This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.
Dive Brief:
An E-rate expansion that allowed schools to use the program’s funds for school bus Wi-Fi and hotspots for students could soon be reversed, pending a vote called for by Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr on Wednesday.
The vote on the proposal to reverse the Biden-era expansions is currently “on circulation” as of Friday, according to an FCC spokesperson. That means commissioners can vote on the matter outside of their open monthly meetings at their discretion.
With a Republican majority among the three commissioners, it’s possible the E-rate expansion could be reversed.
Dive Insight:
Carr’s proposal comes at a time of high demand among school districts to expand students’ internet access through school bus Wi-Fi and hotspots.
Schools and districts have requested a total of $15.3 million in E-rate funds to pay for school bus Wi-Fi and $50.2 million for hotspots so far in fiscal year 2025, according to federal data.
E-rate, also known as the schools and libraries universal service support program, helps connect schools to affordable broadband. The federal program is administered by the nonprofit private corporation Universal Service Administrative Co., or USAC, under the FCC’s authority.
If Carr’s proposal is approved, the FCC will direct USAC to deny the pending FY 25 requests to use E-rate funds for hotspots and school bus Wi-Fi services.
Millions of students and older adults rely on the expanded E-rate services for homework and telehealth services, said FCC Commissioner Anna Gomez, a Democrat, in a Wednesday statement.
“Now the FCC is moving to strip that connectivity away while doing nothing to make broadband more affordable,” Gomez said. “Their latest proposals will only widen the gap between those with access to modern-day tools and those left behind.”
The commission approved the school bus Wi-Fi addition in 2023 and then voted to include hotspots the following year. Carr, a commissioner at the time, voted against both E-rate expansion measures.
School bus Wi-Fi access is especially beneficial for students in rural areas with long commutes to school, said Andrew Jay Schwartzman, senior counselor at the Benton Institute for Broadband & Society, in a Wednesday statement. Carr’s push to reverse the use of E-rate funds for those services will “lock rural kids into dead zones,” he added.
“Chairman Carr’s moves today are very unfortunate, as they further signal that the Commission is no longer prioritizing closing the digital divide,” Schwartzman said.
The Consortium for School Networking also released a statement Friday denouncing Carr’s plan. The expansion of the E-rate program has been “critical to closing the digital divide and ensuring every student can learn, both in school and where they live and learn.”
In his announcement, Carr said the FCC violated Congress’ authority when it decided to broaden E-rate under the Biden administration.
“During COVID-19, Congress passed a law that expressly authorized the FCC to fund Wi-Fi hotpots for use outside of schools and libraries. When that program ended, so did the FCC’s authority to fund those initiatives,” Carr said. “Nonetheless, the Biden-era FCC chose to expand its E-Rate program to fund those initiatives long after the COVID-19 emergency ended.”
Carr also praised Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, for leading a Senate vote in May approving a repeal of the FCC’s decision to cover hotspots under E-rate. The bill is still awaiting action from the House.
This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.
Rep. Paul Tonko, D-N.Y., and Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick, R-Pa., on Wednesday reintroduced bipartisan legislation aimed at protecting students, teachers and others from poor indoor air quality by expanding the role of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
The Indoor Air Quality and Healthy Schools Act, first introduced in July 2024, would require a nationwide assessment of indoor air quality in schools and childcare facilities and give schools and childcare centers tools to improve IAQ conditions.
“No one should have to suffer the consequences of poor indoor air quality, least of all our kids and students seeking an education at school,” Tonko said a statement. “Our bipartisan Indoor Air Quality and Healthy Schools Act protects the health of our communities by establishing science-based guidelines and delivering effective tools and best practices to minimize indoor health risks.”
The bill would update, expand and codify the work of EPA’s Indoor Environments Division and direct the agency to develop and recognize one or more voluntary certifications for buildings designed, operated and maintained to prevent or minimize indoor air health risks.
“Ultimately, it tries to establish a nationwide assessment of IAQ in schools and childcare facilities,” Jason Hartke, executive vice president of external affairs and global advocacy at the International WELL Building Institute, told Facilities Dive. “It goes back to the old adage that you can’t manage what you don’t measure. As these technologies get better and cheaper, it’s a huge opportunity for folks to tune the environmental quality to human health and well-being.”
The EPA’s Science Advisory Board has consistently ranked poor IAQ as a top five environmental risk to public health, with over 3 million people globally dying prematurely each year from disease exposure caused by poor IAQ, according to a fact sheet on the legislation.
Progress has been made to address outdoor air pollution, but studies show that indoor air contaminants can be two to five times, and occasionally 100 times, higher than outdoor contaminants, the fact sheet says.
