Education Policy Updates

🥦Spain is leading the way on healthy sustainable school food 🇪🇸 In 2022 Spain updated its dietary guidelines to be more in line with the latest science on healthy sustainable diets (EAT-Lancet Planetary Health Diet). Now they are pioneering implementation -- having just passed a new royal decree on school food that brings what is served in line with NDG recommendations. The aim of this decree is for all children, regardless of family income level, to have access to healthy, nutritious meals at school. 🌟Highlights 🥩Meat to be served maximum three times a week. Red meat maximum once a week, processed meats maximum twice a month 🍇Focus on local, seasonal food -- 45% fruit and veg served must be in season 🫘Ramping up legumes -- to be served 1-2 times a week minimum in a variety of ways including as primary protein source in a main, or as part of a starter or side dish. Only 14% of schools currently serve legumes once a week 🚫Limits on processed foods -- pre-prepared options like pizzas, empanadillas, and croquetas can only be served once a month, and sugar-sweetened beverages, energy drinks and processed snacks will be banned from vending machines and school cafes 🍆Fully plant-based menus available for children who want them ⏰The new decree comes into effect next term, in all 17.000 Spanish schools (primary and secondary, public and private) This is an amazing step forwards, and I'm excited to see healthy sustainable food in Spanish school canteens. To ensure the policy vision becomes a reality on the 'school floor', compliance monitoring and enforcement will be key, as well as securing catering suppliers who are able to rapidly meet these new needs. Photo credit: Manu Garcia, La voz del sur. #foodpolicy #schoolfood #healthydiets #sustainablediets #publichealth #spain

Common Sense Media recently released a comprehensive risk assessment of AI teacher assistants/lesson planning tools. Their findings reveal that while these tools promise increased productivity and creative support, they're also creating "invisible influencers" that could fundamentally undermine educational quality. Unlike GenAI foundation model chatbots, these tools are specifically designed for instructional planning and classroom use and are rapidly being adopted across districts. Key Concerns from their report: • "Invisible Influencers" in Student Learning: AI-generated content directly shapes what students learn through potentially biased perspectives and historical inaccuracies that teachers may miss; evidence also shows these tools suggest different approaches and responses based on student race/gender • “Outsourced Thinking" Problem: Tools make it dangerously easy to push unreviewed AI instructional content straight to classrooms, while novice teachers lack experience to spot subtle errors and biasses • High-Stakes Outputs: IEP and behavior plan generators create official-looking documents that could impact student educational trajectories even though these plans should be human-generated (and in the case of IEP goals are mandated to be human generated) • Undermining High-Quality Instructional Materials: Without proper integration, these tools fragment learning and can undermine coherent, research-backed curricula Recommendations from the report: • Experienced educator oversight required for all AI-generated educational content • Clear district policies and guidelines for AI teacher assistant implementation • Integration with existing high-quality curricula rather than replacement of established materials • Robust teacher training on identifying bias and evaluating AI outputs • Careful oversight of real-time AI feedback tools that interact directly with students We'd also recommend foundational AI literacy for teachers before they begin using GenAI teacher assistants, so that they are aware of the potential limitations. While AI teacher assistants aren't inherently problematic, they require the same careful implementation and oversight we'd expect for any tool that directly impacts student learning. The potential for enhanced productivity is real, but so are the risks to educational equity and quality. This report underscores the urgent need for GenAI EdTech tool makers to provide evidence of how their tools mitigate these issues along with evidence-based policies and professional development to help educators navigate AI tools responsibly. All of which underline how important AI Literacy is for the 2025-2026 school year. Link in the comments to check out the full report. Also check out our 5 Questions to Ask GenAI EdTech Providers resource in the comments if you are planning to implement any of these tools in your school or district. #AIinEducation #ailiteracy #Education #K12 AI for Education

The fight to keep science global Some nations are trying to shut the doors of international collaboration. Scientists can keep them open. In my op-ed for American Physical Society News I explore the current challenges to keep research global. While humanity’s most pressing challenges, from climate change to pandemic threats, demand worldwide cooperation, we are seeing a profound contradiction: governments are increasingly treating international collaboration as a national security vulnerability. History shows us a better way. Even at the height of the Cold War, initiatives like the International Geophysical Year and CERN proved that #sciencediplomacy could bridge the deepest divides. Today, the scientific community should "push back against the pushback". We must move beyond passive responses to actively defend the open exchange of ideas, the free movement of talent, and the fundamental values that make progress possible. Read the full piece here: https://lnkd.in/ejWagv5d #APSNews

