Weekly Review of the Ideas Worth Discussing This Past Week

October 29-November 5, 2026

THIS WEEK'S SIX ISSUES

1. Google's AI Ultimatum: Must Schools Accept Artificial Intelligence to Keep Google Search?
2. Chronic Absenteeism: Are Students Quietly Quitting School?
3. The Science of Reading: Why Are So Many Teachers Still Unconvinced?
4. The School Board Crisis: Why Are Fewer People Willing to Serve?
5. Religious Freedom vs. Nondiscrimination: A Supreme Court Case That Could Reshape Preschool Education
6. Teaching Students to Disagree: Can Schools Restore Civility in a Divided America?

---

ISSUE 1

Google's AI Ultimatum: Must Schools Accept Artificial Intelligence to Keep Google Search?

The Big Question: Who should decide how much artificial intelligence students encounter in school—educators or technology companies?

Primary sources: Education Week, November 3, 2026; Associated Press, November 4, 2026.

SUMMARY FOR EDUCATORS

A significant controversy is developing over Google's integration of artificial intelligence into the technology used by millions of American students.

Google has announced changes to its educational products that will disable access to several AI tools by default for K–12 student accounts until school administrators enable them. But the announcement includes a controversial condition: Schools that choose not to activate Google's AI-integrated services may also lose access to Google Search through those accounts.

For districts accustomed to treating Google Search as a basic educational resource, this creates a difficult choice.

The controversy raises questions about student privacy, corporate influence, academic integrity, and the extent to which technology companies should determine what happens inside classrooms.

Google argues that artificial intelligence is becoming inseparable from modern search technology. Its new educational features include guided learning capabilities intended to help students work through academic problems rather than receive answers.

Critics counter that school districts should be able to access conventional search tools without having to accept AI-powered features they consider inappropriate for children.

The distinction matters.

Searching for information requires students to identify sources, evaluate credibility, compare perspectives, and construct conclusions. Generative AI can perform substantial portions of those tasks on a student's behalf.

Although AI can support learning, excessive reliance may reduce opportunities for students to practice essential cognitive skills.

The central educational concern is not whether AI should exist in schools, but whether students are learning more effectively because of it.

The debate also highlights a longstanding problem in educational technology: vendor dependence.

Schools have invested heavily in Chromebooks, Google Classroom, cloud-based documents, and related platforms. When a company changes its policies, districts may have limited practical alternatives.

For technology directors and superintendents, the immediate task is to understand precisely which services can be enabled independently, what student data may be collected, and how new features affect instructional practice.

Principals should also recognize the professional implications.

Teachers need clear expectations about when AI may be used for assignments, how to distinguish legitimate assistance from inappropriate substitution, and which skills students must demonstrate independently.

A classroom assignment that once required students to research, organize, and synthesize information may now be completed largely through automated assistance.

That does not necessarily make the assignment obsolete. It does mean educators must reconsider how learning is demonstrated.

Some districts may choose supervised AI experimentation. Others may impose restrictions based on student age or instructional purpose.

Either approach requires more than a technology policy.

It requires an educational philosophy.

WHAT SCHOOL LEADERS SHOULD DO

• Review district settings for Google Search, Gemini, and other AI-enabled applications.
• Establish age-appropriate guidelines for student AI use.
• Require instructional justification before introducing AI tools.
• Provide teachers with professional development on AI-supported assignments and assessments.
• Examine the district's dependence on individual technology vendors.

LEADERSHIP REFLECTION

Are we allowing technology to shape our instructional priorities, or are our instructional priorities determining which technologies we use?

Sources: Education Week

---

ISSUE 2

Chronic Absenteeism: Are Students Quietly Quitting School?

The Big Question: What if chronic absenteeism is not primarily an attendance problem, but a student engagement problem?

Primary sources: Joshua P. Starr, The 74, November 3, 2026; Anna Merod, K–12 Dive, November 2, 2026.

SUMMARY FOR EDUCATORS

Chronic absenteeism remains one of American public education's most persistent challenges.

But a provocative new argument suggests that schools may be misunderstanding what students are trying to communicate through their absences.

Joshua P. Starr, former superintendent and current chief executive officer of the Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning, asks whether some students are effectively "quiet quitting" school.

Borrowed from discussions of workplace disengagement, the expression describes people who psychologically withdraw from an institution without formally leaving it.

Starr suggests that something similar may be happening among students.

Many young people understand that attending school is important. Yet they may struggle to see how their daily experiences connect with their interests, relationships, aspirations, or sense of purpose.

The traditional response to chronic absenteeism often emphasizes consequences, parent notifications, attendance incentives, and enforcement.

These strategies may influence behavior, but they do not necessarily address why students become disengaged.

Recent research summarized by K–12 Dive reinforces the importance of a broader approach.

Reports examining attendance interventions found that strategies relying heavily on truancy enforcement were generally less effective than approaches emphasizing family engagement, student connectedness, and supportive relationships.

Researchers also found that school leaders who employed several evidence-based strategies simultaneously achieved stronger results than those who relied on a single intervention.

The implication is important: Attendance improvement requires a coordinated schoolwide strategy, not simply an attendance office.

Schools should investigate the experiences of students who repeatedly miss classes.

Do they feel known by adults?

Do they have meaningful relationships with classmates?

Do they experience academic success?

Do they believe their education connects to a desirable future?

Are transportation, housing instability, health concerns, family responsibilities, or bullying interfering with attendance?

Different causes require different solutions.

A student who misses school because of unreliable transportation needs practical assistance. A student avoiding school because of bullying needs protection. A student who feels academically defeated may need targeted instruction and opportunities to experience success.

Treating these situations identically can produce disappointing results.

An effective attendance strategy combines accurate data, early intervention, family partnerships, academic support, and attention to school climate.

Principals should also examine whether school schedules, disciplinary practices, grading policies, and instructional experiences unintentionally encourage withdrawal.

Attendance data can become an important measure of school connectedness when interpreted thoughtfully.

For example, leaders can identify students whose attendance declines after particular transitions, such as entering middle school or moving into more demanding coursework.

They can also examine whether students who receive personalized outreach improve more consistently than those who receive automated notifications.

Ultimately, Starr's argument challenges school leaders to reconsider their fundamental question.

Instead of asking exclusively, "Why won't these students come to school?" educators might ask, "What would make school a place these students want—and are able—to attend?"

The strongest attendance programs communicate both high expectations and genuine care.

Students need to know that their presence matters, that their absence is noticed, and that adults will help them overcome obstacles to participation.

WHAT SCHOOL LEADERS SHOULD DO

• Identify students showing early signs of chronic absenteeism.
• Assign trusted adults to establish regular contact with vulnerable students.
• Gather student feedback about belonging, safety, and academic engagement.
• Combine family outreach with academic and practical support.
• Evaluate attendance interventions using evidence rather than assumptions.

LEADERSHIP REFLECTION

If students are withdrawing from school, what might their behavior be telling us about the educational experiences we provide?

Sources: The 74

---

ISSUE 3

The Science of Reading: Why Are So Many Teachers Still Unconvinced?

The Big Question: How can school leaders close the gap between literacy research and everyday classroom instruction?

Primary sources: The 74, November 2, 2026; Sarah Schwartz, Education Week, November 3, 2026.

SUMMARY FOR EDUCATORS

The movement to align reading instruction with scientific research has transformed literacy policy across the United States.

Yet implementing new policies does not automatically transform classroom practice.

A November 2 report from The 74 highlights findings indicating that approximately 30 percent of teachers continue to use reading approaches that researchers have challenged as inconsistent with the strongest available evidence.

The findings underscore an uncomfortable reality: Even when a substantial research consensus develops, changing professional practice can be difficult.

Reading instruction is deeply connected to teachers' preparation, experience, beliefs, and professional identities.

Teachers may have spent years developing instructional routines they believe are effective. Some have received conflicting guidance from universities, professional development providers, curriculum publishers, and district administrators.

Consequently, simply announcing that a district has adopted the science of reading may accomplish little.

Successful implementation depends on teachers understanding the research, seeing effective instruction demonstrated, and receiving sustained support.

The phrase "science of reading" refers to a large body of research on how children learn to read.

