Institute of Education Sciences — IES, NAEP & Federal Education Research

The Institute of Education Sciences (IES) is the research, evaluation, and statistics arm of the U.S. Department of Education — the agency charged with answering the most important question in American education: what actually works? For the department structure IES sits within, see Department of Education organization. Created by the Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002 (20 U.S.C. §§ 9501–9726) and housed within DoE under 20 U.S.C. § 3419, IES is the federal government's premier education research enterprise. It produces the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP, the "Nation's Report Card"), funds rigorous research into educational interventions through the What Works Clearinghouse, maintains the federal education statistics infrastructure (through the National Center for Education Statistics), and evaluates whether federal education programs actually achieve what Congress intends. IES operates with a degree of independence designed to insulate research findings from political pressure — a deliberate design to ensure that education statistics and research aren't shaped by whoever is in the Secretary's chair.

Current Law (2026)

Legal Authority

• 20 U.S.C. § 9511 — Establishment of IES: IES is established as an independent unit within DoE; the Director has authority over IES operations, research priorities, and dissemination activities; IES is intended to operate with political independence to ensure research integrity
• 20 U.S.C. § 9512 — Functions: IES must support rigorous research, evaluation, and statistics on education; make scientific evidence accessible to educators, researchers, and policymakers; and identify gaps in research knowledge; IES must use rigorous standards, including randomized controlled trials where feasible
• 20 U.S.C. § 9516 — National Board for Education Sciences (NBES): an independent advisory board of 15 members appointed by the President; NBES reviews and approves IES's strategic plan, research priorities, and grant competitions; members include researchers, practitioners, and public members
• 20 U.S.C. § 9517 — Commissioners: each of IES's four research centers is headed by a Commissioner appointed by the Secretary; the Commissioners are responsible for the day-to-day research activities of their respective centers
• 20 U.S.C. § 9561 — National Center for Education Statistics: NCES is the federal statistical agency for education; NCES collects, analyzes, and disseminates statistics on education in the United States and other nations; the Commissioner of NCES is a career professional position with protections for statistical independence
• 20 U.S.C. § 9571 — National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance: NCEE conducts large-scale evaluations of federal education programs; NCEE's evaluations must use rigorous experimental or quasi-experimental designs; NCEE also operates the regional educational laboratories and the What Works Clearinghouse
• 20 U.S.C. § 9621 — National Assessment Governing Board: NAGB is an independent board that sets NAEP policy — what subjects are tested, at what grade levels, using what frameworks; NAGB has 26 members representing teachers, administrators, parents, state and local officials, business, and the general public
• 20 U.S.C. § 9622 — National Assessment of Educational Progress: NAEP must assess student achievement in reading, mathematics, and other subjects at grades 4, 8, and 12; NAEP results must be reported by state to allow interstate comparisons; participation is mandatory for states receiving Title I funds; results may not be used to rank individual students or schools — NAEP is a sample assessment, not a census

The Four Research Centers

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) — NCES is the federal government's primary education statistics agency. Its major data products include:

• Common Core of Data (CCD): Annual census of all public elementary and secondary schools and school districts in the United States — enrollment, demographics, staff, finances
• Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS): Annual data on all colleges and universities participating in federal student aid — enrollment, completions, finances, tuition, graduation rates
• Early Childhood Longitudinal Studies (ECLS): Multi-year panel studies tracking children's cognitive, social, and physical development from kindergarten through high school
• National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS): Comprehensive data on how students and families pay for college
• NAEP: The "Nation's Report Card" (see below)

National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance (NCEE) — NCEE conducts rigorous evaluations of federal education programs. NCEE has produced landmark evaluations of Reading First, Head Start, teacher incentive pay, and other programs — sometimes showing that expensive federal programs had little effect on student outcomes. NCEE also operates the What Works Clearinghouse and manages the 10 Regional Educational Laboratories that provide research and technical assistance to states.

National Center for Education Research (NCER) — NCER funds peer-reviewed research grants on education effectiveness. NCER uses a tiered evidence framework emphasizing randomized controlled trials for the highest-confidence findings. Topics span reading and math instruction, school climate, teacher effectiveness, and technology-based learning.

National Center for Special Education Research (NCSER) — NCSER funds research on special education, learning disabilities, and autism — evaluating interventions for children with disabilities and studying factors affecting outcomes for students in IDEA programs.

The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)

NAEP is the only nationally comparable assessment of U.S. student achievement. Called the "Nation's Report Card," NAEP has been administered since 1969 and provides the most authoritative data on what American students know and can do over time and across states.

What NAEP measures: Reading and mathematics at grades 4 and 8 are assessed every two years (the "Main NAEP"). Writing, science, civics, geography, U.S. history, economics, technology/engineering literacy, and arts are assessed periodically. Grade 12 reading and math are assessed less frequently.

What NAEP does NOT do: NAEP results are reported as state and national averages and for specific demographic groups — they are not reported for individual schools or students. Schools are not required to participate in NAEP assessments (students in selected schools are), and NAEP results are not used for accountability or school ratings. NAEP is diagnostic and descriptive, not consequential.

The NAEP proficiency debate: NAEP reports student performance in four categories: Below Basic, Basic, Proficient, and Advanced. The Proficiency standard is set by NAGB and is widely regarded as aspirationally high — in typical years, roughly 35% of 4th graders score at or above Proficient in reading. This makes NAEP a useful tool for identifying trends but also a source of concern when "only" a minority of students reach Proficiency, even as other indicators show improvements.

The What Works Clearinghouse

The What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) is IES's systematic review process for education research. For any educational intervention — a reading curriculum, a math program, a mentoring approach — the WWC reviews the research literature and rates the quality of evidence. Ratings range from "Strong Evidence" (based on high-quality randomized controlled trials) to "No Evidence" (no studies meeting WWC standards). The WWC provides educators and policymakers with a consumer guide to what education interventions have credible evidence of effectiveness.

How It Affects You

If you are a teacher or school administrator evaluating curriculum: The What Works Clearinghouse at ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc is your first stop before adopting a new reading program, math curriculum, or behavioral intervention. Search by topic, grade level, or program name to find WWC's evidence ratings. "Strong Evidence" means at least one well-executed randomized controlled trial supports the intervention. "No Evidence" means the program hasn't been studied to WWC standards — which doesn't mean it doesn't work, but means you're buying on vendor claims alone. The practical use: when a vendor or administrator pushes a new curriculum, WWC lets you say "show me the evidence rating" before adopting something school-wide. WWC reviews are free, peer-reviewed, and updated as new studies are published. Regional Educational Laboratories (RELs) at ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs also provide free technical assistance to states and districts — your state's REL can help with data analysis, research questions, and applied projects at no cost.

If you are a parent wanting to understand how your state compares: The Nation's Report Card at nationsreportcard.gov gives you NAEP results for your state in 4th and 8th grade reading and math, broken down by income, race/ethnicity, disability status, and English learner status. This is the only truly apples-to-apples comparison across states — your state's own standardized tests have different standards, making direct comparison impossible. Look at your state's scores over time (did COVID learning loss hit harder here than in other states?) and compare to similar demographic states. The NAEP Proficiency bar is high — roughly 35% of 4th graders nationally score at or above Proficient in reading — so use the trend lines and comparative rankings rather than treating Proficiency as a pass/fail for your school system. If your school is a Title I school and you're curious about learning loss recovery spending, Title I allocations data is also at the NCES Common Core of Data (nces.ed.gov/ccd).

