At first glance, California and Kentucky might seem worlds apart. One is among the nation’s most populous states, anchored by some of the largest urban centers in the country. The other is a midsize state with predominantly rural communities and deep local roots.
And yet — both are demonstrating notable progress through community schools, an evidence-based school transformation strategy that unites students, families, educators and community partners to improve student learning and well-being.
During a recent Learning Policy Institute webinar, leaders from both states came together to share how they are implementing locally driven versions of this strategy — and why it’s gaining traction across the political spectrum. Their discussion makes clear that while community schools look different in every context, they all provide the services and supports that each community’s students need to succeed in school and life, and they are created and run by the people who know their children best. When well implemented, these schools offer a flexible, research-supported approach that states are adapting to meet their own needs.
Long-standing research has consistently found that well-implemented community schools lead to:
Additionally, recent findings from large-scale studies in New York City and California show measurable improvements in student attendance and academic outcomes—particularly for historically underserved groups.
Dr. Ingrid Roberson, Chief Deputy Superintendent at the California Department of Education, described California’s journey to building one of the most ambitious community school initiatives in the country.
California’s size alone presents a challenge: nearly 6 million students in more than 10,000 schools, spread across vast rural regions and some of the nation’s largest urban areas. To navigate this complexity, the state has emphasized local decision-making, shared leadership, and robust technical assistance.
As Roberson noted, California now has 25% of its schools operating as community schools, and reaching this point has required not just new funding but a shift in mindset, “It really is a mindset shift. ... Yes, we’re seeing outcomes academically and social-emotionally, but it is such a mindset shift that has taken a few years for us to get to.”
California’s legislature first passed the California Community Schools Partnership Act in 2021 and then, during the pandemic, expanded the initiative into a historic $4 billion investment. But even with statewide funding through California Community Schools Partnership Program (CCSPP) grants, California has centered locally driven work by building infrastructure to support communities in leading their own versions of the strategy. This includes a statewide technical assistance center, eight regional technical assistance centers, and technical assistance from 52 of 58 county offices of education.
Roberson noted, “Having go-to technical assistance was incredibly important ... it allowed more than the 2,500 schools that got a [CCSPP] grant to also access that technical assistance system.”
She also shared that this locally directed work has made schools stronger academically and more resilient in the face of emergencies. During recent wildfires, community schools responded swiftly because of their existing relationships and structures. As she explained, “We found that our community schools were actually much more responsive to student and family needs and were able to organize school and community resources to provide temporary housing for families and staff. A community school is a more resilient school.”
California’s early outcomes reinforce this. The nation’s first major post-pandemic evaluation of community schools shows that California community schools are making greater improvements in chronic absence, ELA and math test scores, and suspension rates, compared to similar matched comparison schools.
Notably, the largest gains were among historically underserved students — including Black students, English learners, Hispanic students, and socioeconomically disadvantaged students — a strong indication that community schools can help close persistent opportunity and achievement gaps.
Together, these early signs of progress mirror improvements in other states implementing community schools, including Kentucky.
Kentucky’s path to community schools looks very different.
State Senator Amanda Mays Bledsoe explained that Kentucky’s work began more than 35 years ago with the creation of Family Resource and Youth Services Centers (FRYSCs), known locally as “Friskies.” These centers emerged in response to a 1990 Supreme Court ruling that Kentucky’s school funding system was unconstitutional. The resulting Kentucky Education Reform Act introduced per-pupil funding and strengthened local control, empowering communities to shape their own solutions.
FRYSCs now operate at or near 960 schools, serving over 600,000 students. The centers are designed specifically to address students’ non-academic barriers to learning — from dental care to mental health supports to family engagement — by building strong community partnerships.
Brigitte Blom, President and CEO of the Prichard Committee, shared, “To expect our teachers to become mental health experts is missing the expertise in our community that could be brought to bear. That’s the kind of partnership we want to see happen so teachers can focus on high-quality teaching and learning.”
What has kept the program alive across Republican and Democratic governors alike? Senator Bledsoe was clear: return on investment and community buy-in. “When I go across the state,” she said, “everywhere you go, they say, ‘Our FRYSC program matters.’ And it matters because it’s successful.”
