Instead of being asked to score at least a on tests of English Language Arts, mathematics, social studies, science and one optional exam, New York students will be assessed using standards. 

It is yet unclear as to who will be evaluating whether they can be considered:

• academically prepared
• creative innovators
• critical thinkers
• effective communicators
• global citizens
• reflective and future-focused

It is also unclear what the criteria for succeeding in each category will be.

When I asked parent subscribers to my mailing list how they felt about the shift, the answers split starkly into two camps.

There were those who cheered. Josh Kross, father of two high schoolers and one graduate, wrote, “Regents are outdated. Good riddance.” Moria Herbst added, “Other states don’t have them. Certainly not in Massachusetts, where I grew up. And Massachusetts does just fine!”

“I am deeply in favor of moving away from a standardized testing model,” said E.J., the Washington Heights parent of a first grader. “While Portrait of a Graduate is still being worked on as to how it will actually function, I’m encouraged by the idea and the possibility of it being a more complete picture of the human we’re sending out into the world.”

Other parents, however, were less enthused.

“Portrait of a Graduate is so fuzzy as to be meaningless,” wrote Rachel Fremmer, dismissively. “I didn’t think standards could be lowered any further, but they have been.” 

“It seems like a process that will make things more subjective for teachers, and thus less fair for many students,” opined Marina. “This seems like a vague requirement that will allow parents with resources even more leverage.”

Yiatin Chu, mom of a ninth grader, went even further, saying, “For those who criticize the Regents as a low bar/waste of time, why aren’t we improving it and making it more rigorous instead? Portrait of a Graduate is aspirational — over 40% of eighth grade students are entering high school not reading at grade level. I see the change to these graduation metrics for HS graduation as a way for the system to push kids out the door.”

New York City already faces the issues of straight A students being unable to perform equally well — or even pass — state elementary and middle school tests, not to mention high school Regents exams.

“Without objective tests, there is no way to gauge what kids are actually learning,” Diane Rubenstein predicted. “This will allow the (Department of Education) to give kids nothing in the classroom. This will give (them) cover to not teach.”

“Removing this requirement dilutes education standards even further,” agreed AW. “It plays very well into the current administration’s program of ‘equity,’ aka ‘mediocrity for all.’ It disincentivizes kids from learning and teaches them that if something is hard, just protest and it will be removed from your path, even to your detriment.”

For many parents, the perceived lowering of standards will hurt city students when it comes to competing not just nationally, but internationally.

“If USA high schools become less competitive, that’s not good for the next generation,” Jenny worried, while Ella added, “Our kids will fall behind other countries. We are already falling behind in the world. My kids cannot compete with foreign students.”

Of the that currently have high-school exit exams in place, New Jersey ranked No. 2 in the country for educational achievement for 2025, Virginia was No. 13, Ohio was No. 15, Florida was No. 19, Texas No. 31 and Louisiana No. 35. (Massachusetts, which got rid of its exit exams in 2025, is, as noted above, ranked No. 1. However, that ranking was achieved while the state still had its exit exam up through last year.)

In New York, while students will no longer be required to sit for Regents exams in order to graduate, they will still have the option of taking them in order to earn a .

This could have the effect of widening the gaps between students, rather than improving equity. Colleges and employers will be able to see who earned a Regents diploma and who opted to bypass established standards via a more subjective metric, which could imply less academic rigor.

Like those rejected from colleges that went SAT/ACT scores because they realized those were a reliable predictor of applicants’ capabilities, students who choose not to take the Regents exams could find themselves negatively perceived and penalized.

“I understand the growing pressure to move away from standardized testing, but we still need a meaningful way to measure student progress and evaluate our schools,” ventured Stephanie Cuba, the mother of children in seventh and ninth grades. “Education policy should be deliberate and comprehensive, not a series of reactive decisions. If you’re going to dismantle the old system, you need a clear, credible plan to replace it. Without that, we’re operating without a compass.”

Right now, with Profile of a Graduate details vague and , New York risks graduating multiple cohorts whose achievements will not be properly valued. The repercussions might follow them for years.

New York state’s 2.7 million students may soon have access to free school breakfast and lunch if a proposal by Governor Kathy Hochul makes it through this session’s budget negotiations.

Nearly children in New York were food insecure in 2022 — up significantly from — and research shows that students underperform when they are hungry, the governor said during her on Tuesday.

