NOTE: This post was originally published as the preface of the 2026 State EdTech Trends Report, written by Evo Popoff and David Walker and published by the State Educational Technology Directors Association (SETDA) and Whiteboard Advisors. The full report can be found here.
In every conversation I have with Ohio families, I hear two hopes for their children. Parents want their kids to be ready to succeed in life, and they want their kids to be safe.
Those same hopes shape the questions families are asking about technology in schools. Families want to know that their children are safe online, that their data is protected, and that the technology used in classrooms is actually helping them learn.
These are fair questions, and education leaders at the state and district levels owe families clear answers.
In Ohio, we have found that the best answers come from going back to the fundamentals. Before we decide which tool to buy or which rule to write, we start with some basic questions: What are we trying to accomplish for students? What does the evidence tell us? And what might be standing in the way? That approach has shaped our work on some of the biggest challenges facing Ohio students, from the use of technology to how we teach children to read.
Artificial intelligence (AI) is a good example. Ohio is the first state to require every traditional public school district, community school, and STEM school to adopt a policy on the use of AI, a requirement that took effect on July 1, 2026. To help districts meet it, the Department published a model AI policy in January.
The law does not require schools to use AI. It requires them to answer basic questions deliberately. How will AI be used? How will student data be protected? How will academic integrity be maintained? That approach was informed by educators, higher education leaders, and industry experts who helped shape Ohio’s AI strategy.
The same questions apply to how we prepare students for life beyond the classroom. If we want students to use new tools with good judgment, those skills need to be embedded in what and how they learn. Ohio’s Integrated Model Curriculum blends English language arts, social studies, and civics with technology and life skills in the elementary and middle grades. This work connects to Ohio’s Learning Standards for Technology, which the state adopted from the ISTE Standards for Students in 2025.
We took this same approach with reading. Through Governor Mike DeWine’s ReadOhio initiative, we started with the research on how children learn to read, and we built policy around the answer: instruction grounded in the science of reading. The state invested $86 million in professional development for educators, including on-demand online courses offered by the Department, $64 million in curriculum and instructional materials, and $18 million for literacy coaches. Since the 2024-25 school year, districts use reading materials from a state-approved list aligned to the science of reading, which includes digital tools for supplemental instruction and intervention programs.
Asking why students struggle to read led us to an older technology that we may take for granted: eyeglasses. Some students who are not reading on grade level are held back by nonacademic barriers, like vision. While Ohio law requires schools to screen students’ vision, only about a quarter of kindergarten through third-grade students who do not pass the screening report receive a follow-up comprehensive eye exam. Through Governor DeWine’s OhioSEE program, schools in 15 high-need counties are now helping close that gap by providing eye exams and, when needed, glasses to eligible students in kindergarten through third grade, at no cost to families.
I will not forget an assembly this past winter when students put on their new glasses for the first time. One young man looked out the window and said he could see snow. It was a powerful reminder that before a child can learn to read, they have to be able to see the page.
Why bring up eyeglasses and the science of reading in an essay about education technology? Because the questions we asked for those initiatives are the same questions we should ask of every tool or program in a classroom. What are we trying to accomplish? Is there evidence this works? Does it keep students safe? Those questions guide Ohio’s work to help districts make informed decisions about the products they buy and use.
The questions parents are asking about screens and AI will not go away, and they should not. Our answer should not be to reject technology, and it should not be to adopt it without question. It should be to keep asking those fundamental questions. State edtech leaders are doing that work every day, often behind the scenes. Organizations like SETDA give those leaders a place to share what they are learning and learn from one another. This report shows what that work looks like across the country, and why it matters for every student.
Stephen D. Dackin is Director of the Ohio Department of Education and Workforce.
