One of my favorite parts of working at BookNook is the opportunity to talk with district leaders across the country. Every district has its own students, goals, strengths, and challenges, but I am always struck by how many of the same themes surface in our conversations.
As the 2026–27 school year begins, leaders are making decisions in an environment shaped by tighter budgets, persistent learning gaps, staffing demands, and increasing expectations to demonstrate results. In fact, a recent RAND survey of district leaders found that budget shortfalls have become their most commonly reported challenge.
Although every district’s approach will look different, five priorities continue to stand out in the conversations I am having.
Budgets remain top of mind. District leaders are being asked to do more with the resources they have, which means every investment must have a clear purpose.
The conversations I am hearing are not centered on finding the newest program. Leaders are examining whether an investment addresses a defined student need, aligns with district goals, and can produce results worth the time and resources required.
They are also looking beyond the initial price. What will implementation require from school and district staff? Can the program reach enough students? How quickly can it begin? What evidence will leaders receive to help them communicate its value?
For interventions in particular, districts are increasingly linking funding decisions to measurable student outcomes. This requires leaders and partners to agree on what success means, how it will be measured, and when progress will be reviewed. Our recent article on funding High-Impact Tutoring for lasting impact examines several ways districts can approach that work.
A question for district teams: What evidence will help us determine whether this investment is producing meaningful value for students?
Few leaders question whether students need additional academic support. The difficult part is determining when that support can happen consistently.
Some districts create dedicated intervention blocks during the school day. Others use expanded learning programs, summer programming, or before- and after-school opportunities. There is no single schedule that works for every district.
What matters is whether the plan reflects the realities of students, teachers, transportation, staffing, and the school day. A schedule may look strong on paper but still create barriers if students regularly miss core instruction, cannot attend consistently, or must choose between intervention and another important service.
The National Student Support Accelerator’s District Playbook encourages districts to consider scheduling and implementation together rather than treating time as a separate logistical decision. These strategies for scheduling High-Impact Tutoring also offer practical approaches districts can adapt to their local needs.
A question for district teams: Where can intervention happen consistently without creating new barriers for students?
Data comes up in nearly every conversation I have with district leaders.
Leaders want to identify which students need additional support, understand the specific skills they need to strengthen, and place them in the right intervention. They also want enough information to know whether the support is working—and to make adjustments when it is not.
That requires more than reviewing an assessment at the beginning and end of a program. Strong progress monitoring gives educators opportunities to inquire, reflect, and respond throughout the intervention cycle.
The Center on Multi-Tiered System of Supports identifies screening, progress monitoring, multi-level prevention, and data-based decision-making as essential and connected components of an effective support system.
The goal is not to collect more data simply because it is available. The goal is to create a useful feedback loop: identify a need, provide targeted support, examine progress, communicate what is happening, and adjust the plan when necessary.
A question for district teams: What information will tell us whether students are receiving the right support, and whether that support is working?
Whether I am meeting with a superintendent, curriculum leader, or principal, one thing is always clear: leaders care deeply about creating opportunities for every student to succeed.
But access involves more than offering a program.
Districts must examine whether students can realistically participate. Transportation, scheduling, attendance, technology, language needs, disability-related supports, and competing instructional demands can all affect who receives intervention and who benefits from it.
Leaders are also considering how interventions fit within the broader system of student support. A strong intervention should link to what students are learning during core instruction while providing the additional time, attention, and scaffolds they need to make progress.
This is particularly important for multilingual learners, students receiving special education services, students who have experienced interrupted instruction, and those who may need academic support without being separated unnecessarily from their peers or core learning experiences.
A question for district teams: Which students may face barriers to participating consistently, and how can we address those barriers before implementation begins?
One thing I have learned is that successful intervention is not based on the strength of a program alone. It depends on the strength of the implementation surrounding it.
That includes collaboration among district teams, school leaders, classroom teachers, interventionists, families, tutors, and external partners. Everyone does not need to perform the same role, but they do need shared expectations and clear ways to communicate.
The strongest district partnerships are not built around pretending that challenges will never arise. Schedules shift. Student needs change. Attendance may be inconsistent. Technology does not always cooperate.
Successful teams identify those challenges early, ask questions, and work together to adjust the plan without losing sight of the intended student outcome. They establish clear ownership, review progress regularly, and remain flexible enough to respond when the original approach is not producing the desired result.
A question for district teams: Do the people responsible for implementation know what success looks like, what they own, and how concerns will be communicated?
These five priorities are closely linked.
Scheduling affects student access. Data influences where resources are directed. Strong implementation determines whether an investment produces results. Partnership makes it possible to respond when challenges emerge.
The larger shift I am hearing is that district leaders are not simply searching for more programs. They are striving to create connected systems in which funding, scheduling, data, access, and implementation all support a clear student goal.
As another school year begins, I feel fortunate to have a front-row seat to these conversations. Every meeting gives me another opportunity to learn from leaders who are making difficult decisions thoughtfully, asking important questions, and staying focused on what matters most: helping students grow.
Their approaches may differ, but their commitment is remarkably consistent.