This research supports explicit instruction in foundational skills, including phonemic awareness and decoding, while also emphasizing fluency, vocabulary, oral language, background knowledge, and comprehension.

However, school leaders must avoid reducing this complex body of evidence to a single commercial curriculum or instructional slogan.

A related November 3 Education Week article explores an important question: How much time should elementary teachers devote to reading aloud?

Survey results indicate that 62 percent of pre-K–3 teachers reported spending approximately 15–20 minutes daily on read-alouds.

Researchers emphasize that interactive discussion about books can matter more than simply increasing the number of minutes spent on them.

Reading aloud introduces children to sophisticated vocabulary, unfamiliar concepts, literary structures, and language patterns they might not encounter in ordinary conversation.

But the greatest benefits occur when teachers actively engage students in thinking about what they hear.

This illustrates an important lesson about evidence-based literacy instruction.

Effective teaching is not a contest between phonics and comprehension, or between explicit instruction and engaging literature.

Children need multiple complementary forms of instruction.

Teachers must develop students' ability to recognize written words accurately while simultaneously building the knowledge and language necessary to understand those words.

For principals, this creates a leadership responsibility extending well beyond purchasing materials.

Classroom observations should examine whether students are receiving systematic foundational instruction and meaningful opportunities to discuss increasingly complex texts.

Professional development should demonstrate specific instructional practices rather than merely introduce terminology.

Teachers also need opportunities to examine student work, review assessment results, observe colleagues, and refine instruction.

When implementation encounters resistance, leaders should investigate the reasons for it.

Are teachers unfamiliar with the research? Do they lack appropriate materials? Is the adopted curriculum poorly supported? Are instructional expectations unclear?

Sometimes disagreement reflects legitimate implementation concerns rather than resistance to research.

The most effective leaders combine intellectual clarity with professional respect.

They establish clear expectations while providing teachers with the tools and coaching necessary to meet them.

The goal is not simply greater compliance with a literacy initiative.

It is a stronger reading achievement for every student.

WHAT SCHOOL LEADERS SHOULD DO

• Audit literacy instruction for alignment with established research.
• Provide sustained coaching rather than isolated professional development.
• Protect time for foundational skills and knowledge-building instruction.
• Examine student reading data frequently and respond with targeted support.
• Encourage thoughtful discussion of research and classroom implementation challenges.

LEADERSHIP REFLECTION

Are we measuring the success of our literacy initiative by the materials teachers use—or by what students are actually learning?

Sources: The 74

---

ISSUE 4

The School Board Crisis: Why Are Fewer People Willing to Serve?

The Big Question: What happens to public education when community members no longer want to serve on school boards?

Primary source: Carolyn Jones, CalMatters, republished in The 74, November 3, 2026.

SUMMARY FOR EDUCATORS

School boards play a foundational role in American public education.

They establish policies, approve budgets, select superintendents, monitor student achievement, and represent community expectations.

Yet recent reporting suggests that attracting candidates for these positions is becoming increasingly difficult.

A November 3 article by Carolyn Jones examines growing concerns about school board participation in California.

According to a recent University of Southern California report cited in the article, approximately half of California's school board candidates appear to be running unopposed.

The finding raises significant questions about democratic participation, public accountability, and the changing responsibilities of local education governance.

Serving on a school board has never been easy.

Members must navigate complicated budgets, collective bargaining, personnel matters, legal obligations, community expectations, and competing educational priorities.

In recent years, however, school governance has become increasingly contentious.

Disputes concerning curriculum, instructional materials, student rights, school safety, technology, and parental involvement can turn board meetings into highly charged public confrontations.

Social media can intensify these disagreements.

Board members may find that their decisions attract personal criticism that extends far beyond ordinary policy debate.

Some prospective candidates may conclude that the demands of service outweigh the opportunity to contribute.

The result can be fewer contested elections and less public discussion about educational priorities.

Uncontested elections are not necessarily evidence of dysfunctional governance. In some communities, they may reflect confidence in existing board members.

Nevertheless, a persistent shortage of candidates can hinder the recruitment of new perspectives and reduce voters' opportunities to compare competing visions.

There is another concern.

