You’d have to be living under a rock to have missed the sharp uptick in anti-edtech headlines over the last few months.

In March, Fortune led with "America’s math and reading scores tanked after schools ditched textbooks for screens—and AI could worsen the brain rot.” Earlier this month, Chalkbeat titled a story “The AI rebellion grows in NYC: Over 100 New Yorkers demand moratorium on AI use in schools at marathon board meeting.” This week, NBC News’ Tyler Kingkade published "The revolt against i-Ready,” a tour of parent, teacher, and student backlash against an assessment and instruction platform that is used in nearly a third of K-12 classrooms in the country.

The tone is reaching a fever pitch.

Altair Maine, an LA high school teacher, claimed tech was turning him into a "glorified babysitter" of "kids staring at Chromebooks." Ward Wooden, a 14-year-old in Los Angeles: "I'm losing brain cells every time I do a lesson." Ward’s father, John Allen Wooden describes what he views as a tech "stranglehold on U.S. classrooms."

Although the headlines paint a binary picture, read more of the underlying interviews and a different story emerges. Neuroscientist Jared Cooney Horvath, in the same Fortune piece, added: "This is not a debate about rejecting technology. It is a question of aligning educational tools with how human learning actually works." And Julia Nasef, the student member of the NYC panel, told her colleagues that many of her peers find AI helpful when used "intentionally"—urging the adults in the room to "support clear, student-centered guidelines for AI implementation." 

Headlines notwithstanding, this is the work of serious journalists and researchers trying to get it right. But the headlines are emblematic of an assumption that has dogged the edtech conversation for decades: that technology in school is one “thing,” and that we should decide, all-or-nothing, whether it belongs. In reality, tech in the classroom serves a multiplicity of purposes.

Although using tech to deliver content is arguably the least interesting application, it is often the highest profile. Tech can also enable high-volume, low-stakes repetition to build fluency with, say, “math facts,” vocabulary, or other rote skills (that students sometimes find maddening). Amidst the tumult, diagnostic and other attributes are often lost in the mix.

In some cases, adaptive (and increasingly AI-enabled) tools can help to surface patterns that a teacher with 32 students and a six-hour day might not be able to see on their own. Teletherapy can connect learners with speech language pathologists or mental health professionals and increasingly advanced speech recognition can actually “listen” as students read aloud, measure fluency or help to identify dyslexia or emergent reading difficulties.

As I have written in the past, the edtech industry is often its own worst enemy, but there’s a risk that with the sort of backlash Kingkade chronicles, the most promising innovations become the proverbial babies in the bathwater.

One promising structural innovation comes in the form of outcomes-based contracting (OBC). It's not a new concept, but is gaining traction thanks to the work of the Center for Outcomes Based Contracting, which advocates for tying a share of vendor payment to whether the tool actually delivers under defined conditions—dosage, population, baseline data, target outcomes, all spelled out up front. 

A March report from Digital Promise studying the Center's first edtech cohort found that districts using OBCs saw students hit prescribed dosage at rates roughly 14 times the industry baseline, with one district reaching 95% under an Amira Learning contract. The point isn't the contract mechanics. It's what the mechanics force: both sides specifying the job the tool is being hired to do, the conditions under which it can plausibly do it, and the evidence that will determine whether it did. That is the discipline the field has been missing.

Which brings me to an often-told story in the world of tech.

In 1997, Garry Kasparov famously lost to IBM's Deep Blue and, instead of retreating, invented "Advanced Chess": human-plus-machine pairs competing against other pairs. The result was the finding that amateurs with modest laptops and a disciplined process consistently beat a grandmaster with a computer who lacked one.

The lesson is not that the machine wins. The lesson is that the interface between the human and the machine—the workflow, the judgment, the dosage—is where the value lives.

That is the conversation that edtech headlines have yet to convey. The question is not whether technology belongs in classrooms. The real questions are which uses, in what doses, with what professional learning, and under what diagnostic discipline. 

We will not answer them by banning adaptive tools and AI, and we will not answer them by deploying it everywhere because a vendor said so. We will answer them the way Kasparov did: by building the workflow first, and letting the tool serve it.

The throughline of Jenna Conway's career is a simple conviction: Real change in education starts with the people those systems are meant to serve.

It's a lesson she learned coordinating New York City's 9/11 response, carried through nearly 15 years leading state education agencies, and brought with her when she was appointed Virginia's Superintendent of Public Instruction in 2026.

We sat down with Superintendent Conway to learn more about what she heard on her Commonwealth Listening Tour, how Virginia is raising the bar on accountability, and what it means to build an education system that works for every learner.

States are investing billions in school choice, but too many families still can't find, understand, or act on their options. Oklahoma decided to fix that. In partnership with GreatSchools, the state launched the Oklahoma School Choice Hub: a first-of-its-kind, AI-powered destination where families can explore all their options, understand available funding, and find the right fit for their child.

Join Oklahoma Secretary of Education Daniel Hamlin and GreatSchools CEO Jon Deane for a behind-the-scenes look at how the hub was built, what it's already delivering for families, and what it would take to launch a hub in your state.

🗓️ Wednesday, May 27, 2026 at 3 p.m. ET / Noon PT

The national conversation about screens in classrooms has moved from debate to policy—and fast. In 2026 alone, six states have enacted screen time legislation, alongside LAUSD, and a wave of additional bills have advanced, stalled, or died in committee. For organizations working in K-12, the pace and variation across states creates real complexity.

Here is what has actually happened this session, what didn't make it, and what it means.

Six states enacted screen time-related legislation this session. The approaches vary significantly, from hard daily caps to model policy frameworks to study commissions, and so do the protections built in for students with disabilities.

