I’ve been thinking a lot about a small badge that somehow feels bigger every time I look at it: a micro-credential. Not a doctorate, not a swath of graduate credits, just a stackable badge earned by demonstrating a specific skill in the classroom. A few hours of work, a short portfolio of evidence, and suddenly a teacher’s profile holds a credential that can travel with them across jobs, districts, and even state systems. A few conversations like this, and I’m left wondering: could this modest mechanism redefine online teacher education in 2026 and beyond?

What’s real about micro-credentials, and what’s still a work-in-progress, becomes clearer when you look at the landscape from the ground up. In 2025, policymakers in the United States have created a kind of policy mosaic: more than 30 states have integrated micro-credentials into teacher PD, licensure, or relicensure, but they differ in how they count these credentials toward licenses or endorsements. The picture isn’t a single rulebook; it’s a patchwork that reflects local priorities, budget realities, and historical views of professional learning. Recent syntheses point out both visible momentum and important gaps in quality control and evidence linking credentials to student outcomes (Education Week, drawing on New America’s policy review). For district leaders, that means optimism tempered by prudence: micro-credentials can be a lever for scalable growth, but you’ll want to map the policy terrain personally for your state or district.

A moment I witnessed last year helps frame why this matters beyond the buzz. A veteran middle-school teacher told me she earned a micro-credential in trauma-informed pedagogy through a local district program. She produced a short video of a classroom moment, a reflective journal excerpt, and a short plan she implemented the next week. The badge appeared on her profile, and colleagues started asking how she’d integrated the approach across her grade-level team. It wasn’t a cure-all, but it shifted the conversation from “We need more PD” to “Show me what you’re actually doing in your classroom.” That practical, visible transfer—evidence-based and classroom-facing—feels like the core promise of micro-credentials.

What you’ll notice if you zoom out is a broader shift toward competency-based, stackable learning. Instead of logging hours in a workshop with uncertain outcomes, educators demonstrate discrete skills through performance evidence—portfolios, classroom artifacts, and thoughtfully curated reflections—that are reviewed by peers or experts. Platforms and ecosystems are maturing to support this model: Digital Promise, for example, coordinates a network of credential issuers, emphasizes performance-based evidence, and promotes open, shareable badges. Districts and associations are also entering the mix, offering stacks that align with leadership, instructional practice, and collaboration (Digital Promise; NEA/Educators Rising). You’ll see a similar pattern in international examples, such as Australia’s government-funded micro-credential program for teachers, designed to address shortages and enhance professional development at scale (Micro-credentials for Classroom Confidence). These trends point toward a future where online teacher education is less about “seat time” and more about demonstrable skill, accessible when teachers need it.

But the road is not uniformly smooth. There’s real tension between policy diffusion and quality assurance. While the promise is broad—credentials that count toward licensure in some places, that recognize endorsements in others—the practice remains uneven. The Education Week synthesis highlights variability in how micro-credentials are counted for licensure across states, and researchers caution that the evidence linking micro-credentials to student outcomes is still developing. And even when programs exist, costs and time can vary widely. A typical credential often takes several hours to complete, with costs around the low tens of dollars in many early implementations, though prices swing depending on the issuer and the validation process (Education Week; cost examples referenced in contemporaneous district reports). Those numbers matter: they shape who can participate and how districts budget for scalable professional learning.

So what does this trend mean for you, as a education administrator or professional development manager charged with scalable online teacher development?

What’s changing—and why it matters now

First, the basic design is changing. Micro-credentials are increasingly built as tiny but coherent skill blocks, designed to stack toward broader capabilities. The emphasis on evidence-based, performance-anchored assessment is not cosmetic; it’s meant to ensure teachers can translate learning into classroom practice. In practice, you’ll encounter rubrics, required artifacts (like lesson videos or student work samples), and sometimes external review by subject-matter experts to validate proficiency. Digital Promise and partner organizations emphasize rigorous, competency-based design and meaningful evidence; this is a deliberate shift away from superficial “check-the-box” approaches toward more credible, transferable credentials (Digital Promise; Digital Promise policy resources).