When candidate participation declines, organized interest groups may exercise disproportionate influence over local elections.

This can produce governance that reflects the priorities of particularly active constituencies rather than the broader school community.

For superintendents, the implications are substantial.

Effective district leadership requires a constructive relationship between the superintendent and the board of education.

The board establishes direction and accountability; administrators manage daily operations and recommend educational strategies.

When these responsibilities become confused, districts may experience conflict, inconsistent priorities, and diminished organizational effectiveness.

School leaders, therefore, have an interest in helping communities understand what school boards actually do.

Public education about governance should be nonpartisan and accessible.

Districts can explain board responsibilities, meeting procedures, budget development, and the distinction between policy oversight and administration.

New board members also need meaningful orientation and ongoing professional development.

Understanding school finance, educational law, student achievement data, and ethical responsibilities can help members participate more effectively.

Perhaps most importantly, board meetings should model the respectful civic discourse schools hope students will learn.

Disagreement is an essential feature of democratic governance.

Personal attacks and intimidation are not.

The challenge for school leaders is to encourage vigorous debate without allowing conflict to undermine trust.

Healthy school governance depends on citizens believing that participation is worthwhile and that differing perspectives can be heard respectfully.

WHAT SCHOOL LEADERS SHOULD DO

• Provide clear public explanations of school board responsibilities.
• Support comprehensive orientation for newly elected board members.
• Establish expectations for respectful public participation.
• Communicate district goals and student achievement data transparently.
• Encourage broad community engagement without endorsing individual candidates.

LEADERSHIP REFLECTION

What does the quality of our school board meetings communicate to students about democracy, citizenship, and public service?

Source: The 74

---

ISSUE 5

Religious Freedom vs. Nondiscrimination: A Supreme Court Case That Could Reshape Preschool Education

The Big Question: Should religious preschool providers receiving public funds be permitted to apply admissions policies that conflict with state nondiscrimination requirements?

Primary sources: Linda Jacobson, The 74, November 3, 2026; Mark Walsh, Education Week, November 3, 2026.

SUMMARY FOR EDUCATORS

A case argued before the United States Supreme Court on November 3 could have significant implications for publicly funded early childhood education.

At the center of the dispute are Colorado's universal preschool program and the requirements placed on religious organizations that wish to participate.

Colorado requires participating preschool providers to comply with nondiscrimination protections, including provisions covering sexual orientation and gender identity.

Catholic preschool providers challenging the requirement contend that enforcing these rules against their religiously motivated admissions practices infringes upon their constitutional right to freely exercise religion.

The state maintains that organizations accepting public funding may be required to provide services without discriminating against eligible families.

During oral arguments, several Supreme Court justices appeared receptive to the religious schools' position.

However, oral arguments do not constitute a final ruling, and the precise scope of any eventual decision remains uncertain.

The case highlights a difficult constitutional and educational question: How should states balance religious liberty with their obligation to administer publicly funded programs fairly?

Both interests carry substantial legal and social significance.

Religious institutions have longstanding constitutional protections concerning religious belief and practice.

At the same time, public programs commonly establish eligibility and nondiscrimination requirements intended to ensure access to government-supported services.

The controversy becomes particularly complicated when states rely on partnerships with private and religious providers to expand preschool opportunities.

Many states use mixed-delivery systems that include public schools, nonprofit organizations, private childcare centers, and faith-based institutions.

These arrangements can increase family options and expand access, particularly where public school facilities cannot accommodate all eligible children.

But they also require policymakers to determine which obligations accompany public funding.

A Supreme Court decision favoring the religious providers could lead states to reconsider the conditions imposed on faith-based organizations participating in publicly funded preschool programs.

Depending on the Court's reasoning, the decision could affect the design of similar arrangements in other jurisdictions.

Alternatively, a ruling favoring Colorado could reinforce states' authority to require participating providers to follow specified nondiscrimination standards.

The ultimate implications will depend on the Court's written opinion and the legal principles it establishes.

For school administrators, the controversy offers several important lessons.

First, educational partnerships require clear written agreements defining eligibility requirements, enrollment procedures, and responsibilities.

Second, district leaders should understand how state and federal constitutional protections interact with public funding rules.

