Latest news with #InstituteofEducationSciences
Yahoo
6 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Opinion: Don't Destroy Institute of Education Sciences, Rebuild It With Students in Mind
The scaffolding that supports the nation's federal education data systems is crumbling. By canceling programs and eliminating staff, including those that fulfilled statutorily mandated functions, the Trump administration has taken a hatchet to the Institute of Education Sciences, the federal agency responsible for collecting, analyzing and making public key higher education data, with no real plan for replacement. This is not strategic reform; it's irresponsible leadership. This system must be rebuilt, and it must be done thoughtfully, with student success as the guiding goal. Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter Data are among the most important tools available for understanding what's working and what isn't in education. For higher education especially, data are critical for identifying problems, spotlighting solutions and distinguishing colleges and universities that deliver strong student outcomes from those in need of improvement. IES has long provided trusted, rigorous data that inform decisionmaking and drive policy change. But the agency and the insights it supports are now in jeopardy. The administration's cuts have real consequences for students, families, states, policymakers and the country. Every year, over 1 million people use tools powered by federal data to make decisions about college and about higher education policy. The College Scorecard, for example, helps prospective applicants compare schools by cost, student loan debt, graduation rates and post-graduation earnings. However, colleges have reported system outages when trying to upload information to the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System, which the scorecard relies upon. In addition, staffers responsible for verifying, approving and publishing the data have been terminated — along with 90% of all IES personnel. Equally troubling, the Department of Education canceled the contract that provided training to the professionals who report data to the system, risking the quality and integrity of the information. Related In February, IES did away with other vital data collections, including the National Postsecondary Student Aid Study and its longitudinal follow-up study about the outcomes of first-time college students, the Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study. These data sources are essential to answering basic questions like: Who enrolls in college? Who transfers? Who completes their degree? How do students pay for college? How do graduates fare in the workforce? While the contract for the 2024 postsecondary student aid data collection was reinstated June 30, questions remain about the scope of that study and its future, as well its related longitudinal studies. These concerns are especially pertinent as IES remains severely understaffed and the Trump administration has proposed a 67% budget cut for fiscal year 2026. IES' outlook remains wholly unclear. The administration has not outlined a plan nor has it sought, nor has it sought any public input to determine its future. Some officials have advocated scattering the Education Department's responsibilities across other agencies, but they have not explained how they would preserve researcher access and data quality under such a fragmented system. This creates uncertainty for students, families, state officials and researchers — and threatens to destroy a system that took decades to build, undermining the future of evidence-based policymaking. Related A newly announced department senior adviser, Dr. Amber Northern, is reportedly focusing on IES reform. But without swift and transparent action, the damage risks becoming permanent. The nation doesn't need a patchwork fix. It needs a clear, thoughtful and ambitious plan to rebuild its education data infrastructure. That starts with a few key principles: First, protect the principles that made IES so crucial in the first place: statistical rigor, public transparency, data security, privacy protections, data accessibility and responsiveness to stakeholder input. Second, recognize that no state or private entity can replace what the federal government is uniquely equipped to do: mandate consistent reporting across colleges, access administrative data across agencies and ensure national recognize that federal data are a public good, and that changes to them should be informed by stakeholders — states, colleges, education researchers, policy analysts, policymakers and, of course, students and families. Any reform must be conceived with their needs in mind. Related Fourth, think bigger. Set an ambitious vision for the depth, breadth and scope of education data and research that the nation truly needs. America's future relies on the strength of its education system — and education decisions made by students, families, educators, states and policymakers ought to be informed by the best available data and research. If students are to succeed, the nation must commit to providing and learning from the data. As the Education Department and Congress consider their next steps, they face a pivotal choice: continue to erode critical data systems, replace what existed before or seize the moment to design something stronger — a system worthy of the students it's meant to serve.