Even during difficult budget cycles, Kentucky’s legislature has continued funding the program, currently investing $17.5 million annually. Communities love the flexibility, Bledsoe added, because needs shift over time: early literacy supports may be essential in elementary school, while mental health services or college-readiness support may be vital later on.
Blom also highlighted how Kentucky’s model puts community first—not as an add-on, but as the foundation. Through a Full-Service Community Schools state scaling grant, Prichard is building upon the long-standing FRYSC model by implementing the community schools strategy in districts across the state. This expansion prioritizes collaborative leadership at the district level, deep community engagement, shared analysis of local data, and alignment between academic goals and non-academic supports.
Even just a year and a half into implementation, the results are striking and include a 46% increase in community-based organization participation, a nearly 10% increase in reading achievement, and just over a 10% increase in math achievement.
The key, Blom emphasized, is trusted relationships and a commitment to local solutions. Teachers can focus on instruction, not trying to shoulder the full weight of social services, because the community is at the table. “Our approach was not prescriptive, it was about bringing the community to the table ... deciding together what we want to do to make a difference.”
Across the conversation, a clear theme emerged from both states: community schools succeed because they are flexible, locally driven, and centered on real needs identified by students, families, and educators.
Both states stressed:
And importantly, both emphasized what community schools are not: a one-size-fits-all program. They are a strategy, not a program, and can be approached successfully in different ways.
Take California and Kentucky’s strategies for funding community schools. Kentucky’s ongoing support for FRYSCs through the state education funding formula differs from California’s one-time investment in competitive grants and technical assistance. Yet both are yielding positive outcomes for students and communities.
Community schools are gaining traction in states across the political spectrum—from California to Florida, Maryland to Idaho, Illinois to New Mexico. Whether in the largest state in the country or a largely rural one with strong traditions of local governance, community schools offer a path forward rooted in local solutions, strong parent and family partnerships, and research-based practices.
This post is the third of three in a series on teacher recruitment and retention.
Across all 50 states, shortages and turnover continue to challenge the teacher workforce. Our 50-State Comparison on Teacher Recruitment and Retention highlights how states are tackling these issues by creating pathways, establishing financial incentives and addressing working conditions. High-quality mentoring and induction programs can make a big difference in whether teachers choose to stay yet they’re not always prioritized.
Addressing retention for new teachers is critical as one-third of new teachers leave within five years. The loss of experienced teachers disrupts student learning and imposes financial costs on districts through recruitment and training expenses. Induction and mentoring programs can help address both problems by supporting early career teachers and building their sense of belonging and professional confidence.
These programs pair new teachers with experienced colleagues while providing structured mentoring and opportunities for observation and feedback. Research shows that new teachers who participate in induction programs are more effective educators and more likely to remain in the profession compared to those who receive little or no induction support.
At the same time, mentoring roles offer experienced teachers meaningful leadership and professional growth opportunities. Mentoring allows them to reflect on their own practice, share their expertise and help shape the next generation of teachers. These opportunities often can help teachers feel more satisfied in their work, stay connected to their role as educators and make them less likely to leave the classroom.
California’s Teacher Induction Program serves as the required second tier of the two-tier credentialing system. As part of the program, all new teachers are required to complete a two-year, job-embedded induction program centered on individualized mentor-based support. Each beginning teacher works with a trained mentor to develop an Individual Learning Plan, which is meant to guide their professional growth through structured “cycles of inquiry," in which teachers set a goal, try an instructional strategy, examine the results, and use what they learn to plan their next steps. Mentors must be assigned within 30 days of hire and meet with teachers for at least one hour per week to offer both immediate assistance and long-term guidance.
Delaware’s Comprehensive Induction Program provides an extensive statewide mentoring system that requires a four-year induction and mentoring process for all new educators and a one-year program for teachers new to the state. This program features weekly mentor meetings, classroom observations, and reflective cycles that promote instructional improvement and professional growth.
North Carolina’s Beginning Teacher Support Program demonstrates how states can integrate induction into a coordinated statewide system. Each public school in the state is required to implement a state-approved, three-year induction plan. Regional education facilitators provide guidance and professional development. The program emphasizes continuous improvement, which ensures new teachers receive consistent, high-quality support.