The legislation would also support the development of technical assistance, guidelines and best practices to improve the IAQ conditions of schools and childcare facilities.
“It’s a big deal because it targets some new tools to better assess indoor air quality in our nation’s schools,” said Hartke. “It’s a really powerful bill supported by dozens of organizations.
The legislation is supported by the Allergy and Asthma Network, American Federation of Teachers, ASHRAE, International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail and Transportation Workers, IWBI, John Hopkins Center for Health Security and the U.S. Green Building Council, according to the lawmakers’ statements.
Other business schools, including University of Michigan’s Ross Business School and Columbia Business School, also enforce set grade distributions.
Photo illustration by Justin Morrison/Inside Higher Ed | Ralf Geithe/iStock/Getty Images
Some faculty members at the Indiana University Kelley School of Business have been instructed to eliminate grade rounding, remove the A-plus grade option and keep average section GPAs between 3.3 and 3.5 for the fall semester.
The grading changes aim to “address grade inflation and promote rigor across our curriculum,” according to an email sent to faculty in the Communication, Professional and Computer Skills (CPS) department from business writing course coordinator Polly Graham, which was obtained by Inside Higher Ed. “During the COVID-19 pandemic, [CPS] grades elevated, and in recent years, grades have remained high. In recent semesters, some instructors have awarded 100% A’s in standard (i.e., non-honors) sections, and others have awarded extraordinary numbers of A+’s and incompletes,” the email said.
The new grading policy was sent to instructors in early August without faculty discussion or approval, according to a faculty member in the CPS department who asked to remain anonymous for fear of retribution. The department, which does not have its own governance or bylaws beyond what governs the business school writ large, is the only one in Kelley that is staffed entirely by lecturers who do not have tenure protections. So far, the new grading policies apply only to courses in the CPS department, the faculty member said.
Instructors of standard, nonhonors courses must make the GPA of each section average between 3.3 and 3.5, and honors course GPA averages must fall within 0.2 points of the “section’s cumulative student GPA,” the email stated. Faculty members should not round up final grades “even if the student’s grade is very close to a higher letter grade,” and each instructor will complete two check-ins with CPS leadership—one before and one after midterms—after which “formative support will be provided to faculty as requested or needed.” It’s unclear what form the support will take, but the faculty member suspects it could be additional assistance from the chair on lesson plans or grading strategies.
It’s not unusual for business schools to enforce a set grade distribution. At the University of Michigan’s Ross Business School, for instance, core class instructors must follow a distribution that allows 40 percent or fewer undergraduates to earn an A-minus or higher, 90 percent or fewer undergraduates to earn a B or higher, and at least 10 percent of undergraduates must earn between a B-minus and an F. Emory University’s Goizueta Business School also enforces a grade distribution, as does Columbia Business School.
The Kelley School will also enforce an attendance policy for CPS classes this fall. Students will be allowed up to three absences without a grade penalty. After the fourth absence, they lose one-third of their final letter grade, and after five absences, they lose a full letter grade. Six absences will result in an automatic “failure due to non-attendance,” the email explained. The school will allow exceptions on a case-by-case basis.
All Kelley students are required to take courses within the CPS department, including a business presentations class, a business writing course and three “Kelley Compass” classes that teach soft business skills such as team building, interviewing and conflict management. Like the lab time that accompanies physical science classes, CPS courses offer skills-based training that encourages mastery, the CPS faculty member told Inside Higher Ed. Faculty are concerned that the new GPA targets put an artificial limit on students’ success.
A spokesperson for the Kelley School did not answer Inside Higher Ed’s questions about the grade recalibration and instead provided the following statement: “At Kelley, faculty design courses to be both rigorous and fair, while supporting student development and career preparation. Our longstanding priority is to ensure that grades reflect the quality of each student’s performance and that grade distribution is fair and consistent, including across multiple sections of the same course.”
The statement language echoes what faculty have been instructed to tell students and parents who ask about the grading changes, according to the CPS faculty member.
Indiana’s Kelley School has become more popular of late, and administrators appear to be tightening admissions standards in response. The school has fielded some 27,000 applications for approximately 2,000 spots in recent years, the faculty member said, though the Kelley spokesperson did not confirm or refute these numbers.
In March, Kelley promoted Patrick E. Hopkins, an accounting professor who has worked at the business school since 1995, to dean. Just over two months later, on June 2, incoming Indiana University prebusiness students were notified that the minimum grade for automatic admission to the Kelley School would be raised from a B to a B-plus, starting with their cohort. Christopher Duff, the father of an incoming Indiana prebusiness student who plans to seek admission to Kelley, said the change was a “bait and switch.”
