The Future of Education Data: Implications of Education Department Closures

As the federal government moves to dismantle the Department of Education, the question remains what functions will be reassigned to other departments and what will be eliminated entirely?

While the orders are framed as a realignment of federal responsibilities to empower parents and states, those who rely on education data don’t know where it will come from if there is no centralized federal entity.

As reported in Simba Information’s March 2025 Education Market Advisor (“Focus Feature: The Political Impact on Education—Policy Shifts, Layoffs, and Financial Adjustments”), these changes signal a fundamental shift in the federal role in providing education data. The implications are significant—not only for governance and funding, but also for the stability and accessibility of national education data.

The Department of Education’s Role in Data Infrastructure

Since its establishment as a cabinet-level department in 1980, the department has played a central role in collecting, maintaining, and disseminating education data through the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). Key programs include:

• NAEP (National Assessment of Educational Progress), also known as The Nation’s Report Card, which provides benchmark data on student academic performance nationally and by state

• IPEDS (Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System), which offers critical information on higher education institutions, including enrollment, completion rates, and financial aid

• CRDC (Civil Rights Data Collection), a biennial survey monitoring equity in access, discipline, staffing, and student services across public schools

These datasets are foundational tools for federal and state agencies, publishers, institutions, researchers, and vendors. They are used to inform policy, guide product development, support grant applications, and benchmark institutional performance.

Policy Shifts and Uncertainty in Oversight

According to the executive order and public statements from the administration several of the ED’s responsibilities may be transferred to other agencies, including:

• Special education services (potentially reassigned to the Department of Health and Human Services)

• Federal student aid (suggested for transfer to the Small Business Administration)

• Data oversight functions (not yet clearly reassigned)

This redistribution creates questions around continuity and quality of education data. As noted in Education Market Advisor, “departments without a primary focus on education may lack the technical infrastructure, institutional knowledge, or policy alignment to sustain current data operations.”

The administration’s focus, as well as the 50% reduction in force from earlier in March introduces disruption to staffing, particularly within offices tied to data, assessment, and program accountability. While the ED has stated that some functions may continue within different agencies, no formal plan has been released on the future of NCES or its major data initiatives.

Market Implications of Data Decentralization

The education market relies on federal data not only for compliance and funding eligibility, but also for market forecasting, resource allocation, and product development. As such, the dismantling could lead to:

• Delays in national benchmarking assessments (e.g., postponed NAEP cycles)

• Fragmented state-level data collection standards in the absence of a unified federal framework

• Increased cost burdens on companies that rely on public data to inform development pipelines or impact studies

• Reduced accessibility to longitudinal, comparative datasets crucial for research and analysis

Education companies that previously depended on consistent federal datasets may face challenges navigating data fragmentation or accessing historical continuity in metrics.

What Stakeholders Should Be Watching

As Simba’s March Focus Feature noted, these developments are beginning to influence how education stakeholders should evaluate both federal and state partnerships. Nonprofits and publishers need to reassess their strategic positioning in light of possible data gaps, while institutions are beginning to question how future policy shifts may affect reporting requirements and funding mechanisms.

What Simba is monitoring:

• The status of NCES and its core programs—whether they will be preserved, reassigned, or dissolved

• Agency-level changes in data collection protocols across the Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor, and Treasury

• Legislative developments tied to education funding, data transparency, and accountability frameworks

Conclusion

The restructuring of the Department of Education, coupled with the executive orders and layoffs, make a strategic redirection of federal involvement in education clear. While the full scope of impact is not yet known, the potential loss of a centralized education data authority would have wide-reaching effects across the K–12 and postsecondary markets.

Simba Information is tracking these developments and provide insight into their implications for market intelligence, product planning, and institutional strategy. Regardless of political alignment, consistent and credible education data is an essential component of a healthy education ecosystem.

Where to Learn More

For more information, be sure to read Simba Information’s bi-monthly newsletter Education Market Advisor. Subscribe to our blog using the blue button on the bottom right to easily access more articles like this in the future.

About the blogger: Martha Scharping is the Education Analyst and Writer for Simba Information, the leading authority of strategic intelligence for EdTech companies and other producers of instructional materials for K-12 and higher education.