Yahoo
04-06-2025
- Science
- Yahoo
Opinion: STEM's Grand Challenges — And Opportunities
Never in our history have science and technology figured so prominently in our economic well-being and national security. STEM jobs and products dominate the economy, accounting for 69% of the U.S. gross domestic product. Emerging technologies across energy, information, transportation, healthcare, agriculture, and every other aspect of life are now battlegrounds of capable, competitive nations. In his recent letter to the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, President Donald Trump charged his Office of Science and Technology Policy to 'cement America's global technological leadership and usher in the Golden Age of American Innovation.' Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter Tha means the administration will do all it can to bolster the STEM K-12 talent pipeline, right? And Americans will surely support policies aimed at equipping youth for high-demand and mission-critical career paths, eh? U.S. STEM education faces eight ornery, grand challenges, each conceivably conquerable if we rally. 1. America's STEM Education imperative is being eclipsed by an AI exigency. The stakes associated with leading in artificial intelligence blow the 1958 Sputnik crisis out of the sky. The Trump administration recently released an AI-in-education executive order. The STEM education community should seize leadership of a chaotic AI-in-education landscape, leveraging vast networks and partnerships as testbeds. STEM gives AI context and purpose. Many leading AI developers and funders are investing strongly in K-12 technology education. 2. Federal education research and development funding has been sharply diminished lately. STEM education leaders are going to miss the data and research that flowed from the Institute of Education Sciences at the U.S. Department of Education through its now-diminished National Center for Education Statistics, including the hobbled National Assessment of Educational Progress and the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System. But as plans for carving up federal education grant programs into state block grants emerge, state STEM networks will be well-positioned to advance this sort of analysis. Related 3. Teachers of STEM subjects from pre-K to college level may not be career-ready for the modern teaching job. Systems of teacher preparation and professional development remain largely discipline focused, while the messiness of real-world issues meshes the disciplines. The President's termination of ED grants for Teacher Quality and Teacher Leadership, as well as Effective Educator Development, exacerbate the challenge of changing how we prepare educators. But state block grants could represent an opportunity for supporting STEM-focused educator development. 4. Well-documented STEM education innovations dot the U.S. education landscape, but progress toward scaling is inequitable and frustratingly incremental. A recent National Academies report examined hurdles, including decentralization and lack of incentives to scaling proven practices in STEM were familiar: increased federal investments in professional development, more data collection, and broadened connections for partnerships and collaborations. In reality, evidence-based practices identified by research have often been ignored by public school districts and the education schools that prepare teachers. If the estimated $1.5 billion annual federal education R & D investment were carved into 50 chunks for states, STEM leaders could make the case for devoting tens of millions of dollars to bringing innovations to scale. 5. Standards for K-12 science, mathematics, technology, are great for leveling the playing field, but may inhibit STEM innovation. The entire K-12 galaxy spins on a standards axis: curricula, professional development, assessment and grading, publishers, performance reviews. But when organizations and states define what students should know and be able to do at each grade level, rarely do they feature the more integrated aspects of STEM (see challenge #3). Standards-driven systems favor efficiency and conformity (i.e., teach to the standards) over creativity and inventiveness. It's time to flip the script from emphasizing content (What do you know?) to practices (What can you do?), which are hallmarks of STEM education. 6. Now that the acronym is target practice for many folks in power at the national and state level, that puts at risk the STEM community's consensus objective to broaden the talent pipeline. The shift is starkly evident at the National Science Foundation, where updated priorities state that 'Awards that are not aligned with NSF's priorities have been terminated, including but not limited to those on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI)….' Is there room to continue prioritizing outreach to the underserved and underrepresented? Yes, says NSF 'so long as these programs do not preference or limit participation based on these protected characteristics.' STEM for all. 7. The skills and attributes that STEM education aspires to imbue – teamwork, curiosity, ideation, negotiation, accountability and 95 more – are tough to measure. Simulations, portfolios, interviews, and AI chatbot diagnostics are so far questionably valid, reliable, and equitable at distinguishing learners' acquisition of soft skills, a.k.a. employability skills, 21st century skills, or durable skills. Competency born of practice is the ideal route for STEM education, and now that all 50 states permit competency-based assessment, STEM can lead a culture shift. 8. American STEM education faces a public awareness problem. The 1958 Sputnik scare was Tinker Toys compared to today's global competition to own quantum, AI, and other emerging technologies. A functionless, beeping satellite spurred a multi-billion-dollar investment in STEM, while today's government shrinks science budgets and dismisses experts. What's lacking is a jolt 'to snap the U.S. out of its complacency.' But unlike 1958, we have today a vast array of university STEM centers, local and regional STEM ecosystems, STEM specialty schools, and STEM learning centers across the continent. If public awareness of the nation's STEM imperative were prioritized as a mission action by all, the jolt could spark a STEM rally. This ornery octet of challenges faced by the STEM education community is surmountable if we work at it. A 'golden age of American innovation' sounds great but calls for a strong system of STEM education to fuel the talent pipeline and to wisely manage profound human inventiveness.