“It pains me as a mom to think of little kids’ stomachs growling while they’re in school while they’re supposed to be learning,” Hochul said. “In the wealthiest country in the world, this can no longer be tolerated.”

Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for �鶹��Ʒ Newsletter

Senator Michelle Hinchey and Assemblymember Jessica González-Rojas have been pushing for a universal school meal program for the last three years, but the full proposal never made it through . The legislature did, however, provide funding to cover up to 90 percent of students, according to a representative from González-Rojas’s office

New York City, Albany, Rochester and Yonkers have their own universal free school meal programs. With President-elect Donald Trump for school meals, a state program could fill in the remaining gaps.

Hochul estimated that free breakfast and lunch could save families as much as $1,600 per child per year. For the 2025-26 school year, the program is expected to cost $340 million, according to the governor’s office.

Among her other education-focused policy proposals, Hochul is also pushing to make community college free for students who enter certain fields, including teaching and nursing. The governor has also indicated that, as part of her executive budget, she will propose legislation to curb the use of smartphones at school, a move she has been considering for months.

Conspicuously absent from Hochul’s speech was any mention of , which the state uses to distribute the majority of funding to schools. During last year’s State of the State, she noted that New York had set aside for the program, fully funding it for the first time since its implementation in 2007.

Last year, the state legislature also gave $2 million to the Rockefeller Institute to conduct a comprehensive analysis of the formula and suggest ways to improve it. The think tank released its final report in December, providing a list of recommendations that the governor and legislature can choose to implement — or not — during this year’s budget negotiations.

This was originally published on .

Yet, these post-secondary paths are riddled with inequities, especially for students of color and those from lower-income backgrounds. Recent statistics are troubling: only 41% of eighth graders statewide were proficient in math on the 2023-24 New York State assessment. The situation is worse for students of color, with only 31% of Black students and 32% of Latino students achieving math proficiency, and less than half of Black and Latino eighth graders proficient in reading. This gap not only hinders immediate academic success but also foreshadows future struggles in high school, college, and the workforce.  

The New York State Board of Regents is moving forward on to current graduation requirements that would be phased in by the start of the 2029 school year. That would eliminate the requirement for passing the vaunted Regents exams and allow alternative routes to receiving a diploma. We are deeply concerned that the proposed changes, which still must be approved by the Board, may create a system that perpetuates rather than dismantles inequities.

The state’s push for additional graduation pathways, while well-intentioned, fails to address the root causes of inadequate student preparation. During and after the pandemic, graduation rates rose from 83.4% in 2019 to 86.5% in 2023, a trend our New York Equity Coalition attributes to exemptions and waivers for Regents exams, while proficiency rates in literacy and math declined during the same period. In many states, graduation rates fell after the pandemic.

As New York considers eliminating Regents exams as a graduation requirement by the fall of 2027, we must ask: What is the plan to address declining proficiency rates? What is the plan to ensure that our schools adequately prepare students for life after high school, given the incoming presidential administration’s plans to further reduce the federal role in education accountability? 

While additional flexibility is necessary, especially for multilingual learners and students with disabilities, these broad changes raise legitimate concerns that districts will continue to under-educate students, particularly Black, Latino and Native American students, while graduating and passing them on to other institutions.

A meaningful diploma should signify that a student has mastered essential content and skills. Our education system must provide access to college and career-ready coursework, so students do not need remedial classes upon entering college—classes that often lead to increased debt and lower completion rates.  

The state’s initiative for additional graduation pathways also raises equity concerns across districts. It’s true that exams are not the only way for students to demonstrate proficiency and often carry racial bias and discriminate against multilingual learners and students with disabilities. Increasing opportunities for performance-based assessments—where students can demonstrate knowledge and proficiency through cumulative projects and performance tasks —provides a research-backed alternative. 

However, implementing such alternatives requires significant investments in time and training for educators. Will already under-resourced districts have the funding and state support needed to move in this direction? Or will high-wealth districts and schools be the only beneficiaries of increased flexibility? The state’s proposal, which allows these alternatives while recognizing that not all districts will not be equipped to provide them, risks creating new inequities: Depending on the wealth of a district or school, students may access different methods to demonstrate proficiency. 

Additionally, New York’s proposal raises concerns about exacerbating inequities within schools. Who will determine which students graduate by passing Regents exams—making them eligible for a new policy of direct enrollment in selective State University of New York campuses if they graduate in the top 10% of their class—and which students will use alternative measures? When school staff make these decisions, we know that racial discrimination significantly influences which students are considered “college material.”   

