Analytical Literacy First: A Prerequisite for AI, Data, and Digital Fluency

As digital technologies reshape every aspect of society, students must be equipped and proficient in not only specialized literacies (such as digital literacy, data literacy, and AI literacy), but with a foundational skill set that allows them to think critically, reason logically, and solve problems effectively. Analytical literacy is the scaffolding upon which more specialized literacies are built. Students in the 21st century need strong critical thinking skills like reasoning, questioning, and problem-solving, before they can meaningfully engage with more advanced domains like digital, data, or AI literacy. Without these skills, students may struggle to engage critically with the technologies shaping their lives. We urge education leaders at the federal, state, and institutional levels to prioritize development of analytical literacy by incentivizing integration across disciplines, aligning standards, and investing in research and professional development.

Introduction

As society becomes increasingly shaped by digital technologies, data-driven decision-making, and artificial intelligence, the ability to think analytically is no longer optional, it’s essential. While digital, data, and AI literacies focus on domain-specific skills, analytical literacy enables students to engage with these domains critically and ethically. Analytical literacy encompasses critical thinking, logical reasoning, and problem-solving, and equips students to interpret complex information, evaluate claims, and make informed decisions. These skills are foundational not only for academic success but for civic engagement and workforce readiness in the 21st century.

Despite its importance, analytical literacy remains unevenly emphasized in K–12 education. These disparities are often driven by systemic inequities in school funding, infrastructure, and access to qualified educators. According to NCES’s Education Across America report, rural schools and those in under-resourced communities frequently lack the professional development opportunities, instructional materials, and technology needed to support analytical skill-building. In contrast, urban and well-funded districts are more likely to offer inquiry-based curricula, interdisciplinary projects, and formative assessment tools that foster deep thinking. Additionally, while some schools integrate analytical thinking through inquiry-based learning, project-based instruction, or interdisciplinary STEM curricula, there is no consistent national framework guiding its development at this time. Instructional strategies vary widely by state or district, and standardized assessments often prioritize procedural fluency over deeper cognitive engagement like analytical reasoning.

Recent research underscores the urgency of this issue. A 2024 literature review from the Center for Assessment highlights analytical thinking as a core competency for future success, noting its role in supporting other 21st-century skills such as creativity, collaboration, and digital fluency. Similarly, a systematic review published in the International Journal of STEM Education emphasizes the need for early engagement with analytical and statistical thinking to prepare students for a data-rich society.

There is growing consensus among educators, researchers, and policy advocates that analytical literacy deserves a more central role in K–12 education. Organizations such as NWEA and Code.org have called for stronger integration of analytical and data literacy skills into curriculum and professional development efforts. However, without coordinated policy action, these efforts remain fragmented.

This memo builds on that emerging momentum. It argues that analytical literacy should be treated as a skill that underpins students’ ability to engage meaningfully with digital, data, and AI literacies. By elevating analytical literacy through standards, instruction, and investment, we can ensure that all students are prepared to participate, innovate, and thrive in a complex and rapidly changing world.

To understand why analytical literacy must be prioritized, we examine the current landscape of specialized literacies and the foundational skills they require.

Challenges and Opportunities

In today’s interconnected world, digital literacy, data literacy, and AI literacy are no longer optional, they are essential skill sets for civic participation, economic mobility, and ethical decision-making. These literacies enable students to navigate online environments, interpret complex datasets, and engage thoughtfully with emerging technologies.  

Together, these literacies form a cognitive toolkit that empowers students to be not just consumers of information and technology, but thoughtful participants in civic and digital life.

While these literacies address specific domains, they all fundamentally rely on what should be called Analytical Literacy. Analytical literacy, at its core, involves the ability to: 

Yet, without structured development of these foundational skills, students risk becoming passive consumers of technology rather than active, informed participants. This presents an urgent opportunity: by centering Analytical Literacy in standards and assessment, instruction, and professional learning, we can create enduring pathways for students to participate, innovate, and thrive in an increasingly data-driven world. 

Examples of implementation must include:

By embedding these practices systemically, we move from episodic exposure to analytical thinking toward a coherent, equitable framework that prepares all students for the demands of the digital age.

Addressing these gaps requires coordinated action across multiple levels of the education system. The following plan outlines targeted strategies for federal, state, and institutional leaders.

Plan of Action

To strengthen analytical literacy in K–12 education, we recommend targeted efforts from three federal offices, supported by state agencies, educational organizations, and teacher preparation programs.

Recommendation 1. Federal Offices

Federal agencies have the capacity to set national priorities, fund innovation, and coordinate cross-sector efforts. Their leadership is essential to catalyzing systemic change. For example:

White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP)

OSTP now chairs the newly established White House Task Force on Artificial Intelligence Education, per the April 2025 Executive Order on Advancing AI Education. This task force is charged with coordinating federal efforts to promote AI literacy and proficiency across the K–12 continuum. We recommend that OSTP:

This alignment would ensure that analytical literacy is not treated as an adjacent concern, but as a central pillar of the federal AI education strategy.

Institute of Education Sciences (IES)

IES should coordinate closely with the Task Force to support the Executive Order’s goals through a National Analytical Literacy Research Agenda. This agenda could:

IES could also serve as a technical advisor to the Task Force, ensuring that its initiatives are grounded in evidence-based practice.

Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE)
In light of the Executive Order’s directive for educator training and curriculum innovation, OESE should:

Prioritize analytical literacy integration in discretionary grant programs that support AI education.

Develop guidance for states on embedding analytical competencies into AI-related standards and instructional frameworks.

Collaborate with the Task Force to ensure that professional development efforts include training on how to teach analytical thinking—not just how to use AI tools.

National Science Foundation (NSF)

The National Science Foundation plays a pivotal role in advancing STEM education through research, innovation, and capacity-building. To support the goals of the Executive Order and strengthen analytical literacy as a foundation for AI readiness, we recommend that NSF:

By positioning analytical literacy as a research and innovation priority, NSF can help ensure that K–12 students are not only technically proficient but cognitively prepared to engage with emerging technologies in thoughtful, ethical, and creative ways.

Note: Given the evolving organizational landscape within the U.S. Department of Education—including the elimination of offices like Educational Technology—it is critical to identify stable federal anchors. The agencies named above have longstanding mandates tied to research, policy innovation, and K–12 support, making them well-positioned to advance this work.

Recommendation 2. State Education Policymakers

While federal agencies can provide vision and resources, states hold the levers of implementation. Their role is critical in translating policy into classroom practice.

While federal agencies can provide strategic direction and funding, the implementation of analytical literacy must be led by states. Each state has the authority—and responsibility—to shape standards, assessments, and professional development systems that reflect local priorities and student needs. To advance analytical literacy meaningfully, we recommend the following actions:

Elevate Analytical Literacy in Academic Standards

States should conduct curriculum audits to identify where analytical skills are currently embedded—and where gaps exist. This process should inform the revision of academic standards across disciplines, ensuring that analytical literacy is treated as a foundational competency, not an ancillary skill. California’s ELA/ELD Framework, for example, emphasizes inquiry, argumentation, and evidence-based reasoning across subjects—not just in English language arts. Similarly, the History–Social Science Framework promotes critical thinking and source evaluation as core civic skills.

States can build on these models by:

Invest in Professional Development and Instructional Capacity

States should fund and scale professional learning ecosystems that equip educators to teach analytical thinking explicitly. This includes:

California’s professional learning modules aligned to the Common Core State Standards and ELA/ELD frameworks offer a useful starting point for designing scalable, standards-aligned training.

Redesign Student Assessments to Capture Deeper Thinking

States should move beyond traditional standardized tests and invest in assessment systems that measure analytical reasoning authentically. States can catalyze this innovation by issuing targeted Requests for Proposals (RFPs) that invite districts, assessment developers, and research-practice partnerships to design and pilot new models of assessment aligned to analytical literacy. These RFPs should prioritize:

By using the RFP process strategically, states can surface promising practices, support local innovation, and build a portfolio of assessment approaches that reflect the complexity of students’ analytical capabilities.

Recommendation 3. Professional Education Organizations

Beyond government, professional education organizations shape the field through resources, advocacy, and collaboration. They are key partners in scaling analytical literacy.

Professional education organizations play a vital role in shaping the landscape of K–12 education. These groups—ranging from subject-specific associations like the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE) and the National Science Teaching Association (NSTA), to broader coalitions like ASCD and the National Education Association (NEA)—serve as hubs for professional learning, policy advocacy, resource development, and field-wide collaboration. They influence classroom practice, inform state and federal policy, and support educators through research-based guidance and community-building.

Because these organizations operate at the intersection of practice, policy, and research, they are uniquely positioned to champion analytical literacy as a foundational skill across disciplines. To advance this work, we recommend the following actions:

By leveraging their convening power, subject-matter expertise, and national reach, professional education organizations can accelerate the adoption of analytical literacy and ensure it is embedded meaningfully into the fabric of K–12 education.

Recommendation 4. Teacher Preparation Programs

To sustain long-term change, we must begin with those entering the profession. Teacher preparation programs are the foundation for instructional capacity and must evolve to meet this moment.

Teacher preparation programs (TPPs) are the gateway to the teaching profession. Housed in colleges, universities, and alternative certification pathways, these programs are responsible for equipping future educators with the knowledge, skills, and dispositions needed to support student learning. Their influence is profound: research consistently shows that well-prepared teachers are the most important in-school factor for student success.

Yet many TPPs face persistent challenges. Too often, graduates report feeling underprepared for the realities of diverse, data-rich classrooms. Coursework may emphasize theory over practice, and clinical experiences vary widely in quality. Critically, few programs offer explicit training in how to foster analytical literacy—despite its centrality to digital, data, and AI readiness. In response to national calls for foundational skill-building and educator capacity, TPPs must evolve to meet this moment.

While federal funding for teacher preparation has become more limited, states are stepping in through innovative models like teacher residencies, registered apprenticeships, and microcredentialing pathways. These initiatives are often supported by modified use of Title II funds, state general funds, and workforce development grants. To accelerate this momentum, federal programs like Teacher Quality Partnership (TQP) grants and Supporting Effective Educator Development (SEED) grants could be adapted to prioritize analytical literacy, while states can issue targeted RFPs to redesign coursework, practicum experiences, and capstone projects that center reasoning, problem-solving, and ethical decision-making. To ensure that new teachers are ready to cultivate analytical thinking in their students, we recommend the following actions:

Together, these actions form a coherent strategy for embedding analytical literacy across the K–12 continuum. But success depends on bold leadership and sustained commitment. By reimagining teacher preparation through the lens of analytical literacy, we can ensure that every new educator enters the classroom equipped to foster deep thinking, ethical reasoning, and problem-solving—skills that students need to thrive in a complex and rapidly changing world.

Conclusion

Analytical literacy is not a nice-to-have, it is a prerequisite for the specialized proficiencies students need in today’s complex world. By embedding critical thinking, logical reasoning, and problem-solving across the K–12 continuum, we empower students to meet challenges with curiosity and discernment. We urge policymakers, educators, and institutions to act boldly by demanding analytical literacy be established as a cornerstone of 21st-century education. and co-create a future where every student has the analytical tools essential for meaningful participation, innovative thinking, and long-term success in the digital age and beyond.