Third, controversial legal questions should not be reduced to slogans.

Families may hold deeply different views about the appropriate relationship between religious freedom, parental choice, and equal access.

School leaders must be able to communicate respectfully across those differences.

Finally, access to education should remain a central practical consideration.

A preschool policy may be legally defensible yet still pose operational challenges related to seat availability, transportation, affordability, or family participation.

As the Supreme Court considers the case, state education agencies and district administrators will need to monitor the outcome carefully.

They should avoid prematurely changing policies based solely on predictions about the ruling.

The broader issue is likely to remain important even after the Court reaches a decision.

As public education increasingly involves partnerships among governmental, private, and religious organizations, questions about public accountability and institutional autonomy will continue to emerge.

WHAT SCHOOL LEADERS SHOULD DO

• Review agreements involving publicly funded private or religious educational providers.
• Monitor the Supreme Court's eventual decision and subsequent state guidance.
• Consult legal counsel before changing enrollment or nondiscrimination policies.
• Communicate accurately and respectfully with families holding different perspectives.
• Keep equitable access to educational opportunities central to policy discussions.

LEADERSHIP REFLECTION

How can educational leaders protect constitutional rights while maintaining public trust and broad access to educational opportunities?

Sources: The 74

---

ISSUE 6

Teaching Students to Disagree: Can Schools Restore Civility in a Divided America?

The Big Question: Are schools doing enough to teach students how to disagree respectfully, evaluate opposing viewpoints, and participate constructively in democracy?

Primary source: Scarlet Strogov, The 74, November 3, 2026.

SUMMARY FOR EDUCATORS

American society is experiencing profound divisions over politics, culture, identity, and public policy.

Schools are not immune to these tensions.

Increasingly, educators find themselves navigating disagreements that involve students, parents, staff members, and community organizations.

Some teachers respond by avoiding controversial subjects altogether.

But an important new commentary suggests that avoidance may deprive students of essential democratic skills.

Writing in The 74 on November 3, student Scarlet Strogov argues that her generation is inheriting a deeply divided society and must learn how to restore constructive disagreement.

Her argument is particularly noteworthy because it comes from a young person who recognizes the difference between expressing an opinion and understanding someone who holds a different one.

Strogov describes attending a civic event where political disagreements became personal and emotionally charged.

The experience prompted her to reflect on how easily policy differences can become judgments about another person's character.

She suggests that schools have an important opportunity to address this problem.

Respectful disagreement is not merely a personality trait. It is a skill that can be taught, practiced, and improved.

Students need to learn how to listen carefully, distinguish facts from opinions, identify reliable evidence, recognize competing values, and explain opposing arguments accurately.

These abilities are central to democratic citizenship.

They are also valuable in professional settings, community relationships, and everyday decision-making.

Yet conventional classroom discussions do not always develop these skills.

Sometimes the most outspoken students dominate conversations while quieter classmates remain silent.

In other situations, students may hesitate to express unpopular opinions for fear of ridicule or social rejection.

Teachers may also avoid discussion when they anticipate complaints from parents or administrators.

The result can be a classroom environment where agreement is rewarded and meaningful disagreement is discouraged.

Schools can address these challenges through carefully structured instructional practices.

One approach requires students to summarize an opposing viewpoint accurately before offering criticism.

Another asks students to examine several credible sources representing different interpretations of an issue.

Structured academic controversies allow students to explore multiple positions, present evidence, and seek common ground.

Teachers can also ask students to distinguish between disagreement over factual claims and disagreement over values or priorities.

These distinctions help reduce the tendency to view opponents as intellectually deficient or morally suspect.

Importantly, teaching civil disagreement does not require treating all claims as equally accurate.

Students should learn that evidence matters and that unsupported assertions can be challenged.

Nor does respectful discussion mean that schools must remain neutral about harassment, discrimination, or threats.

Clear standards for safety and respectful conduct remain essential.

The goal is to create an environment in which students can examine difficult questions without attacking one another.

Principals have a critical role in supporting this work.

Teachers need reassurance that appropriately facilitated discussions of controversial issues are legitimate educational activities.

They also need professional development, instructional resources, and administrative support when disagreements generate complaints.

School leaders should model the same behavior in faculty meetings, parent conferences, and board presentations.

An administrator who invites dissenting opinions, listens carefully, and responds respectfully demonstrates the skills students are expected to develop.

The challenge is particularly important in an era of social media, where brief, emotionally charged messages often replace thoughtful arguments.

Students need practice with the slower, more demanding work of understanding complex issues.

A school committed to academic excellence should also be committed to intellectual openness, critical thinking, and responsible citizenship.

WHAT SCHOOL LEADERS SHOULD DO

• Incorporate structured civil discourse into classroom instruction.
• Provide professional development on facilitating controversial discussions.
• Teach students to distinguish evidence-based arguments from personal attacks.
• Establish discussion norms that protect participation and psychological safety.
• Model respectful disagreement in faculty meetings and public forums.

LEADERSHIP REFLECTION

If students learned how to disagree by watching the adults in our schools, what lessons would they take away?

Source: The 74

---

THE WEEK'S BIG PICTURE

Although these six issues seem different, they share an important theme:

Schools must preserve educational purpose, professional judgment, and public trust while responding to rapid social and technological change.

The controversies surrounding AI, attendance, literacy, school governance, constitutional rights, and civic discourse all raise fundamental questions about educators' responsibilities.

For school leaders, the challenge is not simply responding to the latest controversy. It is building institutions capable of making thoughtful decisions under difficult circumstances.

QUOTE OF THE WEEK

"The function of education is to teach one to think intensively and to think critically."

— Martin Luther King Jr.

© Michael Keany + AI 2026 | School Leadership 2.0

---------------------

Thank you for being part of the School Leadership 2.0 community.

_______________________________________

Like these articles?  Buy Mike a $2 cup of coffee.  

Creating School Leadership 2.0 is my way of giving back to the members of the educational community who helped me succeed on my life's journey. Thank you for appreciating my work. Just enter $2 in the space. The other amounts are just too much!

Click here

________________________________________

Sources scanned:

Education Week: https://www.edweek.org/

Educational Leadership: https://www.ascd.org/el

Kappan: https://kappanonline.org/

The New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/

Harvard Business Review: https://hbr.org/

Principal Leadership: https://www.nassp.org/news-releases/

Edutopia: https://www.edutopia.org/

The Reading Teacher: https://ila.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/19362722

The Chronicle of Higher Education: https://www.chronicle.com/

American Educator: https://www.aft.org/ae

Education Gadfly: https://fordhaminstitute.org/national/gadfly

School Library Journal: https://www.slj.com/

The Marshall Memo: https://marshallmemo.com/

Cult of Pedagogy: https://www.cultofpedagogy.com/

Theory Into Practice: https://www.tandfonline.com/toc/htip20/current

The Learning Professional: https://learningforward.org/publications/the-learning-professional/

Educational Researcher: https://journals.sagepub.com/home/edr

Teachers College Record: https://www.tcrecord.org/

Elementary School Journal: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/toc/esj/current

Journal of Education for Students Placed At Risk: https://www.tandfonline.com/toc/hjsp20/current

TeachHUB: https://www.teachhub.com/

eSchool News: https://www.eschoolnews.com/

Model Teaching: https://www.modelteaching.com/

THE Journal: https://thejournal.com/

Hot Lunch Tray: https://www.hotlunchtray.com/

EdTech K–12 Magazine: https://edtechmagazine.com/k12/

The Educator Australia Magazine: https://www.theeducatoronline.com/k12

Renaissance Blog: https://www.renaissance.com/resources/blog/

EdSurge: https://www.edsurge.com/news/k-12

District Administration: https://districtadministration.com/

Ask a Tech Teacher: https://askatechteacher.com/

CalMatters: https://calmatters.org/category/education/k-12-education/

Government Technology Magazine: https://www.govtech.com/education/k-12

The Modulo Community: https://teachyourkids.substack.com

K–12 Dive: https://www.k12dive.com/

------------------------------

 

Prepared with the assistance of AI software

OpenAI. (2026). ChatGPT (5.2) [Large language model]. https://chat.openai.com