Miami Herald
05-05-2025
- Politics
- Miami Herald
Education researchers sue Trump administration, testing executive power
Some of the biggest names in education research - who often oppose each other in scholarly and policy debates - are now united in their desire to fight the cuts to data and scientific studies at the U.S. Department of Education. The roster includes both Grover J. "Russ" Whitehurst, the first head of the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) who initiated studies for private school vouchers, and Sean Reardon, a Stanford University sociologist who studies inequity in education. They are just two of the dozens of scholars who have submitted declarations to the courts against the department and Secretary Linda McMahon. They describe how their work has been harmed and argue that the cuts will devastate education research. Professional organizations representing the scholars are asking the courts to restore terminated research and data and reverse mass firings at the Institute of Education Sciences, the division that collects data on students and schools, awards research grants, highlights effective practices and measures student achievement. Related: Our free weekly newsletter alerts you to what research says about schools and classrooms. Three major suits were filed last month in U.S. federal courts, each brought by two different professional organizations. The six groups are the Association for Education Finance and Policy (AEFP), Institute for Higher Education Policy (IHEP), American Educational Research Association (AERA), Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness (SREE), National Academy of Education (NAEd) and the National Council on Measurement in Education (NCME). The American Educational Research Association alone represents 25,000 researchers and there is considerable overlap in membership among the professional associations. Prominent left-wing and progressive legal organizations spearheaded the suits and are representing the associations. They are Public Citizen, Democracy Forward and the Legal Defense Fund, which was originally founded by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) but is an independent legal organization. Allison Scharfstein, an attorney for the Legal Defense Fund, said education data is critical to documenting educational disparities and improve education for Black and Hispanic students. "We know that the data is needed for educational equity," Scharfstein said. Related: Chaos and confusion as the statistics arm of the Education Department is reduced to a skeletal staff of 3 Officers at the research associations described the complex calculations in suing the government, mindful that many of them work at universities that are under attack by the Trump administration and that its members are worried about retaliation. "A situation like this requires a bit of a leap of faith," said Elizabeth Tipton, president of the Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness and a statistician at Northwestern University. "We were reminded that we are the Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness, and that this is an existential threat. If the destruction that we see continues, we won't exist, and our members won't exist. This kind of research won't exist. And so the board ultimately decided that the tradeoffs were in our favor, in the sense that whether we won or we lost, that we had to stand up for this." The three suits are similar in that they all contend that the Trump administration exceeded its executive authority by eliminating activities Congress requires by law. Private citizens or organizations are generally barred from suing the federal government, which enjoys legal protection known as "sovereign immunity." But under the Administrative Procedure Act of 1946, private organizations can ask the courts to intervene when executive agencies have acted arbitrarily, capriciously and not in accordance with the law. The suits point out, for example, that the Education Science Reform Act of 2002 specifically requires the Education Department to operate Regional Education Laboratories and conduct longitudinal and special data collections, activities that the Education Department eliminated in February among of a mass cancelation of projects. Related: DOGE's death blow to education studies The suits argue that it is impossible for the Education Department to carry out its congressionally required duties, such as the awarding of grants to study and identify effective teaching practices, after the March firing of almost 90 percent of the IES staff and the suspension of panels to review grant proposals. The research organizations argue that their members and the field of education research will be irreparably harmed. Of immediate concern are two June deadlines. Beginning June 1, researchers are scheduled to lose remote access to restricted datasets, which can include personally identifiable information about students. The suits contend that loss harms the ability of researchers to finish projects in progress and plan future studies. The researchers say they are also unable to publish or present studies that use this data because there is no one remaining inside the Education Department to review their papers for any inadvertent disclosure of student data. The second concern is that the termination of more than 1,300 Education Department employees will become final by June 