Federal Government Help Needed for Public Data

In my work supporting education agencies with their data governance, I talk to staff members at statewide longitudinal data systems (SLDSs) every day about their barriers to data and technology innovation. I hear the same pain points that Claire McKay Bowen cites in “The Future of Public Data Lies in the States” (Issues, Spring 2026): insufficient staffing and technical capacity, often due to scarce funding; lack of legal and regulatory guidance; and systemic differences around process and governance. The author is correct in her assessment that the states alone cannot remedy these issues; they need coordination across siloes, funding for more staffing, and technical assistance support.

Though not a panacea, the federal government can help increase public data use in a few, specifically targeted ways. As Bowen cites, there is a fantastic group of research organizations, technical assistance providers, national associations, and philanthropies working alongside SLDSs. They build technical assistance tools, set best practices for SLDS infrastructure, and share practical insights on modernization. However, there are certain “carrots” or “sticks” that only the federal government can wield to truly move the needle on a large scale.

First, the government can provide legal and regulatory guidance on approved data uses. As Bowen notes, inconsistent or nonexistent legal precedents for innovative data activities, such as her synthetic data work with Nebraska, are at best time-consuming barriers to data innovation and at worst blockades that stop attempts at modernization in their tracks. Last year, I hosted a privacy technology legal convening for SLDSs, and we ended with more questions than answers. What does the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act say about synthetic data—is it considered a “disclosure” or “de-identified” data? The answer is, it depends (on the lawyer you ask). We need a regulatory body—whether the Department of Education’s Privacy Technical Assistance Center, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, or some other—to draw consensus around allowable uses of innovative data privacy techniques.

Second, the federal government could provide more direct support to SLDSs. It does provide some through the SLDS Grant Program at the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), but not every SLDS has the time or resources to apply each cycle. Most of them rely on state funds for major maintenance costs and a small portion of federal funds for short-term investments, such as piloting new technologies. In an ideal world, the government could provide yearly block grants for SLDSs for general data modernization efforts, so the systems can account for these in their sustainability plans. It also would be helpful for government to reinstate several recently eliminated SLDS programs (e.g., the NCES’s State Support Team, which provided free, on-demand technical assistance) and to maintain and expand existing programs (e.g., via the AEM Corporation, the EdFacts initiative, and the Regional Educational Laboratories).

These actions would help reduce the burden on the various stakeholders that now help undergird SLDSs. Their support can be transformative, but they can do only so much. And I, like Bowen, would hate to see a widening inequality gap across states simply due to lack of resources.

Changes to how the federal government supports data and evidence-building have led many people to wonder what this means for states, as Claire McKay Bowen explores in her essay. Without relying on historical levels of federal support, can states continue to produce the education and workforce data that leaders need to make decisions that benefit students and workers across the country? Fortunately, the answer is a resounding yes.

For 20 years, the Data Quality Campaign has advocated to ensure that data work for people. We’ve seen funding for and attention to state data systems ebb and flow. A year ago, the data landscape was full of uncertainty. While the US Department of Education (DOE) has taken steps to share how its leaders are rethinking the federal role in research, it’s clearer than ever that states are leading the way on data.

States are currently navigating a unique set of conditions that impact their ability to move the needle on data. The role of the federal government, long a source of comparable national data and investments in state data systems, is in flux. Additionally, 36 states will hold gubernatorial elections in 2026, many of them amid uncertain budget outlooks.

Despite these challenges, states are making meaningful investments in education and workforce data systems, policy, and leadership. A record number of states have passed robust cross-agency data governance laws, ensuring that their data systems are governed transparently, securely, and sustainably—and that these systems enable access to data for individuals and policymakers alike.

As states implement the DOE’s new Workforce Pell Grant program and streamline postsecondary admissions, data are not a background concern. They are the necessary foundation of evidence that equips leaders with shared tools for secure data access and powerful action.

States already collect most of the data about people that gets rolled up to become federal data, such as the jobs numbers that people count on to understand the state of the US economy. They do it responsibly and well. But the federal government can’t completely relinquish its role in pulling together and sharing comparable data across states. Resources such as the DOE’s EdFacts initiative and the National Center for Education Statistics’s Integrated Postsecondary Education Data Systems are not redundant with what states collect; they help make state data actionable at a national scale.

States also benefit greatly in their data work from federal grant programs, namely the Statewide Longitudinal Data System and Workforce Data Quality Initiative grants. Despite proposed federal-level budget cuts to both programs, Congress voted to maintain their funding. This federal support is critical.

While states do need support to ensure robust access to data, many of them are committed to building or expanding their education and workforce data systems. This momentum makes clear that, with continued federal support, states will continue to lead the way on data.