When we started Whiteboard Notes more than a decade ago, we were thrilled to serve a small, but loyal, group of W/A clients, friends, and family. Today, “Notes” is one of five Whiteboard Media newsletters that reach more than 50,000 subscribers every week. 

Our content is a credit to a team that takes the time to crank out smart, timely analysis on top of their “day jobs.” Of course, we’re also grateful for our readers, and as we start the new year, we’re eager for feedback. Please reach out to share your priorities and interests for the year ahead.

In the world of education policy, 2026 is kicking off with a bang.

Over the last couple of days, we’ve received a flood of questions about an upcoming Senate hearing on the impact of excessive screen time on kids’ wellbeing.

Scheduled for next Thursday, the hearing will take a deep dive into the Kids Off Social Media Act (KOSMA), bipartisan legislation that aims to restrict social media use and protect young people from harmful content online. 

What’s struck me about the lead up to the hearing is that it’s not just about cellphones and social media. It has big implications for the world of education technology. Nestled within the growing debate about social media, cellphones, and screen time are much more fundamental questions about whether tech is helping or hindering learning.

Of course, these aren't new questions or concerns. But what's different now is that a much broader set of issues are animating the conversation. It's not just about data privacy or fiscal prudence. And the conversation isn't confined to efficacy researchers, parental rights, or profit margins.  

Next week’s hearing will feature a slate of anti-tech witnesses including a professor who advocates for a return to paper-pencil instruction and a neuroscientist who argues that the more schools embrace technology, the worse students perform. 

Last year, I wrote about the tradeoffs between productive struggle and efficiency that are fueling concerns about the evolution of education in the AI era. I’ve written about New York Times columnist Jessica Grosse’s call for a “hard reset” in the world of edtech. In April, as “late liquidation” extensions were being revoked, my colleague David DeSchryver urged the edtech community to heed the call to tell better stories. That call is now more important than ever.

In moment when emerging technologies are undoubtedly taking their toll on children who are the first to grow up with front-facing cameras, and schools (and parents) are navigating a world without a playbook, the risk of throwing the purpose-built edtech (baby) out with the Big Tech (bathwater) is real—perhaps, greater than ever before. As Securly CEO Tammy Wincup recently put it “schools and families can’t wait for big tech to solve the risks of AI” either.

As a sector, we have to not only hold ourselves to, but help to set a higher bar. Telling better stories means bringing receipts, defining and differentiating terms, and focusing with intensity—and intentionality—on the most tangible outcomes. It means acknowledging the need for and helping to define guardrails, thinking about pedagogical relevance and safety in the very broadest sense, and getting smart on the international context, as Code.org President Cameron Wilson pointed out in a thoughtful piece for The Hill this week.

I’m not one for predictions, but if early activity is any indication, 2026 may well be the year when edtech has its feet held to the fire and is forced to make the case for when technology belongs in classrooms—and when it doesn’t.

On Wednesday, the U.S. Department of Education announced Iowa as the first state to receive approval of its ESEA flexibility request in response to the July 2025 “Dear Colleague” letter related to funding and flexibility. 

In its official press release, the Department celebrated the approval as a major step toward returning education to the states; however, the waiver granted to Iowa only allows for smaller, state-level tweaks to existing program flexibilities. This does not change how money flows to districts or the purposes and requirements of any federal program. The entire fiscal construct of ESEA (supplement, not supplant, maintenance of effort, school level expenditure transparency, etc.) exists to ensure federal funds support local school districts. What this does allow is for Iowa to streamline state set-aside funding to support those federal programs. 

Consider the approval in two categories. 

First, state level consolidation. The waiver grants the Iowa Department of Education the authority to consolidate several state level funding streams. In layman's terms, that means that through FY 2028, Iowa may consolidate reporting and funding for required state level activities in support of Titles II-A, III-A, IV-A, and IV-B of the ESSA, so long as all underlying programmatic responsibilities for each title continue to be met and without changing how funds flow to school districts or the core requirements of federal law. 

State-level set-aside funds are the portion of federal grants (5%) that state education agencies retain to run statewide initiatives. In practice, this flexibility allows Iowa to centralize efforts and take a more cohesive statewide approach to supporting districts across areas like professional development (Title II-A), English learners (Title III-A), and student support and enrichment, including 21st Century Community Learning Centers (Title IV).

Second, waiving the requirement that a state agency get ED’s prior approval for certain state-managed waivers. The waiver authorizes the Iowa Department of Education to temporarily waive the following for its districts without ED’s prior approval:

These flexibilities are adjustments to state-level administration and planning, aimed at reducing burden and better aligning funds with statewide priorities. The basic formulas that determine local allocations remain intact, and key fiscal and program safeguards—such as supplement-not-supplant and maintenance of effort—continue to apply in full.

The table below is non-exhaustive and includes waivers that are related to funding, assessment, and accountability. Additional waivers and extensions have been submitted that are not included here.

Stay tuned: Our team will continue to track and monitor state waiver requests and expect to see more to come related to funding, assessment, and accountability. Please reach out to us with any questions.

