This week, W/A Senior Director and former U.S. News & World Report writer Lauren Camera is filling in for Ben.

I started covering the world of assessment policy in 2007, when No Child Left Behind—then five years old—was beginning to give governors heartburn over meeting adequate yearly progress. Back then, the debates centered around how to preserve the federal role in holding states accountable while also giving them flexibility in key areas, including assessment. In the decades since, we’ve witnessed the rise (and fall) of Common Core assessment consortia, the opt-out movement, state (and district) waivers and the passage of the Every Student Succeeds Act.

Today, we’re in the midst of waivers 2.0.

So, I was excited to take a walk down memory lane with our latest paper from our W/A Content Studio, “Modernizing Measurement: A Policy Primer for the Next Generation of Assessment,” which offers a brief history of assessment policy. As we note in the disclaimer, the goal was neither exhaustive nor prescriptive, but a “primer” that could be used to inform an assessment debate that, at the dawn of the AI era, looks very different than in years past.

Could not have come at a better time.  

On April 15 and 16, the U.S. Department of Education convened state chiefs from across the country for a two-day summit focused on how the states might reimagine K-12 testing in ways that leverage technology to better inform instruction and drive academic improvement. (Some states took the chance to include assessment vendors as their “plus one.”)

I wasn’t in the room for the discussion, but it's no secret that states are eager to identify alternatives to traditional, end-of-year, high-stakes tests that have dominated the assessment landscape for decades. 

With increased federal flexibility—and technological advances—perhaps a future where  assessments generate data that is more valuable to educators and take less valuable class instruction time is closer than it has been in years past.

Former Massachusetts Gov. Jane Swift recently compared the continued use of 90s-era state tests with the clunky car phones we once bolted to our cars: 

“But while mobile phones and Blackberries have long since replaced car phones, the world of education has clung to the same, outdated approach to testing,” she writes in The 74. “What’s worse, rather than replace the exams, states and districts …layered in more assessments… The goal was to generate more information that could be used immediately to inform instruction. The result, too often, has simply been more testing. At the risk of extending my car phone analogy too far, they bought and used fancy new iPhones while still paying for and insisting on using that old car phone when making calls on the road.”

Past efforts to modernize assessment to provide the type of real-time feedback that identifies gaps and allows for immediate course-corrections from teachers have largely failed. But according to experts from the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching and Reagan Institute, who discussed assessment at a convening our team helped to lead this week, those barriers are largely gone.

If they’re right, the conditions are already in place for states and districts to adopt the type of “dynamic assessments” that policymakers have long imagined—ones that constantly gauge students growth and achievement, amassing enough insight to satisfy federal requirements over time without the cost and time necessary for annual end-of-year testing. 

The foreword for the paper, written by Penny Schwinn, former Tennessee Commissioner of Education, and Richard Culatta, CEO of ISTE+ASCD, showcases what’s possible when bold leadership, innovative technology, and a shared commitment to students meet this pivotal moment in American education. I hope you’ll check it out.

Lots of news this week in the world of philanthropy, too:

So far, five states have introduced or enacted significant legislation targeting AI companion chatbots and protections related to their use among minors: California (in effect since January 2026); Oregon, Washington and Idaho (signed this spring). Connecticut's S.B. 5, is expected to be signed into law next. 

Georgia has also introduced legislation on this topic, but Georgia S.B. 540 is distinctive in one key respect: where most comparable laws carve out chatbots embedded within larger platforms, Georgia's bill does not — putting companies like Meta and Google squarely in scope. Gov. Brian Kemp has until May 12 to sign or veto.

Key context: The student safety company Securly recently published an analysis of over 1.2 million student AI conversations on school-issued devices—drawn from 1,300 districts across 39 states between December 2025 and February 2026. The report found that while students are increasingly using AI for legitimate educational purposes, there are also serious safety and wellness concerns that schools are being forced to respond to. Enabling the positive impacts of AI without incentivizing misuse is the needle state legislatures are trying to thread.

As we discussed last week, AI-related legislation is transitioning from voluntary guidance  to detailed regulatory frameworks. Here are a few of the ways that transition is manifesting in the conversation around chatbots:

Go deeper: State lawmakers are building up legislative guardrails around AI in K-12 education, hoping to strengthen protections for students, improve transparency about AI use in the classroom for families, and establish norms around professional development and learning standards. Learn how 2026 state legislative sessions played out for AI use in schools on our blog.