“To be crystal clear, I have zero issues with the Kelley School of Business changing their admission criteria. I do, however, have a major issue in the timing of this change. We made our decision based on clearly stated information at the time of commitment. We jettisoned all other schools, offers and financial aid to pursue a degree from Indiana-Kelley,” Duff told Inside Higher Ed. “You want to change the criteria? Fine. Do so with the incoming class who will be aware to make an informed decision. We did not get that choice. It was made for us and when we complained—and we all did—we were essentially told to take it or leave it.”
Duff said he met with Kelley’s undergraduate admissions director, Alex Bruce, in June to discuss the change, and in that meeting Bruce told him the school had overadmitted for the incoming class and received commitments from far more students than they anticipated.
“I asked [Bruce] if the admission department was telling the academic departments to grade harder, to weed out even more students than prior years,” Duff said. “He assured me that admissions and academics are separate entities and have no control over each other. I do not believe anything he told me that day.”
Back-to-school season arrives every year with a mixed bag of emotions for most educators, including anticipation and excitement, but also anxiety. The opportunity to catch up with friendly colleagues and the reward of helping students connect with material also comes with concern about how best to present and communicate that material in a way that resonates with a new classroom.
An annual challenge for K-12 educators is creating a syllabus that engages students and will be used throughout the year to mutual benefit rather than tucked in a folder and forgotten about. Today’s digital transformation can be a means for educators to create a more dynamic and engaging syllabus that meets students’ and parents’ needs.
While it can be overwhelming to think about learning any new education technology, the good news about a digital syllabi is that anyone who’s sent a digital calendar invite has already done most of the technical-learning legwork. The more prescient task will be learning the best practices that engage students and enable deeper learning throughout the year.
Step one: Ditch the PDFs and print-outs
Creating a syllabus that works begins with educators stepping into the shoes of their students. K-12 classrooms are full of students who are oriented around the digital world. Where textbooks and binders were once the tools of the trade for students, laptops and iPads have largely taken over. This creates an opportunity for teachers to create more dynamic syllabi via digital calendars, rather than printed off or static PDFs with lists of dates, deadlines, and relevant details that will surely change as the year progresses. In fact, many learning management systems (LMS) already have useful calendar features for this reason. Again, teachers need only know the best way to use them. The digital format offers flexibility and connectivity that old-school syllabi simply can’t hold a candle to.
Tips for creating an effective digital syllabus
Classroom settings and imperatives can vary wildly, and so can the preferences of individual educators. Optimization in this case is in the eye of the beholder, but consider a few ideas that may wind up on your personal best practices list for building out your digital syllabus every year around this time:
Make accessing the most up-to-date version of the syllabus as frictionless as possible for students and parents. Don’t attach your syllabus as a static PDF buried in an LMS. Instead, opt-in to the calendar most LMS platforms offer for the mutual benefit of educators, students, and parents. To maximize engagement and efficiency, teachers can create a subscription calendar in addition or as an alternative to the LMS calendar. Subscription calendars create a live link between the course syllabus and students’ and/or parents’ own digital calendar ecosystem, such as Google Calendar or Outlook. Instead of logging into the LMS to check upcoming dates, assignments, or project deadlines, the information becomes more accessible as it integrates into their monthly, weekly, and daily schedules, mitigating the chance of a missed assignment or even parent-teacher conference. Students and parents only have to opt-in to these calendars once at the beginning of the academic year, but any of the inevitable changes and updates to the syllabus throughout the year are reflected immediately in their personal calendar, making it simpler and easier for educators to ensure no important date is ever missed. While few LMS offer this option within the platform, subscription calendar links are like any hyperlink–easy to share in emails, LMS message notifications, and more.
Leverage the calendar description feature. Virtually every digital calendar provides an option to include a description. This is where educators should include assignment details, such as which textbook pages to read, links to videos or course material, grading rubrics, or more.
Color-code calendar invitations for visual information processors. Support different types of information processors in the classroom by taking the time to color-code the syllabus. For example, purple for project deadlines, red for big exams, yellow for homework assignment due dates. Consistency and routine are key, especially for younger students and busy parents. Color-coding, or even the consistent naming and formatting of events and deadlines, can make a large impact on students meeting deadlines.
Encourage further classroom engagement by integrating digital syllabus “Easter eggs.” Analog syllabi often contain Easter eggs that reward students who read it all the way through. Digital syllabi can include similar engaging surprises, but they’re easy to add throughout the year. Hide extra-credit opportunities in the description of an assignment deadline or add an invitation for last-minute office hours ahead of a big quiz or exam. It could be as simple as a prompt for students to draw their favorite animal at the bottom of an assignment for an extra credit point. If students are aware that these opportunities could creep up in the calendar, it keeps them engaged and perhaps strengthens the habit of checking their classroom syllabus.