India’s Patent Filing Incentive Problem: When Filing Becomes a Revenue Model The data from the Indian Patent Office (2020–2025) tells a troubling story. Some institutions have filed between 5,000 to 7,000 patents in five years — yet their grant rates are as low as 0% to 2%. At the same time, institutions like the IITs and IISc show grant rates above 40%. This gap is not accidental. It is structural. In many cases, institutions receive up to Rs. 5 lakh per patent under various incentive and reimbursement schemes. But the cost of first-stage filing is often only Rs. 20,000 to Rs. 32,000. Read that again. If funding is released at the submission stage — not at grant — the system rewards volume, not validation. So what happens? - File aggressively. - File in bulk. - File regardless of patentability strength. When incentives are tied to application numbers rather than granted patents or commercialization outcomes, patents become a financial instrument — not an innovation outcome. The result: • Thousands of low-quality applications • Extremely low grant ratios • Inflated innovation statistics • Public funds converted into filing revenue This is not about isolated cases. It is about incentive design. When NIRF rankings, internal KPIs, promotions, and funding flows reward filing counts, institutions optimize accordingly. The behavior is rational — even if the outcome is damaging. Real innovation is difficult. It withstands examination. It gets granted. It translates into products, startups, licensing, or technology transfer. If India wants to become a serious deep-tech nation, reforms are urgent: - Link incentives to granted patents, not just applications. - Tie funding to commercialization or industry validation. - Audit abnormal filing-to-grant ratios. - Redesign ranking metrics to reward quality, not quantity. Otherwise, we are not strengthening the IP ecosystem. We are manufacturing numbers. Innovation cannot be gamed into existence. #InnovationPolicy #PatentEcosystem #HigherEducation #ResearchIntegrity #PublicPolicy #NIRF #StartupIndia #IndianEducation #IPR

Just came across a significant policy development out of #Beijing: Mandatory AI education for ALL primary and secondary students starting Sept 1, 2025. This includes children as young as 6, receiving at least 8 hours annually. This is truly a massive move – requiring substantial changes in school infrastructure, teacher training, and curriculum integration across subjects. It clearly underscores #China's strategic push to cultivate AI skills from the ground up and potentially gain a competitive edge in the global AI race. For me, this raises critical questions about the future of #education and the #FutureOfWork. What are the implications of introducing AI concepts at such a foundational age (6+)? How does this potentially impact global #SkillsGap dynamics? And what does it mean for childhood development and the evolving role of educators? I'm genuinely interested in hearing the diverse perspectives from this network on this development. What are your initial reactions – do you see this as brilliant preparation for the future, or does it raise concerns about pace or approach? Let's discuss in the comments. #AIinEducation #EducationPolicy #EdTech #WorkforceDevelopment

I was pleased to join in today’s launch of the OECD Recommendation on Quantum Technologies – the first intergovernmental standard providing shared principles and policy guidance for development and use of quantum technologies. A growing number of countries are investing in quantum computing, sensing and communication, and they are developing national strategies to guide their efforts. But progress depends on more than national efforts: quantum innovation relies on shared expertise, infrastructure and international collaboration. The OECD Recommendation helps governments and other stakeholders strengthen innovation ecosystems, promote secure and trusted access, support resilient supply chains, and foster international co-operation – while addressing risks related to security, privacy and fragmentation. Its adoption marks the beginning of the next phase of collective implementation of quantum technologies, offering a common reference point to guide policy, support co-ordination, and build trust in how quantum technologies are developed and deployed across borders. See: https://lnkd.in/ecqnDdpD Congratulations to Andrés Barreneche García, David Winickoff, Pauline Arbel, Sara Rendtorff-Smith, Audrey Plonk. #Quantum #EmergingTech #InnovationPolicy #OECD

China is reshaping the PhD model by introducing doctoral pathways centered on real-world innovation rather than traditional dissertations. Under the new approach, candidates can earn their doctorate by developing tangible inventions — including working prototypes, patents, and commercially viable technologies — instead of submitting lengthy academic theses. The emphasis shifts from theoretical publication output to measurable innovation value and practical impact. Academic rigor will remain part of the evaluation process, but universities are expected to weigh factors such as technological usefulness, commercialization potential, and direct contributions to industry or society. The goal is to bridge the long-standing gap between academic research and real-world problem-solving. The policy reflects China’s broader push toward applied research, technological self-reliance, and education systems designed to accelerate economic and industrial advancement.