As governors deliver their annual State of the State addresses, they set the policy agenda for the year ahead—signaling where legislatures, state agencies, and stakeholders should expect momentum. In recent years, education initiatives have increasingly been mentioned alongside workforce and economic development, with governors emphasizing student outcomes and workforce readiness. 

Each year, we watch how governors elevate education priorities and connect them to broader state goals. Based on recent legislative activity, federal policy dynamics, and early state signals, we expect the following topics to feature prominently this year for governors that speak on education: 

This week, we heard from three governors (CA, KY, VT); nine more will take to the podium next week.

“These multi-year investments in education [are] paying off. Just this year, we’ve seen improved academic achievement in every subject area, in every grade level, in every student group. With greater gains in test scores for Black and Latino kids… These gains are particularly pronounced in Los Angeles, the nation’s second-largest school district.”

“I am unapologetically a 100% pro-public education governor. Every budget I’ve proposed has invested in our school systems, starting with our educators. Once again, I’ll be doing what’s right: I’m proposing $159 million for mandatory raises for educators; and a proposal to increase take-home pay by nearly 7%.”

“Education transformation is not optional, it’s essential to growing our economy, to building a strong skilled workforce, to supporting businesses.”

Bookmark our blog: The W/A Research Team will record and analyze governors’ addresses as they happen and share what you need to know on the W/A blog. The post will be updated until all governors have delivered their State of the State.

We’re excited to share that registration is now open for the 2026 Solutions Summit, co-hosted by ISTE+ASCD and Whiteboard Advisors, taking place alongside the ISTELive + ASCD Annual Conference in Orlando, Florida.

A limited-time early registration discount is now available. Use the code EARLY2026 at checkout to receive $50 off your registration until January 31.

The Solutions Summit will be held on Sunday, June 28, 2026, from 9 a.m. to 2 p.m. and will bring together education technology leaders, innovators, and experts for a day of learning, collaboration, and connection. Designed specifically for edtech company leaders, this is a space to share best practices, workshop new ideas, and engage with peers who are shaping the future of teaching and learning.

Why Attend? The Solutions Summit offers an unparalleled opportunity to:

During his State of the State address, California Gov. Gavin Newsom signaled interest in bringing the California Department of Education (CDE) under the governor’s control—a move that would mark a significant shift in how education authority is structured in the state.

“...[I]n the budget I’ll be submitting tomorrow, I’m proposing that we unify the policy-making by the State Board of Education and the Department of Education, allowing the State Superintendent of Public Instruction to align our education policies from early childhood through college.”

California’s current governance model splits responsibility among an elected state superintendent, a governor-appointed State Board of Education, and the governor. Newsom’s comments suggest growing interest in consolidating authority within the executive branch, potentially reshaping long-standing lines of accountability. Depending on the approach, changes could require statutory updates or a constitutional amendment.

The timing is notable. California is managing a dense implementation agenda — including expanded learning opportunities and community schools — and questions about whether governance structure supports coherent, statewide execution have resurfaced. (For background, see our recent blog on the PACE report examining California’s governance structure and how it compares nationally.)

California would not be alone in revisiting these questions. Indiana recently moved from an elected state chief to a governor-appointed Secretary of Education, and other states are quietly reevaluating governance as implementation demands, budget pressures, and political dynamics intensify.

We’ll be watching whether the governor’s remarks translate into formal proposals — and what this means for accountability, coherence, and implementation going forward.

This week, ED’s Accountability in Higher Education and Access through Demand-driven Workforce Pell (AHEAD) Committee met in person for its second negotiated rulemaking session, focusing on new accountability metrics and the intersection with Gainful Employment (GE) and Financial Value Transparency (FVT).

This highly anticipated rulemaking session centered on the “do no harm” accountability metrics outlined in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), which tie degree program eligibility for Title IV loans to earnings outcomes of graduates for all institutional types, not just for-profits.

In a surprising departure from the first Trump administration’s efforts to remove Gainful Employment (GE) regulations, OBBBA and the Education Department’s proposed rules sought to continue the Gainful Employment (GE) regulations, which apply to for-profit institutions as well as non-degree programs and make them consistent with the new earnings threshold.

However, ED did propose significant changes to the way GE should be enforced, including a proposal that GE only apply to the loan programs (i.e., failing to pass GE metrics would only revoke a program’s federal loan eligibility, not its eligibility for Pell grants) and proposing the removal of the debt-to-earnings test, therefore only assessing programs based on graduate earnings.

Additionally, the new rules seek to keep—but change—Financial Value Transparency, a major part of the Biden-era Gainful Employment regulations, to what would become known as the Student Tuition and Transparency System (abbreviated to STATS). 

The committee ended up reaching consensus today, despite significant skepticism as recently as yesterday. ED is now required to publish the rules as agreed to by the committee (barring minor technical changes found during an executive branch review process), and then publish them for the public comment process. [Inside Higher Ed]

Our team will continue to follow the rulemaking process closely ahead of the July 1 implementation of OBBBA’s higher education provisions. Stay tuned for our team’s full breakdown next week.

Check out W/A Jobs, which features 3,453 career opportunities from 313 organizations across the education industry. A few roles that caught our eye over the past week: