This week, W/A Chief Communications Officer Jenna Schuette Talbot is filling in for Ben.

I saw a meme last night that typified the experience of millions of snowed-in families this week: a very frazzled Barbie with the caption, “the first 75 years of January are the hardest.” 

When my kindergarten son’s district announced remote learning for the second half of the week, rather than a return to school, I was a hard no. More screen time? No way. I, yet again, found myself looking at houses online in Birmingham, AL, where the state is considering screen time limits for kindergarten classrooms.

But after three brief mornings of Zoom School, I’ve changed my tune. 

Because for the first time all week, after an hour of office hours with his teacher and classmates, my son actually wanted to practice his letters and writing his name. He wanted to come back the next day to show his teacher.  And I got a front row seat on what developmentally appropriate virtual learning can look like for kindergarteners. 

No attempt to teach new content. Minimal screen time. Lots of at-home games to reinforce last week's lessons. It felt less like “remote learning” and more like a thoughtful bridge back to the classroom. In fact, it reminded me of my many conversations with Teaching Strategies’ Breeyn Mack who always makes the case for play within a rigorous kindergarten experience that fosters intellectual curiosity and strengthens both academic and social skills. 

My reflexive hard no—before I’d even seen what my district had planned—reminded me how often the discourse surrounding edtech operates the same way: judgment first, nuance later. Right now, we’re discussing whether remote or virtual learning is inherently “good” or “bad” for students, when we really should be having more sophisticated conversations about how to ensure students get the most out of it. That means acknowledging when virtual learning is appropriate, and for whom, and being honest about the harmful effects of technology when it isn’t deployed with intentionality.

I get why districts like New York City, Philadelphia, and Alexandria, VA opted for remote learning this week. And after watching my five-year-old actually want to practice writing his name, I get why it can work—when done with intention. Maybe that’s the conversation we should be having.

Earlier this week, the U.S. Department of Education (ED) announced that it has determined the California Department of Education is in "continued noncompliance” with the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). According to the Department’s press release, California now has two weeks to agree to a set of corrective conditions outlined by ED.

If California does not agree to those conditions within that window, the Department states that it could pursue enforcement actions, including withholding future federal education funds, seeking repayment of previously awarded funds, or taking other enforcement steps at the Secretary’s discretion, as permitted under federal law.

That threat alone makes this development notable. But the broader implications extend beyond California and FERPA.

This action signals a broader shift in how ED may approach federal oversight in 2026 and beyond. Rather than framing issues as policy disagreements, the Department appears to be leaning into technical compliance reviews—asking whether states are meeting all applicable statutory and regulatory requirements and using any failure to do so as a basis to intervene.

This approach lowers the bar for federal intervention. It doesn’t require sweeping new regulations or congressional action. It relies instead on existing enforcement authority, coupled with an aggressive interpretation of the consequences for noncompliance.

Notably, in this case, ED’s investigation did not begin with a complaint or documented factual dispute. Instead, the Student Privacy Policy Office opened an investigation in March 2025 based on its interpretation of California statute AB 1955 (2024), raising questions about how statutory interpretation or presumptions of noncompliance may serve as the basis for federal investigations.

One open question is whether agencies will use this approach to throttle domestic spending in a way that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) cannot. Last year, OMB withheld/impounded billions because the FY2025 Continuing Resolution was not explicit about every account. To avoid similar disruptions in FY2026, Congress added new language to the appropriations bills to clarify amounts and allocation timing. Now, assuming Congress completes the work, OMB cannot withhold funds at its discretion. But agencies can—and will—test the bounds of their fiduciary duties to oversee the programs and enforce sweeping remedies for noncompliance and misuse. Add this to the list of issues to be litigated in 2026. 

Regardless of how the California case resolves, state education agencies should be paying close attention. This episode raises the possibility of a future in which policy disagreements are reframed as compliance failures, with funding implications attached.

In other words: states may see more reviews and more pressure to align quickly in response to federal compliance determinations. 

We are continuing to dig into the details of the Department’s findings and the specific conditions California has been given. We’ll share more as that picture becomes clearer. For background, we previously analyzed the initial federal investigation when it was first announced.

