Trump Administration’s Cuts to Education Research Spark Concerns Over Student Progress and Equity
The Trump administration’s recent decision to cut over $900 million in research contracts at the Department of Education has raised significant concerns among educators, policymakers, and experts about the potential negative impact on tracking student progress in math and reading. These cuts target the Institute of Education Sciences (IES), the research and statistics arm of the Department of Education, which is responsible for critical data collection and analysis that informs education policy and funding decisions. Employees within the department have expressed alarm, describing the cuts as a "dismembering" of the agency, warning that they could severely hamper the ability to conduct vital research and assessments, including the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP), commonly known as the Nation’s Report Card.
The NAEP has been a cornerstone of educational assessment for over three decades, providing a comprehensive measure of student academic achievement in subjects like reading and math. Recent NAEP scores have shown concerning trends, such as a 30-year low in eighth-grade reading levels, highlighting the urgent need for continued research and data collection to address these issues. However, the cancellation of contracts related to data collection and analysis has left many wondering how the Department of Education will maintain its ability to track student progress and allocate resources effectively. Department employees have emphasized that without this data, the agency cannot effectively identify schools in need of federal assistance or evaluate the impact of educational programs.
Impact on Equity and Funding for Underresourced Schools
The cuts to the IES and related contracts have particularly significant implications for underresourced schools, including those in rural areas and those serving low-income students. Programs like the Rural Education Achievement Program rely on data collected by the IES to determine eligibility for federal funding. Without this data, the Department of Education may struggle to allocate resources where they are needed most, potentially exacerbating existing inequalities in education. Experts have warned that the cancellation of these contracts will not only disrupt current efforts but also leave communities, parents, and teachers without access to evidence-based information that is crucial for improving educational outcomes.
The Trump administration has defended the cuts, arguing that they promote efficiency and eliminate unnecessary spending. However, Department employees and education experts have pushed back against this narrative, asserting that the cuts will have far-reaching and detrimental consequences for the educational system. They argue that the data and research supported by these contracts are essential for making informed decisions about how to support students, particularly in light of recent declines in academic performance. As one employee put it, "You can’t do anything if you don’t know where the schools are, what they are, or how many kids attend them."
Broader Implications for Education Policy and the Future of the Department of Education
The research cuts are part of a broader effort by the Trump administration to dismantle the Department of Education, a goal that has been a hallmark of Trump’s education policy. While the administration has proposed shifting some of the Department’s responsibilities to other federal agencies, such as the Treasury Department, many experts question the feasibility of this approach, especially given the recent cancellation of critical contracts. Employees within the Department have expressed skepticism about the administration’s claims that these changes will lead to improved educational outcomes, pointing out that there is no evidence to support this assertion.
The cuts have also been criticized in the context of the administration’s anti-diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) campaign. The Department of Education has recently taken steps to curtail initiatives aimed at promoting equity in education, such as ending "racial preferences" in school admissions and hiring. While the administration frames these moves as a rejection of "woke spending," many argue that they undermine the core mission of the Department of Education, which is to address disparities in educational opportunities and outcomes. As one employee noted, "The entire purpose of the Department of Education is equity—not in the DEI sense, but in terms of filling the gaps in local and federal funding and regulations."
Expert Opinions and the Importance of Evidence-Based Practices
Education experts have weighed in on the potential consequences of the research cuts, emphasizing the critical role of data and research in improving educational outcomes. Weadé James, senior director for K-12 policy at the Center for American Progress, highlighted the importance of research in identifying effective teaching practices and improving student literacy. She pointed to the success of Mississippi’s efforts to boost literacy rates through evidence-based practices as an example of the impact that NAEP and related research can have. Similarly, Rachel Dinkes, president and CEO of Knowledge Alliance, noted that the cancellation of research projects focused on improving math achievement in Appalachia and teacher recruitment in rural Alaska will leave communities without vital information for addressing these challenges.
The elimination of these contracts also raises concerns about the long-term implications for the U.S. education system. As Dinkes put it, "There’s even an efficiency argument to be made for having the federal government provide these sources of support at the national level. Who’s to say when we cut it that it’s ever going to come back?" The cuts not only jeopardize current efforts but also undermine the ability to build on past successes and address future challenges in education.
Conclusion: A Call for Continued Investment in Education Research
The cuts to the Department of Education’s research arm have sparked a heated debate about the role of federal investment in education and the importance of data-driven decision-making. While the Trump administration argues that the cuts are necessary to promote efficiency, the overwhelming consensus among educators, policymakers, and experts is that they will have detrimental consequences for students, particularly those in underresourced schools. The Nation’s Report Card and other assessments provide critical insights into student progress and inform policies that aim to improve educational outcomes. Without continued investment in these efforts, the U.S. risks falling behind in its mission to provide a high-quality education for all students, regardless of their background or circumstances. As the education system continues to grapple with the challenges highlighted by recent NAEP scores, it is more important than ever to prioritize research and data collection as essential tools for driving improvement and equity in education.
