I wasn't allowed to have a Nintendo as a kid.

But some of my fondest memories are of my mother (a lifelong educator) coming home from ​​MECC (IYKYK) conferences with 5.25” floppy disks loaded up with “educational” games.

On occasion, my friends would take a break from saving Princess Peach to play Oregon Trail on the Apple IIe that my dad (a middle school teacher) had assembled in our basement.

Even in the 1980s, my parents seemed to distinguish between time spent on the commercial gaming consoles of the day, and educational games developed by organizations like MECC. I’m not sure how educational those games really were, but as a parent of two teenagers, I think they were on to something. 

Years later, my mom had mixed feelings when I went to work for the former Xerox CEO and U.S. Deputy Secretary of Education David Kearns who, like me, believed deeply in the transformative potential of technology in education. My mom was no luddite (in fact, she eventually became an edtech director), but like so many educators, she harbored (well-founded, but not always explicit) skepticism of commercial incursion into the field.

Over the years, education’s commercial allergy has at times become intertwined with broader concerns about data privacy and security, screen time, and troubling evidence of the perils faced by young people coming of age in the era of broadband ubiquity and front-facing cameras. 

A dialectic view helps make sense of some of the tensions: It’s true that commercial priorities sometimes overshadow educational outcomes, and that interventions are often oversold or under-evaluated. But it's also true that private-sector innovation has driven—and can drive—meaningful improvement. 

There are bad actors on both sides of the procurement processes, but no shortage of principled leaders working to serve students effectively through public-private collaboration in education. 

Legitimate parental concerns rooted in children’s well-being are often selectively amplified or weaponized by stakeholders pursuing political or financial ends. 

I recently took a walk with a friend who is an extraordinarily successful investor in technologies that will transform the way we learn, work, and live. As a father to young children, he’ll hold out as long as possible before his kids get their first phone. In some circles, that’d make him vulnerable to judgment. But, to me, it's an entirely rational point of view.

Holding these contradictions together, rather than reducing them to a single narrative, makes for a more honest and productive conversation about how to move forward. That’s not always easy, but there are smart people wrestling with the issue. And there are creative entrepreneurs building technology to help students and schools strike the right balance.

When we fail to acknowledge the dialectic, the debate about the role of technology in education falls prey to reductive arguments and outdated assumptions. It results in the distortion of markets and policy in ways that undermine the potential for step gains in student learning. 

I’m no stranger to the risks and often a critic, but still solidly in the camp that—when it comes to education—the risk of slowing experimentation and adoption (of speech recognition technology in early literacy and VR for STEM and mathematics, for example) are largely outweighed by the deleterious effects of the status quo.

That case-making can’t be outsourced to advocacy groups, nonprofits, and charitable foundations. This is work the industry must own—weeding out bad actors, differentiating products, quantifying outcomes and defining norms—to inform how education companies should operate.

If education businesses and investors don’t hold themselves accountable, they should  expect confusion and continued concern that the promised transformation is, like the princess, always in another castle.

On Tuesday, Dr. Angela Duckworth will join us for a panel on the current landscape of school cellphone policies and practices, where we’ll examine what different approaches look like in action, and how school and district leaders can manage cellphone use effectively.

And next Friday, I’ll join InnovateEDU’s Erin Mote, Curriculum Associates’ Tyrone Holmes, and Iranetta Rayborn Wright, the former supe of Cincinnati Public Schools, for a conversation about screen time in the classroom. 

Should be a fun and interesting conversation, and I'm grateful to Ben Kornell and the Edtech Insiders team for putting it together. Hope to see you there!

Today, the Trump administration released its budget proposal for FY27, the first step in the process for Congress finalizing and passing a budget for the coming fiscal year. Overall, the administration’s budget request for the U.S. Department of Education includes $76.5 billion in discretionary funding for ED for 2027—a $2.3 billion (2.9%) decrease from 2026.

Importantly: The administration’s budget request is non-binding and Congress is in no way required to fulfill or act upon the recommendations made in the budget. Presidential budget requests for federal programs often serve as the starting point for congressional negotiations, but final annual appropriations legislation requires a bipartisan vote to pass Congress.

We analyzed President Trump’s budget proposal so you don’t have to. Here’s what you need to know:

Make Education Great Again (MEGA) Grants: New for 2027! Just kidding, it’s just like last year’s K-12 Simplified Funding Program. The Trump administration is proposing to consolidate several ESEA programs into one grant program that states can flexibly use to fund activities “based on their needs.” 

Title I Grants: The proposal requests level-funding for Title I at $18.4 billion. As the cornerstone of federal support for high-poverty districts, the program continues to offer substantial local flexibility to target academic support and school improvement strategies.

Title II Supporting Effective Instruction: The proposal folds it into the broader MEGA framework, framing this as streamlining rather than a cut. Title II has been a perennial target for elimination, yet Congress has repeatedly preserved at least some funding, so its fate remains uncertain.

Title III English Language Acquisition: The proposal would eliminate the program and fold activities into the broader MEGA grant, despite being the only dedicated federal stream for English learners. Given the administration’s 2025 public‑benefit interpretation, advocates anticipate heightened scrutiny of how Title III–type services reach undocumented or mixed‑status students.

Charter School Grants: The proposal maintains funding for Charter School Grants at $500 million. However, it includes policy adjustments aimed at expanding technical assistance, facilities aid, and subgrants, positioning charter schools as one of the primary "winners" within the K-12 portfolio.

Comprehensive Literacy State Development Grants: Similar to other targeted programs, these grants are zeroed out and folded into the MEGA proposal. Despite the loss of a dedicated line item, the administration’s emphasis on evidence-based literacy suggests continued political backing for "science of reading" investments.

Office of Career, Technical, and Adult Education (OCTAE): The administration’s budget request for ED does not include any funding for OCTAE and instead requests an additional $1.4 billion in the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) budget for the agency to administer the federal programs previously housed at OCTAE. The proposal is aligned with the interagency agreement that the administration announced last year in which DOL assumed a greater role for the administration of career and technical education, adult education, and other programs previously administered by ED.

Federal Pell Grants: The proposal requests an additional $10.5 billion for the federal Pell Grant program. The administration cited its interest in maintaining the current maximum allowable Pell Grant award at $7,395 and the need to cover the current shortfall in the Pell Grant program as the reason for the requested increase.

Federal Work Study: The proposal requests $123 million for Federal Work Study, a $1.1 billion decrease from FY26 levels.

Other Higher Education Programs: The proposal requests eliminating several higher education programs that the administration believes “duplicate other programs, are more appropriately supported with State, local, institutional, or private funds; are outside of the Department’s core mission; are unconstitutional; or have not shown evidence of effectiveness.” This proposal eliminates funding for minority-serving institutions, college access programs, child care on college campuses, and the Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education (FIPSE), among other programs.

The proposal calls for continued funding for:

Institute of Education Sciences: In its proposal, the administration noted it is currently reimagining “a more efficient, effective, and useful IES to improve support for evidence-based accountability, data-driven decision making, and education research for use in the classroom.” As it continues the process, the administration is requesting $261.3 million for IES activities, including $137 million for National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP).

As cellphones continue to shape how students learn, communicate, and make decisions, school and district leaders are navigating a complex and often polarized landscape. But does banning phones actually solve the problem?

Join us on April 7 at Noon ET/9 a.m. PT for a conversation moderated by Thomas Rogers, W/A’s head of K-12 communications, to explore the current landscape of cellphone policies and practices in schools and examine what different approaches look like in practice, what the research tells us about their effects, and how school and district leaders can think more clearly about this evolving challenge.

In January, we published our predictions for the education themes that governors would touch on during this year’s “State of the State” addresses. Shortly after 30 governors took to the podium, we identified early patterns: a merging of education and workforce conversations, a tone of cementing prior work over new initiatives, and governors reasserting state leadership in a period of federal uncertainty.

Now that governor’s addresses have wrapped up and state legislatures are well into session, it’s time to close the loop. 

We tracked 5,000+ education-related bills moving across state legislatures this cycle alongside every address to see where gubernatorial rhetoric is actually translating into law. The short version: We got a lot of it right, and there are a few surprises worth noting.

The map below shows how governors framed education across all 50 states, with the ability to filter by topic. What follows is our read of where those priorities are actually moving.

As we expected, CTE and workforce, school choice, digital privacy and cell phone policy, and AI all featured prominently across party lines and regions. The accountability and assessment prediction was directionally right, but this work takes time to develop.

States also continued the steady work of codifying and funding literacy efforts already well underway. From Alaska to West Virginia, governors pointed to Language Essentials for Teachers of Reading and Spelling (LETRS) training, phonics-based curriculum adoptions, and early-grade proficiency gains as evidence of staying power—less a new initiative than a sign of durability. Our analysis of literacy bills this cycle shows 43 bills have already been enacted and 40 more are in the pipeline.

If there was one theme no governor skipped, it was CTE. Across addresses from governors as politically different as Gavin Newsom (D-CA) and Ron DeSantis (R-FL), the message was consistent: High school must connect to the workforce. 

This reflects the broader normalization of framing education as economic infrastructure, cutting across party and region. 321 CTE and workforce-related bills have already been enacted and nearly 500 more are in active movement through committees and chambers.

School choice was already a major theme in Republican-led states. What changed in 2026 is the federal context. The Educational Choice for Children Act (part of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act) created the first federal K-12 tax-credit scholarship program, and governors had to respond. Iowa, Indiana, Alabama, South Dakota, Nebraska, and Wyoming all announced opt-in decisions. Tennessee called for doubling its Education Freedom Scholarships to meet a surge of 54,000 applicants. Missouri announced universal open enrollment. Oklahoma proposed eliminating the cap on its Parental Choice Tax Credit.

Even Democratic governors engaged the issue on their own terms: Arizona’s Katie Hobbs called for accountability and fraud prevention in ESAs, and Connecticut’s Ned Lamont addressed childcare financing, reflecting the range of how “choice” is being defined across the political spectrum.

Our legislative analysis shows 55 school choice and ESA-related bills have been enacted and 123 more are in the pipeline. As we observed in the mid-session piece, choice has shifted from aspiration to baseline in many states and governors are now navigating implementation, not debating whether to participate.

School cellphone policies featured prominently in governors’ State of the State addresses. More than a dozen governors explicitly called for bell-to-bell bans: Connecticut, Maine, Utah, Kansas, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, New York, New Mexico, Michigan, and more. Several governors noted the bans were unpopular when first introduced and are now broadly supported.

The legislation is moving to match. Of the 34 cellphone–related bills we tracked, 14 are already enacted. Most converted in a single session. As our recent white paper with Learning.com found, Cellphone Bans are Outpacing the Strategy to Back Them Up — the policy is moving faster than the implementation infrastructure around digital literacy and student wellbeing. That gap is worth watching.

Maryland announced a $4 million AI workforce training investment. Pennsylvania called for chatbot age verification and parental consent. California advanced an AI safety initiative developed with Common Sense Media. Ohio and others framed the conversation in terms of workforce preparation and student guardrails simultaneously.

What we underestimated was the volume of legislative response. Based on our analysis of bills regarding AI in education, 35 have been enacted and 93 more are still in the pipeline. The bills are splitting along two tracks: AI as workforce preparation and AI as student safety risk. Both are real and accelerating.

Learn more: Check out our analysis of youth tech policy and the three distinct policy tracks taking shape in legislatures in 2026.

ESSA accountability is here to stay, but evolving. Some governors built new state-defined systems: Missouri created an A-F school grading framework by executive order, Ohio launched a Statewide Attendance Dashboard, and Massachusetts raised high school graduation standards. Others were more explicitly positioning for federal conversations: States like Iowa and Louisiana framed their accountability moves in the context of securing flexibility over federal dollars and demonstrating results to Washington, not just their own legislatures.

In a year when the federal role in education is genuinely unsettled, state accountability moves are doing double duty: building state proof points while also preparing the groundwork for waiver requests, block grant negotiations, or ESSA flexibility requests.

Dozens of state legislative sessions remain active, and more than 2,600 of the bills we are tracking are still in committee or moving through chambers.

For deeper dives on how these themes played out in specific policy areas, see our companion analyses on early childhood, workforce and CTE, and special education.

Hosted by ISTE+ASCD and Whiteboard Advisors, the Solutions Summit is a one-day, exclusive event that convenes leaders from across the education ecosystem. This year’s Summit will be held on Sunday, June 28, 2026, from 9 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. and will feature a mix of interactive panels and small-group activities focused on real-world decision-making, product impact, and the future of learning.

A national survey by the nonprofit Agency and The Harris Poll found that three-quarters of recent high school graduates have enrolled in some type of postsecondary education or training program, suggesting that Gen Z is aware that a high school diploma is often not enough to land the jobs they want. College is still the most popular postsecondary choice among young adults (58%), dwarfing the next most popular choice, certificate programs, by nearly 50 percentage points. However, a large share of young people do not complete the postsecondary pathway they enrolled in—60% finish certificate programs, but less than half complete traditional degrees (48% for four-year and 39% for two-year programs)—leaving them less qualified for more specialized, skilled jobs.

Many Gen Z workers are using ChatGPT to practice difficult workplace conversations—like salary negotiations or giving feedback—as a way to build confidence before real professional interactions. Phillip Miller, CEO of Skillwell, believes this trend is driven by growing up in remote and digital environments with fewer chances to practice in-person communication, making AI a low-stakes “practice gym” for those skills. Miller says, “Real-world experience remains the best teacher. But organizations no longer have to wait for high-stakes moments to arrive—and hope their people are ready.” [Fortune, subscription model]

Check out W/A Jobs, which features 3,981 career opportunities from 316 organizations across the education industry. A few roles that caught our eye over the past week:

ICYMI: A recent CGCS Instructional Spotlight—which brought together Dr. Jennifer Bay-Williams, professor and author of Math Fact Fluency; Carey Swanson, chief literacy program officer at Student Achievement Partners; and Dr. Carolyne Quintana, CEO of Teaching Matters—dug into what it actually takes to build student fluency. The panel was moderated by W/A’s own Hillary Rinaldi.