As artificial intelligence, gaming platforms, and social media rapidly evolve, so do the risks facing today’s students online. Join education and industry experts, including representatives from the FBI, for a critical community conversation on how families and educators can stay ahead of emerging digital threats.

Moderated by W/A Head of K-12 Communications Thomas Rodgers, this live webinar will provide practical insights into how children are interacting with technology today, the new risks introduced by AI-powered tools, and what warning signs adults should be aware of.

🗓️ Tuesday, May 12 at 1 p.m. ET

Sensitivity Warning: This session includes discussion of real-world online threats involving children, which some may find difficult to hear. Please use discretion to determine if this content is appropriate for you. 

This week, the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) published the largest and most comprehensive study of school cellphone bans to date—with mixed results.

The study, led by researchers at Stanford, Duke, the University of Michigan, and the University of Pennsylvania, analysed data from approximately 4,600 schools in the U.S. using Yondr, a lockable pouch designed to prevent cellphone use in restricted settings. 

Stanford economist and co-leader of the study, Thomas Dee, called the results “sobering,” but cautioned policymakers and education leaders against abandoning the policies before they have the opportunity to work. [NBC News; The 74; The New York Times, subscription model]

The findings stand in contrast to several years of tremendous policy momentum—at least 39 states have passed legislation restricting cellphone use in schools since 2023—but they also raise a harder question: What are bans alone actually accomplishing?

A white paper released earlier this year by Learning.com and Whiteboard Advisors argued that while device restrictions can reduce distractions during school hours, they don’t necessarily equip students with the skills to manage attention, social pressure, or algorithm-driven content outside of the classroom.

According to Julia Fallon, executive director of SETDA, 3 out of 4 state education leaders have adopted device restrictions or are considering them, but only 60% reported that their state is actively supporting digital citizenship education for students. “A cellphone policy can reclaim attention during the hours students are in school, but it cannot do the rest of the work on its own,” said Fallon.

Learning.com CEO Lisa O’Masta addresses the challenge: “Bans can’t be the end. They have to be the beginning of the conversation. When you do finally get your phone back in your hands, how are you going to react to it?”

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. 

A two-year-old philanthropy is challenging traditional grantmaking practices with a novel capital allocation model—and its working. Since its founding in 2024, Renaissance Philanthropy has channeled more than $500 million to its 22 programs and outside organizations by matching field experts with compelling ideas to anchor donors, and providing time-bound funding to test their specific theses. Renaissance’s model helps support research at the intersection of mathematics and AI and early literacy diagnostics and interventions, among other projects, by deploying capital in a venture fund-like model, joining a growing chorus of impact investors endeavoring to create new funding models for education entrepreneurs (of all types) to investigate.

Today, Gov. Kathy Hochul announced that New York will opt in to the Education Freedom Tax Credit (EFTC), which provides a dollar-for-dollar federal tax credit of up to $1,700 for donations to eligible scholarship-granting organizations. 

Reading the fine print: Gov. Hochul's office noted that New York's opt-in is contingent on a review of program details expected from Treasury in the coming months. In that respect, New York joins a number of states—including Oregon, New Mexico, Illinois, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Hawai’i—that have signaled openness to participating while waiting on final federal guidance before committing. [Education Week, subscription model; The Washington Post, subscription model]

According to the New York City School Construction Authority, New York City Public Schools could lose another 153,000 students over the next decade—on top of the more than 123,000 already gone since the pandemic. Los Angeles County could lose 250,000 students over the same decade. Boston is planning to close 20 schools by 2030. Miami-Dade is now weighing closures of up to nine schools; the district has dropped 13,200 students this year alone, a decline officials attribute in part to the state's expanded voucher program. [The New York Times, subscription model; Axios]

Federal projections corroborate enrollment challenges districts are experiencing on the ground. 38 states are expected to have smaller K-12 systems in 2030 than in 2020, and the nation could hemorrhage approximately 750,000 students over the next five years. Demographic and structural issues—falling birthrates, internal migration, more school choice options, and sharply reduced immigration—are driving declining enrollments.

Check out W/A Jobs, which features 3,977 career opportunities from 317 organizations across the education industry. A few roles that caught our eye over the past week: