SCOTUS Layoff Ruling Impacts Nation’s Report Card

Education Department Faces Uncertainty After Supreme Court Ruling on Layoffs

The Supreme Court recently cleared the way for the Department of Education to proceed with planned layoffs of over 1,300 employees, sparking concerns about the agency’s ability to fulfill its legally mandated responsibilities. While the department has affirmed its commitment to meeting these obligations, the significant reduction in its workforce, nearly half of which had already been removed from their positions, has raised alarm bells among educators and policymakers alike.

You might also like: New Western Sydney Airport Board Appointees Infrastructure Boost

Impact on Key Programs and Operations

The impact of these staff reductions has already been felt across various departments, including the Institute for Education Sciences, the Office for Civil Rights, the Federal Student Aid office, and the English Language Acquisition office. One of the most visible consequences is the decimation of the staff responsible for the Nation’s Report Card, a biannual student assessment that provides critical data on student performance in key subjects across the states.

The Nation’s Report Card Under Threat

The Nation’s Report Card, formally known as the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), is a congressionally mandated program and a primary responsibility of the Department of Education. However, significant staff reductions have impacted the program, with all but three employees in the division overseeing it being laid off. These cuts have led to a reduced testing schedule and a proposed budget reduction of $48 million. These changes threaten to eliminate federal data on student learning in certain subjects and grade levels in the coming years, though the mandated reading and math assessments will continue.

Legal Battles and Lack of Transparency

The legal battle surrounding the layoffs continues in a lower court, even as the Supreme Court’s decision allows the cuts to proceed. Critics have voiced concerns about the lack of a clear, public-facing plan from the Education Department on how it intends to meet its statutory duties with a significantly reduced workforce. This lack of transparency has fueled uncertainty and anxiety among educators and policymakers.

Mark Schneider, former director of the Institute for Education Sciences, emphasized the need for more information from the department, stating that there are far more questions than answers regarding the department’s vision and process moving forward.

Department’s Response and Future Plans

In response to these concerns, a spokesperson for the Education Department stated that the agency will work in partnership with Congress and state leaders to ensure that all statutorily required programs are managed responsibly. The administration intends to “sunset” the Education Department while fulfilling its obligations.

The Broader Context: Dismantling the Department

These layoffs are part of a broader effort to dismantle the Department of Education, which has long been a target of conservatives who argue that its functions can be better carried out by individual states. While the department cannot be formally abolished without congressional action, steps have been taken to reduce its size and scope.

The Impact of the Cuts

The layoffs, which began in March, have resulted in a nearly 50% reduction in the department’s staff. This has raised serious concerns about the agency’s ability to effectively carry out its responsibilities.

Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, criticized the decision, stating that it undermines investments in children’s futures.

The staff cuts have reverberated across the education field, with concerns intensifying after the Supreme Court’s decision. The Institute for Education Sciences, which oversees the Nation’s Report Card program, has experienced a 90% staff reduction, leading to fears of a “wasteland of knowledge.”

Concerns About the Future of NAEP

Despite assurances that the testing program would not be affected, the cuts to the Nation’s Report Card have raised concerns about the quality and scope of future assessments. While preparations for the 2026 assessment are underway, the lack of staff could impede its implementation. The department missed its deadline for releasing the results of the 2024 science test, adding to these concerns.

The National Assessment Governing Board approved a pared-back testing schedule that preserves the mandated assessments in math and reading but eliminates 19 optional tests scheduled for 2028-2032. This decision was made with the goal of minimizing the impact of the cuts and signaling to the administration which assessments were most critical to preserve.

Furthermore, only two employees are now responsible for NAEP work that was previously handled by nearly 30 individuals at the National Center for Education Statistics. This has led to the reassignment of staff members from the National Assessment Governing Board to assist with the workload.

The Education Department has stated that it has reduced the cost of NAEP significantly, saving nearly $185 million over five years while continuing to support statutorily required functions.

The Value of NAEP Data

NAEP is the only federal test that measures public school student performance in core subjects. It has garnered bipartisan support over the years. While educators hold differing views on standardized testing, NAEP has been recognized as a valuable tool for state leaders in assessing student achievement.

The program collects national and state-by-state data, as well as data from select urban school districts with significant populations of students of color or economically disadvantaged students. A representative sample of students from schools across the country is tested, with students chosen at random to participate.

States across the political spectrum rely on NAEP data to compare their performance nationwide, track progress, and assess alignment with state-level assessments. NAEP data played a crucial role in revealing the significant learning losses that occurred following the pandemic, which educators and policymakers are still addressing.

Kristin Blagg, a researcher at the Urban Institute, emphasized the unique value of NAEP as a national benchmark for student performance, allowing states to compare their progress over time.

Some worry that the staff cuts could also have unknown impacts on the quality of data collected by NAEP. The chair of the assessment’s governing board acknowledged the difficult decision to make cuts to the testing schedule, stating that “None of us want to do this.”

The future of the Department of Education and its ability to fulfill its mandated responsibilities remains uncertain, as the agency navigates significant staff reductions and ongoing legal challenges.