Building a replacement for NCES

In search of independence and sustainability

(This post continues the argument I began earlier this week)

No longer able to rely on a politically vulnerable federal agency, there is an opportunity to establish an independent entity to fulfill NCES’s important mission and functions. Fortunately, we don’t have to start from scratch. An update and enhancement of the NCES model can lay the groundwork for establishing a cooperative interstate research institution.

America’s education data should be collected and housed in an independent, state-backed, and publicly accessible institution that ensures reliability and trust without being subject to the whims of special interests, short-sighted politicians, and ideologues.

In a recent Substack post, I outlined three principles that should guide government data collection and reporting: transparency, clarity, and accessibility. These principles are not just abstract ideals—they are necessary for ensuring that public data remains useful, reliable, and available to those who need it most. This is what I wrote:

Transparency – The public should know what data exist and how they are collected. When data disappear, the government operates behind a curtain, making it harder to hold public officials and agencies accountable.

Clarity – Even when data are publicly available, the information must be structured, standardized, and as easy as possible to understand and interpret. The lack of clear communication regarding recent removals has caused confusion among researchers and policymakers, underscoring the importance of transparency and clarity in managing and reporting federal data.

Accessibility – A growing concern as some government datasets have fallen behind mounting online firewalls or administrative hurdles. When government data are removed or locked away, the American public loses one of its most powerful tools for decision-making and accountability.

I have two more founding principles: Cooperation and Comparability.

A robust education data infrastructure depends on cooperation with school districts and schools, local and state government agencies, as well as the private sector, businesses, and researchers. When organizations and institutions who collect education information and data fail to share or coordinate effectively, or operate in silos, then gaps surface that weaken overall usefulness.

Strong partnerships ensure that education data remain comprehensive, accurate, and actionable. When education surveys and data are removed, locked away, or simply lost, the American public loses one of its most powerful assets and resources for informed planning, goal-setting, decision-making, evaluation, and accountability.

What do I mean by “comparability?” Education data must enable meaningful comparisons across states, districts, schools, and time periods. Without common measures and consistent methods, we lose the ability to identify patterns, spot outliers, and understand what works in different contexts. The value of education data accelerates when stakeholders can make apples-to-apples comparisons—enabling policymakers, educators, and families to learn from observations and experiences beyond their immediate environments.

Comparability is one of NCES's most underappreciated contributions, and it is essential for a new research institution. Comparability can serve as a powerful mechanism for mutual assessment and improvement. Without it, we risk retreating into 50 disconnected data ecosystems where inequities can find hideouts and innovations might only spread to state lines. When states can see clearly how their educational outcomes compare to others, that creates a natural incentive structure (i.e. competition) for improvement that transcends politics. Without adhering to this comparability principle, states can operate in isolation, have less transparency, and potentially mask challenges or miss opportunities that would be obvious through cross-state comparison. Comparability helps parents, teachers, and taxpayers hold public leaders and politicians accountable to evidence rather than rhetoric.

Establishing a New Kind of Public Institution

What’s needed now isn’t just a replacement for NCES—it’s a new kind of public institution. One that’s independent of federal control, yet collaborative among states and accountable to the public. Its structure should be more like a public-purpose nonprofit or interstate compact than a conventional government agency.

This organization would preserve what worked best in NCES—its rigorous standards, longitudinal scope, and national comparability—while shedding the bureaucratic sluggishness and political exposure that helped lead to its collapse. It would be state-led in governance, but open to federal funding support, and operationally protected from short-term political interference. Leadership would be nonpartisan, term-limited, and accountable to a governing board representing states, education researchers, and public interest stakeholders.

There is precedent for this kind of institution. The health care sector’s All-Payer Claims Databases (APCDs) offer a useful analogy: independently run by states, coordinated through nonprofit alliances, and supported with federal incentives. The education sector needs its own version—an infrastructure for secure, transparent, and high-quality data collection that serves national interests while rooted in local leadership. This structure would allow the new entity to rebuild trust, modernize systems, and ensure continuity across political transitions.

With that in mind, a hybrid funding model can provide both the initial capital and ongoing sustainability this kind of organization requires.

A More Resilient and Sustainable Future for Education Research and Data

Building a new institution to fill the void left by NCES will require significant cooperation among state governments and substantial financial commitments – ideally from a range of sources.

What can this look like? A successful transition to a new, independent, 50-state education research and data association depends on states working together to ensure consistency, reliability, and comprehensive coverage. Fortunately, we have examples of organizations already facilitating interstate cooperation and can have important roles in structuring and sustaining this effort:

· National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL): A bipartisan organization that supports state lawmakers with networking and formal and informal information sharing to support effective policies. NCSL can help states coordinate legislative efforts to establish and fund a shared education data infrastructure.

