Weekly Review of the Ideas Worth Discussing This Past Week

November 5-12, 2026

Six major developments are shaping the conversations of K–12 teachers, principals, superintendents, and policymakers this week. The selection reflects the prominence and leadership significance of recent reporting rather than a formal ranking of social-media discussion.

This week's six issues

1. AI in Schools: Is Google Forcing Educators to Make an Impossible Choice? — Districts confront new restrictions linking Google Search and artificial intelligence.

2. America's Teacher Pay Crisis: Why U.S. Teachers Rank Last Internationally — New comparative research raises difficult questions about compensation and recruitment.

3. The 2026 Elections: What the Political Shake-Up Means for Public Schools — Election outcomes could reshape education funding, school choice, and state policy.

4. School Choice Goes National: A New Federal Program Approaches — States prepare for the January 2027 launch of a controversial scholarship tax credit.

5. Civil Rights in America's Classrooms: Discipline and Restraint Disparities Persist — Newly reported federal data reveal continuing inequalities in students' school experiences.

6. The Enrollment Crisis: Can School Districts Afford to Keep Every School Open? — New York City's shrinking student population illustrates a growing national leadership dilemma.

1. AI in Schools: Is Google Forcing Educators to Make an Impossible Choice?

Technology • Student Privacy • Educational Leadership

Primary source: Anna Merod, Google will turn off its search engine for schools by default. Is it an AI ‘ultimatum’? K–12 Dive, November 5, 2026. Additional reporting: CBS News, November 9–10.

Summary for Educators

A major controversy involving Google has brought one of education's most pressing technology questions into focus: Who should determine when and how students use artificial intelligence?

On November 3, Google announced changes to access to its artificial intelligence services for K–12 student accounts. According to reporting from K–12 Dive, Google Search and certain AI features would be turned off by default, with administrators able to enable them.

The announcement immediately generated criticism because Google Search itself increasingly incorporates AI-generated responses. Educators worried that schools seeking to prohibit generative AI might also lose access to a search engine that teachers and students have long depended on.

The disagreement is about much more than a particular technology product. It concerns the authority of school districts to make decisions about instruction, student privacy, developmental appropriateness, and the role of technology in learning.

Some districts, especially those serving younger children, have become increasingly skeptical of student-facing AI. Their concerns include inaccurate information, diminished independent thinking, excessive screen time, and student dependence on automated answers.

School leaders have also expressed concern that students may use AI to complete assignments without developing the knowledge and skills those assignments were intended to build.

Google maintains that its changes respond to educators' requests for greater control over AI access. Critics contend that combining AI functionality with essential search capabilities places districts in a difficult position.

The debate intensified when Chicago Public Schools confirmed that it was blocking unapproved generative AI products on student devices and networks, citing privacy and safety concerns. Meanwhile, Senator Edward Markey questioned Google's policy, arguing that schools should not be pressured to adopt AI services as a condition of access to educational search tools.

These developments highlight a significant challenge for district technology leaders: technology platforms sometimes evolve faster than schools can revise their instructional expectations, privacy policies, and procurement procedures.

The controversy also underscores important distinctions between traditional online research and AI-generated content.

A search engine typically helps students locate sources that they must evaluate. Generative AI can produce a synthesized answer immediately, potentially bypassing important processes of reading, comparing evidence, and constructing original explanations.

Both technologies can support learning, but their instructional implications are different.

The implications for younger students are especially significant. Elementary educators may wish to emphasize reading comprehension, handwriting, foundational knowledge, discussion, and independent problem-solving before introducing extensive AI assistance.

High school educators, meanwhile, may reasonably prioritize AI literacy, including understanding hallucinations, recognizing bias, verifying claims, and responsibly disclosing the use of AI.

A uniform districtwide policy may not adequately address these different developmental needs.

The leadership challenge is to establish educational priorities first and select technologies that support them—not to let a technology company's design decisions dictate classroom practice.

Leadership action steps

• Review existing Google Workspace and AI settings with technology and privacy personnel.

• Establish age-appropriate expectations for student access to generative AI.

• Audit vendor contracts for data protection, transparency, and administrative control.

• Provide teachers with alternatives to research activities that preserve students' independent thinking.

• Communicate clearly with families about which AI features students can access.

Leadership question: Should a technology company have the power to make schools choose between access to essential digital resources and exposure to artificial intelligence?