The most consequential distinction: Iowa, Tennessee, and Utah all include explicit carve-outs protecting technology use required by a student's IEP or 504 plan. Alabama and Virginia do not. That gap matters for districts navigating IDEA compliance alongside new screen time requirements.

Several higher-profile bills, including some with harder caps, did not advance this session. However, Missouri is worth watching in 2027. The bill had broad bipartisan House support (143-10) and an organized Senate substitute ready—it just ran out of time.

LAUSD became the first major U.S. district to formally adopt classroom screen time limits, with a 6-0 board vote on April 22, 2026. The resolution restricts district-issued devices for early education through 1st grade, sets limits by grade for older students, and bars student-led use of platforms like YouTube on district devices. A full implementation policy is due to the board in June 2026.

The LAUSD resolution explicitly directs the district to consider a student's disability category when establishing screen time guardrails—a model other districts and states would do well to adopt proactively.

The 2026 legislative wave reflects a clear direction: states are moving from awareness to action on classroom screen time, and more will follow in 2027 regardless of how pending bills are resolved. The dominant models fall into three categories: hard daily caps (Iowa, Tennessee), state board-driven model policy frameworks (Utah), and local board-driven policies (Missouri's approach, if it had passed).

A few things the policy landscape makes clear:

W/A is tracking screen time legislation, cell phone bans, and youth tech policy in real time across all 50 states and major districts.

W/A Research Insights subscribers get access to our Tableau-powered screentime tracker, updated daily, along with cross-cutting coverage of youth tech and K-12policy. You can also access our public-facing tracker here.

To become a W/A Research subscriber or request a demo, reach out to Hillary Rinaldi.

The fourth annual Solutions Summit, co-hosted by Whiteboard Advisors and ISTE+ASCD, takes place Sunday, June 28 in Orlando, Florida, ahead of the co-located ISTELive and ASCD Annual Conference—bringing together education executives, product leaders, philanthropists, and entrepreneurs committed to driving meaningful innovation in teaching and learning. 

This year's programming will look at where AI in education is actually headed (with a keynote on reimagining human connection in the age of AI), feature candid conversations on product impact (including how to talk about evidence with education leaders and an evidence hackathon), and examine the market signals shaping the next era of edtech—funding shifts, compliance pressures, outcomes-based contracting, and what's emerging beyond the U.S. market. 

In his 2026 State of the State, Gov. Gavin Newsom positioned California as proof that sustained public investment in education delivers results. His revised FY2026-27 budget proposal tells a more complicated story:

Gov. Newsom's revised budget would defer $3.9 billion in school funding. This is a concession, down from his initial proposed deferral of $5.6 billion. A broad coalition of education groups, including the teachers unions and school administrative association, have spent months campaigning against the plan, and Democratic lawmakers in both chambers had called for full funding. The California School Boards Association is threatening to sue. LAUSD, which is counting on state support to honor $1.2 billion in new labor contracts, is among the districts most exposed to this deferment, especially in light of anticipated enrollment declines. Newsom used a similar maneuver last year, withholding $1.9 billion, which he has proposed to repay in 2026-27, pending final budget negotiations.

Bright spots: Gov. Newsom’s revised budget includes $2.4 billion in new special education funding, a $1 billion community schools expansion, a $5 billion discretionary block grant, and 14 weeks of paid pregnancy leave for teachers.

What to watch: Budget negotiations run through late June. The outcome will test whether Newsom's sustained-investment narrative survives contact with a structural deficit, as well as whether the special education and teacher benefit proposals soften the political fallout from the deferral. [POLITICO Pro, subscription model]

According to the National College Attainment Network (NCAN), the high school Class of 2026 has set an all-time high completion rate for the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA). As of May 1, more than half (54.7%) of seniors nationwide completed the form—approximately two months earlier in the year than when the previous record was set by the Class of 2018. [Inside Higher Ed]

Improvements to the FAFSA filing process are driving these gains. Changes like instant verification of StudentAid.gov accounts allows students and families to get started on the FAFSA more quickly, and counselors to provide assistance in one sitting, rather than over multiple days. And after two years of delayed launches that truncated students’ filing timeline, the 2026-27 FAFSA was the program’s earliest opening in history.

“‘Record high’ for FAFSA completion is something the field has waited a long time to hear. We’re two months from the June 30 milestone and only time will tell how high the new bar will be for the Class of 2027 to meet,” said Bill DeBaun, senior director of data and strategic initiatives at NCAN. “It’s great news for students and families benefiting from a speedier, simpler, smoother FAFSA, but it’s also a welcome sign for the higher education sector. Given the historic association between FAFSA completion and immediate college enrollment, it’s a hopeful signal for institutions and campuses this fall and beyond.”

Check out W/A Jobs, which features 4,021 career opportunities from 318 organizations across the education industry. A few roles that caught our eye over the past week:

Last week, our field lost two influential individuals who dedicated their careers to expanding opportunity and access in education. We honor their contributions and extend our condolences to their families, friends, and colleagues.

On May 8, Ronald “Ron” Davies died peacefully in his home in Chicago, IL. Davies was a veteran edtech investor through Chicago Growth Partners, and stewarded companies including Teaching Strategies, eInstruction, and Heggerty. He was an inspirational leader and mentor who cared deeply about students and outcomes. He was 64 years old.

Also on May 8, Dr. Becky Takeda-Tinker died at UC Health Highlands Ranch in Denver, CO surrounded by family. Dr. Takeda-Tinker retired from the Colorado State University (CSU) System, where she served as founding president and CEO of CSU Global, just one week prior to her death. She leaves behind a legacy of advancing opportunity for all learners. She was 63 years old.