76 per cent of teachers now use AI. Here is what the evidence says about what that actually means. Four data sources published in the first months of 2026 tell a consistent story about AI and schools in England. The National Education Union surveyed 9,408 members in February 2026. 76% now use AI tools in their day-to-day work. A year ago that figure was 53%. The share using no AI tools at all has fallen from 47% to 24% in 12 months. That rate of adoption is striking. And what sits alongside it even more so. Half of those schools have no AI policy whatsoever, for staff or students. Two thirds have no policy specifically for students. The NEU asked the same question a year ago. The figures have barely changed. The Royal Society commissioned TeacherTapp to ask 9,250 teachers about AI literacy in March 2026. Only 14% described themselves as confident across the practical, technical, and human dimensions of AI. 34% reported limited confidence in most aspects. 37% said AI literacy is not currently addressed in their teaching at all. Only 2% said it is covered across most subjects. So teachers are using the tools, without training, without policy, and largely without teaching young people anything about them. The Royal Society's rapid review of AI literacy frameworks makes clear that AI literacy is being left almost entirely to computing teachers. The capabilities it actually requires, including evidence evaluation, critical scepticism, understanding of model limitations, and ethical reasoning, belong equally across all areas of the curriculum, from science to citizenship. The TeacherTapp data shows where the support gaps fall hardest. 23% of classroom teachers report no school support of any kind for developing AI literacy. Headteachers are far more likely to report that informal guidance is available (45%) than classroom teachers (28%). Structured professional development reaches only 18% of teachers overall. The consequences show up in the NEU data. 66% of secondary teachers report that pupils' critical thinking has declined as a result of AI use. In primary schools the figure is 28%. The finding that should give us pause: younger teachers, those most familiar with the tools, are more likely to report this (57%) than those aged 50 and over (39%). What teachers want is practical and immediate. What they are receiving, where they are receiving anything at all, is informal and inconsistent. The tools are in classrooms. The question is whether anything is going to be built around them to ensure young people understand what the tools are, what they are doing, and what they cannot do. What I am listening to: 'Running Up That Hill' by Kate Bush What I am reading: 'Hamnet' by Maggie O'Farrell See you in the kitchen. Prof Rose Luckin UCL and EVR Ltd (Article Sources available on request) #AIinEducation #AILiteracy #TeacherTraining #EdTech #CriticalThinking #EducationPolicy #SkinnyOnAIED #RoyalSociety #NEU #SchoolsPolicy

Don’t Reform India’s R&D System. Replace It. Having worked as a Professor at IIT Kanpur, Director of CSIR-NIIST, Senior Vice President at Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, and Director of Dr. Reddy’s Institute of Life Sciences, I have had the opportunity to experience India’s academic, government, and industrial R&D ecosystems firsthand. Alongside advising multiple pharmaceutical companies, this journey places me in a unique position to offer a grounded perspective on the state of innovation in India. We’ve spent decades trying to “fix” India’s innovation ecosystem: more funding, more policies, more institutions. Yet the outcome remains the same: incremental science, limited translation, and almost no globally disruptive breakthroughs. Here’s the uncomfortable truth: the system is not broken. It is working exactly as designed: optimized for control, predictability, and low risk. And that is precisely why it cannot produce real innovation. So perhaps the question is wrong. Instead of asking “How do we improve the system?” We should be asking “What if we built a new one?” Instead of reforming existing academia, CSIR labs, or funding agencies, India should create a fully independent, parallel R&D ecosystem: small, elite, mission-driven, and radically empowered. Build 5–10 “Innovation Sovereign Zones (ISZs)”: autonomous scientific territories with their own governance, funding rules, hiring norms, and accountability systems. The ISZs should be structured as follows: 1. No grant cycles. No file movement. Only ideas and execution 2. $500M–$1B long-term risk capital pools, not project-based funding 3. Scientists operating like founders with ownership, equity, and accountability 4. No publication pressure and only products, platforms, and patents that matter 5. Global talent, market-linked pay, zero hierarchy of degrees 6. Institutionalized failure: where 70% projects can fail without stigma This is not reform. This is replacement. Because breakthrough innovation does not emerge from compliance-driven systems. It comes from environments that reward risk, protect curiosity, and concentrate resources in the hands of the most capable. Yes, this model is uncomfortable. It is elitist. It will fail often. But that is the price of creating something truly original. India doesn’t need more science. It needs a different kind of science ecosystem: one that competes with the current system, not conforms to it. Optimization built our past. Only bold experimentation will define our future.

As it stands, only 19% of children aged 5-15 get their five-a-day. 95% of children exceed the recommended daily limit for added sugar. Up to 70% of calories in secondary schools come from ultra-processed foods. Today was the last day of the Government's school food standards consultation (the first overhaul since 2014!) and I think it bears a reminder of just how far we have to go in reforming our food system so that it supports health instead of working against it. I genuinely welcome the proposals in this consultation: Banning deep-fried food. Restricting high-sugar options. Mandatory portions of vegetables or salad with meals. A greater focus on wholegrains. These things will make a real difference to children who currently have no alternative to whatever is on the school plate. But the stakes are higher than a single meal. We know that the eating habits children form between 5 and 19 are among the most powerful predictors of their long-term health. UNICEF actually describes this period as a "second window of opportunity for growth, cognitive development, educational achievement, and establishing lifelong dietary habits.” Those habits will also become one of the most powerful predictors of their long-term health, as when kids spend years eating food engineered to be addictive, low in nutrients, and high in sugar and additives, their taste preferences are altered for life. So I will be watching closely when the Government response drops in September. Because whilst the standards cover school-provided meals, they don't yet touch what supermarkets choose to stock overall, or what a family can actually afford when healthy food costs so much more than the ultra-processed alternative. You can serve an amazingly healthy school lunch and still send a child home to an 80% UPF diet. The problem neither starts nor finishes at the school gate, and September’s response will confirm whether or not the Government is taking that into account.