Improving Standardized Test Score Reporting and Administration for Students, Caregivers, and Educators

Currently, standardized testing is a necessary but often time-consuming process that is used to measure educational progress to improve educational outcomes and curricula; however, the immediate consumers of standardized tests are educators, students, and their caregivers who do not typically receive detailed information in exchange for the time spent studying for and taking these exams. This brief proposes reforming standardized test score reporting to improve achievement level labeling using more strengths-based language as well as to provide actionable feedback and personalized resources. This brief also proposes actionable steps to achieve this by one, increasing the number of test administrations to increase progress monitoring and adjustment opportunities before the end of the school year and two, provide educators with detailed information in the form of dashboards and ready  resources

Introduction

Standardized tests are ubiquitous in K-12 education in the United States. In fact, the average student spends 20-25 hours or more during the school year just taking standardized tests. In addition, the scores from these tests have high consequences for students and their educators, including promotion to the next grade or measurement of teacher quality. However, the data shows that test scores have largely stagnated since the 2002 passage of No Child Left Behind, which introduced the nationwide requirement to implement high-stakes testing. 

Due to the high stakes nature of these assessments, many educators feel that they have to adjust their curriculum and instruction to best suit material they believe will be on the test. This is sometimes to the detriment of teaching other skills or performing activities that might be more cognitively challenging or engaging. There is also limited information about the specifics of what is on the test, due to the proprietary nature of the questions and tasks on these exams. Many educators do not feel confident that they have thoroughly taught all of the material on the accountability exam. Finally, parents and guardians  also have difficulty understanding score reports. Regrettably, test results are often delivered between school years, after any potential tutoring or support could be delivered. 

To address these challenges, we need to overhaul the standardized testing and score reporting system to be more accessible to all of the end users of standardized tests: educators, students, and their families. This is especially important at a time when more universities are becoming test-optional and more families are choosing to opt their K-12 students out of summative standardized testing. Additionally, this poses a potential existential threat to testing publishers and also necessitates that the system adjust to the needs of the public. 

Improving Standardized Testing Score Reporting For Students and Guardians 

The core group most  impacted by standardized score reporting are students and their caregivers. Most families receive score reports that provide very high-level information about students’ performance, such as their overall test score relative to other students in their state and district. Some score reports provide slightly more information, but they are typically not specific to the individual student’s strengths and areas for growth. Nor do they provide actionable feedback or resources for how the student can improve low scoring sections or extend learning for areas of strength. Additionally, these reports do not include accompanying information, so it is very difficult for a parent/guardian to extrapolate from the score report specific areas to support or extend their child’s learning. 

Standardized test reports have a damaging effect on students’ academic identity and self-esteem. Many of these score reports use labels to describe achievement levels and more care should be embedded in this language. Results are sometimes described with labels like “below proficient,” which have been found to be damaging to students’ self-perception of their academic performance and ability to improve. Even slight changes to labels like the inclusion of the word ‘yet’ in “not yet meeting expectations” were found to be more encouraging than deficit-based labeling. Finally, many of these reports are not designed to be accessible for a wide range of disabilities or non-English languages, nor do they explain where the scores originated or how to apply them, which limits the number of students and caregivers who can access these reports or use their information to improve educational outcomes. 

The solution for students is  to redesign the score reports so that they are more actionable and positively framed in their achievement labels. Scoring should especially highlight what the student does well and frame the areas where the student needs support using growth mindset-facing language rather than deficit-based language. Additionally, these reports should provide resources and recommendations to remediate areas that still need improvement and to extend learning for learning domains that the student has already mastered.

Improving Score Reporting and Data Analysis For Educators 

The secondary group impacted by standardized testing score reporting are educators. Depending on the state or district, educators typically receive a general summative report about their incoming students’ performance on last school year’s standardized testing as well as a report about their previous students’ performance, especially as it applies to measures of teacher quality. Depending on the state/district, this report tends to have slightly more granular information than the student-facing reports. However, this still does not provide detailed information on the specific skills where each student needs additional support. Moreover, even if the educator receives detailed standards/objectives that each student missed on the previous year’s exam, they do not receive specific information on how to take that report and use it to remediate skills into their current curriculum. There is also frequently no time in the school year to remediate the skills that still need to be learned from the previous year nor planning time for educators to adjust current grade level curricula to allow for robust remediation. Finally, when educators receive these reports over the summer or in the early fall, this is far too late for the educator to adjust their instruction and support their learners during the school year. Ideally, teachers would have interim progress reports during the school year so that they could address and support existing issues while they are still teaching.

To support educators, the score reporting process needs an additional component that helps educators translate score reports into actionable pedagogy that blends with current grade level curricula. This should include diverse programs of support for the different patterns of skills and types of students. Additionally, there should be a mid-year process for collecting and reporting data. This way, educators can support struggling students before the accountability test at the end of the year. This could mean that the testing system shifts such that the more summative assessment is offered at the middle of the school year; or it could mean distributing the average 2-3 day end-of-year assessment days throughout the school year, to not increase the number of days being spent testing.

Areas for Improvement 

A three-pronged approach would greatly improve the testing system. The first is to create more in-depth score reports that are more actionable. The second is to create skill-based dashboards that teachers can access to support remediation in real time. Thirdly, the long-term plan for this work would be to distribute accountability testing across the school year so that there are more opportunities for catching students who struggle before the school year is over. Taken together, this approach provides a starting point for improving the testing system for educators, students, and their communities. 

More Actionable Score Reporting That Includes Resources

The first, most easily fixed issue is to support an improved score reporting system that is more detailed and actionable for students and their caregivers. Instead of just a scale score and the overall achievement level that the student has attained, a revamped score would include more detailed feedback about the student’s strengths and areas for improvement. For example, these reports could include links or attachments to additional open educational resources recommended by that state/district to help improve those skills. These reports should also include information about what the student does well and provide resources or recommendations for how to extend or further develop those skills as well. 

To create enhanced score reports, there needs to be a larger consensus about a score report’s basic guidelines. The Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing can assist with basic score reports; however, these recommendations do not include any information about using score reporting as a method for supporting student learning or fully capturing student learning.  As part of this process, the larger organizational, state, and federal educational regulatory bodies must decide on a set of guidelines for score reporting. As a starting point, groups like State and District-Level Education Associations, as well as the Association of Test Publishers, could develop resources describing best practices.

