 2019-153 (U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences), https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/subject/about/pdf/naep_overview_brochure_2021.pdf.[↩]
  51. How States Use and Value the Nation’s Report Card (National Assessment Governing Board), https://www.nagb.gov/content/dam/nagb/en/documents/publications/how-states-use-and-value-naep.pdf.[↩]
  52. “Trial Urban District Assessment (TUDA),” Special Reports, National Assessment of Educational Progress, updated February 7, 2025, https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/tuda/.[↩]
  53. Greg Toppo, “Is Trump Gutting Education Research a New Beginning or Just ‘Slashing & Burning’?,” The 74, February 11, 2025, https://www.the74million.org/article/is-trump-gutting-education-research-a-new-beginning-or-just-slashing-burning/.[↩]
  54. “Program for International Student Assessment (PISA),” National Center for Education Statistics, Institute for Education Sciences, https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/pisa/.[↩]
  55. “Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS),” National Center for Education Statistics, Institute for Education Sciences, https://nces.ed.gov/timss/.[↩]
  56. Anindita Sen, Stephanie Burns, and David C. Miller, “Teacher Strategies to Help Fourth-Graders Having Difficulty in Reading: An International Perspective,” Statistics in Brief, NCES 2009–013 (September 2009): 1–15, https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2009/2009013.pdf.[↩]
  57. “International Computer and Information Literacy Study (ICILS),” National Center for Education Statistics, Institute for Education Sciences, https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/icils/.[↩]
  58. Fittes and Riser-Kositsky, “Sizing Up.”[↩]
  59. lbid.[↩]
  60. Kuenzi and Zota, “Education Sciences Reform Act.”[↩]
  61. Ibid.[↩]
  62. U.S. Department of Education Fiscal Year 2025 Budget Summary (U.S. Department of Education), https://www.ed.gov/sites/ed/files/about/overview/budget/budget25/summary/25summary.pdf.[↩]
  63. H.R. Rep No. 119-271 (2025).[↩]
  64. “1. Overview,” in NCES Handbook of Survey Methods (National Center for Education Statistics), https://nces.ed.gov/statprog/handbook/ccd.asp; “About CCD,” Common Core of Data: America’s Public Schools, National Center for Education Statistics, https://nces.ed.gov/ccd/aboutccd.asp.[↩]
  65. “Statutory Authorizations for the Cancelled IES Contracts, and Impact of the Cancellations,” memorandum, Knowledge Alliance, February 19, 2025, https://hechingerreport.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/Memo-on-IES-Statuatory-Basis.pdf.[↩]
  66. “CCD Online Documentation,” Common Core of Data: America’s Public Schools, National Center for Education Statistics, https://nces.ed.gov/ccd/online_documentation.asp.[↩]
  67. Committee on Education and Workforce, “Bicameral Oversight Letter.”[↩]
  68. “Fast Facts: Historical Reports,” National Center for Education Statistics, Institute for Education Sciences, https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=932.[↩]
  69. Digest of Education Statistics, Annual Reports and Information Staff (Annual Reports), National Center for Education Statistics, Institute for Education Sciences, https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/.[↩]
  70. Dominique J. Baker, “The US Department of Education Is Far Behind on Producing Key Statistics,” Brookings, June 25, 2025, https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-u-s-department-of-education-is-far-behind-on-producing-key-statistics/?b=1.[↩]
  71. S. Provasnik et al., A Retrospective Look at U.S. Education Statistics, NCES 2022-080 (U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2024), https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/annualreports/topical-studies/retrospective/.[↩]
  72. Projections of Education Statistics, Annual Reports and Information Staff (Annual Reports), National Center for Education Statistics, Institute for Education Sciences, https://nces.ed.gov/programs/pes/.[↩]
  73. Provasnik et al., Retrospective Look.[↩]
  74. Education Sciences Reform, Pub. L. No. 107-279, 116 Stat. 1940 (2022), https://www.congress.gov/107/plaws/publ279/PLAW-107publ279.pdf.[↩]
  75. Jill Barshay, “Education Department Misses Key Deadline for Delivering Statistics Report,” The Hechinger Report, June 2, 2025, https://hechingerreport.org/proof-points-condition-of-education/.[↩]
  76. Knowledge Alliance, “Statutory Authorizations.”[↩]
  77. Kuenzi and Zota, “Education Sciences Reform Act.”[↩]
  78. “Data Collection Programs,” National Center for Education Statistics, Institute for Education Sciences, https://ies.ed.gov/use-work/data-collection-programs.[↩]
  79. “National Teacher and Principal Survey,” National Center for Education Statistics, Institute for Education Sciences, https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/ntps/.[↩]
  80. “Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS),” National Center for Education Statistics, Institute for Education Sciences, https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/talis/.[↩]
  81. “School Survey on Crime and Safety (SSOCS),” National Center for Education Statistics, Institute for Education Sciences, https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/ssocs/index.asp?FType=3.[↩]
  82. “Fast Facts: Private School Survey,” National Center for Education Statistics, Institute for Education Sciences, https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=1225.[↩]
  83. Committee on Education and Workforce, “Bicameral Oversight Letter.”[↩]
  84. Fittes and Riser-Kositsky, “Sizing Up.”[↩]
  85. Ibid. [↩]
  86. Ibid.  [↩]
  87. Ibid.   [↩]
  88. Ibid.    [↩]
  89. Education Sciences Reform, Pub. L. No. 107-279, 116 Stat. 1940 (2022).[↩]
  90. What Works Clearinghouse: Who We Are (U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, What Works Clearinghouse), https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/ReferenceResources/WWC_WhoWeAre_508_Submitted%20to%20IES_4.10.20.pdf.[↩]
  91. Knowledge Alliance, “Statutory Authorizations.”[↩]
  92. Fittes and Riser-Kositsky, “Sizing Up.”[↩]
  93. “The Regional Educational Laboratory (REL) Program,” National Center for Education Statistics, Institute for Education Sciences, https://ies.ed.gov/use-work/regional-educational-laboratories-rel.[↩]
  94. “About Us,” Regional Educational Laboratory (REL) Program, National Center for Education Statistics, Institute for Education Sciences, “History of the REL Program” section, https://ies.ed.gov/use-work/regional-educational-laboratories-rel/about-us#history-of-the-rel-program.[↩]
  95. Fittes and Riser-Kositsky, “Sizing Up.”[↩]
  96. Matthew Stone, “Judge Tells Trump Admin. to Restore Some Education Research Programs,” EducationWeek, August 18, 2025, https://www.edweek.org/policy-politics/judge-tells-trump-admin-to-restore-some-education-research-programs/2025/08.[↩]
  97. Ex. 1 to Decl. Jennifer Sokolower, Am. Educ. Rsch. Ass’n v. U.S. Dept. of Educ., No. 8:25-cv-01230-SAG, Dkt 46-2 (D. Md. June 5, 2025), https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.580559/gov.uscourts.mdd.580559.46.2.pdf.[↩]
  98. H.R. Rep No. 119-271, 2025.[↩]
  99. Kuenzi and Zota, “Education Sciences Reform Act.”[↩]
  100. Aligned Issue Brief: Empowering Decisions with Statewide Longitudinal Data Systems (Aligned, 2025), https://www.wearealigned.org/sites/default/files/2025-01/State%20Examples%20of%20State%20Longitudinal%20Data%20Systems.pdf.[↩]
  101. U.S. Department of Education, 2025 Budget Summary.[↩]
  102. H.R. Rep No. 119-271, 2025.[↩]
  103. Exec. Order No. 14242, 90 Fed. Reg. 56 (March 20, 2025).[↩]
  104. Linda Jacobson and Greg Toppo, “In Ruling’s Aftermath, Some See Beginning of the End for Department of Education,” The 74, July 15, 2025, https://www.the74million.org/article/in-rulings-aftermath-some-see-beginning-of-the-end-for-department-of-education/.[↩]
  105. IES, U.S. Department of Education, Notice No. 46187, 90 Fed. Reg. 184.[↩]
  106. Schwartz, “Math and Career Education.”[↩]
  107. Cory Turner, “What Schools Stand to Lose in the Battle over the Next Federal Education Budget,” NPR, September 26, 2025, https://www.npr.org/2025/09/26/nx-s1-5544177/trump-school-funding-federal-budget.[↩]
  108. Alyson Klein, “Trump Administration Slashes STEM Education Research Grants,” EducationWeek, September 26, 2025, https://www.edweek.org/policy-politics/trump-administration-slashes-stem-education-research-grants/2025/09.[↩]
  109. Lauraine Langreo and Arianna Prothero, “Trump Wants Teachers Trained How to Use AI. Will It Work?,” EducationWeek, April 24, 2025, https://www.edweek.org/technology/trump-wants-teachers-trained-how-to-use-ai-will-it-work/2025/04; Exec. Order No. 14277, 90 Fed. Reg. 17519 (April 23, 2025), https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/04/advancing-artificial-intelligence-education-for-american-youth/.[↩]
  110. HHS Grants Terminated (Tracking Accountability in Government Grants System, Department of Health and Human Services, October 17, 2025), https://taggs.hhs.gov/Content/Data/HHS_Grants_Terminated.pdf.[↩]
  111. Nate Raymond, “Trump Can Slash Education Department’s Civil Rights Staff, Court Rules,” Reuters, September 29, 2025, https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/trump-can-slash-education-departments-civil-rights-staff-court-rules-2025-09-29/; Brooke Schultz, “Ed. Dept. Tells More Than 250 Civil Rights Staff They’ve Been Laid Off,” EducationWeek, October 14, 2025, https://www.edweek.org/policy-politics/ed-dept-tells-more-than-250-civil-rights-staff-theyve-been-laid-off/2025/10.[↩]
  112. Fittes and Riser-Kositsky, “Sizing Up.”[↩]
  113. U.S. Department of Education, 2026 Budget Summary.[↩]
  114. Lieberman and Schultz, “Ed. Dept. Offices.”[↩]
  115. Exec. Order No. 14242, 90 Fed. Reg. 56 (March 20, 2025).[↩]
  116. Greg Toppo, “Months After Deep Cuts, Education Researchers See Reason for Cautious Optimism,” The 74, October 6, 2025, https://www.the74million.org/article/months-after-deep-cuts-education-researchers-see-reason-for-cautious-optimism/.[↩]
  117. IES, U.S. Department of Education, Notice No. 46187, 90 Fed. Reg. 184. [↩]
  118. Andy Smarick and Juliet Squire, The State Education Agency: At the Helm, Not the Oar (Thomas B. Fordham Institute, 2014), https://fordhaminstitute.org/sites/default/files/publication/pdfs/state-education-agency-helm-not-oar-final.pdf.[↩]
  119. Betheny Gross and Ashley Jochim, eds., Building Agency Capacity for Evidence-Based Policymaking, The SEA of the Future 5 (Building State Capacity & Productivity Center at Edvance Research, 2015), https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED562509.pdf.[↩]
  120. “About,” Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research, https://caldercenter.org/about.[↩]
  121. Kelsey Krausen et al., Evaluation of California’s Differentiated Assistance (WestEd, 2022), https://wested2024.s3.us-west-1.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/11173128/Evaluation-of-Californias-Differentiated-Assistance.pdf.[↩]
  122. Tennessee Education Research Alliance, https://tnedresearch.org/.[↩]
  123. Derek C. Briggs, “The Past, Present, and Future of Large-Scale Assessment Consortia,” Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice 43, no. 4 (2024): 62–72, https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/emip.12634.[↩]
  124. Shannon Holston, “From Patchwork to Precision: Strengthening Teacher Data Systems,” National Center on Teacher Quality, March 11, 2025, https://www.nctq.org/research-insights/from-patchwork-to-precision-strengthening-teacher-data-systems/.[↩]
  125. “Multi-State Data Collaborative (MSDC),” National Association of State Workforce Agencies, https://www.naswa.org/partnerships/multi-state-data-collaboratives.[↩]
  126. Hayley Weddle, “Developing a Research–Practice Partnership with Policy Intermediaries: An Examination of Collaboration with State Education Agency Leaders,” Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 47, no. 2 (2023): 311–328, https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737231213082.[↩]
  127. IES, U.S. Department of Education, Notice No. 46187, 90 Fed. Reg. 184.  [↩]
  128. Goldhaber et al., “Mend, Don’t End”; Frederick M. Hess, “Five Thoughts on Reforming the Institute of Education Sciences,” American Enterprise Institute, June 10, 2025, https://www.aei.org/op-eds/five-thoughts-on-reforming-the-institute-of-education-sciences/; Rachel Dinkes, “How to Remake IES to Strengthen Research and Fuel Student Success,” The 74, October 9, 2025, https://www.the74million.org/article/how-to-remake-ies-to-strengthen-research-and-fuel-student-success/.[↩]
Processing...
Thank you! Your subscription has been confirmed. You'll hear from us soon.
ErrorHere