Taken together, these examples demonstrate how high-quality induction and mentoring programs support a healthy teacher workforce by helping new teachers thrive early on while giving experienced educators purposeful opportunities to lead and grow. As states continue to consider a range of approaches to address teacher workforce needs, induction and mentoring programs represent one evidence-informed option that some states are using to support educators. Supporting new teachers through their early years can prevent turnover and may help cultivate a more stable and resilient profession over time.
This is the second of three posts in a series about teacher recruitment and retention.
Recent studies estimate that about one in eight teaching positions nationally are either filled by teachers not fully certified for the specific role or unfilled. As states continue to grapple with a specific and persistent teacher shortage, strategies to recruit and retain teachers remain top of mind for policymakers.
In our 50-State Comparison on Teacher Recruitment and Retention, we explore different policies that states have taken to address the shortage through a variety of strategies. These policies work to strengthen the pipeline for educators so that once they are recruited to the profession they stay in the classroom.
One rising trend in strengthening recruitment is paying novice teachers for their clinical experiences. States have recently begun pursuing opportunities to ensure that student teachers are compensated. This is often on top of newer approaches like:
While apprenticeships and residencies have garnered a lot of attention in recent years, over 75% of teachers who complete an educator preparation program are still coming through traditional educator preparation programs. Student teaching, or the full-time clinical experience that teacher candidates undertake to gain experience as teachers prior to licensure, has traditionally been an unpaid, full-time position. This presents a financial barrier as candidates sacrifice paid work opportunities to complete their student teaching requirements.
States have taken several approaches to removing this financial barrier. One is banning the practice of unpaid student teaching. Illinois passed H.B. 3528 in 2025, which prohibits higher education institutions from having any policy that requires student teaching for pre-service teachers to be unpaid.
A more common approach has been providing financial compensation to candidates directly via stipends or scholarships. States have created stipend programs to support teacher candidates during their student teaching clinical experiences. Some include:
While financial concerns are not the only barrier to entry into the teaching profession, it is one area policymakers can address to draw more candidates to the field. With myriad approaches to these supports, states are in a unique position to scaffold their teacher workforce starting when teachers first enter the field.
This post is the first of three in a series on teacher recruitment and retention.
Recent estimates highlight the persistent challenges in teacher staffing nationwide. The impact of those shortages is even more dire for certain geographic areas, student populations and subjects.
A 2021 analysis of hiring across district types demonstrated struggles that rural districts face in staffing specific subjects. For example, 57% of rural districts noted challenges in hiring world language teachers compared to 36% of their urban counterparts. Earlier studies show that hiring and retaining qualified teachers in rural districts have persisted for years. As for subject area shortages, data from the 2024-25 school year show that states most frequently identified special education (45 states), science (41 states) and math (40 states) as their core shortage subject areas.
Recent tracking by the Learning Policy Institute shows that shortages impact rural districts more than urban districts. This data highlights rural district’s distance from educator preparation programs, limited tax revenue and inability to offer competitive salaries. Similarly, specific student populations — including students from low-income households, students of color and students with disabilities — and specific subject areas are disproportionately impacted by shortages.
In an attempt to better understand how states are approaching these needs more directly, our updated 50-State Comparison on Teacher Recruitment and Retention includes data points that distinguish between financial incentives for teacher recruitment to geographic areas of need and to shortage subject areas or specific student populations.
Previous versions of this resource looked at financial incentives more broadly, but separating these supports by focus helps us better understand state efforts and opportunities in teacher recruitment. This only includes those scholarships, grants, stipends, tuition waivers and loan forgiveness programs established in state policy, so these numbers may be higher when considering other state-level programs created by departments of education or other sources.
The analysis showed a balanced approach with the vast majority of states offering a financial incentive in both areas. Thirty-two states offer at least one financial incentive to recruit teachers to underserved schools or geographic areas of need, and 38 state and the District of Columbia offer at least one financial incentive to teach in a shortage subject area or specific student populations. Below are some of the ways states have explored supporting teachers in each of those areas:
Targeted efforts like these can help states alleviate persistent teacher shortages in the schools and areas that need the most support. For recent efforts like these, please see our State Education Policy Tracking tool and our other resources on the teaching profession.
Off-year elections may have been fewer in number, but their impact on education policy is far-reaching. In New Jersey, Virginia and states with targeted initiatives, these races will shape education leadership appointments, funding decisions and legislative priorities. These contests also provide a critical preview of national trends heading into the 2026 elections when 36 gubernatorial races and numerous state education posts will take center stage.
In New Jersey, Governor-elect Mikie Sherrill defeated former Assemblyman Jack Ciattarelli in a competitive open race in a state where the governor appoints the state’s education commissioner, its state board of education and secretary of higher education. Gov.-elect Sherrill campaigned on early education access, student mental health supports, universal school meals, and expanding career pathways and apprenticeships. Ciattarelli’s campaign prioritized funding reform, charter school expansion, parents’ rights and pension reform.
In Virginia, Governor-elect Abigail Spanberger defeated Lieutenant Governor Winsome Earle-Sears in another open race. Like New Jersey, Virginia’s governor appoints both a state superintendent of education and the members of the state board of education. Gov.-elect Spanberger will also appoint a cabinet-level secretary of education. Spanberger’s education priorities include updating state accountability and standards, teacher supports, student safety and wraparound services, and postsecondary affordability and access. Lt. Gov. Earle-Sears’ education priorities primarily related to parents’ rights and women’s sports.
Nationally, these races reduced the gap in the 50-state gubernatorial split to 26 states led by Republicans and 25 by Democrats including the District of Columbia, which amplifies the trends nationwide.
The New Jersey Assembly and Virginia House of Delegates each held full-chamber legislative contests.
In the New Jersey Assembly, Democrats, who held a 52-28 majority, maintained control amid Republican challenges in suburban districts. Education funding, property taxes and school safety legislation will likely be their top issues in the coming legislative session.
Virginia’s House of Delegates saw Democrats, who held a narrow 51-49 majority, expand their majority to at least 64 seats through sweeping gains in battleground districts. This expanded control is likely to shape issues including school board oversight, teacher salaries and education budgets. Various seats were also up for special elections in Minnesota, Mississippi, New Hampshire, Texas and Washington though these had no impact on chamber leadership.
Although Louisiana voted on an education measure in March, Colorado was the only state to hold measures with direct implications for education in November. Both measures passed and include:
Washington held indirect elections for two seats on its State Board of Education, which are selected by school directors. Nonprofit leader Angela Griffin retained her seat with 62% of the vote, and educator Van Cummings will be sworn into an open seat with 51% of the vote.
Maryland will also be selecting a new teacher member of its state board of education to be elected by certified educators.
With 36 states and the District of Columbia holding gubernatorial races (with at least 16 term-limited governors), 2026 is set to be another consequential year.
These results will soon shape key leadership appointments, funding decisions and policy priorities. From Colorado’s school meal initiatives to leadership changes in New Jersey and Virginia, these outcomes will reverberate in classrooms and on campuses. Our team at ECS remains committed to tracking these shifts, providing policymakers and stakeholders with clear, actionable insights into education governance and trends.
This post contains references to suicide; if you or a loved one need help, call 988. Help is available.This guest post comes to us from Alyssa Morrison, policy and advocacy manager at Committee for Children. All views are those of the author.
Mental health is complex, and, by various metrics, kids have not been alright. Some factors of youth mental health declines cited by policymakers are screen time, cell phone use and social media. Though the available research is more nuanced, legislation on this issue is rising. Efforts to restrict access to personal devices and social media in school to protect students’ wellbeing may be successful in some respects but also may obscure the bigger picture of students’ overall wellbeing.
Increasingly, children are younger when they begin accessing internet-enabled devices. According to Common Sense Media, four in 10 children have a tablet by two years old. In 2011, 8% of 0- to 8-year-olds used a mobile device at least once or more per day. That percentage increased to 26% in 2024.
According to Education Week, at least 30 states and the District of Columbia require local education agencies to adopt and implement policies restricting or limiting cell phone use or have codified a statewide restriction. Approaches vary from statewide bell-to-bell bans to encouraging districts to adopt their own policies. Additionally, some of these policies include restricting access to social media on school-provided devices.
It’s too early for clear evidence of the effectiveness of these policies on their intended goals (particularly since some haven’t even taken effect yet). Though bans may work during school hours, students will still have access to devices and social media outside of school. Thus, there will still be opportunities for any potential harm to still affect students. However, there are other ways to achieve the intended goals here beyond device bans.
There’s no feasible way to completely avoid screens today. Students will inevitably enter adulthood and a workforce that requires some level of mastery over ever-changing technology. If proven effective, restrictions may help students focus during class, but this will not necessarily prevent anxiety, depression, suicide ideation, isolation or bullying. Nor do they equip students with those foundational interpersonal skills that will help protect their wellbeing.
Rather, policymakers may consider ensuring youth are explicitly taught and able to practice interpersonal skills such as:
When taught, these skills can result in increased academic motivation, prosocial behavior and parental involvement. These skills are also associated with increased school attendance, reduced behavioral infractions, an increased sense of school belonging and improved student-teacher relationships. Additionally, these skills also serve as critical protective factors against adverse mental health challenges and are in-demand by employers. Explicitly teaching interpersonal skills in schools is a direct way to actualize stated goals of device bans.
In recent policy, two states included provisions addressing these skills in addition to device restrictions. North Carolina’s H. 959 requires local boards of education to adopt policies limiting student access to the Internet on devices. The bill also includes a provision requiring instruction on social media, covering certain topics including personal and interpersonal skills or character education. Colorado’s H.B. 25-1135 requires districts to adopt policies on student possession and use of communications devices but also provides that districts should consider issues related to media literacy and social and emotional learning in developing their policies.
If we want schools to help families safeguard children’s wellbeing, solely implementing device restrictions may not be enough. This could be an opportunity to create environments where students feel like they belong and teach them interpersonal skills that set them up for success in school and throughout life.
This is the second of two posts in a series about natural disasters and education. Read the first post in case you missed it!
Twenty years ago, Hurricane Katrina ravaged New Orleans, Louisiana, killing 1,833 people and causing $108 billion in damage. It devastated education in the region by destroying over 100 school buildings and displacing nearly two-thirds of K-12 students in the 2006-07 school year.
Many states, and particularly those that tend to experience a higher volume of natural disasters, have policies in place to prepare schools and students for severe weather and minimize the harm it causes to student achievement. However, disasters can be unpredictable, and it is equally important that states develop policies that respond to unexpected disaster-related impacts on schools and students.
The drastic transformation of public education in New Orleans following the complete destruction wrought by Katrina is one of the most well-known examples of education policy change in response to a natural disaster. In the aftermath of the storm, public charter schools replaced every traditional public school in the city with mixed results. However, this type of long-term, large-scale transformation takes years to implement and reaches beyond the scope of typical disaster response policies.
In recent years, states have introduced a variety of policies that respond more immediately to the real-time needs of schools and students as they emerge in the aftermath of a natural disaster. These policies often aim to ease the recovery process for schools by loosening existing requirements that may pose a barrier to recovery or providing additional disaster relief funds to affected districts.
In the wake of the January 2025 wildfires, California Gov. Newsom issued an executive order that aimed to remove statutory obstacles facing students and schools affected by the fires. This includes:
After Hurricane Helene in 2024, North Carolina enacted multiple bills focused on disaster recovery appropriations and programs. One such bill, passed in October 2024, appropriated $16 million to the department of public instruction to replace compensation lost by school nutrition employees due to school closures resulting from the hurricane. The bill also introduced calendar flexibility for affected schools in making up missed instructional times during the months following the hurricane.
Another disaster recovery bill, passed in March 2025, established a learning recovery program to provide instruction to students in grades four through eight to address interrupted instruction related to the hurricane and appropriated $9 million to support the program.
Natural disasters are not going anywhere; according to the National Centers for Environmental Information, billion-dollar weather and climate events are still increasing in both frequency and cost.
While many states have already taken on the important work of preparing for natural disasters with learning continuity planning and other emergency preparedness policies, these policies are often not enough to mitigate the harm disasters cause to schools and students on their own. States can also be responsive to the unpredictable impacts of natural disasters by providing students and schools with the real-time support they need to recover as quickly and fully as possible.
This is the first of two posts in a series about natural disasters and education. Subscribe to Ed Note to catch the second post in your inbox once it is released!
In January, destructive wildfires spread across Los Angeles — displacing approximately 150,000 residents and causing serious damage to homes, businesses and school buildings. Over eight months later, the city is still rebuilding.
Natural disasters are not a new phenomenon, but they are a growing one. The annual number of billion-dollar weather and climate disasters in the United States has increased sharply over time — hitting a record high of 28 in 2023. These disasters, which include droughts, floods, freezing, severe storms, tropical cyclones, wildfires and winter storms, impact nearly every aspect of life for affected residents, including education.
Disaster-related displacement and facility destruction often lead to prolonged school closures that significantly disrupt student learning. Hurricane recovery research indicates that negative impacts of severe weather events (e.g., test score declines) affect all students irrespective of demographic group. These harmful effects can also reach beyond immediate achievement by impacting postsecondary enrollment, years of schooling and earnings later in life.
However, strong state policies developed to prepare for the effects of natural disasters can help mitigate the negative effects of a disaster on students’ academic progress. Several states have introduced legislation in recent years to proactively prepare for the effects of natural disasters in education using a range of approaches, including district-level instructional continuity planning, student-level emergency planning, expedited facility repair provisions and virtual learning. These policies ensure that every district is prepared for an emergency while still providing flexibility to addressing their students’ needs.
California law requires each district to include an instructional continuity plan in its comprehensive school safety plan to ensure ongoing student access to instruction during emergencies. The plan must include procedures for student engagement within five calendar days following the emergency. The plan must also provide access to in-person or remote instruction within 10 instructional days following the emergency. In addition, state statute allows the Legislature to expedite repairs to school facilities damaged or destroyed by natural disasters to return facilities to usable conditions quickly.
In 2021, Maryland passed legislation requiring that every individualized education program (IEP) include a learning continuity plan to ensure students with disabilities continue receiving required services in emergency conditions. In 2023, the state passed another bill allowing county superintendents to provide virtual education days to students instead of closing public schools in the case of a severe weather event.
North Carolina law allows a district to use up to five remote instruction days (or 15, for districts located in a county that has received a good cause waiver from the state) when schools are closed due to severe weather conditions, energy shortages, power failures, or other emergency situations. In addition, the governing board of a district that plans to use remote instruction in these situations is required to annually submit a remote instruction plan. This plan must include information on resources that will be used to facilitate remote instruction, communication and training with staff, parents, and students on how to access and use remote instruction resources, establishment of staff roles and expectations, attendance tracking methods, development of options for teachers and students with limited connectivity, and the provision of remote instruction supports for students with disabilities.
Though these types of emergency preparation provisions do not exist under statute or regulation in many states, some provide relevant guidance and resources for districts to adopt if they choose. For example, Florida doesn’t require districts to develop instructional continuity plans but provides a manual, template and other resources related to these plans for districts to access as necessary.
As natural disasters continue to grow in frequency and severity, preempting disaster-related interruptions remains a critical responsibility of education leaders. While no one-size-fits-all approach exists, many states are already preparing for natural disasters with policies that aim to minimize their fallout by establishing procedures that streamline the rebuilding process and providing for learning continuity when a disaster hits.
This guest post comes from Ji Soo Song, director of projects and initiatives at SETDA and Bre Urness-Straight, director of educational technology at the Washington Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction. Views expressed in guest posts are those of the authors.
The COVID-19 pandemic spurred unprecedented investment in digital access — connecting students to the internet, providing devices and expanding infrastructure in ways never seen before. With the end of many temporary programs, we now face the question of how to sustain and accelerate progress so every K-12 student, regardless of income or geography, has the digital foundation needed to thrive. Developed through a robust, collaborative process with government leaders, researchers, nonprofit organizations, educators and students, SETDA’s Universal Connectivity Imperative (UCI) answers this question.
Research shows that students without reliable access to the Internet outside of school exhibit significantly lower GPAs. This academic disparity is correlated with a projected 4-6% decrease in annual income and an estimated $22-33 billion annual GDP loss across affected cohorts.
Beyond academics, connectivity is tied to student well-being and opportunity. With appropriate support from families and caregivers, connectivity can enable access to telehealth, mental wellness resources, and digital career pathways. With 92% of jobs now requiring digital skills and AI accelerating that trend, it is imperative that students develop these competencies in K-12 environments.
While most school buildings are connected, affordability continues to impact access to devices and high-speed connections from home. With the end of the federal Affordable Connectivity Program, which connected over 23 million households, states can play a role by considering permanent broadband affordability solutions, as well as shared data standards to track investments.
However, connectivity alone isn’t enough. Many families lack the support needed to safely navigate devices, education tools and digital systems. According to U.S. Department of Education data, only 24% of families report receiving digital skills support through their schools. Leaders can consider investing in digital and AI literacy for students and families along with technical assistance for districts to create edtech plans.
Additionally, cybersecurity remains for state education agencies. While some states have formed K-12 cybersecurity task forces and procurement guidance, there is a clear need for ongoing technical support for end users. Leaders can also consider evaluating the impact of the FCC’s E-Rate Cybersecurity Pilot Program to inform future investments, as well as coordinated guidance for education leaders.
Finally, popular digital tools too often fail to reflect the needs of all learners. The absence of learner variability in design — especially for students with disabilities or language barriers — stems from gaps in representation and inclusive design principles. Adopting the Universal Design for Learning framework at the system level, meeting new accessibility rules, and investing in research and development on inclusive tools can help ensure all students are served by digital solutions.
With this information in mind, UCI outlines five central policy considerations:
Since UCI’s publication, many states have taken additional steps to meet its recommendations. In the 2025 State EdTech Trends Survey, most leaders responded that their state is taking steps to meet at least one of the goals outlined above. Washington’s Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction provides an example of a state working on several of these goals in a coordinated approach. OSPI ensures that the unique needs and voices of K-12 students are represented in statewide digital inclusion strategies. With the support of the Legislature, OSPI extended more than 100 grants to districts focused on digital navigation to build connections with students and families through district resource training, family support events, devices, community helpdesks, and more.
The past few years have shown what’s possible with coordinated policy and funding. The challenge now is to make universal connectivity permanent — to create systems, policies and partnerships that ensure every student, regardless of income or geography, can learn, grow and thrive in a connected world.
This post was created in partnership with the National Center for Higher Education Management Systems (NCHEMS). We thank NCHEMS for lending their expertise on this post.
Public colleges and universities rely heavily on state funding to operate and serve students. How that funding gets allocated to institutions varies widely across the country. A new 50-State Comparison completed by Education Commission of the States and the National Center for Higher Education Management Systems (NCHEMS) documents the key factors included in mechanisms for allocating state funds to two- and four-year institutions.
The comparison highlights the complexity and diversity of state funding strategies, as well as the increasing emphasis on performance and equity. For policymakers, educators, and advocates, understanding these mechanisms provides essential context for decisions aimed at shaping a more effective and inclusive higher education system.
For example, the analysis shows that more than half of the states in the U.S. now include a performance measure, such as student completion, credential attainment, or job placement, in the funding allocation. Performance-based funding models are designed to incentivize institutions to prioritize student success over enrollment numbers through increased retention and completion efforts. The comparison identified that performance-based funding was a popular approach in states for both two-year institutions (31 states) and four-year institutions (29 states).
States also factor in student enrollment and may place a heightened emphasis on increasing enrollment for specific populations. Most states include a measure of student enrollment, such as full-time equivalence, in the funding allocation to two-year institutions (37 states) and four-year institutions (29 states). States also factor in counts of specific student populations, such as students who are eligible to receive a Pell Grant, adult learners, first-generation students, or veterans.
This landscape analysis offers leaders and advocates a critical resource for understanding the design and implications of state funding mechanisms. By cataloguing the inclusion of performance and equity measures alongside enrollment factors in state funding mechanisms, the 50-State Comparison provides a foundation for considering reforms that may support improved outcomes for all students.
Copyright 2026 / Education Commission of the States. All rights reserved.