Second, the ecosystem is plural—and that matters for choosing a path. Large, national ecosystems coexist with district-level programs and state policy maps. Platforms like Digital Promise host and validate credentials from multiple issuers, while professional associations (NEA, Educators Rising) and district initiatives (e.g., LA Unified’s 2025–2026 micro-credentialing program) create local implementations that reflect state requirements and local needs. This plurality offers options but also requires careful quality checks and alignment reviews. If you’re evaluating micro-credentials, you’ll want to map crosswalks between credentials and licensure or relicensure rules in your state and district, and look at whether the credential’s evidence requirements are clearly defined and auditable (Digital Promise; Education Week; district program descriptions).

Third, there’s a global and policy-forward dimension. Australia’s approach demonstrates how government-backed, no-cost or low-cost micro-credentials can be embedded in national workforce strategies, signaling political will to expand access to professional learning. In the U.S., state and district experiments are accelerating—Utah is highlighted as a national leader for integrating educator micro-credentials across licensure, professional learning, renewal, and endorsements; California’s SB 153 is reshaping entry into credential programs and interacts with competency-based pathways alongside micro-credentials (Utah policy materials; California CTC updates). That combination—policy clarity in some places, ongoing negotiation in others—creates both opportunity and risk for districts seeking scalable models.

What this could mean for your planning and decision-making

• Policy alignment matters more than ever. Start by examining your state’s policy map and recent updates to see how micro-credentials count toward licensure or relicensure, and whether districts can adopt district-level endorsements or stacks. The policy landscape is dynamic; sources like Education Week’s synthesis and Digital Promise’s policy map are practical anchors for conversations with superintendents and board members (Education Week; Digital Promise).
• Design for transferability and credibility. If you’re building or selecting a micro-credential pathway, prioritize evidence-based design, explicit rubrics, and artifacts that clearly demonstrate classroom impact. Look for portfolio-based assessment, external review options, and a transparent scoring process. This isn’t just about badges; it’s about trusted signals of teacher capability (Digital Promise).
• Consider time, cost, and access. Expect a range: many credentials target roughly 5–15 hours of work, with price points often in the vicinity of $40 per credential, though access may be subsidized or waived in some districts or states. Budget planning should factor in not just the credential price but any platform or submission costs, and consider how time commitments fit into teachers’ schedules (Education Week).
• Build practical stacks that align with your teachers’ needs. Topics already seeing traction include lesson design, formative assessment, classroom leadership, and collaboration, with growing attention to SEL, ELL, trauma-informed pedagogy, and other priorities. Stack design should align with district goals and specific licensure or endorsement tracks where applicable (Educators Rising; LAUSD program pages; Digital Promise topic areas).

Practical takeaways for district leaders and PD managers

• Start with a map. Use a current policy map to identify which micro-credentials are recognized for licensure or relicensure in your state, and which stacks align with your district’s strategic goals. This reduces the risk of pursuing credentials with little leverage in your local governance.
• Pilot thoughtfully. Run a small-scale pilot in a few schools or departments to test evidence requirements, scoring reliability, and classroom impact. Use results to refine rubrics and vendor selection before a district-wide rollout.
• Build cross-stakeholder confidence. Involve teachers, union partners, school leaders, and certification bodies early. Alignment conversations—about cost, time, impact, and portability—build trust and smooth implementation.
• Prepare for a fluid landscape. Expect policy updates, new issuers, and evolving best practices. Maintain flexibility in your credential paths and avoid over-committing to a single vendor or model until you’ve seen outcomes in practice (Education Week; Digital Promise; LAUSD and Utah materials).

A few concrete examples to illustrate the breadth

• California and Utah offer pathways that interact with licensure in different ways. California’s SB 153 interacts with competency-based pathways and the credential ecosystem, while Utah has actively integrated endorsements alongside professional learning and renewal processes. These cases show how state policy informs local adoption and provides models for cross-walks between credentials and licensure requirements (California CTC updates; Utah licensing pages).
• LAUSD’s 2025–2026 micro-credential initiatives highlight district-scale adoption, with topics spanning classroom practice, leadership, and collaboration. Districts adopting similar programs can learn from LAUSD’s implementation patterns, governance structures, and topic stacks (LAUSD micro-credential program page).
• Australia’s government-supported micro-credential program demonstrates a public-sector commitment to scalable teacher PD with no-cost access, illustrating how national strategy can accelerate local improvement and equity in access (University of Adelaide news on Micro-credentials for Classroom Confidence).

A quick reality check—the confirmation and the caveats

• The trend is real, but not uniform. The sheer variety across states, districts, and countries means you’ll need careful local analysis rather than a one-size-fits-all solution. The most credible credentials share a design that centers on concrete classroom evidence, transparent rubrics, and credible assessment; shallow badges don’t move the needle in practice (Digital Promise; Education Week).
• The evidence base is still maturing. While micro-credentials aim to connect PD with student outcomes, the current research landscape is evolving. Don’t rely on badges alone to improve outcomes; treat them as validated professional learning that should be complemented by ongoing support, coaching, and collaborative practice (Education Week notes on evidence; ongoing research discussions).

If you’re imagining your own district’s path forward, here’s what I keep returning to: what if we measured not just participation in PD but the real, observable practice changes teachers implement? What if the badge became a reliable indicator of a teacher’s ability to bring evidence-based strategies into a live classroom—without demanding years of coursework to prove it? In that sense, micro-credentials promise something meaningful: a bridge between what we know and what teachers do, built with the teacher at the center.

A closing reflection to carry forward

If we stack credentials, do we end up stacking genuine capability, or do we risk stacking someone else’s measure of success? The answer isn’t fixed, and it shouldn’t be a finish line. It’s a starting point for ongoing collaboration among teachers, leaders, researchers, and policymakers to design credential pathways that are credible, equitable, and truly transformative in the classroom. As you consider next steps for your district, what is the smallest, most impactful credential you could pilot that would reveal how this shift could actually affect teaching and learning in your context?

Could a Tiny Badge Redefine Online Teacher Education?

I keep returning to a small badge I saw on a colleague’s online portfolio—the kind of digital credential that costs little time, but promises to travel far. It wasn’t a degree, not a pile of graduate credits, just a stackable indicator that she could demonstrate a specific classroom skill. A few hours of work, a compact portfolio, and suddenly that badge showed up in her profile, like a passport stamp for her professional practice. A conversation started: if this mechanism works at scale, could it quietly redraw the map of online teacher education in 2026 and beyond?

What’s real about micro-credentials, and what’s still in flux becomes clearer when you look from the ground up. In 2025, policy in the United States looked less like a single rulebook and more like a patchwork quilt—a mosaic of state implementations, district ambitions, and higher-ed partnerships. More than 30 states had experimented with micro-credentials in some form—counting them toward licensure, relicensure, or endorsements—but the exact accounting varied by jurisdiction (Education Week, 2025; New America policy review). The practical upshot for a district leader? Ambition, yes, but readiness and alignment matter even more.

A moment from last year helps frame the stakes. A veteran middle-school teacher earned a micro-credential in trauma-informed pedagogy through a district program, submitted a brief video of a class moment, a reflective journal, and a short plan she tried the next week. The badge became a visible signal of practice—sparking conversations with colleagues about what was actually being implemented in the classroom, not just what was learned in a workshop. This is the promise: credentials that translate into classroom impact, not vanity badges.

In a sense, this is less about badges than about a shift in design philosophy: credentials that validate discrete, demonstrable skills, stacked over time, with evidence at their core. The design intent is to reward practice, not seat time. Platforms and ecosystems are catching up to this idea. Digital Promise, for example, coordinates a network of credential issuers, emphasizing performance-based evidence and open, shareable badges. Districts and professional associations are following with their own stacks and pathways, linking micro-credentials to leadership, instruction, and collaboration. International examples, such as Australia’s government-backed micro-credential initiative, show how public policy can propel scalable professional learning for teachers at scale. These patterns suggest a future where online teacher education is less about hours spent and more about the credible demonstration of capability in the classroom.

But there are real tensions that deserve attention. The policy landscape—though expanding—lacks a centralized quality-control body across all micro-credentials. The link between credentials and student outcomes remains an active area of research, with findings still evolving. Costs and time vary, too; typical credentials demand several hours of work and modest prices, often around tens of dollars per credential, though district subsidies or state support can alter that math. These realities matter for education administrators and PD managers who must plan budgets, design scalable paths, and communicate value to teachers and families alike (Education Week; Digital Promise; New America; district case studies).

With that in mind, this piece explores the rise of micro-credentials as a practical, policy-informed phenomenon in online teacher education. It’s written for district leaders and professional development teams who want to understand not just the “what” but the “how”—how to map policy, design credible stacks, pilot wisely, and steer through a landscape that’s both promising and unsettled.

What micro-credentials are (and aren’t)

• Micro-credentials are competency-based digital badges earned by demonstrating specific skills in real settings, usually through performance evidence such as classroom artifacts, videos, and reflections.
• They are intended to be flexible, on-demand, and portable—usable on resumes and professional profiles as signals of capability.
• They are not degrees, nor are they a silver bullet for all teaching challenges. They are designed to validate targeted practice and provide a pathway to broader capability through stackable design.
• Quality rests on clear rubrics, credible evidence, and reliable assessment—ideally with human review by practitioners or subject-matter experts.

Recent discussions among policy researchers and practitioners emphasize that the strength of micro-credentials lies in their ability to connect PD to classroom practice. Digital Promise frames many of these credentials around performance-based evidence and competency-based design, which helps move beyond “seat time” toward demonstrable skill (Digital Promise). Policy maps and syntheses—such as those from New America and Education Week—highlight both momentum and gaps, especially around licensure alignment and measurable student outcomes (Ed Week; New America).

The current landscape a patchwork with pockets of clarity

• Policy diffusion in the United States has accelerated. More than 30 states have adopted or experimented with micro-credentials for licensure, relicensure, or endorsements. However, the rules about how they count toward licenses vary widely. This is not a uniform adoption; it’s a landscape of local choices shaped by budgets, political will, and historical views of professional learning (Education Week, 2025).
• California and Utah provide concrete examples of policy shaping practice. California’s SB 153 (2024) interacts with competency-based pathways and micro-credentials in credentialing discussions, while Utah has actively integrated endorsements alongside professional learning and renewal. Districts mirror these trends, with Los Angeles Unified, for example, piloting or expanding micro-credential opportunities in 2025–2026 (LAUSD program pages; California CTC updates; Utah licensing materials).
• The ecosystem is plural and maturing. A central player is Digital Promise, which hosts a broader ecosystem of credentials from multiple issuers, emphasizing performance-based evidence, rubrics, and transparency. National associations such as NEA and Educators Rising also offer stacks and catalogs aligned with leadership, instructional practice, and collaboration. District programs and higher education partnerships further diversify options (Digital Promise; NEA; Educators Rising).
• International moves signal ambition beyond the U.S. Australia launched a government-funded, no-cost micro-credential program for teachers to address shortages and support scalable professional learning. This public-sector backing signals a potential model for equity and access that many districts find compelling (University of Adelaide; government announcements).
• The evidence base remains in formation. While micro-credentials aim to be classroom-facing and evidence-based, researchers still call for clearer links to student outcomes and stronger quality controls across providers (Education Week; independent reviews). Costs and time are also variable, with many early implementations placing credentials in the roughly $40 range per credential and several hours of work per badge (Education Week).

Who offers micro-credentials today and where they live in licensure

• Providers range from large ecosystems to district programs to professional associations:
• Digital Promise: credential hosting, assessment frameworks, performance-based design.
• NEA and Educators Rising: catalogs and stacks aligned with teacher leadership and instructional practice.
• Districts like LAUSD: large-scale micro-credential programs addressing classroom practice and collaboration.
• Higher-ed and community partners: pathways that intersect with licensure or relicensure in certain contexts.
• The licensing question is jurisdiction-specific. Some states count micro-credentials toward initial licensure or license renewal, others restrict or only recognize certain endorsements, and others offer mixed pathways. The practical effect is that districts must map credentials to local governance and licensure policies to avoid misaligned investments.

Why this matters now forces shaping adoption

• Accessibility and scalability: micro-credentials offer a lower-cost, on-demand avenue for teachers to acquire or demonstrate targeted skills without committing to lengthy degree programs. This is particularly appealing in districts facing budget constraints or staffing shortages.
• Workforce alignment: the design of stacks often targets skills in high-priority areas like trauma-informed pedagogy, EL/ELL supports, SEL, formative assessment, and collaborative leadership. This alignment helps districts address equity and student outcomes more directly.
• Policy and practice convergence: policy maps, district governance, and platform ecosystems are converging around a model that emphasizes portability, transferability, and evidence-based practice.
• Equity implications: government-backed and district-supported programs (as seen in Australia and some U.S. states) show that micro-credentials can be designed with equity and access in mind, improving opportunities for teachers who might not have time or money for traditional pathways.