2. America's Teacher Pay Crisis: Why U.S. Teachers Rank Last Internationally

Teacher Workforce • Compensation • Recruitment and Retention

Primary source: Anna Merod, The US ranks last in teacher pay worldwide, K–12 Dive, November 5, 2026, reporting research from the Brookings Institution.

Summary for Educators

American teachers are paid substantially less than other college-educated workers, and international comparisons suggest the disparity is particularly severe in the United States.

A new analysis by the Brookings Institution's Brown Center on Education Policy examined primary-school teacher compensation relative to the earnings of other college graduates in more than 30 countries.

The United States ranked last in this comparison.

According to the analysis, American primary-school teachers earn approximately two-thirds of what other college graduates earn annually.

This is not a claim that American teachers have the lowest absolute salaries in the world. Rather, it measures how teacher compensation compares with the earnings opportunities available to similarly educated workers in each country.

That distinction is important because prospective teachers do not make career decisions in isolation. They compare teaching with other professions requiring similar levels of education, professional responsibility, and specialized preparation.

The report comes amid continuing concerns about teacher recruitment, staffing shortages, and dissatisfaction with working conditions.

The Economic Policy Institute previously estimated that American teachers would earn approximately 25 percent less than comparable college graduates in 2025.

Although estimates vary by methodology, both analyses point to the same structural problem: teaching has become relatively less financially competitive.

The Brookings findings also raise a difficult question about how school systems allocate resources.

Over the past century, the percentage of public school expenditures devoted directly to teacher salaries has fallen substantially.

Brookings reported that salaries accounted for approximately 57 percent of public school expenditures in 1919, compared with 26 percent in 2019.

This does not necessarily indicate that schools are spending less on teachers overall. Modern districts employ far more specialized personnel and provide services that were uncommon a century ago, including extensive special education programming, counseling, technology infrastructure, and student support services.

Nevertheless, the comparison raises legitimate questions about whether districts have prioritized increasing staffing capacity over raising teacher compensation.

The National Education Association reported an average public school teacher salary of $74,495 for the 2024–25 school year. Adjusted for inflation, however, average salaries remained below their levels a decade earlier.

For educational leaders, the challenge involves more than negotiating salaries.

Compensation influences the number and quality of candidates entering teacher preparation programs, whether experienced teachers remain in classrooms, and the availability of qualified educators in challenging subjects and schools.

Shortages can become especially damaging in special education, mathematics, science, bilingual education, and high-poverty districts.

Some policy analysts advocate targeted compensation strategies, including additional pay for hard-to-staff positions or schools.

Others argue that broader salary improvements are necessary to restore teaching's professional competitiveness.

The two approaches need not be mutually exclusive.

School boards and superintendents must also recognize that compensation is only one component of job satisfaction. Workload, professional autonomy, administrative support, student behavior, and school climate influence retention.

Yet improvements in working conditions cannot completely substitute for competitive compensation.

Ultimately, the issue is whether society can continue to demand increasingly sophisticated professional work from teachers while compensating them substantially less than their similarly educated peers.

Leadership action steps

• Compare teacher compensation with competing professions and neighboring districts.

• Examine recruitment and turnover patterns by subject, school, and experience level.

• Consider targeted compensation for persistent staffing shortages.

• Review expenditures to determine whether resources align with instructional priorities.

• Include teacher workload and professional support in retention strategies.

Leadership question: If teaching requires the same educational investment as other professions but offers significantly lower financial rewards, how can schools attract and retain the next generation of exceptional educators?

3. The 2026 Elections: What the Political Shake-Up Means for Public Schools

Education Policy • School Funding • State Leadership

Primary source: Naaz Modan, How did education issues fare on state ballots in 2026? K–12 Dive, November 9, 2026.

Summary for Educators

The November 3 midterm elections produced major political changes that could substantially alter the direction of American public education.

Democrats gained control of Congress beginning in 2027 and won several important state governorships previously held by Republicans. These results have implications for school funding, private school choice, teacher compensation, early childhood education, and the relationship between federal and state education authorities.

According to K–12 Dive, governorships shifted from Republican to Democratic control in Georgia, Iowa, Nevada, Ohio, and Texas. Democratic gains in several state legislative chambers could also affect educational policymaking.

The significance of these outcomes extends well beyond political party labels.

Governors influence education budgets, appoint state education officials, propose initiatives, and often determine whether states expand or restrict programs such as education savings accounts and private school vouchers.

State legislatures make decisions about graduation requirements, school accountability, teacher certification, classroom instruction, and student protections.

For superintendents and principals, changes in state leadership can therefore lead to substantial shifts in operational expectations.

One prominent area of disagreement involves public funding for private educational alternatives.

Supporters of school choice maintain that public funding should follow students to the schools that best meet their needs. They argue that educational competition can encourage innovation and offer opportunities for families dissatisfied with traditional public schools.

Opponents contend that these programs may direct public resources toward private institutions without equivalent requirements for transparency, admissions, and accountability.

The election results suggest that several states could revisit the expansion, oversight, or funding of these programs.

Early childhood education was another important issue in gubernatorial campaigns.

In Georgia, Governor-elect Keisha Lance Bottoms advocated mandatory kindergarten and universal preschool for four-year-olds. In Wisconsin, Governor-elect David Crowley proposed broader access to early education. In New Mexico, Governor-elect Deb Haaland supported expanding universal child care.

Although these proposals differ, they reflect growing recognition that early learning can influence later academic success and family economic stability.

Voters also decided on ballot measures affecting school funding, student participation in athletics, and school governance.

These developments demonstrate how education policy increasingly intersects with broader debates about civil rights, parental authority, public expenditures, and government responsibilities.

However, educators should avoid assuming that every campaign promise will become law.

Proposed policies must still move through legislative processes, withstand legal review, and receive sufficient funding.

Similarly, federal changes do not automatically override state authority over curriculum and local school administration.

School leaders should therefore distinguish political rhetoric from enacted policy.

The most immediate leadership responsibility is preparation rather than prediction.

Districts should identify potential changes, evaluate their implications, and develop relationships with newly elected officials while maintaining a nonpartisan focus on student learning.

The election offers a reminder that public schools operate within a changing political environment, but their central mission must remain stable: educating every child effectively and equitably.

Leadership action steps

• Prepare a concise briefing on how election outcomes may affect district policy and funding.

• Establish constructive relationships with newly elected state officials.

• Review pending legislation affecting school choice, instructional requirements, and teacher employment.

• Help staff distinguish proposed policy changes from enacted mandates.

• Keep public communications factual, nonpartisan, and centered on students.

Leadership question: How can school leaders respond thoughtfully to major political changes while protecting the continuity and quality of classroom instruction?

4. School Choice Goes National: A New Federal Program Approaches

School Choice • Federal Policy • Educational Equity

Primary source: Kara Arundel, Which states plan to opt into the federal school choice program? K–12 Dive, November 10, 2026.

Summary for Educators

A new federal school-choice initiative is approaching its scheduled January 1, 2027, launch, creating potentially significant changes in how families obtain financial assistance for educational services.

The Education Freedom Tax Credit program encourages taxpayers to make contributions to qualifying scholarship-granting organizations. In return, eligible donors may receive federal income tax credits.

Those organizations would use contributions to provide scholarships for qualifying students.

Unlike traditional voucher programs, which generally involve direct government funding of private school tuition, this initiative relies on taxpayer contributions encouraged through federal tax credits.

The distinction matters for public policy, although both approaches raise questions about who receives financial assistance and how educational resources are distributed.

According to November 10 reporting from K–12 Dive, 30 states had formally notified the Internal Revenue Service of their intention to participate as of October 22. New York and New Mexico had also publicly announced plans to join.

States face an important deadline: January 1, 2027, to notify the IRS of their participation. They must subsequently submit the names of qualifying scholarship organizations by February 15.

The program has attracted attention because it could become a major national source of funding for educational scholarship.

Proposed federal guidance permits scholarships to support various educational expenses, potentially including private school tuition, tutoring, books, computers, and services for students with disabilities.

Public school students may also qualify for certain educational expenses.

Supporters argue that the initiative could expand opportunities for families by helping them purchase additional educational services or access alternatives they could not otherwise afford.

They also contend that scholarship programs can encourage competition and give parents greater control over educational decisions.

Critics question whether the program will disproportionately benefit families already enrolled in private schools, whether scholarship-granting organizations will operate transparently, and whether public education systems could eventually lose resources or enrollment.

The extent of those effects remains uncertain and will depend on participation, program implementation, and individual state circumstances.

The 2026 elections add another dimension.

Several states elected new governors who have expressed skepticism about expanding private school choice. Those changes could influence participation decisions and the oversight of scholarship organizations.

For district leaders, the program creates several practical questions.

Will public school families know they may qualify for certain scholarship-funded services?

Could scholarship support expand access to tutoring for students who need additional academic assistance?

How will schools ensure families receive accurate information about eligibility, application processes, and restrictions?

And how might broader school-choice policies interact with already declining public school enrollment?

The answers will depend partly on federal guidance that had not yet been finalized when the November 10 report was released.

It is therefore important for school administrators to avoid treating every proposed requirement as settled law.

Districts should monitor regulations closely, particularly provisions affecting scholarship organizations, eligibility verification, eligible expenses, and reporting requirements.

A school-choice program's success should ultimately be evaluated not simply by the number of scholarships awarded, but by whether it expands access to effective educational opportunities for students who previously lacked them.

For educational leaders, the essential question is whether the new program will meaningfully improve educational opportunity while protecting transparency, accountability, and equitable access.

Leadership action steps

• Monitor the Treasury Department and IRS guidance as implementation approaches.

• Determine whether public school students may benefit from eligible services.

• Prepare clear, neutral information for families about available assistance.

• Track possible effects on enrollment and educational service providers.

• Advocate for transparent reporting and equitable distribution of scholarship opportunities.

Leadership question: Can a federally supported school-choice program expand educational opportunity without weakening public schools' capacity to serve all students?

5. Civil Rights in America's Classrooms: Discipline and Restraint Disparities Persist

Student Equity • Special Education • School Climate

Primary source: Kara Arundel, 4 takeaways from federal school civil rights data K–12 Dive, November 6, 2026, reporting findings from the U.S. Department of Education's Civil Rights Data Collection.

Summary for Educators

Newly released federal civil rights data reveal ongoing disparities in student discipline, restraint, seclusion, and access to educational opportunities.

The 2023–24 Civil Rights Data Collection, covering more than 17,000 school districts and 97,000 schools, provides one of the country's most comprehensive portraits of how public school students experience education.

Although the data describe an earlier school year, the November 2026 reporting highlights issues that remain highly relevant to today's school leaders.

Among the most troubling findings are significant differences in disciplinary outcomes across student populations.

Black boys represented approximately 7 percent of K–12 enrollment but accounted for 18 percent of students receiving one or more in-school suspensions.

Students with disabilities were also disproportionately represented.

Although students served under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act accounted for approximately 15 percent of enrollment, they represented 24 percent of students receiving in-school suspensions, 27 percent of those receiving out-of-school suspensions, and 23 percent of students expelled.

Such disparities do not, by themselves, establish that an individual disciplinary decision was discriminatory.

They do, however, raise questions about consistency, school climate, behavioral expectations, access to supports, and potential bias.

School administrators should examine these findings in conjunction with local data rather than assume that national patterns automatically describe their own schools.

The report also identified concerning trends involving physical restraint, mechanical restraint, and seclusion.

Nationally, approximately 129,700 students experienced one or more of these interventions in 2023–24, compared with 105,700 in 2021–22.

In 2023–24, approximately 84,300 students were physically restrained, and 32,300 were secluded.

Black students accounted for 15 percent of enrollment but represented 29 percent of students physically restrained and 46 percent of those mechanically restrained.

These statistics warrant careful examination because restraint and seclusion raise important concerns about student safety, trauma, disability rights, and staff preparation.

The Civil Rights Data Collection also offers insight into access to advanced academic opportunities.

Of approximately 27,200 high schools, three-quarters offered chemistry, but only 59 percent offered physics, 51 percent offered computer science, and 45 percent offered calculus.

Such differences reveal how students' educational opportunities may depend heavily on the schools they attend.

Participation disparities exist within schools as well.

Girls and boys showed different enrollment patterns in advanced STEM courses, while students with disabilities were less likely to enroll in many advanced classes.

Access to challenging coursework is important because it can influence college admissions, career preparation, and future economic opportunities.

The new information also highlights changes in student enrollment and demographics.

Public pre-K–12 enrollment declined slightly, from approximately 50 million students in 2021–22 to 49.7 million in 2023–24.

Meanwhile, the proportion of students receiving special education services increased.

These developments carry important implications for staffing, budgeting, intervention programs, and professional development.

For school leaders, civil rights data should serve as a diagnostic tool rather than merely a compliance requirement.

Disaggregating information by race, disability, gender, school, and grade level can reveal patterns hidden within districtwide averages.

Equally important is determining why disparities exist and whether students receive appropriate supports before exclusionary disciplinary measures are used.

The ultimate goal should be a school environment in which disciplinary expectations are fair, interventions are safe, and rigorous academic opportunities are genuinely available to all students.

