Beyond Disruption: What Comes Next for U.S. Education Policy?

This Learning Tuesdays conversation examined a rapidly shifting education policy landscape and what it means for early learning, literacy, and equity in 2026. Moderated by John Gomperts of CGLR, this session brought together national policy leaders to reflect on the forces that reshaped education in 2025 and to explore where leaders should focus in the year ahead.

Panelists — Jean-Claude Brizard of Digital Promise Global, Denise Forte of The Education Trust, Robin Lake of Center on Reinventing Public Education, and Michael J. Petrilli of Thomas B. Fordham Institute  — shared insights on federal retrenchment, rising state responsibility, the future of research and assessment, and the implications of these shifts for student outcomes, particularly for young learners and historically underserved communities.

Panelists agreed that 2025 marked a significant inflection point for U.S. education policy, with several developments shaping the landscape entering 2026.

Disruption of federal research and data infrastructure: Panelists underscored the pausing of nearly $900 million in Institute of Education Sciences-funded research and the scaling back of NAEP as watershed moments. Beyond stalled studies, these changes threaten long-term research capacity, evidence generation, and transparency — particularly for early literacy, instructional improvement, and continuous learning across the field.

A diminished federal role and growing uncertainty around enforcement: Participants noted a clear pullback in federal oversight, including weakened enforcement of civil rights and special education protections. This shift raises serious concerns about safeguards for vulnerable learners at a time when achievement gaps remain wide and persistent.

A broader recognition of declining student outcomes: While learning loss and achievement gaps have been evident for years, panelists observed that 2025 brought a new level of public acknowledgment across political lines. Recent NAEP results, in particular, have made the trajectory of student outcomes increasingly difficult to ignore — creating conditions for education, including early literacy, to reenter the national spotlight.

States at the center of the action: A central theme throughout the conversation was the growing importance — and strain — of state leadership.

As the federal government steps back from direct involvement, states are increasingly expected to lead on accountability, funding decisions, and system design. Panelists emphasized that while states have new flexibility and opportunity, many lack the capacity to act alone.

Robin Lake highlighted the need to look beyond traditional power structures for leadership, elevating the role of community leaders, intermediary organizations, and cross-sector partnerships. She emphasized that progress is emerging where local and state actors are organizing clearly around shared priorities and articulating what support they need to succeed.

“What I’m seeing is local leaders getting organized and saying to their state and federal leaders: Here’s what we need to make progress on the ground, and here are the policies that can help. With the federal role stepping back, this kind of clarity and leadership is where momentum is building.”

– Robin Lake, Center on Reinventing Public Education

Panelists stressed the importance of identifying what is working across states, understanding how resources are being organized, and sharing those lessons broadly — while also establishing guardrails to ensure equity, voice, and transparency are not lost in the process.

Accountability, research, and evidence: The future of federal accountability and research infrastructure emerged as a critical concern.

Panelists explored what it could mean for the U.S. Department of Education to focus more narrowly on accountability tools such as assessment and data, rather than operational programs. Jean-Claude Brizard emphasized that federal investment in research and development has historically played an irreplaceable role — and that uncertainty surrounding the Institute of Education Sciences has far-reaching implications for how the field generates, trusts, and uses evidence moving forward.

Without strong national data and research capacity, panelists warned, states and districts risk fragmentation, uneven quality, and diminished ability to identify and scale what works for young learners.

Technology, artificial intelligence (AI), and emerging risks: Looking ahead, panelists identified technology — and particularly AI — as both a major opportunity and a growing risk. While AI is advancing rapidly, the federal government is largely absent from regulation, placing greater responsibility on states and communities to define guardrails around privacy, safety, pedagogy, and equity.

Panelists stressed that technology strategies must begin with clear learning goals and strong instructional foundations, rather than vendor-driven solutions — and that mental health, social-emotional learning, and student well-being must remain central in these discussions.

Implications for early learning and literacy: Throughout the conversation, panelists returned to the urgency of early learning and literacy. While the Science of Reading continues to gain traction, full implementation remains uneven and deeply dependent on teacher preparation, leadership capacity, and sustained support.

Declining enrollment, workforce shortages, and fiscal pressures further complicate the path forward — making it even more critical to focus on evidence-based instruction, coherent systems, and transparent data that families and educators can trust.

As the session concluded, panelists emphasized that uncertainty does not preclude action. While federal leadership may be receding, meaningful opportunities remain at the state, local, and community levels to strengthen early learning, protect equity, and improve outcomes for children.

Persistent declines in NAEP results — and the widening gaps they reveal — are increasingly shaping the broader national conversation about education. How the field responds now, particularly in early literacy and school readiness, will influence whether education reemerges as a shared priority and how solutions are framed in the years ahead.

The conversation closed with a shared call to focus less on policy noise and more on what matters most: ensuring young children have access to high-quality instruction, supportive systems, and the resources they need to thrive — no matter how the policy landscape shifts.