While the start of the new school year is the perfect time to introduce a digital syllabus into the classroom, it’s important for educators to keep their own bandwidth and comfortability in mind. Commit to one semester with a digital syllabus and spend time learning the basic features and note how the classroom responds. From there, layer in more advanced features or functionality that helps students without being cumbersome to manage. Over time, educators will learn what works best for them, their students and parents, and the digital syllabus will be a classroom tool that simplifies classroom management and drives more engagement year-round.
Joep Leussink, AddEvent
Joep Leussink is the Head of Growth at AddEvent, a San Francisco-based platform that provides event and calendar marketing solutions. With a proven track record in driving growth for B2B SaaS companies from Series B to post-IPO, Joep leverages his expertise in demand generation and growth marketing to make AddEvent known and accessible to everyone.
Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)
By now, it’s no secret that phones are a problem in classrooms. A growing body of research and an even louder chorus of educators point to the same conclusion: students are distracted, they’re disengaged, and their learning is suffering. What’s less clear is how to solve this issue.
Of late, school districts across the country are drawing firmer lines. From Portland, Maine to Conroe, Texas and Springdale, Arkansas, administrators are implementing “bell-to-bell” phone bans, prohibiting access from the first bell to the last. Many are turning to physical tools like pouches and smart lockers, which lock away devices for the duration of the day, to enforce these rules. The logic is straightforward: take the phones away, and you eliminate the distraction.
In many ways, it works. Schools report fewer behavioral issues, more focused classrooms, and an overall sense of calm returning to hallways once buzzing with digital noise. But as these policies scale, the limitations are becoming more apparent.
But students, as always, find ways around the rules. They’ll bring second phones to school or slip their device in undetected–and more. Teachers, already stretched thin, are now tasked with enforcement, turning minor infractions into disciplinary incidents.
Some parents and students are also pushing back, arguing that all-day bans are too rigid, especially when phones serve as lifelines for communication, medical needs, or even digital learning. In Middletown, Connecticut, students reportedly became emotional just days after a new ban took effect, citing the abrupt change in routine and lack of trust.
The bigger question is this: Are we trying to eliminate phones, or are we trying to teach responsible use?
That distinction matters. While it’s clear that phone misuse is widespread and the intent behind bans is to restore focus and reduce anxiety, blanket prohibitions risk sending the wrong message. Instead of fostering digital maturity, they can suggest that young people are incapable of self-regulation. And in doing so, they may sidestep an important opportunity: using school as a place to practice responsible tech habits, not just prohibit them.
This is especially critical given the scope of the problem. A recent study by Fluid Focus found that students spend five to six hours a day on their phones during school hours. Two-thirds said it had a negative impact on their academic performance. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, 77 percent of school leaders believe phones hurt learning. The data is hard to ignore.
But managing distraction isn’t just about removal. It’s also about design. Schools that treat device policy as an infrastructure issue, rather than a disciplinary one, are beginning to implement more structured approaches.
Some are turning to smart locker systems that provide centralized, secure phone storage while offering greater flexibility: configurable access windows, charging capabilities, and even low admin options to help keep teachers teaching. These systems don’t “solve” the phone problem, but they do help schools move beyond the extremes of all-or-nothing.
And let’s not forget equity. Not all students come to school with the same tech, support systems, or charging access. A punitive model that assumes all students have smartphones (or can afford to lose access to them) risks deepening existing divides. Structured storage systems can help level the playing field, offering secure and consistent access to tech tools without relying on personal privilege or penalizing students for systemic gaps.
That said, infrastructure alone isn’t the answer. Any solution needs to be accompanied by clear communication, transparent expectations, and intentional alignment with school culture. Schools must engage students, parents, and teachers in conversations about what responsible phone use actually looks like and must be willing to revise policies based on feedback. Too often, well-meaning bans are rolled out with minimal explanation, creating confusion and resistance that undermine their effectiveness.
Nor should we idealize “focus” as the only metric of success. Mental health, autonomy, connection, and trust all play a role in creating school environments where students thrive. If students feel overly surveilled or infantilized, they’re unlikely to engage meaningfully with the values behind the policy. The goal should not be control for its own sake, it should be cultivating habits that carry into life beyond the classroom.
The ubiquity of smartphones is undeniable. While phones are here to stay, the classroom represents one of the few environments where young people can learn how to use them wisely, or not at all. That makes schools not just sites of instruction, but laboratories for digital maturity.
