Dive Brief:
- Data collections for student statistics, educator workforce and high school outcomes are among those being reviewed or on the chopping block as the U.S. Department of Education considers overhauling a branch of the agency tasked with collecting, analyzing and maintaining education data.
- An internal 95-page report provided to U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon last month recommends “six big shifts” within the Institute for Education Sciences, including for the National Center for Education Statistics. The report recommends “a thorough review” of data collections, including considering discontinuation of data collections “as warranted.”
- “What many see as ‘statutorily required’ data collections are, in fact, how NCES has chosen to operationalize flexible and often nondescript ‘shall’ statements” in federal legislation. The report says the “only data statutorily required by name” in the Education Sciences Reform Act is the National Assessment of Educational Progress.
Dive Insight:
NCES was gutted as part of the massive layoffs impacting IES offices and the department more broadly last March. It left only a handful of employees to run the part of the agency that is largely known for administering NAEP, also known as the Nation’s Report Card — which has already seen cuts due to “cost efficiencies” — as well as other surveys.
The Education Department had said that the layoffs would make the department more efficient and cut down on unnecessary costs. Madi Biedermann, deputy assistant secretary for communications for the U.S. Department of Education at the time, said in an email to Higher Ed Dive that it would restructure IES in the months following the layoffs to provide “states with more useful data to improve student outcomes while maintaining rigorous scientific integrity and cost effectiveness.”
At the time, NCES employees who had been laid off as part of the reduction-in-force warned that data collected from the Nation’s Report Card and that other surveys or studies would become relatively scarce and in some cases unreliable due to the reduced workforce.
Outside of NAEP, for example, the office routinely surveyed schools on their modes of instruction during the pandemic and interventions offered in light of it, providing insights on an evolving education landscape nationwide.
The office also administers longitudinal data studies, four of which the report says were active until March 2025 and may be considered for cuts: The Early Childhood Longitudinal Study-Kindergarten Class; High School & Beyond; High School Longitudinal Study of 2009; and Beginning Postsecondary Longitudinal Study.
“No doubt each of these longitudinal studies has its advantages,” said the report, authored by Amber Northern, a senior advisor who was selected to reform IES, and Adam Opp, special assistant at the department. “But it’s also true that they are vastly more expensive than most administrative data collections, can have overlapping purposes (e.g., the two high school collections), and sometimes collect data from up to five different types of respondents on the same topic, which is excessive.”
The report said that “many of the NCES products have not kept pace with evolving needs.”
It recommends that IES should instead narrow down resources to “focus on the most urgent education challenges” informed by district and state leaders “rather than spreading resources across many disconnected projects.”
It also recommended the streamlining of multiple data collections and longitudinal surveys.
The department said in a Feb. 27 statement that it is considering the report’s recommendations.
Discussion about this post