· National Governors Association (NGA): As a coalition of the nation’s governors, NGA can provide leadership in advocating for state-driven solutions and ensure governors prioritize education research and data as part of their policy agendas.

· Council of State Governments (CSG): Focused on multi-state policy initiatives, CSG can facilitate policymaking that ensures education research and data are interoperable across states.

· Education Commission of the States (ECS): With expertise in policy research and data analysis, ECS can help states design frameworks for research and data governance and use, promoting transparency and accessibility.

· State Higher Education Executive Officers Association (SHEEO): Representing state higher education agencies, SHEEO can ensure that postsecondary data collection remains robust and aligned with workforce pathways and economic development needs.

Working with these established organizations, and advancing trust and cooperation among states, we can build an education data infrastructure that is independent, resilient, and responsive to policymakers, researchers, advocates, and the public.

The financial architecture of a new education data institution must transcend the vulnerability of single-source funding and authority that contributed to NCES's collapse. Rather than relying exclusively on federal appropriations, a diversified funding model should create both stability and accountability.

If the federal government no longer wants to collect and report education data, and prefers to send funds to states, then it can establish a State Education Data Block Grant. This approach aligns with federalist principles while recognizing that a 50-state resource requires national investment. Redirecting even 50% of current NCES funding (approx.. $150 million) in this way would establish the foundation for a state-led consortium.

State participation represents the model's cornerstone, with approximately 30% of funding sourced through interstate agreements. This investment structure gives states meaningful governance authority while preserving the national comparability that makes education data most useful. Working through NCSL and NGA, states can co-fund data collection, ensuring nationwide coverage while maintaining state-level guidance and flexibility.

Philanthropic involvement has historically advanced education data innovation when government structures proved too rigid. Large foundations like the Walton Family Foundation, Gates Foundation, Stand Together Trust, Lumina Foundation, Carnegie Corporation, and Pew Charitable Trusts could contribute roughly 10% in targeted support, particularly during the transition period, without gaining undue influence over public information.

Finally, a fee-for-service component (approximately 10%) would create responsiveness to end users—school districts, school networks, universities, researchers, and education organizations that require specialized or customized analyses. This market-responsive element ensures the new institution remains focused on delivering actionable data collection and research rather than collecting data for its own sake.

This hybrid approach isn't merely about replacing lost dollars—it represents a fundamentally different relationship between data producers and users, one that balances independence with responsiveness.

Human Capital for Building Solid Infrastructure

I agree with Woodworth and Schneider that NCES was vulnerable because of too much contracting. It seems that NCES outsourced a lot of its work in a desire to appear efficient and keep headcount down. But that approach probably raised costs unsustainably in the end. It might have hurt productivity and timeliness as well.

If it is feasible, having a dedicated and more immediately accountable in-house staff is the way to go. An interstate organization could be a place to house them and ensure more real-time communication and coordination and longer-term continuity, institutional knowledge, and experience sharing.

A crucial part of building a new education data infrastructure is recognizing the skills, expertise, and knowledge held by those who have worked within NCES over the years. Before fully launching a new independent organization, a first step should be to conduct surveys or interviews with current and former NCES staff, as well as contractors – who have been important research partners. Their insights will be invaluable for assessing research programs’ costs-benefits and the returns on time, dollars, and resources. They will have unique perspective on the value-add work, process challenges, and those operational must-have’s and should-not-have’s. Their feedback and input, and perhaps direct involvement, can help shape a more effective organization.

The Path Forward

The overarching purpose here is to stimulate discussion, invite constructive input, and take stock of substantial agreements and disagreements. We can then refine the idea for a new independent 50-state institution that can sustain the critical mission, scope, and functions of NCES, and its previous iteration as the Bureau of Education – a vital American resource we have had for more than 150 years. While the specifics of planning and implementation may evolve, the core principles and mission should stand firm and be clear: establishing a nonpartisan, reliable, responsive, and sustainable intermediary organization to advance education research, data collection, and reporting to inform public policymaking for all the U.S. states and territories.

If there is a silver lining coming out of the chaos and upheaval in recent months, it may be that there are powerful, existing social networks with people and organizations possessing a wide range of experiences, skills, knowledge, and expertise capable of building a new interstate education data infrastructure. A huge challenge – but not an insurmountable one – is rallying the necessary political, philanthropic, and institutional support to ensure an effective transition and launch.

Six months ago it was unthinkable that NCES and its core functions and activities would be wrecked in the ways we have seen in recently. This is a wake-up call for those who value informed policymaking and informed education markets. In the short term, the dust still has to settle in order for us to understand what has been lost and disrupted. But it’s likely that if we do nothing in the coming months the consequences will be felt for years, if not for a generation of students.

If we plan and act soon, we have the opportunity to build the roads, bridges, and networks for a stronger, more resilient, and more independent education data infrastructure. This new interstate organization will inform public officials, schools, teachers, and media—helping help us better serve America's students and families.