Leadership action steps

• Disaggregate discipline, restraint, and seclusion data by student group.

• Review behavioral interventions and staff training, particularly in special education.

• Examine whether students have equitable access to advanced courses and enrichment programs.

• Strengthen preventive behavioral supports and alternatives to exclusionary discipline.

• Report findings transparently while protecting student privacy.

Leadership question: If students in different demographic groups experience substantially different disciplinary outcomes, what responsibility do school leaders have to investigate the underlying causes and correct inequitable practices?

6. The Enrollment Crisis: Can School Districts Afford to Keep Every School Open?

District Finance • School Consolidation • Strategic Leadership

Primary source: Michael Elsen-Rooney, NYC’s Enrollment Free Fall Leaves Mamdani and Samuels With a Small Schools Crisis, The 74, November 7, 2026, originally reported by Chalkbeat.

Summary for Educators

New York City's shrinking public school enrollment has created a difficult challenge for education leaders: How can a school system preserve educational quality while operating an increasing number of underenrolled buildings?

The city's public school population has fallen by approximately 187,000 students over the past 12 years, reaching roughly 790,000.

Projections suggest that substantial additional declines in enrollment may occur over the coming decade.

The consequences extend beyond empty classrooms.

Schools have significant fixed operating costs, including administrative staffing, building maintenance, heating, security, transportation, and specialized student services.

When enrollment falls, those costs do not necessarily decline proportionately.

Small schools may struggle to offer comprehensive academic programs, extracurricular activities, advanced coursework, and specialized instructional support.

The financial challenge is intensified when districts attempt to maintain existing schools and staffing patterns despite declining student populations.

According to reporting by Chalkbeat and The 74, the number of principals in New York City has increased by approximately 11 percent since 2010, while the number of assistant principals has increased by 31 percent.

This occurred during a period of substantial decline in student enrollment.

The city has also continued the temporary funding protections established during the pandemic to shield schools from immediate budget reductions as enrollment declines.

The cumulative cost of these protections reportedly approaches $2 billion.

Such measures can prevent abrupt disruption, but they also raise questions about long-term sustainability.

Mayor Zohran Mamdani and Schools Chancellor Kamar Samuels face a complicated political and educational dilemma.

Closing a neighborhood school can provoke powerful community opposition, especially where schools provide stability, social relationships, and a sense of local identity.

Parents may worry about longer travel times, larger schools, disrupted friendships, or the loss of programs they value.

Educators may fear job displacement or reductions in professional opportunities.

Nevertheless, operating numerous underenrolled schools can spread limited resources too thin across too many facilities and administrative structures.

Some education leaders argue that thoughtfully designed school mergers could provide a constructive alternative to closures.

Mergers may allow students and staff to remain together while gaining access to larger instructional programs and more comprehensive services.

For example, combining two small secondary schools might make it possible to offer additional Advanced Placement courses, foreign languages, music programs, athletics, or specialized electives.

The potential educational benefits should be evaluated carefully rather than assumed.

A larger school is not automatically a better school. Effective leadership, strong instruction, positive relationships, and a supportive environment remain essential.

The controversy also illustrates the importance of community engagement.

Chancellor Samuels has indicated a preference for locally developed consolidation plans rather than a single top-down approach.

Working groups in several districts are expected to consider possible responses.

This strategy recognizes that successful restructuring requires public trust.

However, community consultation must eventually lead to decisions.

Repeatedly postponing difficult choices may increase costs and make future adjustments more disruptive.

The challenges facing New York City are not unique.

Across the United States, declining birthrates, changing residential patterns, housing affordability, migration, and educational alternatives are affecting enrollment.

For school leaders, strategic planning must include realistic multiyear projections rather than assumptions that lost enrollment will automatically return.

The central leadership task is to balance financial sustainability, educational opportunity, and community trust—even when no option is entirely painless.

Leadership action steps

• Develop realistic three- to five-year enrollment projections.

• Examine building utilization, program availability, and per-pupil operating costs.

• Evaluate consolidation options based on educational benefits and financial savings.

• Engage families, teachers, community members, and local officials early.

• Establish measurable expectations for student support and program quality following any merger.

Leadership question: When maintaining a beloved but underenrolled school limits educational opportunities elsewhere in the district, how should leaders balance community attachment with their obligation to provide the best possible education for all students?

Quote of the Week

"The most important test of educational leadership is not how well we manage change, but how consistently we protect opportunities for students while change is occurring."

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

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