Several of our team members are headed to SXSW EDU in Austin next month. Will you be there? Let us know, and check out our Q&A with SXSW EDU’s Julia Shatilo on what to expect at this year’s conference.

This afternoon, the U.S. Department of Education released “Reimaginging the Institute of Education Sciences,” a report outlining recommendations to reform the Institute of Education Sciences (IES). According to the Department, ED and IES plan to strongly consider the recommendations and use them as a framework to guide more effective research and development (R&D) to support students nationwide.

Why it matters: IES has historically served as the nation's engine for rigorous education research, funding studies like the National Assessment of Educational Progress and translating findings into evidence-based resources and tools that help educators and policymakers make informed decisions. Last year, the Department of Government Efficiency cancelled nearly $900 million in contracts under IES, followed shortly thereafter with significant reductions in staffing, leading the Department to announce it was reimagining the future of the agency. [The Associated Press]

IES Director Matt Soldner shared his thoughts on the key recommendations from the report in a blog post today, noting: "The report is a call for change. At the same time, it is a call to hold fast to that which has motivated the Institute's work since its earliest days: the conviction that the rigorous practice of the education sciences—in statistics, research, and evaluation—is necessary for transforming education and education systems for the better."

Notably, these recommendations align closely with the Alliance for Learning Innovation’s Blueprint for the Future of the Federal Role in K-12 Education R&D, a set of bipartisan recommendations informed by a bipartisan taskforce of more than 100 education researchers, advocates and policymakers.

More to come: Our team will provide a more in-depth analysis of the report in next week’s edition of Whiteboard Notes. Send us your questions.

State and federal policymakers are increasingly focused on how technology intersects with young people’s lives—especially in schools. But “youth tech policy” isn’t a single issue. There are three distinct policy tracks emerging in 2026:

Each of these tracks stems from a motivation to improve student wellbeing, but understanding how these policy proposals differ—including across state interpretations—matters for educators, families, edtech providers, and the students experiencing these changes in real time. 

Cellphone policy has been the most active area of youth tech legislation. More than 40 states now have statewide guidance or mandates limiting phone use during school hours. Governors continue to elevate these policies as part of broader student mental health and learning-environment agendas.

These policies generally target in-school student behavior (when and where phones can be used), provide guidelines for school leaders around expectations for phone use during instructional time, and center on reducing distraction and improving school climate.

Landscape signal: There’s growing consensus that phones are a distraction in schools, but there’s also increasing recognition among educators and advocates that schools need strategies that go beyond simple prohibition, including helping students develop digital agency and self-regulation. [The 74]

Key distinction: Cellphone policies are operational and school-specific, not comprehensive “youth tech” regulations.

Implementation Challenge: While state policies set expectations around restricting phone use, they often leave key implementation questions unanswered. Without detailed guidance, district and school leaders may face uncertainty about what enforcement approaches are appropriate, what tools or solutions are permissible, and how to operationalize restrictions consistently across schools.

New York is a national leader in “bell to bell” cellphone policies with Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) framing the initiative as part of a broader effort to protect youth mental health and promote student engagement in the digital age. 

In practice, districts across the country face difficult tradeoffs: lockable pouches may reduce distraction but limit instructional flexibility, teacher-managed enforcement may create inconsistency and strain relationships, and total prohibition may reduce visible phone use without necessarily building students’ digital self-regulation skills.

As a result, some education leaders are beginning to explore approaches that move beyond explicit prohibition models in favor of guardrails. This allows for students to embrace responsible technology use and aim to make the “right time, place, and manner” for device use clearer and less punitive.

The emerging conversation is shifting from “How do we confiscate phones?” to “How do we create school environments where distraction is reduced and digital agency is intentionally developed?”

A new set of proposals during the 2026 legislative session go beyond managing student phones and instead targets overall screen exposure—including, in some cases, instructional technology used in classrooms.

These bills generally attempt to define or limit “age-appropriate” screen use, establish state-developed guidelines or model policies, and in some cases, impose instructional caps or usage requirements

For example, Missouri H.B. 2230 would cap digital instruction in grades K-5 at 45 minutes per day and require 70% of assignments to be completed using paper and pencil. In contrast, Alabama H.B. 78 directs the development of research-based screen time guidelines for early learners, and Kansas S.B. 350 focuses on safety standards and parent opt-out provisions for school-issued devices.

Landscape signal: While many proposals remain early in the legislative process, the center of gravity on these policies is beginning to shift from managing personal devices to defining how much instructional technology is “appropriate.” 

Key distinction: Unlike cellphone bans, screen time legislation can directly shape instructional models and district discretion and not just student behavior during the school day.

Implementation challenge: Not all screen time is created equal—and proposed legislation does not distinguish between passive consumption and purposeful instructional use.

Unlike cellphone bans, which target a specific device and behavior, screen time caps require defining what “counts.” Does time spent on adaptive math practice equal time on YouTube? Is a student typing an essay the same as watching a video? What about students sharing a device to submit answers for a small group activity? How should districts account for hybrid models, assistive technology for students with disabilities, or career and technical programs that require digital tools?