What to watch for: credibility, outcomes, and cost

• Credibility and quality control: expect variance in credential design. Look for explicit rubrics, required evidence, and whether assessments involve external reviewers or multi-rater scoring to reduce bias and increase reliability.
• Evidence of impact on student outcomes: the research is still developing. Use micro-credentials as a signal of professional learning translated into practice, but pair them with coaching, collaborative planning, and ongoing supports to drive impact.
• Budgeting and time management: most credentials require a modest time commitment and cost, but districts may subsidize or waive fees. Consider not just the badge price but platform costs, submission costs, and the time teachers will invest during the school year.

Practical guidance for district leaders and PD managers

1) Start with policy mapping and strategic alignment
– Use your state’s policy map to identify which micro-credentials count toward licensure or relicensure and which stacks align with district goals.
– Engage a cross-section of stakeholders (teachers, principals, HR, union representatives, credentialing bodies) to build a common understanding of what credentialing investments should achieve.

2) Design for transferability and credibility
– Prioritize credentials with clear, auditable rubrics and concrete artifacts (video tutorials, lesson artifacts, student work samples, reflections).
– Favor portfolios or performance-based evidence reviewed by credible evaluators. Be wary of badges that rely on self-reported competence without external validation.
– Build a flexible stack that supports progression toward leadership or specialization (e.g., classroom practice → mentoring → instructional leadership).

3) Pilot, then scale with care
– Run small pilots in varied schools to test evidence requirements, scoring reliability, and classroom impact before district-wide rollout.
– Use pilot results to refine rubrics, partner selections, and governance processes.

4) Plan for governance and communication
– Establish clear governance for credential pathways, including roles, approval processes, and budget ownership.
– Communicate honestly with teachers about what counts for licensure, what remains optional, and what data will be used to measure impact.

5) Prepare for a changing landscape
– Build in flexibility to accommodate policy updates, new issuers, and evolving best practices. Avoid over-committing to a single platform or vendor until experience with outcomes is well understood.

Case-in-point snapshots

• California and Utah illustrate how policy shapes adoption. California’s SB 153 interacts with competency-based pathways and the credential ecosystem, affecting entry into credential programs and interactions with micro-credentials. Utah demonstrates established endorsement pathways tied to ongoing professional learning, renewal, and competency-based assessments. These cases show how policy can create cross-walks between credentials and licensure while local districts implement tailored programs (California CTC updates; Utah licensing pages).
• LAUSD’s 2025–2026 micro-credential program showcases district-scale adoption, with topics spanning classroom practice, leadership, and collaboration. Observing LAUSD’s governance structures, topic stacks, and implementation milestones can provide practical templates for other large districts (LAUSD micro-credential program page).
• Australia’s government-backed approach—no-cost or low-cost micro-credentials for teachers—offers a compelling equity-oriented model of national support for scalable professional learning (University of Adelaide news; government briefings).

The path forward what this means for your life and work

If you’re an education administrator or PD manager charged with scalable online teacher development, micro-credentials are not a panacea, but they are a real lever for scalable, classroom-facing professional learning. They invite you to design pathways that matter in classrooms, while navigating policy, cost, and equity considerations. The key is to connect every credential to concrete classroom practice and to pair badges with ongoing support and collaborative learning communities. Think of it as building a bridge: each credential is a plank, but the strength of the bridge depends on how the planks interlock with coaching, peer collaboration, and sustained instructional improvement.

• What would a minimal, high-leverage credential look like in your district? Could a single, evidence-based badge unlock broader leadership opportunities for a group of teachers, while remaining accessible to schools with tighter budgets?
• How might you map your credential pathways to licensure requirements, while preserving the flexibility districts need to respond to local priorities?
• What supports would you layer on top of micro-credentials (coaching, collaborative planning time, data feedback loops) to ensure the learning translates into better student outcomes?

Final reflection: a question to carry forward

If we stack credentials, do we end up stacking genuine capability, or merely stacking someone else’s measurement of success? The answer isn’t fixed, and it shouldn’t be a finish line. It’s a starting point for ongoing collaboration among teachers, school leaders, researchers, and policymakers to design credential pathways that are credible, equitable, and genuinely transformative in the classroom. As you consider your district’s next steps, what is the smallest, most actionable credential you could pilot that would reveal how this shift could actually affect teaching and learning in your context?

