With changes at the federal level happening at breakneck speed, we’re here to help make sense of these changes—whether it’s concrete examples of what’s changing at the federal level and for states, responses and ideas from the field, or things our organization and others are exploring. To accomplish this, we’re periodically bringing you our thoughts on the most salient conversations happening as people work to navigate the current education and workforce field of play.
We’re writing this column together to combine our perspectives: Jenn’s expertise comes from decades of education leadership experience at all levels, from the classroom to the district and federal levels, while Paige brings almost two decades working on state and federal education data policy and issues.
President Trump recently removed the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Commissioner after an unfavorable August jobs report. While you’ve already seen the news, we want to use this space to dig into why it matters. The announcement, coupled with the systematic unraveling of research and evidence capacity across the federal government, is concerning on its face—but it also deeply impacts the ability of states to continue their efforts to improve education and workforce data.
No one uses data they don’t trust. A major benefit of agencies like the BLS is their independent nature and the transparency they promote—all of which builds trust in the data they publish. As federal agencies work with states to collect and publish education and workforce data, these numbers can sometimes be grim (as with COVID or an economic downturn), but leaders can’t solve problems they can’t see. This information is still a good indicator of our progress toward a solution and leaders must use it to understand how to move forward, even when it doesn’t reflect what leaders want to be true.
While these changes are happening at the federal level, federal jobs data originates in states. States collect this data through a series of surveys, calculate important indicators like unemployment rate, and share it with federal statisticians who use this information to produce analyses like the Monthly Jobs Report. This nonpartisan process is standardized across states to ensure that unemployment rates in California tell the public the same thing as unemployment rates in Florida.
What we’re watching: Historically, BLS supports states in this process by providing training on how to collect and analyze the data, encouraging uniform data collection, ensuring comparability across states, setting the process and timeline for data collection, and bringing states together to collaborate. Many states also integrate this data (e.g., unemployment insurance wage data) into their statewide longitudinal data systems to support workforce decisionmaking. Together, all of these steps mean that individuals, employers, and state and local leaders can all understand the state of jobs and the economy. And this information is crucial for state and local economies as leaders and employers use it to make decisions.
Workforce data, like unemployment and wage information, is part of a robust state data ecosystem. But if states can’t access it or can’t trust the information being shared, they can no longer use it to make decisions that ensure that individuals can navigate their own pathways through the workforce or build and sustain pathways through education and employment that work for people.
Part of the process of creating and improving jobs numbers includes frequent revisions—which is a good, normal step that is critical to producing actionable and trusted data. Putting data out in the sunshine is critical to improving the data itself. It enables states and the public to see it and use it, and point out any inconsistencies or new information that should be included. These revisions are an integral part of the process; they build trust and allow users to work together to ensure that they are reporting and receiving good data and that state and local data is accurate.
Coupled with uncertainty at the federal level, including questions about whether states will continue to receive critical federal funding, sweeping changes to workforce data could jeopardize how leaders can collect and use it at the state level. While the president absolutely has the authority to make staff changes, removing the country’s chief jobs statistician on the heels of a poor jobs report isn’t a staff change—it’s another step in a pattern of minimizing the federal role for data. And states can’t afford to lose out on quality workforce data as a result.