Beyond definitional ambiguity, measurement presents another hurdle. Few districts have reliable systems for tracking cumulative daily screen exposure across platforms, teachers, and instructional models. There is also a risk of unintended consequences. 

Strict quantitative caps may limit effective, evidence-based digital tools that support targeted intervention, create inequities for students who rely on assistive technologies, and shift instruction toward compliance tracking rather than instructional quality.

The implementation conversation will need to evolve from blunt time restrictions toward clearer standards around instructional intent, developmental appropriateness, and evidence of impact.

A third stream of legislation shifts the focus away from classrooms and toward social media companies themselves. Several states are advancing laws that require platforms to verify users’ ages, limit certain features for minors, or strengthen parental consent requirements.

These policies generally require age verification for social media account creation, restrict platform features or targeted advertising for minors, and emphasize parental oversight and youth data protections

States such as Utah and Arkansas have already enacted laws requiring age verification or imposing new restrictions on how platforms interact with young users, and similar proposals continue to surface in other legislatures.

Landscape signal: There is growing bipartisan momentum around holding platforms accountable for youth online safety, which is a conversation that operates largely outside school policy debates.

Key distinction: Unlike cellphone bans or screen time proposals, age verification laws regulate corporate practices and hold tech companies accountable for responsible platform design. They do not govern instructional time, classroom technology use, or district operations.

Implementation challenge: While many stakeholders support age assurance mechanisms for social media and AI platforms, policy efforts are facing strong pushback from security and data privacy advocacy groups. Critics of age verification solutions focus on one of two broad concerns: (1) privacy and data security, including personally identifiable data, and (2) efficacy of age verification with concerns that systems will be easy to bypass.

Both Tennessee and Louisiana have fielded lawsuits to stop age verification bills citing the first amendment and burden to free speech. [USA Today; New Orleans City Business]

All three policy trends are driven by overlapping and overwhelming concerns about youth wellbeing and digital life. Whether it’s chronic absenteeism, depression, or distraction, the harms of excessive tech use are well documented. But treating these efforts as a single “digital youth policy” obscures important differences:

For educators and edtech providers, the distinctions are not semantics. This will determine who must comply, what must change, and where accountability sits. In short, these are three different regulatory approaches unfolding simultaneously: one targeting student behavior, one targeting instructional design, and one targeting corporate platform responsibility. 

As policymakers act, we expect the landscape to stay multi-track, not monolithic:

For K-12 leaders and edtech providers, the practical challenge will not be reacting to a single “youth tech crackdown,” but navigating overlapping policies that regulate different actors, tools, and environments. The central question ahead is less whether technology belongs in young people’s lives, and more how do we support student agency and stewardship. For policymakers, it’s critical to define responsibility while allowing for local flexibility—what sits with schools, with families, or with the platforms themselves? 

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.

The Solutions Summit will be held on Sunday, June 28, 2026, from 9 a.m. to 2:30 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:

Alabama lawmakers passed this week H.B. 306, which calls for creating a temporary teaching certificate to allow veterans without a bachelor’s degree to teach in K-12 schools. The bill, sponsored by Rep. Rick Rehm (Henry/Houston–R), passed the Alabama House by a vote of 103-1. A companion bill in the Alabama Senate, introduced by Sen. Matt Woods (Walker–R), is also moving through the legislature.

To qualify for the Military Veteran Temporary Teaching Certificate, veterans must have served for four years on active duty, have at least 60 hours of college credit with a minimum GPA of 2.5 on a 4.0 scale, and pass the relevant Praxis content test, among other requirements. The certification would be valid for five years and is non-renewable, and is intended to serve as a bridge to full professional licensure.

Both bills are expected to be signed into law by Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey (R), who emphasized making the state more veteran-friendly as a top priority for her administration during her State of the State address last month. [Military.com, Al.com, WSFA 12]

Alabama joins a growing contingent of states leveraging veterans to address critical teacher shortages. Two other states have programs enshrined in law. Neither state requires veterans to possess a bachelor’s degree to qualify:

Several other states have programs and initiatives that streamline the transition for veterans to the teaching profession, but still require a bachelor’s degree or equivalent experience: 

The Pathways Impact Fund, a new national initiative of StriveTogether, awarded $7.5 million across five regional organizations working to strengthen education-to-career pathways for high schoolers. The grantees include EdVestors (MA), EmployIndy (IN), Northern Illinois University’s Education Systems Center (IL), Learn to Earn Dayton (OH), and the Rodel Foundation (DE). The Pathways Impact Fund’s investment aims to address an urgent concern: According to the ECMC Foundation, 78% of Gen Z high schoolers say it's important to have a career plan before graduating, but just 13% feel prepared to make decisions about their future.

On Wednesday, the U.S. Department of Labor announced the availability of $81 million in grant funding to support reentry for formerly incarcerated individuals through career and workforce development opportunities. The Reentry Employment in Skilled Trades, Advanced Manufacturing, Registered Apprenticeships, and Training (RESTART) grant initiative is expected to fund up to 20 projects nationwide, with $30 million targeting organizations that serve youth and young adults and up to $5.1 million for individual awards.

Check out W/A Jobs, which features 3,639 career opportunities from 314 organizations across the education industry. A few roles that caught our eye over the past week: