What Comes Next for IES — Rebuilding When the Foundation Is Gone
Note: This is the final post in a three-part series. The first and second posts are available under Research Notes at ryanresearchconsulting.com.
TLDR: Turning the lights back on will require not just funding restoration, but a rebuilt system that is faster, more locally responsive, more focused on evidence use, and centered on the students who need it most.
More than a year has passed since the dismantling of the Institute of Education Sciences (IES). Most of the terminated contracts and grants remain gone. Some of the researchers whose careers were upended have found new paths, in many cases into a different field; others continue to search. Some states have taken steps to begin building greater internal educational research capacity; most do not currently have the resources or capacity to do so. Philanthropy has filled some funding gaps; however the philanthropy sector has been clear that they do not have the resources to serve as a buttress against federal funding cuts.
Bottom line: the underlying infrastructure that connected rigorous research to the children who needed it most is not being rebuilt in any real way at this point. This does not mean, however, that nothing can be done.
What States Can and Cannot Do
Some states, particularly those with strong longitudinal data systems and internal research capacity, are better positioned than others. Notably, state capacity was built with federal investments, like the State Longitudinal Data Systems (SLDS) grant program. The SLDS program, the REL partnerships, the technical assistance infrastructure, including the regional Comprehensive Centers — these were scaffolding for state and district evidence use in education nationwide. Absent federal investment, state capacity will erode unevenly, with the least-resourced states and districts falling furthest behind.
The Role of Philanthropy and Intermediaries — Real Potential, Real Limits
Philanthropy has stepped into some of the gap, for example by funding rapid-response research. That matters. But philanthropy cannot replace federal research and evidence use infrastructure, for two reasons. First, philanthropy follows mission and donor driven priorities; it is not accountable to the public in the way federal investment is. Second, it cannot sustain the scale, independence, and long-term consistency that federal research infrastructure provided.
What Educators and Policy Advocates Can Do Right Now
Educational leaders should continue to ground decisions in research-backed evidence, and the evidence has not disappeared. The What Works Clearinghouse practice guides, summarizing the best evidence on effectively supporting everything from elementary math to postsecondary student advising, are still available. Services like Evidence for ESSA continue to summarize the level of evidence available to support common educational programs. New research continues to emerge, including on time sensitive issues like AI in education and the potential for tutoring to help address post-COVID learning impacts.
Similarly, researcher-practitioner partnerships didn't disappear with the federal contracts. Independent consultants, university researchers, and intermediary organizations are still doing this work — sometimes with more flexibility and local responsiveness than federal contracts allowed. Both continuing and yet-to-be forged partnerships can help researchers better understand the evidence needs of practice, while supporting educators and leaders in applying evidence.
Finally, policy advocates have a critical role to play by pushing for restoration of IES funding and independence, and by insisting that any rebuilt version keeps equity at its center. The Reimagining IESreport, along with the 2022 recommendations from the National Academies, provides credible guidance for what a reformed IES should look like.
Hope for Brighter Days Ahead
In February of 2025, the lights went out at IES and the field of education research was thrown into darkness. Reimagining IES offers some glimmers of light but fully turning the lights back on will require not just funding restoration, but a rebuilt system that is faster, more locally responsive, more focused on the last mile of evidence use, and unwaveringly centered on the students who need it most.