10. Technically, these employees have been on administrative leave since March, and lawyers for the education associations are concerned that it will be impossible to rehire these veteran statisticians and research experts for congressionally required tasks. The suits describe additional worries. Outside contractors are responsible for storing historical datasets because the Education Department doesn't have its own data warehouse, and researchers are worried about who will maintain this critical data in the months and years ahead now that the contracts have been canceled. Another concern is that the terminated contracts for research and surveys include clauses that will force researchers to delete data about their subjects. "Years of work have gone into these studies," said Dan McGrath, an attorney at Democracy Forward, who is involved in one of the three suits. "At some point it won't be possible to put Humpty Dumpty back together again." Related: Education research takes another hit in latest DOGE attack In two of the suits, lawyers have asked the courts for a temporary injunction to reverse the cuts and firings, temporarily restoring the studies and bringing federal employees back to the Education Department to continue their work while the judges take more time to decide whether the Trump administration exceeded its authority. Lawyers for the third suit said they are planning to do the same but have not yet filed this paperwork. A first hearing on a temporary injunction is scheduled on Thursday in federal district court in Washington. A lot of people have been waiting for this. In February, when DOGE first started cutting non-ideological studies and data collections at the Education Department, I wondered why Congress wasn't protesting that its laws were being ignored. And I was wondering where the research community was. It was so hard to get anyone to talk on the record. Now these suits, combined with Harvard University's resistance to the Trump administration, show that higher education is finally finding its voice and fighting what it sees as existential threats. The three suits: Public Citizen suit Plaintiffs: Association for Education Finance and Policy (AEFP) and the Institute for Higher Education Policy (IHEP) Attorneys: Public Citizen Litigation Group Defendants: Secretary of Education Linda McMahon and the U.S. Department of Education Date filed: April 4 Where: U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia Documents: complaint, Public Citizen press release, A concern: Data infrastructure. "We want to do all that we can to protect essential data and research infrastructure," said Michal Kurlaender, president of AEFP and a professor at University of California, Davis. Status: Public Citizen filed a request for a temporary injunction on April 17 that was accompanied by declarations from researchers on how they and the field of education have been harmed. The Education Department filed a response on April 30. A hearing is scheduled for May 9. Democracy Forward suit Plaintiffs: American Educational Research Association (AERA) and the Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness (SREE) Attorneys: Democracy Forward Defendants: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, Secretary of Education Linda McMahon and Acting Director of the Institute of Education Sciences Matthew Soldner Date filed: April 14 Where: U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, Southern Division Documents:complaint, Democracy Forward press release, AERA letter to members A concern: Future research. "IES has been critical to fostering research on what works, and what does not work, and for providing this information to schools so they can best prepare students for their future," said Ellen Weiss, executive director of SREE. "Our graduate students are stalled in their work and upended in their progress toward a degree. Practitioners and policymakers also suffer great harm as they are left to drive decisions without the benefit of empirical data and high-quality research," said Felice Levine, executive director of AERA. Status: A request for a temporary injunction was filed April 29, accompanied by declarations from researchers on how their work is harmed. Legal Defense Fund suit Plaintiffs: National Academy of Education (NAEd) and the National Council on Measurement in Education (NCME) Attorneys: Legal Defense Fund Defendants: The U.S. Department of Education and Secretary of Education Linda McMahon Date filed: April 24 Where: U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia Documents:complaint, LDF press release A concern: Data quality. "The law requires not only data access but data quality," said Andrew Ho, a Harvard University professor of education and former president of the National Council on Measurement in Education. "For 88 years, our organization has upheld standards for valid measurements and the research that depends on these measurements. We do so again today." Status: LDF attorneys are planning to file a request for a temporary injunction. Contact staff writer Jill Barshay at 212-678-3595, jillbarshay.35 on Signal, or barshay@ This story about Education Department lawsuits was written by Jill Barshay and produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for Proof Points and other Hechinger newsletters. The post Education researchers sue Trump administration, testing executive power appeared first on The Hechinger Report.