If you’re thinking through what this could mean for your state, or how to prepare for a more aggressive federal compliance environment, reach out to us.

On Monday, the Education Department announced plans to convene an Accreditation, Innovation, and Modernization (AIM) negotiated rulemaking committee to update and streamline federal accreditation regulations. The committee will focus on clarifying oversight roles, emphasizing student outcomes and educational quality, supporting innovation in program delivery, and making technical updates to existing accreditation and Title IV requirements. 

This announcement closely follows the conclusion of ED’s rulemaking efforts to implement the One Big Beautiful Bill Act’s (OBBBA) provisions, including Workforce Pell, student loan limits, and changes to gainful employment regulations. The AIM committee builds on the administration’s priorities for reforming the higher education accreditation system, which serves as a gatekeeper for federal student aid. Efforts proceeding the AIM Committee formation include President Trump’s executive order to “reform and strengthen” accreditation and ED’s recently closed public comment period on updates to federal guidance on matters related to accreditation.

The same day that the AIM committee was announced, U.S. Under Secretary of Education Nicholas Kent reinforced this direction in remarks at the Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA) annual conference, where he criticized the current accreditation system for falling short on student outcomes and return on investment. Kent positioned the AIM Committee as a key mechanism to increase accountability and competition in accreditation, to urge accreditors to reform as ED moves to modernize oversight, and to address perceived anticompetitive practices.

 In the official notice, ED’s listed the following as proposed topics for the negotiations:

ED is now soliciting nominations from the public for negotiators to represent key stakeholder groups during AIM committee negotiations. The Department will reserve a spot on the committee for an existing NACIQI member and is also seeking nominations for a non-voting advisor for the committee with subject matter expertise on accreditation and quality assurance. 

The deadline to submit nominations for negotiators is February 26 and the AIM Committee is expected to meet for two five-day sessions in April and May.

As of this week, 30 governors have delivered their State of the State (SOTS) addresses—and clear patterns are emerging. The collective tone of this year’s SOTS speeches  is notably less about unveiling big new ideas and more about implementation, execution, and proof points, driven in part by many governors being term-limited or delivering final addresses.

Not every governor talks about education, but the share who do continues to grow. Among those governors, education is increasingly framed as a workforce and economic strategy, not a standalone policy area.

To make these signals easier to see, we’ve mapped the key education and workforce issues mentioned by each governor—highlighting where priorities are clustering, where states are diverging, and which topics are gaining momentum early in 2026.

Go deeper: W/A VP Hillary Rinaldi (Knudson) takes a deep dive into the key topics, themes, and throughlines on education from all governor’s SOTS addresses, YTD, on our blog.

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.

Early registration ends tomorrow! Use the code EARLY2026 at checkout to receive $50 off.

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:

Public school districts and higher education institutions are scrambling to meet a fast-coming ADA Title II compliance deadline. By April 24, all web content and mobile apps must be made accessible—including those of third-party providers. All PDFs must work with screen readers, all videos must include captions and audio descriptions, all photos must include alternate text, and all audio recordings must be accompanied by a transcript. Mitigating digital access disparities is no easy feat, though, and education leaders are struggling to meet the regulatory requirements under tight time and resource constraints.

Next week, we’re answering your questions about the 2024 regulatory changes that led to the new digital accessibility requirements, and what it will take for schools to be in compliance.

Early career job opportunities are in flux with the rise of AI tools in the workplace, and unemployment among young college graduates is rising. Employers want college graduates to have on-the-job experience, but the demand for internships by far exceeds the number of available intern positions. In Forbes, Edconic’s Brandon Busteed urges CEOs to create more internships within their organizations, arguing that internship programs bolster career readiness and serve as effective, efficient hiring pipelines.

Can You Actually Teach Kindness? The short answer is yes—but it has to move beyond platitudes. Kindness is a teachable behavior that adults can model, schools can reinforce, and students can practice in real situations. We convened a group of industry experts to unpack the strategies that help foster kindness and students learn, belong, and succeed in school and life.

Featured Panelists

Check out W/A Jobs, which features 3,627 career opportunities from 314 organizations across the education industry. A few roles that caught our eye over the past week: