Over the last year, the Pell Institute published a series of blog posts (available here, here, here, and here) detailing the consequences of the cancellation of data-collection contracts and staffing reductions at the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). Since then, a lot has changed, including my situation, where I moved from NCES to serve as the Vice President of Research and Director of the Pell Institute. While NCES has stabilized after last year’s disruptions, critical gaps remain, and decisions made over the next several years will determine whether the nation’s education data infrastructure recovers. The purpose of this blog post is to update the community on the state of data collections at NCES, proposals for NCES’ future, and what to expect in the coming years.
NCES is Still Active and Adjusting to the New Reality
Immediately following the reduction in force, most activities within NCES were suspended except for the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) and the National Assessment for Educational Progress (NAEP). However, even NAEP was not immune to cuts. Products that education researchers and the Pell Institute rely on, such as the Digest of Education Statistics, weren’t updated. For the first time in its history, NCES missed a statutorily mandated delivery date for the Condition of Education report. Most of the sample surveys were canceled and have not been restored.
Since then, NCES has hired back some staff (about a dozen) and maintained some statutorily mandated data collections. IPEDS continued to release data, though researchers have been cautious about data quality. At the Student Financial Aid Research Network Conference this last month, it was announced that the 2024 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study is scheduled for release in the winter of 2027, and data tools have been updated to reflect the release of studies that were nearly complete at the time of the layoffs. Recently, the Digest just started releasing tables from 2023-24. New contracts were also issued for IPEDS, NPSAS:28, and the 2028 Baccalaureate and Beyond Longitudinal Study (which is the only way for the Department to examine post-college outcomes as required in the Higher Education Act). And some NAEP tests were restored.
Key data products, however, remain canceled and unavailable. Canceled studies, products, and tools impacting the Pell Institute and those that study higher education include the:
- College Navigator
- Career/Technical Education Statistics Program
- Education at a Glance (with OECD)
- High School Longitudinal Study of 2009,
- High School & Beyond Longitudinal Study of 2022,
- International Data Explorer
- Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study,
- National Household Education Survey
- National Training, Education, and Workforce Survey
- National Postsecondary Education Cooperative
- Postsecondary Education Transcript Collection
- Program for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC)
- Projections of Education Statistics
- Statewide Longitudinal Data Systems Grant Program
The lack of curated data hindered our ability to produce the 2026 edition of the Indicators of Higher Education Equity in the United States report, requiring additional analysis or the identification of new data sources.
Department of Education Issues Report on Reimagining the Institute of Education Sciences (IES)
While some core functions have resumed, questions about the agency’s long-term direction remain unresolved. This past February, the Department released a report on Reimagining IES. While NCES was largely a secondary concern, the report repeated recommendations from past reports (such as one put out by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine before the cuts) and identified problems that were already being addressed until funds and staff were cut (e.g., data modernization; data integration with other federal agencies; standardized data sharing agreements with SEAs and LEAs, etc.). The report also seemed fixated on longitudinal studies (largely because of their cost), claiming they were “duplicative” and that administrative data were less expensive. Unfortunately, the recommended solutions focused on processes rather than starting with the questions that needed to be answered. Policymakers should first identify the questions they need answered and then determine the best data source. Administrative records can answer some questions efficiently, but they cannot replace all survey and longitudinal research.
Members of the Community are Coming Together
In response, researchers, foundations, and policy organizations have begun developing their own visions for the future of federal education statistics. While there are a host of groups and foundations working to improve national data collections, I focus on two I have personally been involved with. The American Statistical Association, with support from the Lumina Foundation, for example, has tracked key developments and continues to meet with key constituencies to ensure that the future of NCES remains at the forefront. The Institute for Higher Education Policy launched a task force, NCES Next, to produce papers to inform NCES’s future priorities. The goal is to document ideas for moving forward, so that a blueprint is available if and when the federal government rebuilds education statistics.
With the reduction in studies, both federal policymakers and those outside of government who depend on the data will begin to understand the gap in what we need to know to improve our education system. Soon, an opportunity will arise to create an improved system that can meet the data needs of the next generation. Until then, we need to generate ideas about what this new future will look like.