Even as the landscape remains complex, the core appeal remains: these micro-credentials can represent real, observable practice—earned in moments of careful work, not just in classrooms of distant learners. The real question to answer next isn’t what the badge promises in theory, but what change it provokes in practice when teachers bring a piece of evidence-based skill into real-time instruction. And if we can design credential pathways that are portable, credible, and equitable, we may find that the future of online teacher education isn’t about more hours of PD; it’s about making the moment teachers act in the classroom more learnable, shareable, and scalable for the students who need them most.

What would your district look like if every badge carried not just a symbol, but a lived improvement in classroom practice? That’s the question worth pursuing as we move through 2026 and beyond.

Should Tiny Badges Redefine Online Teacher Education?

A small badge, a big question: micro-credentials aren’t a cure-all, but they’re quietly reshaping how online teacher education travels from the screen into the classroom. The trend is real, yet uneven—a patchwork map of policy, district practice, and emerging evidence. In 2025, states experimented; by 2026, districts will decide which pieces actually count toward licensure, relicensure, or endorsements—and which remain opt-in signals of practice. The real opportunity isn’t a shiny new badge, but a more credible bridge between what teachers learn online and what they demonstrate in real classrooms.

Why this matters to you, in the trenches

For education leaders tasked with scalable online PD, micro-credentials offer promise and pinch-points in equal measure. They can scale targeted, evidence-based practice—think trauma-informed pedagogy, formative assessment, SEL supports—without forcing every teacher into lengthy degree programs. But the benefits hinge on design, alignment, and accessibility: clear rubrics, verifiable artifacts, and transparent governance that cross-watches with local licensure rules. The landscape is plural—ecosystems like Digital Promise, associations such as NEA and Educators Rising, district programs (e.g., LA Unified), and international models (Australia) all contribute. That plurality is a strength for choice; it’s a risk for consistency unless we map pathways, build trust, and protect access for all teachers.

Translating trend insights into action

• Policy mapping first: Review your state’s licensure and relicensure rules to identify which micro-credentials count and under what conditions. Build crosswalks so every credential aligns with local governance and doesn’t become a sunk cost.
• Design for transfer and credibility: Prioritize stackable credentials anchored by explicit rubrics and observable artifacts (videos, lesson artifacts, student work samples, reflections). Favor portfolio-based assessments with external review when possible to enhance reliability.
• Pilot thoughtfully, then scale: Start small in diverse schools to test evidence requirements, rubric reliability, and classroom impact. Use pilot findings to refine vendors, governance, and communication before district-wide adoption.
• Budget with flexibility: Consider not just credential fees but platform, submission, time, and coaching needs. Subsidies or waivers can expand access, but plan for ongoing maintenance as the landscape shifts.
• Build equitable access into the design: Ensure no teacher is edged out by cost or time constraints. Consider open badges, subsidized pathways, and supports for teachers in under-resourced contexts.

What to watch as the field evolves

• Credibility and quality control will diverge before they converge. Expect variation in rubrics, reviewer quality, and evidence requirements across providers and jurisdictions.
• The evidence link to student outcomes will strengthen slowly. Pair micro-credentials with ongoing coaching, collaborative planning time, and data-driven improvement cycles to anchor practice in day-to-day classrooms.
• The landscape will remain dynamic. New issuers, shifting licensure rules, and policy pilots will continue to emerge. Build portfolios and governance that can bend without breaking when reforms arrive.

A closing reflection to carry forward

If we stack credentials, are we stacking genuine capability, or merely someone else’s measure of success? The answer isn’t fixed, and it shouldn’t be a finish line. The real test is whether portable badges translate into observable improvements in teaching and learning across contexts. As you plan your district’s next steps in 2026 and beyond, consider this: what is the smallest, high-leverage credential you could pilot that could reveal meaningful classroom impact in your context?

• What would the next pilot look like in your district, and which teacher cohort would you start with?
• How will you map credential pathways to licensure requirements while preserving local flexibility?
• What supports will you layer on top of badges to ensure that learning becomes durable practice?

If this information was helpful, think about trying a compact, practice-focused badge first and sharing the outcomes with your peers. The future of online teacher education isn’t about more hours of PD; it’s about portable, credible practice that travels with teachers—toward more equitable and effective classrooms for students who need them most.

What would your district look like if every badge carried not just a symbol, but a lived improvement in classroom practice? That question is worth pursuing as we move toward 2026 and beyond.