These unanswered questions underscore the potential unintended consequences of proposed graduation reforms and the need for strong state policy guardrails that ensure students who have been undereducated are prepared for success. While creating alternative pathways to graduation is desirable, it is crucial to address these issues to prevent deepening inequities. Students from all backgrounds deserve a diploma that accurately reflects their readiness for the future—a diploma that opens doors rather than closes them.  

For the majority of underserved students in New York City who wish to attend college away from home, the State University of New York (SUNY) provides the most accessible and cost-effective options. In order to increase the likelihood that these students will succeed in college, the Heckscher Foundation and Gerstner Philanthropies created a Student Emergency Fund at six SUNY campuses.

Before the program was established, there was little empirical evidence to show the impact of emergency grant programs on college persistence and graduation. The program tracked these outcomes and demonstrated that Student Emergency Fund recipients showed substantially higher achievement rates than the general campus populations. 

Since 2018, of the nearly 2,000 students across the six campuses who received the grants — which by design could not be used to pay tuition — 94% were still enrolled in college, or had successfully graduated or completed their program of study, in the semester immediately following receipt of their award. Nationally, and at the SUNY campuses overall, the rate is 76%. In addition, 90% of grant recipients receiving an award in fall 2019 were re-enrolled in fall 2020, a rate 14% percentage points higher than retention rates seen on the six campuses as a whole and for full-time students nationally.

In addition, applying for the grant increased students’ awareness of the broader range of supports  available to them on campus and in the surrounding community. Eight in 10 recipients noted that applying for the grant caused them to learn about other resources that they didn’t know about before.   

The six SUNY campuses each received between $50,000 to $100,000 per year for four years, with additional funds to support administrative expenses. To be eligible to receive the grants, students were required to be pursuing a bachelor’s or associate degree, be enrolled at least half-time, have a minimum 2.0 grade-point average and otherwise be in good standing with the college.  

Grants were made on a rolling basis throughout the academic year and summer for up to a recommended maximum of $2,000. The idea was to help students respond to emergencies, such as homelessness or threat of eviction, medical crises, natural disasters, domestic violence, theft or loss of employment. Examples of eligible expenses included rent, utilities, clothing, furniture, medical bills, child care, transportation and replacement of stolen items needed for school. Tuition, books, credit card debt, cable bills and legal representation, among other expenses, were not eligible. 

The program design required the colleges to widely publicize the availability of the grants and provide an online portal for applications. Campus administrators had to respond to requests within days, and data had to be captured and recorded on a platform administered by . Before the program’s inception, there was great variation in the extent to which holistic student support systems existed across the six partner campuses. Many did not have a system in place that met the full range of student needs in an integrated and comprehensive way. Several campuses did have emergency grant programs in place, but these were very small and inconsistent in how they engaged with students and determined what the qualifications should be. 

Participating in the SEF program allowed staff to learn more about the needs of their own students, while gaining insight into services offered on other campuses. Together, this resulted in the six schools significantly increasing their scale and range of available supports. At SUNY Albany, the Class of 2019 voted to make the SEF the recipient of its class gift. Contributions from over 300 students totaled $20,000. In some cases, the colleges created a new, holistic system of supports, using data from the SEF program to guide decisions about what that system should look like. In other cases, campuses implemented new approaches within their existing support systems. 

The successes seen as a result of the SEF program point to several design features that should guide other institutions in developing similar programs. Among other recommendations, the report emphasized the importance of university systems and states investing their own resources into developing emergency grants programs; the importance of clear application requirements; a fast turnaround time; and clear communication with students throughout the process.

Disclosure: The Heckscher Foundation provides financial support to �鶹��Ʒ.

And yet, folks, be careful what you wish for. Converting “education” into a top-tier political issue doesn’t mean that voters will automatically, enthusiastically gravitate to the , productive education policy issues that wonky advocates would prefer. Voters in didn’t embrace thoughtful, nuanced debates about how to fund schools more fairly or ensure that they are transparent about how children are performing academically. 

No, a handful of prominent campaigns used mostly imaginary allegations under the banner of critical race theory to inflame a very real culture war (and spark an smokescreen of a conversation about American history and racial injustice). 