Yahoo
24-04-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
RFK Jr.'s quest for the cause of autism ignores what children truly need
Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. recently promised to find the cause of autism in five short months. When asked about the reason for this focus, he commented that 'President Trump wants dramatic change in the next two years, and we are going to deliver that for him.' Secretary Kennedy does not want slow research, he wants to act. But there is plenty of existing rigorous research that is worth actioning. Rather than wasting time and resources examining the private health records of Americans in hopes of findings a cause and cure for autism, we should be focusing on using the scientific evidence we already have to improve the lives of autistic individuals and their families. As an autism researcher, I know autism can be reliably identified as early as 18 months old, which can unlock a whole world of services and support from therapists, doctors and teachers. Yet currently, the average age of diagnosis remains stagnant at over four years old. This is particularly problematic because by the age of three, a child's brain has grown to 80% of its adult size. Before that, it's more moldable, making it easier for the child to rewire, adapt and learn. In autistic children, this early-intervention period is crucial because it could make a difference in whether they ever learn to talk, write or dress themselves, or regulate their emotions and hyper-sensitivities to noise, light and textures. Many parents see the signs before age three, but they typically face a one-year-long bureaucratic and resource-strapped process of obtaining a formal diagnosis. Reducing the time it takes for parents to receive a diagnosis and start interventions requires dramatic changes to our current approaches to diagnosing autism. And right now, advancements in a timely and accurate autism diagnosis are under threat. Recent reductions at the Department of Education, which supports the Institute of Education Sciences, could be a dramatic blow to research initiatives like my 'Reduce the Wait,' study of more than 600 toddlers, which aims to improve autism diagnosis timelines. Without this crucial funding, we risk losing momentum in our efforts to improve autism diagnosis and intervention strategies. My niece, Savannah, is one of the children who waited too long for her autism diagnosis. Her mother first suspected she was autistic when she was two years old. I initially dismissed the idea because Savannah was social and engaging. However, my sister persisted, knowing her daughter was struggling in ways that were not being recognized. It wasn't until Savannah was seven that she finally received an autism diagnosis — five years later than is now shouldn't take a year — or longer — for a concerned parent to get answers. The consequences of these delays are profound: children miss out on critical early interventions; families face unnecessary stress, and our society loses the opportunity to fully support neurodiverse individuals from the start. One fundamental problem with our current diagnostic approach is that the tools we use were primarily developed based on research conducted on white male children. This narrow focus has led to significant disparities in diagnosing girls, children of color and those from low-income backgrounds. To address this, in our 'Reduce the Wait' study we are developing individualized scoring algorithms that account for factors like biological sex to ensure more accurate assessments. This research project is also pushing for an expansion of who is allowed to diagnose autism. In most states, currently, only physicians and clinical psychologists can formally diagnose autism. Pediatricians, already overwhelmed with responsibilities during 15-minute well-child visits, lack the time for comprehensive autism evaluations. Additionally, with only 4,400 clinical psychologists in the U.S., they are in short supply. One promising solution is to authorize the more widely available Speech-Language Pathologists — who number 180,800 in the U.S. — to conduct autism evaluations. As communication specialists, SLPs are trained to differentiate between speech/language delays and autism-related communication differences. Our research has demonstrated that SLPs can diagnose autism as accurately as clinical psychologists and physicians. If we change outdated policies to allow SLPs to diagnose autism, we could dramatically increase access to evaluations and reduce wait times. This simple policy shift could ensure that more children receive the support they need during the most critical years of brain development. As we observe Autism Acceptance Month, now is not the time to cut funding for vital research projects like mine and countless others that have measurable impacts on families. In addition, we must push for policy changes that prioritize early diagnosis. We must expand the pool of qualified professionals who can diagnose autism. Every child deserves timely access to the support they need to thrive. We do need dramatic change.