One potential method for funding these innovative changes to testing would be for the states who were interested in overhauling their system to apply for an Innovative Assessment Demonstration Authority Grant; however, this might need adjustment to fund the proposed policy adjustment. Additionally, standardized testing represents a large expenditure for each state. Each state’s Department of Education could decide to use a “Pay for Success” approach in which each state or large district sets outcome measurements for how they would like their testing program to be adjusted to be more usable for students and educators and then only deliver on their procurement decision if these measures are met. 

More Checkpoints, Fewer Stakes

More radically, the accountability system needs to shift to one in which huge decisions about student ability and teacher quality are not just down to one test that takes place one time a year that is not directly related to the students’ context or immediate knowledge. There are a variety of different reasons why that test would not reflect the true ability of students; everything from illness or anxiety to certain types of disability that are not compatible with one-time assessment. Instead, smaller, lower-stakes assessments should be offered more frequently throughout the school year so that misconceptions and gaps in knowledge can be addressed more effectively and responsively. One model that was piloted in Louisiana was to offer three smaller exams across the school year that were aligned to the English Language Arts (ELA) curriculum instead of reading unrelated, decontextualized passages. This approach is fairer because it removes the impact of students’ background knowledge and is a truer measure of students’ learning from  that year’s curriculum. Additionally, many schools have switched to using the Star assessment system, which is a computer-adaptive test that can be administered multiple times throughout the year to support frequent checks on student learning. The Star assessment system also provides more detailed progress monitoring for measuring student learning than one summative assessment. 

Alternatively, instead of standardized assessment, Performance-Based Learning is another way to capture what students have learned throughout the whole school year. This model involves project-based assessments that lead to a summative portfolio review that determines graduation/retention criteria instead of reliance on external standardized assessments. This system is lower stakes for students because it gives them the whole school year to demonstrate their knowledge and mastery of the curricular standards. It also provides a lot more agency for students and educators to scaffold and support students in demonstrating their knowledge in much more diverse ways. The largest difficulty with this process would be state and nation-wide consensus on what these systems look like and how to ensure consistency between grade level projects and accountability.

Dashboards for Teachers

In addition to improved score reporting, educators should receive a more detailed set of skills and their current students’ progress in each of these. This report should also be tied in the current curriculum that the teacher is using. This way, the system can recommend lessons and materials to remediate the skills students struggle with as well as to provide extension for areas where students are already proficient. An example of this that was found to work was an increase in math performance in Maine using the ASSISTments platform to tie specific content to targeted student homework practice.  Classroom time is precious. Knowing more about the specific lessons that are needed to best support growth and achievement is paramount to improving student learning. The decision about what to include in the dashboard would initially be left to the discretion of the curriculum/test makers; however, this would also likely need to be decided based on best practices as well. 

Conclusion 

The current state of the field for standardized testing is very unidirectional – students take summative assessments and these scores are used to make judgements about students, teachers, and funding for their schools. Despite spending a large amount of classroom time just taking the exams, not including all of the test preparation that goes into sitting for those exams, there is very little direct benefit to teachers and students from taking these assessments. For example, student scores have not improved nationally on the “Nation’s Report Card” in over a decade, despite increased nationwide testing and accountability. Additionally, testing is experienced as an extremely stressful period that has little positive immediate benefit for students.  Making the score reporting system more of a “two way street” in which students, educators, and their families can glean actionable information about how to support student success will make this much more of a useful process that will support student achievement, especially for students with disabilities and students who are approaching grade-level proficiency. 

Frequently Asked Questions
What is an example of innovative assessment used at the state level?

The Massachusetts Consortium for Innovative Education Assessment (MCIEA) is an example of many of the features discussed above. Many schools and districts within the state of Massachusetts have agreed to use performance tasks throughout the school year as a more robust measure of student learning. MCIEA also has an overview dashboard that measures school quality, not just through academic achievement. The dashboard considers school culture, access to resources, and student and community wellbeing. While MCIEA does not address student-specific feedback, it does provide alternative methods of measuring school quality. It is also an example of dashboards being used to disseminate school quality information to the larger public.

What is an example of how test scores are explained to students and their guardians?

One example of how some of the recommendations above function is evidenced through the work done at ERB. This company is an assessment provider; however, they provide specific reports to the school leadership, the teachers and students, and their families. Each of these reports is tailored to the specific needs of each group and the team also helps facilitate webinars and other resources to help all groups to understand the test scores and how to use these best in improving student learning and outcomes.

Moving Federal Postsecondary Education Data to the States

Moving postsecondary education data collection to the states is the best way to ensure that the U.S. Department of Education can meet its legislative mandates in an era of constrained federal resources. Students, families, policymakers, and businesses need this data to make decisions about investments in education, but cuts to the federal government make it difficult to collect. The Commissioner of the National Center for Education Statistics should use their authority to establish state cooperative groups to  collect and submit data from the postsecondary institutions in each state to the federal government, like the way that K12 schools report to the U.S. Department of Education (ED). With funding from the State Longitudinal Data System grant program and quality measures like the Common Education Data Standards, this new data reporting model will give more power to states, improve trust in education data, and make it easier for everyone to use the data.

Challenge and Opportunity

The Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), was hit hard by staffing and contract cuts at the U.S. Department of Education in early 2025. Without the staff to collect and clean the data, or the contractors to run the websites and reports, this is the first time in its decades-long history that IPEDS may not be available to the public next year. IPEDS is a vast data collection, including information on grants and scholarships, tuition prices, graduation rates, and staffing levels. This has serious implications for students and their families choosing colleges, as well as for policymakers who want to ensure that these colleges graduate students on time, for businesses who want to find trained workers, and for everyone who cares about educating tomorrow’s citizens . Not to mention that these data are required by law under the Higher Education Act and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, among others. 

Moving IPEDS data collection to the states is the best way to ensure that the data continue to be collected and released. States already play a large role in collecting data on elementary and secondary education, a model that could work for postsecondary data like IPEDS. 

