In a rapidly shifting federal K–12 education policy landscape, state and local data systems are becoming increasingly important. For philanthropy that invests in K–12 education, relies on data to identify needs and inequities, and partners with institutions that support young people, families, schools, communities, and policy change, this raises urgent questions: What do these changes mean for our work? And how can we move beyond reactive responses to help build data systems that are resilient, adaptable, and equipped to collect and use data equitably?
These changes have significant implications. When data on students with disabilities, English language learners, or students of color are no longer collected or disaggregated, those students become less visible to policymakers and the public. Protecting data is not just a technical exercise; it is essential for identifying differences and informing decisions that can help ensure all students’ needs are met.
To better understand the challenges and their effects, the Urban Institute and The Skillman Foundation facilitated a cross-sector working group of representatives from Michigan state agencies, universities, nonprofits, and school districts. The group convened in August 2025 and met regularly through spring of 2026. It created its own charge and time-bound goals: understand what data are at risk, identify what matters most, and create resources that stakeholders could use in their own roles.
Over six facilitated sessions, participants examined Michigan’s education data infrastructure. They explored how federal funding, operations, and requirements, particularly those tied to civil rights, special education, and accountability, interact with state law and local data use. They also assessed how legislative changes and administrative constraints affect the availability, continuity, and quality of data over time.
The working group’s approach and lessons learned offer insights for foundations seeking to strengthen education data systems and fill K–12 data gaps during this period of change and uncertainty.
How to assess K–12 education data risks
One of the group’s most important early insights was that not all data are equal. Though Michigan collects a wide range of education data, only a subset of indicators are both essential for advancing equity and vulnerable in the current policy environment. For example, the US Department of Education recently removed its regulations under Title VI to eliminate disparate impact which previously relied on demographic data to establish federal civil rights violations. These indicators make it possible to compare outcomes across schools, districts, cities, and local geographies to help policymakers and stakeholders identify where students may need additional interventions, resources, and supports.
Step 1: Identify priority indicators
To determine which data are essential to their work, the group reviewed publications from education organizations across the state, drew on their own expertise, and developed a set of 121 priority indicators used to monitor student outcomes. These indicators spanned areas including special education and civil rights, discipline and school climate, English language learner outcomes, and postsecondary access and readiness.
Within these categories, certain indicators stood out as both critical and at risk. These included differences in special education identification, discipline rates disaggregated by student characteristics, and FAFSA (Free Application for Federal Student Aid) completion rates. The group considered an indicator vulnerable when its collection, reporting, or public availability depended primarily on federal requirements rather than explicit state protections.
Step 2: Link priority indicators to federal and state risk
The group’s analysis of Michigan’s statutory framework revealed a key vulnerability: Though the state has the authority to collect education data, federal law—not state statute—requires much of the detailed and equity-relevant data collection. This means that if federal reporting requirements change, the state may lose access to key data without state legislative action to preserve them. Combined with frequent changes to state reporting requirements, this creates a system that is both vulnerable to disruption and difficult to use for long-term analysis. These vulnerabilities affect many student populations, including students with disabilities.
Lessons for foundations seeking to protect K–12 education data
This working group offers a few practical best practices for designing and facilitating a similar model.
- Determine a focus for the group at the outset. Narrowing the work to a specific problem, rather than “data systems” broadly, helps participants align and produce usable outputs. Focus also helps determine which stakeholder groups should have a seat at the table, ensuring the right people and diverse perspectives are represented. In this case, focus was also what helped the group create its initial governance document with clearly defined roles, objectives, and timelines.
- Structure the group mindful of power balances and capacity and add additional expertise as necessary. Dedicated external facilitation and project management, with clear deliverables and a defined timeline, allowed participants to move beyond general discussion and produce concrete deliverables. They developed priority indicators aligned with equity and vulnerability, a state-level analysis of statutory gaps and risks, a federal analysis of policy dependencies and potential changes, and communications tools to help stakeholders explain why these issues matter. The diversity of expertise and perspective among participants helped to identify the need for external consultative support to move the work forward.
- Set time limits, but remain flexible. Cross-sector groups are most effective when they are facilitated, time-bound with some flexibility, and oriented toward clear deliverables. That said, some amount of flexibility in timeline is required. Although we had a timeline, things took longer than expected because this work was happening amid budget and policy cycles, and we discovered the deeper complexity of the analysis.
- Create different participation options. To ensure that as many stakeholders as possible are represented in the working group, it is important to accept participants from a range of sectors regardless of how much time they can commit. Some local district partners could not participate consistently, but maintaining communication helped ensure they stayed informed and could provide input when they were able.
As federal and state policy landscapes continue to evolve, the need for proactive, coordinated approaches to protecting K–12 education data will only grow. Foundations are well positioned to play a catalytic role, not by owning the work indefinitely, but by creating the conditions for alignment, clarity, and action across diverse stakeholders.
Let’s help communities build more secure, hopeful futures.
Today’s complex challenges demand smarter solutions. Urban brings decades of expertise to understanding the forces shaping people’s lives and the systems that support them. With rigorous analysis and hands-on guidance, we help leaders across the country design, test, and scale solutions that build pathways for greater opportunity.
Your support makes this possible.