If you work in education research or policy: IES grant competitions are the primary federal funding source for rigorous education research. The National Center for Education Research (NCER) and National Center for Special Education Research (NCSER) issue annual funding competitions with multi-year awards typically ranging from $300,000 to $4 million. The Institute's tiered evidence framework (Exploration, Development and Innovation, Efficacy and Replication, Effectiveness, Scale-Up) has fundamentally changed what federal education funding rewards — randomized controlled trials and replication studies are explicitly valued over observational work. Current funding opportunities at ies.ed.gov/funding. If your research is being used to inform policy arguments, the WWC review process (submitting studies for clearinghouse review) is how findings get the imprimatur that influences state and district decisions.

If you are a prospective college student or parent comparing institutions: IPEDS data powers the College Scorecard at collegescorecard.ed.gov — search any institution for graduation rates, median earnings 10 years after enrollment, average annual cost after aid, and student loan default rates. These are reported for all programs, so you can compare the outcomes of, say, a nursing program at a community college versus a four-year university in your region. IPEDS completion rates use a standard federal definition (first-time, full-time students completing within 150% of normal time), which understates outcomes for part-time and transfer students — but it's the most consistent cross-institutional comparison available. Before choosing a school based primarily on rankings or reputation, check the Scorecard: it often reveals that less selective institutions in a field have better career outcomes than higher-prestige options.

State Variations

NAEP participation is mandatory for states receiving Title I funds under ESSA — all states participate. State NAEP scores are public and directly comparable across states. States may also participate in the Trial Urban District Assessment (TUDA), which provides city-level NAEP data for large urban districts.

Pending Legislation

No major structural changes to IES pending as of April 2026. The Education Sciences Reform Act has not been reauthorized since 2002, though IES has continued to receive appropriations. Congress has periodically debated IES priorities — particularly the balance between basic research and applied research, and the rigor standards for the What Works Clearinghouse.

Recent Developments

• NAEP 2024 showed partial learning recovery — full recovery incomplete: The 2024 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) — "The Nation's Report Card" — showed modest improvement in 4th and 8th grade math and reading scores from the historic lows of 2022, but scores remained significantly below pre-pandemic 2019 levels in most states and for most demographic groups. Low-achieving students (bottom quartile) showed the slowest recovery, widening the achievement gap that COVID had already exacerbated. The 2024 NAEP results are the definitive data point for assessing whether the $190+ billion in ESSER learning recovery investments achieved their goals — the evidence is mixed, with math showing stronger recovery than reading.
• DOGE targeted IES and NCES staffing — research infrastructure threatened: The Trump administration's DOGE workforce reductions affected IES and its sub-unit the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). NCES administers NAEP, TIMSS, PISA, and other data collections that are congressionally mandated. Staffing reductions at NCES created questions about the continuity of the NAEP assessment cycle and the timeliness of other federal education statistics publications (Digest of Education Statistics, Condition of Education). The Education Sciences Reform Act (ESRA) mandates NAEP administration; Congress has repeatedly defended NAEP funding even when other IES programs face cuts, because NAEP is the primary national measure of state-level education progress.
• What Works Clearinghouse facing resource constraints: IES's What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) — which reviews the research evidence behind educational interventions and publishes evidence summaries used by districts to select programs — depends on sustained staffing for literature reviews, evidence standardization, and database maintenance. Budget and staffing pressures at IES have raised practitioner concerns about the WWC's ability to review new studies at the rate needed to keep pace with ed-tech product proliferation and COVID-recovery program evaluations. WWC evidence reviews are the primary mechanism by which federal evidence standards (the Every Student Succeeds Act's tiers of evidence) are operationalized; slow review cycles mean districts choosing programs get less updated guidance.
• Ed-tech research became a major IES priority post-COVID — and a contested space: The COVID-era expansion of educational technology — learning management systems, adaptive software, video tutoring — created enormous demand for rigorous evidence on what works. IES's research portfolio shifted to include more ed-tech evaluation. Early evidence is mixed: some adaptive math software shows modest gains in specific contexts; broad platform adoption without targeted implementation shows minimal impact. The ed-tech industry's research marketing often overstates outcomes from preliminary studies; IES's role as independent evaluator is most valuable in distinguishing vendor-funded efficacy studies from independent replication.