The danger isn’t that we’ll do too little. It’s that we’ll settle for solutions that are too simplistic or too focused on optics, instead of focusing not on outcomes.
We need more than bans. We need balance. That means moving past reactionary policies and toward systems that respect both the realities of modern life and the capacity of young people to grow. It means crafting strategies that support teachers without overburdening them, that protect focus without sacrificing fairness, and that reflect not just what we’re trying to prevent, but what we hope to build.
The real goal shouldn’t be to simply get phones out of kids’ hands. It should be to help them learn when to put them down on their own.
Emily Smith, HonestWaves
Emily Smith is the founder of HonestWaves, a California-based company that designs and suppliesphone charging solutions, including smart lockers and charging stations, for businesses and public spaces.
Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)
As artificial intelligence (AI) continues to reshape the educational landscape, teachers have a unique opportunity to model how to use it responsibly, creatively, and strategically.
Rather than viewing AI as a threat or distraction, we can reframe it as a tool for empowerment and efficiency–one that allows us to meet student needs in more personalized, inclusive, and imaginative ways. Whether you’re an AI beginner or already experimenting with generative tools, here are five ways to infuse AI into your classroom this school year:
1. Co-plan lessons with an AI assistant
AI platforms like ChatGPT, Eduaide.ai, and MagicSchool.ai can generate lesson frameworks aligned to standards, differentiate tasks for diverse learners, and offer fresh ideas for student engagement. Teachers can even co-create activities with students by prompting AI together in real time.
Try this: Ask your AI assistant to create a standards-aligned lesson that includes a formative check and a scaffold for ELLs–then adjust to your style and class needs.
2. Personalize feedback without the time drain
AI can streamline your feedback process by suggesting draft comments on student work based on rubrics you provide. This is particularly helpful for writing-intensive courses or project-based learning.
Ethical reminder: Always review and personalize AI-generated feedback to maintain professional judgment and student trust.
3. Support multilingual learners in real time
AI tools like Google Translate, Microsoft Immersive Reader, and Read&Write can help bridge language gaps by offering simplified texts, translated materials, and visual vocabulary support.
Even better: Teach students to use these tools independently to foster agency and access.
4. Teach AI literacy as a 21st-century skill
Students are already using AI–let’s teach them to use it well. Dedicate time to discuss how AI works, how to prompt effectively, and how to critically evaluate its outputs for bias, credibility, and accuracy.
Try this mini-lesson: “3 Prompts, 3 Results.” Have students input the same research question into three AI tools and compare the results for depth, accuracy, and tone.
5. Automate the tedious–refocus on relationships
From generating rubrics and newsletters to drafting permission slips and analyzing formative assessment data, AI can reduce the clerical load. This frees up your most valuable resource: time.
Pro tip: Use AI to pre-write behavior plans, follow-up emails, or even lesson exit ticket summaries.
The future of AI
AI won’t replace teachers–but teachers who learn how to use AI thoughtfully may find themselves with more energy, better tools, and deeper student engagement than ever before. As the school year begins, let’s lead by example and embrace AI not as a shortcut, but as a catalyst for growth.
Timothy Montalvo, Iona University
Timothy Montalvo is an educator passionate about leveraging technology to enhance student learning outcomes. With over a decade of experience in social studies education, he is dedicated to preparing students for active citizenship in the digital age. He currently serves as a Middle School Assistant Principal in Westchester, NY and an adjunct professor of education at Iona University in New York. He can be reached on Twitter/X @MrMontalvoEDU.
Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)
Indianapolis Public Schools will put one closed school building up for lease or sale to charter schools for $1 and will sell another to a local nonprofit, the district announced Friday.
The transfer of the buildings that used to house Raymond Brandes School 65 and Francis Bellamy School 102 stems from an Indiana Court of Appeals ruling in a lengthy battle over the state’s so-called $1 law, which requires districts to transfer unused school buildings to charter schools for the sale or lease price of $1. The court ruled in May that IPS must sell School 65.
The district said in a statement that Damar Charter Academy, a school for students with developmental and behavioral challenges in Decatur Township, had reached out to IPS to express interest in School 65 — which is located on the southeast side of IPS. The district does not have the power to pick which charter school it will sell a building to — if more than one charter school is interested, state law requires a committee to decide.
On Monday, Damar confirmed to Chalkbeat that it is interested in School 65.
In the statement, the district said it would prefer to “move forward with disposition” of School 65 through a collaborative community process.
“But, we respect the court’s decision and will proceed in full compliance with that order,” IPS Superintendent Aleesia Johnson said. “If the building is claimed by a charter school, we think Damar has a strong record of serving some of the most vulnerable and underserved students in our city and I have confidence that acquiring Raymond Brandes will allow them to expand their operations to serve even more students.”
Meanwhile, the district will sell School 102 to Voices, a nonprofit that works with youth, for $550,000. The district had already leased the school on the Far Eastside to Voices, which also shares the space with two other youth programs.
“Indianapolis Public Schools is committed to continuing to engage with our community on thoughtful re-use of our facilities and to being good stewards of our public assets,” Johnson said in a statement. “We are excited to move forward with our planned sale of the Francis Bellamy 102 building to VOICES and to see their impact in serving our community continue for many years into the future.”
This story was originally published on Chalkbeat. Chalkbeat is a nonprofit news site covering educational change in public schools.
At ISTE this summer, I lost count of how many times I heard “AI” as the answer to every educational challenge imaginable. Student engagement? AI-powered personalization! Teacher burnout? AI lesson planning! Parent communication? AI-generated newsletters! Chronic absenteeism? AI predictive models! But after moderating a panel on improving the high school experience, which focused squarely on human-centered approaches, one district administrator approached us with gratitude: “Thank you for NOT saying AI is the solution.”
That moment crystallized something important that’s getting lost in our rush toward technological fixes: While we’re automating attendance tracking and building predictive models, we’re missing the fundamental truth that showing up to school is a human decision driven by authentic relationships.
The real problem: Students going through the motions
The scope of student disengagement is staggering. Challenge Success, affiliated with Stanford’s Graduate School of Education, analyzed data from over 270,000 high school students across 13 years and found that only 13 percent are fully engaged in their learning. Meanwhile, 45 percent are what researchers call “doing school,” going through the motions behaviorally but finding little joy or meaning in their education.
This isn’t a post-pandemic problem–it’s been consistent for over a decade. And it directly connects to attendance issues. The California Safe and Supportive Schools initiative has identified school connectedness as fundamental to attendance. When high schoolers have even one strong connection with a teacher or staff member who understands their life beyond academics, attendance improves dramatically.
The districts that are addressing this are using data to enable more meaningful adult connections, not just adding more tech. One California district saw 32 percent of at-risk students improve attendance after implementing targeted, relationship-based outreach. The key isn’t automated messages, but using data to help educators identify disengaged students early and reach out with genuine support.
This isn’t to discount the impact of technology. AI tools can make project-based learning incredibly meaningful and exciting, exactly the kind of authentic engagement that might tempt chronically absent high schoolers to return. But AI works best when it amplifies personal bonds, not seeks to replace them.
Mapping student connections
Instead of starting with AI, start with relationship mapping. Harvard’s Making Caring Common project emphasizes that “there may be nothing more important in a child’s life than a positive and trusting relationship with a caring adult.” Rather than leave these connections to chance, relationship mapping helps districts systematically identify which students lack that crucial adult bond at school.
The process is straightforward: Staff identify students who don’t have positive relationships with any school adults, then volunteers commit to building stronger connections with those students throughout the year. This combines the best of both worlds: Technology provides the insights about who needs support, and authentic relationships provide the motivation to show up.
True school-family partnerships to combat chronic absenteeism need structures that prioritize student consent and agency, provide scaffolding for underrepresented students, and feature a wide range of experiences. It requires seeing students as whole people with complex lives, not just data points in an attendance algorithm.
The choice ahead
As we head into another school year, we face a choice. We can continue chasing the shiny startups, building ever more sophisticated systems to track and predict student disengagement. Or we can remember that attendance is ultimately about whether a young person feels connected to something meaningful at school.
The most effective districts aren’t choosing between high-tech and high-touch–they’re using technology to enable more meaningful personal connections. They’re using AI to identify students who need support, then deploying caring adults to provide it. They’re automating the logistics so teachers can focus on relationships.
That ISTE administrator was right to be grateful for a non-AI solution. Because while artificial intelligence can optimize many things, it can’t replace the fundamental human need to belong, to feel seen, and to believe that showing up matters.
The solution to chronic absenteeism is in our relationships, not our servers. It’s time we started measuring and investing in both.
Dr. Kara Stern, SchoolStatus
Dr. Kara Stern is Director of Education for SchoolStatus, a portfolio of data-driven solutions that help K-12 districts improve attendance, strengthen family communication, support teacher growth, and simplify daily operations. A former teacher, principal, and head of school, she holds a Ph.D. in Teaching & Learning from NYU.
Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)
This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.
A new school year is upon us — and as with any year, the return to the classroom brings with it an array of challenges both novel and familiar.
Shifting enrollments alone present existential challenges for many school systems as declining birth rates result in lower student populations, which public schools are now in greater competition to attract and retain. Compounding those challenges are newer hurdles like artificial intelligence and a changing federal policy landscape that are impacting approaches to teaching and learning.
To help you unpack the obstacles and opportunities on the table this fall, here are four trends to watch in the 2025-26 school year.
Enrollment crucial as budgets tighten
As the new school year begins, fall enrollment numbers will be crucial for district budgets, said Marguerite Roza, a research professor and director of Georgetown University’s Edunomics Lab.
Due to federal COVID-19 emergency relief funds, many districts appeared to ignore the realities of their declining enrollment, she said. However, when relief funding dissipates and budgets tighten, districts need to keep a very close eye on their fall enrollment: Even if it’s just 1% lower or higher than forecasted, that will be “super important” for schools’ bottom lines, Roza said.
For some districts, an influx of migrant students has offset declines in non-migrant student populations, Roza said. But that kind of enrollment growth is worth keeping an eye on, she said — especially amid the Trump administration’s heightened immigration enforcement policies. Though schools cannot record a student’s immigration status, a drop in English learners could be a signal of that change, she said.
Additionally, districts should look for declines in kindergarten or at secondary grade levels, Roza said. If a district has fewer kindergarteners but strong high school enrollment, for instance, then it has a birthrate problem, she said. But if it’s a more widespread issue, it may be that people are moving out of the area.
Growing school choice policies may also have an impact on enrollment down the line, Roza said.
Some districts with significant and ongoing enrollment drops will also have to make tough decisions this school year about the future of their schools. For instance, district leaders in Atlanta, Austin and St. Louis public schools are all currently considering whether they should close or consolidate school buildings due to budget challenges and enrollment declines.
Federal policy whiplash persists
Schools continue to face the whiplash of the Trump administration’s drastic shift in and rapid enforcement of federal policies, which have included the withholding of federal funding in some cases. That’s especially true for districts’ policies related to LGBTQ+ issues as well as diversity, equity and inclusion.
Whereas the Biden administration encouraged the inclusion and protection of transgender students, for instance, the Trump administration quickly and forcefully reversed course. Federal officials have so far made an example out of multiple education agencies — including in Maine, California, Minnesota and major districts in Northern Virginia — for what it says are violations of Title IX. Those violations have included allowing transgender students to play on women’s and girls’ sports teams.
Schools have also been under the microscope for practices meant to level the playing field for Black and brown students, which the administration says are discriminatory against White and Asian students in some cases. In April, for example, the department launched an investigation into Chicago Public Schools for its “Black Students Success Plan.”
Many civil rights organizations, teacher organizations and sometimes even school districts, however, have challenged the Trump administration’s policies, which they say have been made in some cases without going through the proper legal channels and violate students’ rights. As those cases work their way through the courts, policies continue to shift. In one case, key efforts by the administration to roll back DEI measures — including a requirement from the administration that asked districts to certify they are not incorporating DEI in their schools — were blocked by a judge in August, at the launch of the 2025-26 school year.
Technology, relationships drive special ed improvements
Despite persistent special educator shortages, funding gaps and uncertainty about federal-level support to states and districts, the special education field is optimistic about the progress students with disabilities will make this school year as more attention is focused on boosting family engagement and expanding the use of technology to support students with disabilities, according to experts in the field.
Advances in technology, including artificial intelligence tools, are easing paperwork burdens for special educators. Improvements in augmentative and alternative communication and other technology are strengthening personalized learning for students with disabilities. Additionally, evidence-based practices, such as universal design for learning and positive behavioral interventions and supports, are helping schools meet individual student needs.
Relevant professional development on tech tools, however, is only one part of helping a student succeed, said Kelly Rudyk, director of pupil personnel services for New York’s North Salem Central School District, in a recent post on AASA, The School Superintendents Association’s website. Relationships between administrators and special educators, and between schools and families, are also essential, Rudyk said.
“To truly move the work forward, we need to set clear district goals in partnership with special education leaders,” Rudyk said. “These goals should: reflect instructional priorities, support the meaningful use of technology and improve outcomes for students with disabilities.”
AI spreads its footprint in schools
School leaders will enter the 2025-26 school year with encouragement from the U.S. Department of Education to use existing federal grants to integrate artificial intelligence in classrooms. Over the summer, U.S. Education Secretary Linda McMahon sent a “Dear Colleague” letter to state and district leaders informing them that they can use federal funds to bolster AI’s use in improving high-quality curriculum tools, high-impact tutoring, and college and career pathway advising.
Still, there’s little research available on the impacts AI technology has on student outcomes, particularly with increasingly popular AI tutoring tools.
AASA also expressed some concerns over the Education Department’s latest full-speed push for AI tools in schools.
In response to a proposed rule on priorities for using discretionary grant programs to support AI use in schools, which was published in the Federal Register in July, AASA submitted a comment on Aug. 20 asking for a greater focus on the educator workforce within AI initiatives. AI cannot be a “substitute,” the association said, for “the human relationships and professional expertise at the heart of student learning.”
On top of that, AASA warned against “framing AI as a silver bullet,” and that any “thoughtful national strategy must include clear guardrails, sustainable funding that does not come at the expense of other high-priority federal programs, and ongoing evaluation of what works in practice.” As school leaders approach the fourth academic year since ChatGPT launched, researchers also recommend that districts develop their own acceptable AI use policies if they haven’t already.
Meanwhile, 30 states have issued their own AI guidance for schools as of June, according to TeachAI, a national coalition focused on AI in education.
Patients benefit from a diverse healthcare workforce. Doctors, particularly those from disadvantaged and minoritised backgrounds, play a crucial role in advocating for what is best for their patients.
The NHS recognises this, linking workforce diversity with increased patient satisfaction, better care outcomes, reduced staff turnover, and greater productivity.
A promising start
Efforts to widen participation in higher education began at the turn of the century following the Dearing report. Over time, access to medical schools gained attention due to concerns about its status as one of the most socially exclusive professions. Medical schools responded in 2014 with the launch of the Selecting for Excellence report and the establishment of the Medical Schools Council (MSC) Selection Alliance, representing admissions teams from every UK medical school and responsible for fair admissions to medical courses.
With medical school expansion under government review, institutions face increasing pressure to demonstrate meaningful progress in widening participation to secure additional places. Although medicine programmes still lag in representing some demographic groups, they now align more closely with wider higher education efforts.
However, widening participation policy often follows a deficit model, viewing disadvantaged young people as needing to be “fixed” or “topped up” before joining the profession. Phrases like “raising aspirations” suggest these students lack ambition or motivation. This model shifts responsibility onto individuals, asking them to adapt to a system shaped mainly by the experiences of white, male, middle-class groups.
Beyond access
To create real change, organisations must move beyond this model and show that students from diverse backgrounds are not only welcomed but valued for their unique perspectives and strengths. This requires a systems-based approach that rethinks every part of medical education, starting with admissions. In its recent report, Fostering Potential, the MSC reviewed a decade of widening participation in medicine. Medical schools across the UK have increased outreach, introduced gateway year courses, and implemented contextual criteria into admissions.
Contextual markers recognise structural inequalities affecting educational attainment. Students from low socioeconomic backgrounds often attend under-resourced schools and face personal challenges hindering academic performance. Yet evidence shows that, when given the chance, these students often outperform more advantaged peers at university. Contextual admissions reframe achievements in light of these challenges, offering a fairer assessment of potential.
Despite progress, access remains unequal. Although acceptance rates for students from the most deprived areas have increased, their chances remain 37 per cent lower than those from the least deprived areas. Research indicates that a two-grade A-level reduction is needed to level the playing field—an approach several schools now adopt. Other policies include fast-tracking interviews, test score uplifts, and alternative scoring for widening participation candidates.
Not just special cases
These processes, however, are often opaque and hard to navigate. Many applicants struggle to determine eligibility. With no single definition of disadvantage, medical schools use varied proxy indicators, often poorly explained online. This confusion disproportionately affects the students these policies aim to support; those without university-educated parents, lacking insider knowledge, and attending under-resourced schools.
A commitment to transparency is vital but must go beyond rhetoric. Transparency means all medical schools clearly outline contextual admissions criteria in one accessible place, provide step-by-step guides to applicants and advisors, and offer examples of how contextual data influences decisions. Medical schools could collaborate to agree on standardised metrics for identifying widening participation candidates. This would simplify eligibility understanding, reduce confusion, and promote fairness.
Tools like MSC’s entry requirements platform are a good start but must be expanded, standardised, and actively promoted to the communities that need them most. Genuine transparency empowers applicants to make informed choices, selecting schools best suited to their circumstances and maximising success chances. This also eases the burden on schools, advisors, and outreach staff who struggle to interpret inconsistent criteria.
Ultimately, moving away from the deficit model toward an open, systems-based approach is about more than fairness. It is essential for building a medical workforce that reflects society’s diversity, improving patient care, strengthening the profession, and upholding the NHS’s commitment to equity and excellence.