Why do we collect K12 data through states but not postsecondary data? K12 systems are substantially different from postsecondary data due to federal legislation. No Child Left Behind catalyzed the expansion of K12 data infrastructure, requiring regular reporting on student test scores, disaggregated achievement data for student groups, and information about teacher qualifications. Though the accountability measures attached to these data were controversial, the reporting processes they catalyzed vastly surpassed those in the postsecondary data system, which was built piecemeal over decades.

In K12 data systems, local education agencies report data to state education agencies who report to the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). Reviews at each step in this process ensures that data are high quality and made available quickly for analysis. In postsecondary data, thousands of institutions individually report to NCES, which takes months to review and release the data for the whole country. Some institutions do report to a state coordinator, like Maryland which has one reporter for all public postsecondary institutions and one for all privates. The role of state coordinators varies widely across states. Using the state reporting model is an opportunity to further streamline this process.

Reporting postsecondary data at the state level has another benefit: it gives states control over future student-level data reporting. That is because states, in addition to fulfilling reporting requirements, also collect student-level data from K12 systems that can be linked to students’ postsecondary and workforce outcomes over time. These statewide longitudinal systems (SLDS) were supported through a federal grant program that began in 2006, and many of the measures collected are required for federal K12 reporting. Some SLDSs contain postsecondary measures like tuition and graduation rates, which are also collected by IPEDS. Though IPEDS does not require student-level data, advocates have been pushing for such data for several years. A student unit record system was proposed in the College Transparency Act. Moving IPEDS data collection to the states will  help states develop the systems necessary to implement future student-level data collection in postsecondary education if this or similar legislation passes Congress.

Plan of Action

The NCES Commissioner should establish state-level groups to collect and submit IPEDS data. Instead of receiving thousands of individual reports from postsecondary institutions, NCES would receive 59, one from each state plus Washington D.C. and the territories that already report to IPEDS. For states that need support to manage this reporting process, ED could provide funding through an existing grant program. The IPEDS data definitions and reporting requirements would not change, but they could be improved through integration into other data standards.

This plan has several advantageous outcomes. First, IES would be able to meet its data collection and reporting requirements despite limited staff and funding. This increases efficiency and saves taxpayer dollars. Second, states would have access to their data more quickly, thus minimizing pressure on IES to release data on shorter timelines. This allows data users to work with more current information and give states the power to conduct their own analysis.

Step 1. The U.S. Department of Education can use its authority to establish state cooperatives to move IPEDS data collection to the states

Under 20 U.S.C. §9547, the NCES Commissioner has the authority to set up cooperatives to produce education statistics. These cooperatives could serve as the governing body and fiscal agent for collecting and submitting data from each state to the federal government. In states that already have a coordinator to submit IPEDS data, this cooperative group builds on existing processes for collecting, reviewing, and submitting data, including existing IPEDS state coordinators. The cooperatives should also involve state higher education executive officers, representatives from public, non-profit, and private postsecondary institutions, and experts in data systems and institutional research.

NCES should publish a charter that states can adopt as they organize their cooperatives. Multi-state education data groups, like the Multi-State Data Collaborative, have developed charters that could be used as a starting point. The sample charter should encourage the development of federated data systems, one model that has been successful in K12 data collection. Federated data systems, as opposed to centralized ones, operate on agreements to link and share data upon request, after which the linked data are destroyed. This model offers stronger protections for data privacy and can be established quickly.

Step 2. States should commit to financial support to support data submissions

States will also need financial support to develop or expand data storage systems, pay staff for quality reviews, and support data submissions. Some of this infrastructure already exists  through funding from the IES SLDS grant program. Future grant awards could be used to fund the expansion of these systems to include IPEDS data collection and submission by setting priorities in the grant selection process. 

In addition, NCES could contract with a technical assistance provider to support state infrastructure development. Something like the data academy offered by the State Higher Education Executive Officers Association (SHEEO) or the institutional research training offered by the Association for Institutional Research (AIR) would be useful to states that need personalized assistance.

Step 3. States should continue to use the data definitions and guidance developed by NCES

To ensure that the data retains the same high-quality standard of federal IPEDS collection, states should continue to use the data definitions and guidance developed by NCES. Further integrating these definitions with the Common Education Data System (CEDS), ensures that states understand and have access to these definitions. CEDS, the voluntary national standard for reporting K12 data, already includes some postsecondary data elements. Incorporating all IPEDS data definitions into CEDS will  streamline data standards across K12 and postsecondary. CEDS also has recommendations for building out data infrastructure, like data stores (repositories for multiple databases and file types), helpful for states who need to expand theirs for this effort.

Conclusion

Moving IPEDS data collection to the states is the best way to ensure that NCES meets its legislative mandates in an era of constrained federal resources. This new collection method has other benefits as well. A more decentralized data collection will give more power to states to represent their unique institutions and contexts. By serving as stewards of this data, states will have better access to it, allowing for quicker reporting and analysis. With more access to and control over the data, trust and usage of the data will improve.

Frequently Asked Questions
How will states coordinate data collection where there is more than one state-level postsecondary organization?

Unlike K12, there is more than one state-level education authority in many states. This will require more coordination among state higher education executive officers, state boards of higher education, and other state/regional actors such as accreditors. Private postsecondary institutions would also need to be at the table. The cooperative model provides a structure for bringing these entities together.

What happens if the College Transparency Act (CTA) passes Congress?

CTA includes a ban on using cooperatives to create a unit record data system, which may impact the use of this authority to create other collaborative systems. This ban is related to the larger debate over student unit record systems. Though IPEDS is not a unit record, it would still be helpful to review the language in CTA to ensure that the establishment of cooperatives would not be stymied by this provision in case CTA is passed.

How does this proposal address student privacy concerns?

IPEDS does not currently collect data at the student level. Because there is no individually identifiable data, privacy is not a greater concern under this proposal than it is under the current system for collecting data.