Yahoo
21-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Opinion: Let's Make NAEP a True National Yardstick for Local Autonomy
Student outcomes in K–12 education have largely stagnated over the recent decades. Despite incremental improvements in the 1990s and early 2000s, national academic performance peaked around 2013, while progress in closing achievement gaps among subgroups stalled even earlier. Recent developments at the Institute of Education Sciences, particularly the downsizing of staff for the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), create an opportunity to rethink the role this tool can play. In particular, the Trump Administration could explore using the NAEP to promote greater transparency among schools, parents, and local communities, as well to enhance academic rigor and ensure genuine accountability in a comparable way across schools and states. That would mean replacing a disparate collection of state tests will a single national assessment administered to every fourth and eighth grade student every year. Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter Parents, educators, and state leaders agree that more information — not more bureaucracy — is needed to make informed decisions for their children and communities, as well as to foster greater competition. Making the NAEP a truly national assessment would provide this information in a consistent, credible, and actionable manner. Related This would require a feasible restructuring of the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) to focus on the annual creation and implementation of the NAEP, in contrast to its previous biennial schedule. Additionally, states already have the infrastructure for standardized testing, as all 50 states administer various assessments. Some adjustments might be necessary for the reformed IES, which would need to collaborate with state offices responsible for test administration to successfully implement the NAEP on an annual basis for all eligible students, not just the current sample populations. However, there are still many advantages to this approach. First, NAEP provides a consistent and academically rigorous measure of student performance. Many states report higher proficiency rates on their own assessments than on NAEP, creating a false sense of achievement. If all fourth and eighth grade students in states that receive federal Title I funding were required to take the NAEP annually the discrepancy between state and national standards would become harder to ignore. States would have a stronger incentive to align their instructional practices with higher expectations. States such as Mississippi have already shown what's possible when NAEP results are taken seriously. Mississippi's so-called 'miracle' — its leap into the top half of state rankings in 2020 and 2022—demonstrates the value of using NAEP-aligned standards as a driver for systemic change. By contrast, allowing states to accept federal funding without comparable transparency has led to low expectations and weak accountability frameworks. Second, expanding NAEP would provide parents with a more accurate picture of how their children are performing relative to peers nationwide. Calls for greater transparency in education — amplified during and after the pandemic — have made clear that many families want more than vague reassurances from schools. A truly national assessment would offer objective, comparable data without increasing testing burdens year after year. In its current form, NAEP tests only samples of students, providing no real insight into how individual students or schools are doing. Third, this proposal could significantly reduce unnecessary educational costs. To receive Title I funding under the Every Student Succeeds Act, states must administer annual assessments from grades 3 through 8, a requirement that consumes substantial classroom time, financial and instructional resources. If Congress eliminated this requirement and recommended that states administer only the NAEP in fourth and eighth grades, that could facilitate more targeted transparent evaluations and reduce assessment costs for states. Additionally, standardized tests administered from grades 3 to 8 may not be necessary for improving student outcomes. A study of test scores in Texas and Nebraska showed that, on average, a student's test scores in their first year correlated at a rate greater than 0.90 with their next year performance. Finally, making NAEP universal would offer a balanced form of federal oversight: less intrusive than programmatic mandates, but more informative than current reporting requirements. If decentralization is the path forward for U.S. education, it must be accompanied by a shared yardstick to assess progress. A national benchmark can support local autonomy while enabling cross-district comparisons that inform parents, educators, and policymakers alike. Related Federal initiatives to improve student outcomes have historically produced mixed results. The Obama-era effort to tie teacher evaluations to student performance had little impact at the national level, though districts like Dallas and Washington, D.C., saw promising gains. These cases suggest that policy tools must be both well-designed and responsive to local implementation contexts. Designating NAEP as the national assessment meets both criteria. It would offer the federal government a low-cost, high-impact mechanism for improving transparency and setting consistent expectations without dictating how states should teach or allocate resources —it would be left up to them. In an era of educational fragmentation, the NAEP stands out as a uniquely credible and underutilized tool. Repurposing it as the primary national assessment — administered annually to all 4th and 8th graders in states receiving Title I dollars — would promote transparency, reduce redundant testing, and align incentives around higher academic standards. This reform would offer a shared benchmark to evaluate progress across states and districts. At a time when parents, educators, and policymakers are calling for both accountability and flexibility, a restructured NAEP provides a rare opportunity to deliver both.