Can anyone thread the needle — impactful education policy idea that’s also politically potent? For instance, my colleague here at �鶹��Ʒ, Jo Napolitano, reported recently about districts across the country reconsidering the traditional 180-day calendar. It’s one of those rare wonky education policy ideas that seems to be attracting some political attention. As part of his since-abandoned run for governor, former offered a proposal for year-round school with extended school days. All New York children would have been eligible — and the $5.4 billion in new staff and operational costs would be paid for via increased income taxes on those making more than a million dollars annually. 

“This is how we give at life, give working parents peace of mind, and reduce inequality in New York State,” the former mayor said.

Start with economic inequality, where there’s no longer . American democracy cannot long sustain with growing gaps between wealthy and poor — and stagnating economic mobility. Reasonable people can disagree about precisely how to curb inequality, but it’s not difficult to make a case for raising taxes on people making seven- or eight-digit annual incomes — particularly in New York, (the highest share of any state). 

Year-round schooling also seems pretty well-aligned to the second goal: as far as supporting families goes, this is a slam dunk. As I’ve written in the past, U.S. school schedules work terribly for many families. School days rarely cover the standard 9 to 5 work window. So millions of families (including mine!) muddle through, scrambling together child care to fill the gaps, tacking on afterschool programming and/or summer camps — often at significant expense. For most of us, it’s an incoherent patchwork. If we align the school calendar to better match more families’ work schedules, we’ll save them time, energy and resources. 

: school schedules aren’t designed for working families. Before COVID, it was pretty rare to talk about mandatory, universal K-12 education in terms of what it means for the labor market or for working parents. When we argue about schools, we usually argue about how to make them work better for kids. But now, after many of us spent the better part of 22 months juggling full-time work and child care … the time is ripe for refitting schools to better meet families’ schedule needs. 

It’s the third goal — improving outcomes for kids — where the case for a year-long school calendar and longer school days is less clear cut. To start, the evidentiary case for more learning time is more complicated than you might think. Yes, more hours can help kids do better, but it’s not a simple addition problem. Indeed, , for extended learning programs, “The weakest outcomes were generally found among programs whose duration was on the extreme ends of the spectrum — programs that were among those offering the fewest or greatest number of hours.” That is, while more time can help students succeed, after a certain point, there are diminishing returns to simply staying longer at school.

As usual, it’s not just a matter of quantity — the quality of extra learning hours also matters. And that, naturally, runs smack into the central education policy design problem for U.S. schools: they’re profoundly inequitable in terms of resources and quality, and those inequities fall along racial, ethnic and socioeconomic lines. As such, extending and expanding that system without intentionally addressing these injustices isn’t going to help kids who need it the most. That is, in under-resourced, segregated, and/or dysfunctional schools aren’t going to see dramatic, world-beating academic or developmental gains if they get extra time in those same settings. Predictably, meanwhile, most of their privileged peers will be spending their late afternoons and midsummers in high-quality learning environments, compounding their opportunities and advantages. 

It’s not super complicated to figure out how to keep kids safe and at school all year so that working families can stay on track. But figuring out how to expand and significantly change the school year in ways that actually serve kids’ best interests … that’s much harder. There are endless and complex questions to be settled in the planning and design. Would the additional time at school be spent continuing and accelerating what teachers and students were doing during the standard school day and year? Or would it be spent on new and different learning activities? Would enrichment be concentrated in the summer months or spread across the new schedule? Who will teach these programs — will credential requirements from the standard school calendar be a must, or will there be different expectations? To what degree would the answers to these sorts of questions fall under state control vs how much flexibility would local school districts get? How much of this will need to be worked out in collective bargaining — and how smooth will that process be? 

We need to think about the logistics here: schools are sticky, slow institutions. Leadership can’t simply flip a switch and make major changes to how they do things. Their processes and traditions have old roots snaking deep into their daily and yearly calendars. Teachers have lesson plans built around curricula that are designed for the current, standard, 180-day school year. It’s no simple thing to — BOOM — imagine year-round school into existence and make it effective and equitable for kids. 

In other words, expanding the school schedule is a serious, nuanced idea that requires lots of careful policy design and implementation. It’s the stuff of white papers and think tank panel discussions. Also, unsurprisingly, it doesn’t have the necessary political juice to spark a political movement. Parents — that is, potential education voters — activated about banning books in their children’s schools aren’t likely to switch their activism over to a technocratic discussion of how to make year-round school work for everyone. Indeed, year-round school was no balm for de Blasio’s gubernatorial ambitions: he abandoned his run .

Dr. Conor P. Williams is a senior fellow at the Century Foundation, a progressive think tank. Find him on Twitter . The views expressed here are his alone.