Investing in Young Children Strengthens America’s Global Leadership

Supporting the world’s youngest children is one of the smartest, most effective investments in U.S. strength and soft power. The cancellation of 83 percent of foreign assistance programs in early 2025, coupled with the dismantling of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), not only caused unnecessary suffering of millions of young children in low-income countries, but also harmed U.S. security, economic competitiveness, and global leadership. As Congress crafts legislation to administer foreign assistance under a new America First focused State Department, it should recognize that renewed attention and support for young children in low-income countries will help meet stated U.S. foreign assistance priorities to make America safer, stronger, and more prosperous. Specifically, Congress should: (1) prioritize funding for programs that promote early childhood development; (2) bolster State Department staffing to administer resources efficiently; and (3) strengthen accountability and transparency of funding.

Challenge and Opportunity 

Supporting children’s development through health, nutrition, education, and protection programs helps the U.S. achieve its national security and economic interests, including the Administration’s priorities to make America “safer, stronger, and more prosperous.” Investing in global education, for example, generates economic growth overseas, creating trade opportunities and markets for the U.S. In fact, 11 of America’s top 15 trading partners once received foreign aid. Healthy, educated populations are associated with less conflict and extremism, which reduces pressures on migration. Curbing the spread of infectious diseases like HIV/AIDS and Ebola makes Americans safer from disease both abroad and at home. As a diplomacy tool, providing support for early childhood development, which is a priority in many partner countries, increases U.S. goodwill and influence in these countries and contributes to its geopolitical competitiveness.

Helping young children thrive in low-income countries is a high-return investment in stable economies, skilled workforces, and a stronger America on the world stage. In a July 2025 press release, the State Department recognized how investing in children and families globally contributes to America’s national development and priorities:

Supporting children and families strengthens the foundation of any society. Investing in their protection and well-being is a proven strategy for ensuring American security, solidifying American strength, and increasing American prosperity. When children and families around the world thrive, nations flourish.

The first five years of a child’s life is a period of unprecedented brain development. Investments in early childhood programs – including parent coaching, child care, and quality preschool – yield large and long-term benefits for individuals and society-at-large, up to a 13% return on investment, particularly when these interventions are targeted to the most vulnerable and disadvantaged populations. Despite the promise of early childhood interventions, 43% of children under five in low- and middle-income countries are at elevated risk of poor development, leaving them vulnerable to the long-term negative impacts of adversity, such as poverty, malnutrition, illness, and exposure to violence. The costs of inaction are high; countries that underinvest in young children are more likely to have less healthy and educated populations and to struggle with higher unemployment and lower GDPs.

Informed by this powerful evidence, the bipartisan Global Child Thrive Act of 2020 required U.S. Government agencies to develop and implement policies to advance early childhood development – the cognitive, physical, social, and emotional development of children up to age 8 – in partner countries. This legislation supported early childhood development through nutrition, education, health, and water, sanitation, and hygiene interventions. It mandated the U.S. Government Special Advisor for Children in Adversity to lead a coordinated, comprehensive, and effective U.S. government response through international assistance. The bipartisan READ Act complements the Thrive Act by requiring the U.S. to implement an international strategy for basic education, starting with early childhood care and education.

Three examples of USAID-funded early childhood programs terminated in 2025 illustrate how investments in young children not only achieve multiple development and humanitarian goals, but also address U.S. priorities to make America safer, stronger, and more prosperous:

Drastic funding cuts have jeopardized the wellbeing of vulnerable children worldwide and the “soft power” the U.S. has built through relationships with more than 175 partner countries. In January 2025, the Trump Administration froze all foreign assistance and began to dismantle the USAID, the lead coordinating agency for children’s programs under the Global Child Thrive Act and READ Act. By March 2025, sweeping cuts ended most USAID programs focused on children’s education, health, water and sanitation, nutrition, infectious diseases (malaria, tuberculosis, neglected tropical diseases, and HIV/AIDS), and support for orphans and vulnerable children. In total, the U.S. eliminated around $4 billion in foreign assistance intended for children in the world’s poorest countries. As a result, an estimated 378,000 children have died from preventable illnesses, such as HIV, malaria, and malnutrition.

In July 2025, Congress voted to approve the Administration’s rescission package, which retracts nearly $8 billion of FY25 foreign assistance funding that was appropriated, but not yet spent. This includes support for 6.6 million orphans and vulnerable children (OVC) and $142 million in core funding to UNICEF, the UN agency which helps families in emergencies and vulnerable situations globally. An additional $5 billion of foreign assistance funding expired at the end of the fiscal year while being withheld through a pocket rescission.

As Congress works to reauthorize the State Department, and what remains of USAID, it should see that helping young children globally supports both American values and strategic interests. 

Recent U.S. spending on international children’s programs accounted for only 0.09% of the total federal budget and only around 10% of foreign assistance expenditure. If Congress does not act, this small, but impactful funding is at risk of disappearing from the FY 2026 budget.

Plan of Action

For decades, the U.S. has been a leader in international development and humanitarian assistance. Helping the world’s youngest children reach their potential is one of the smartest, most effective investments the U.S. government can make. Congress needs to put in place funding, staffing, and accountability mechanisms that will not only support the successful implementation of the Global Child Thrive Act, but also meet U.S. foreign policy priorities.

Recommendation 1. Prioritize funding for early childhood development through the Department of State

In the FY26 budget currently under discussion, Congress has the responsibility to fund global child health, education, and nutrition programs under the authority of the State Department. These child-focused programs align with America’s diplomatic and economic interests and are vital to young children’s survival and well-being globally. 

To promote early childhood development specifically, the Global Child Thrive Act should be reauthorized under the auspices of the State Department. While there is bipartisan support in the House Foreign Affairs Committee to extend authorization of the Global Child Thrive Act through 2027, the current bill had not made it to the House floor as of October 2025, and the Senate bill was delayed by a federal government shutdown.

Congress should pass legislation to appropriate $1.5 billion in FY26 funding for life-saving and life-changing programs for young children, including:

Funding should be written into legislation so that it is protected from future cuts.

Recommendation 2. Adequately staff the State Department to coordinate early childhood programs

The State Department needs to rebuild expertise on global child development that was lost when USAID collapsed. As a first step, current officials need to be briefed on relevant legislation including the Global Child Thrive Act and the READ Act. In response to the reduced capacity, Congress should fund a talent pipeline in order to attract a cadre of professionals within the State Department in Washington, DC and at U.S. Embassies who can focus on early years issues across sectors and funding streams. Foreign nationals who have a deep understanding of local contexts should be considered for these roles.

In the context of scarce resources, coordination and collaboration is more important than ever. The critical role of the USG Special Advisor for Children in Adversity should be formally transferred to the State Department to provide technical leadership and implementation support for children’s issues. Within the reorganized State Department, the Special Advisor should sit in the office of the Under Secretary for Foreign Assistance, Humanitarian Affairs and Religious Freedom (F), where s/he can serve as a leading voice for children and foster inter-agency coordination across the Departments of Agriculture and Labor, the Millennium Challenge Corporation, etc.

Congress also should seek clarification on how the new Special Envoy for Best Future Generations will contribute specifically to early childhood development. The State Department appointed the Special Envoy in June 2025 as a liaison for initiatives impacting the well-being of children under age 18 in the U.S. and globally. In the past three months, the Special Envoy has met with U.S. government officials at the White House and State Department, representatives from 14 countries at the U.N., and non-governmental organizations to discuss coordinated action on children’s issues, such as quality education, nutritious school meals, and ending child labor and trafficking.

Recommendation 3. Increase accountability and transparency for funds allocated for young children

Increased oversight over funds can improve efficiency, prevent delays, and reduce risks of funds expiring before they reach intended families. The required reporting on FY24 programs is overdue and should be submitted to Congress by the end of December 2025.

Going forward, Congress should require the State Department to report regularly and testify on how money is being spent on young children. Reporting should include evidence-based measures of Return on Investment (ROI) to help demonstrate the impact of early childhood programs. In addition, the Office of Foreign Assistance should issue a yearly report to Congress and to the public which tracks annual inter-agency progress toward implementing the Global Child Thrive Act using a set of indicators, including the approved pre-primary indicator and other relevant and feasible indicators across age groups, programs, and sectors.

Conclusion

Investing in young children’s growth and learning around the world strengthens economies, builds goodwill, and secures America’s position as a trusted global leader. To help reach U.S. foreign policy priorities, Congress must increase funding, staffing and accountability of the State Department’s efforts to promote early childhood development, while also strengthening multi-agency coordination and accountability for achieving results. The Global Child Thrive Act provides the legislative mandate and a technical roadmap for the U.S. Government to follow.

Frequently Asked Questions
What has been the impact of U.S. foreign assistance?

By investing only about 1% of the federal budget, USAID contributed to political stability, economic growth, and good will with partner countries. A new Lancet article estimates USAID funding saved 30 million children’s lives between 2001 and 2021 and was associated with a 32% reduction in under five deaths in low- and middle-income countries. In the past five years alone, funding supported the learning of 34 million children. USAID spending was heavily examined by the State Department, Congress, the Office of Management and Budget, and the Office of the Inspector General. Recent claims of waste, fraud, and abuse are inaccurate, exaggerated or taken out of context.

Do Americans support foreign assistance?

The public strongly supports many aspects of foreign assistance that benefit children. A recent Pew Research Study found that around 80% of Americans agreed that the U.S. should provide medicine and medical supplies, as well as food and clothing, to people in developing countries. In terms of political support, children’s programs are viewed favorably by lawmakers on both sides of the aisle. For example, the Global Child Thrive Act was introduced by Representatives Joaquin Castro (D-TX) and Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA) and Senators Roy Blunt (R-MO) and Christopher Coons (D-DE) and passed with bipartisan support from Congress.

AI Implementation is Essential Education Infrastructure

State education agencies (SEAs) are poised to deploy federal funding for artificial intelligence tools in K–12 schools. Yet, the nation risks repeating familiar implementation failures that have limited educational technology for more than a decade. The July 2025 Dear Colleague Letter from the U.S. Department of Education (ED) establishes a clear foundation for responsible artificial intelligence (AI) use, and the next step is ensuring these investments translate into measurable learning gains. The challenge is not defining innovation—it is implementing it effectively. To strengthen federal–state alignment, upcoming AI initiatives should include three practical measures: readiness assessments before fund distribution, outcomes-based contracting tied to student progress, and tiered implementation support reflecting district capacity. Embedding these standards within federal guidance—while allowing states bounded flexibility to adapt—will protect taxpayer investments, support educator success, and ensure AI tools deliver meaningful, scalable impact for all students.

Challenge and Opportunity

For more than a decade, education technology investments have failed to deliver meaningful results—not because of technological limitations, but because of poor implementation. Despite billions of dollars in federal and local spending on devices, software, and networks, student outcomes have shown only minimal improvement. In 2020 alone, K–12 districts spent over $35 billion on hardware, software, curriculum resources, and connectivity—a 25 percent increase from 2019, driven largely by pandemic-related remote learning needs. While these emergency investments were critical to maintaining access, they also set the stage for continued growth in educational technology spending in subsequent years. 

Districts that invest in professional development, technical assistance, and thoughtful integration planning consistently see stronger results, while those that approach technology as a one-time purchase do not. As the University of Washington notes, “strategic implementation can often be the difference between programs that fail and programs that create sustainable change.” Yet despite billions spent on educational technology over the past decade, student outcomes have remained largely unchanged—a reflection of systems investing in tools without building the capacity to understand their value, integrate them effectively, and use them to enhance learning. The result is telling: an estimated 65 percent of education software licenses go unused, and as Sarah Johnson pointed out in an EdWeek article, “edtech products are used by 5% of students at the dosage required to get an impact”.

Evaluation practices compound the problem. Too often, federal agencies measure adoption rates instead of student learning, leaving educators confused and taxpayers with little evidence of impact. As the CEO of the EdTech Evidence Exchange put it, poorly implemented programs “waste teacher time and energy and rob students of learning opportunities.” By tracking usage without outcomes, we perpetuate cycles of ineffective adoption, where the same mistakes resurface with each new wave of innovation.

Implementation Capacity is Foundational

A clear solution entails making implementation capacity the foundation of federal AI education funding initiatives. Other countries show the power of this approach. Singapore, Estonia, and Finland all require systematic teacher preparation, infrastructure equity, and outcome tracking before deploying new technologies, recognizing, as a Swedish edtech implementation study found, that access is necessary but not sufficient to achieve sustained use. These nations treat implementation preparation as essential infrastructure, not an optional add-on, and as a result, they achieve far better outcomes than market-driven, fragmented adoption models.

The United States can do the same. With only half of states currently offering AI literacy guidance, federal leadership can set guardrails while leaving states free to tailor solutions locally. Implementation-first policies would allow federal agencies to automate much of program evaluation by linking implementation data with existing student outcome measures, reducing administration burden and ensuring taxpayer investments translate into sustained learning improvements. 

The benefits would be transformational:

In short, implementation is not a secondary concern; it is the primary determinant of whether AI in education strengthens learning or repeats the costly failures of past ed-tech investments. Embedding implementation capacity reviews before large-scale rollout—focused on educator preparation, infrastructure adequacy, and support systems—would help districts identify strengths and gaps early. Paired with outcomes-based vendor contracts and tiered implementation support that reflects district capacity, this approach would protect taxpayer dollars while positioning the United States as a global leader in responsible AI integration.      

Plan of Action

AI education funding must shift to being both tool-focused and outcome-focused, reducing repeated implementation failures and ensuring that states and districts can successfully integrate AI tools in ways that strengthen teaching and learning. Federal guidance has made progress in identifying priority use cases for AI in education. With stronger alignment to state and local implementation capacity, investments can mitigate cycles of underutilized tools and wasted resources.

A hybrid approach is needed: federal agencies set clear expectations and provide resources for implementation, while states adapt and execute strategies tailored to local contexts. This model allows for consistency and accountability at the national level, while respecting state leadership.

Recommendation 1. Establish AI Education Implementation Standards Through Federal–State Partnership

To safeguard public investments and accelerate effective adoption, the Department of Education, working in partnership with state education agencies, should establish clear implementation standards that ensure readiness, capacity, and measurable outcomes. 

Recommendation 2. Develop a National AI Education Implementation Infrastructure

The U.S. Department of Education, in coordination with state agencies, should encourage a national infrastructure that helps and empowers states to build capacity, share promising practices, and align with national economic priorities.

Recommendation 3. Adopt Outcomes Based Contracting Standards for AI Education Procurement

The U.S. Department of Education should establish outcomes based contracting (OBC) as a preferred procurement model for federally supported AI education initiatives. This approach ties vendor payment directly to demonstrated student success, with at least 40% of contract value contingent on achieving agreed-upon outcomes, ensuring federal investments deliver measurable results rather than unused tools.

Recommendation 4. Pilot Before Scaling

To ensure responsible, scalable, and effective integration of AI in education, ED and SEAs should prioritize pilot testing before statewide adoption while building enabling conditions for long-term success.

Recommendation 5. Build a National AI Education Research & Development Network

To promote evidence-based practice, federal and state agencies should co-develop a coordinated research and development infrastructure that connects implementation data, policy learning to practice, and global collaboration.

Conclusion

The Department’s guidance on AI in education marks a pivotal step toward modernizing teaching and learning nationwide. To realize the promise of AI in education, funding should support both the acquisition of tools and the strategies that ensure their effective implementation. To realize its promise, we must shift from funding tools to funding effective implementation. Too often, technologies are purchased only to sit on the shelf while educators lack the support to integrate them meaningfully. International evidence shows that countries investing in teacher preparation and infrastructure before technology deployment achieve better outcomes and sustain them.

Early research also suggests that investments in professional development, infrastructure, and systems integration substantially increase the long-term impact of educational technology. Prioritizing these supports reduces waste and ensures federal dollars deliver measurable learning gains rather than unused tools. The choice before us is clear: continue the costly cycle of underused technologies or build the nation’s first sustainable model for AI in education—one that makes every dollar count, empowers educators, and delivers transformational improvements in student outcomes.

Frequently Asked Questions
Won’t implementation guidelines slow innovation and create more bureaucracy?

Clear implementation expectations don’t slow innovation—they make it sustainable. When systems know what effective implementation looks like, they can scale faster, reduce trial-and-error costs, and focus resources on what works to ultimately improve student outcomes.

Will these guidelines disadvantage high-need districts that lack infrastructure?

Quite the opposite. Implementation support is designed to build capacity where it’s needed most. Embedding training, planning, and technical assistance ensures every district, regardless of size or resources, can participate in innovation on an equal footing.

How do we ensure educators and school leaders actually use AI tools effectively?

AI education begins with people, not products. Implementation guidelines should help educators improve their existing skills to incorporate AI tools into instruction, offer access to relevant professional learning, and receive leadership support, so that AI enhances teaching and learning.

How will implementation quality be measured across different states and districts?

Implementation quality is multi-dimensional and may look different depending on local context. Common indicators could include: educator readiness and training, technical infrastructure, use of professional learning networks, integration of AI tools into instruction, and adherence to data governance protocols. While these metrics provide guidance, they are not exhaustive, and ED and SEAs will iteratively refine measures as research and best practices evolve. Transparent reporting on these indicators will help identify effective approaches, support continuous improvement, and build public trust.

Isn’t comprehensive implementation support too expensive?

Not when you look at the return. Billions are spent on tools that go underused or abandoned within a year. Investing in implementation is how we protect those investments and get measurable results for students.

What if states or districts resist these guidelines?

The goal isn’t to add red tape—it’s to create alignment. States can tailor standards to local priorities while still ensuring transparency and accountability. Early adopters can model success, helping others learn and adapt.