::industry track · education ai

Education AI. The curriculum designer who never sleeps. Still not the teacher.

Education was never going to be the first field to fall to AI, and it shouldn't be. Teaching is one of the last jobs where a human being who knows a specific child in a specific room makes a thousand judgment calls a day that matter for that child's life. AI cannot do that, and the day it pretends to is the day we stop calling it teaching. But the workload around teaching — the lesson plan, the three-version worksheet, the email to a worried parent, the unit retro that never gets written because Sunday night ran out — that workload has been crushing educators for thirty years, and AI is the first technology that meaningfully gives evenings back. That is the deal. This track is built for educators who want their evenings back without outsourcing their judgment. The framing is precise: AI is the curriculum designer who never sleeps. It drafts, it differentiates, it generates options, it formats. The teacher reads the room, knows which kid is having a hard week, decides what gets assessed and how, and owns every grade that goes in the book. That division of labor is non-negotiable. The big trap in this field is FERPA. Student names, IDs, IEPs, grades, behavioral notes — none of that goes into a public AI chat, ever, unless the tool is district-vetted with a signed data-processing agreement. Every prompt in this track is written to be de-identified by default. The second trap is grading honesty: AI-graded essays are biased in measurable, documented ways, and the teacher who lets the AI grade without spot-checking is the teacher whose worst students get even worse marks. We name that here too. The rest is plays you can copy tonight.

::the safety rules · non-negotiable

What you never do.

• 01Never paste a student's full name, student ID, date of birth, home address, or parent contact info into any public AI chat (ChatGPT, Claude.ai, Gemini, etc.) — use initials or 'Student A' and de-identify EVERY prompt.
• 02Never paste IEP content, 504 plans, behavioral incident reports, counseling notes, or special-education classifications into public AI — these are protected under FERPA and IDEA and need a district-vetted tool with a signed DPA.
• 03Never paste grades, gradebook exports, or class rosters tied to identifiers into public AI — use de-identified summaries ('Class of 28, range 42-94, mean 71') instead.
• 04Never paste student work samples that contain the student's name in the header, signature, or filename — strip metadata first, refer to 'Student A's draft' in the prompt.
• 05For students under 13, COPPA prohibits collecting personal info via AI tools the school hasn't formally vetted — direct-to-student AI access in elementary requires district authorization.
• 06Never let AI assign grades, scores, or rubric levels without your spot-check on at least 20 percent of the sample — AI graders carry documented bias against non-native English, AAVE, and atypical sentence structure.
• 07Never use AI to write IEP goals, behavior plans, or any legal-document content without your professional review and signature — you are the legally accountable party, not the model.
• 08Never represent AI-generated text as a student's own work, and don't accept AI-generated work from students without a disclosure policy spelled out in your syllabus.
• 09Check your state's AI-in-classroom guidance before deploying any new tool with students — rules are moving monthly in 2026 and several states now require parent notification.
• 10When using AI-generated images, songs, or videos in lessons, prefer prompts that don't ask for 'in the style of [living artist]' — fair use for AI-generated content in education is still legally unsettled.

::the workflows · 8 named plays

The plays. Each with the exact prompt.

You are an experienced [SUBJECT] teacher in [GRADE LEVEL]. Draft a 60-minute lesson plan on [TOPIC] aligned to [STATE STANDARD CODE if known, otherwise 'Common Core' or 'NGSS']. Structure: (1) Learning objective in student-friendly 'I can' language, (2) 5-minute hook or warm-up that activates prior knowledge, (3) 15-minute direct instruction with one anchor example, (4) 20-minute guided/independent practice with built-in checks for understanding, (5) 10-minute closure activity, (6) 10-minute exit ticket — 3 questions, one at recall, one at application, one at synthesis. Assume a class of 28 with 4 students reading 2 grades below level and 2 students needing extension. Note where I should differentiate. No student names — this is a generic class.

Create three versions of a worksheet on [TOPIC] for [GRADE]. All three must assess the same learning objective: [OBJECTIVE]. Version A (below-level): more scaffolding, sentence starters, vocabulary support, fewer items, easier numbers/text. Version B (on-level): standard practice, mix of recall and application. Version C (above-level): same core but adds an extension question requiring synthesis or transfer to a new context. Same look/format/font feel for all three so they're visually indistinguishable when handed out. Include answer keys for each. 10 items per version. Do not label them A/B/C on the student copy — use unobtrusive codes like a small dot pattern in the footer.

Draft a parent email from a [SUBJECT/GRADE] teacher. The concern: [DESCRIBE BEHAVIOR OR ACADEMIC PATTERN IN GENERIC TERMS — e.g., 'a student has missed 3 of last 5 homework assignments and seems disengaged in class']. Do not use the student's name — write 'your child' throughout, I will swap in the name. Tone: warm, professional, partnership-oriented. Lead with one specific strength I've noticed. State the concern factually with one or two concrete observations. Avoid diagnostic language. Invite the parent to share context I might not have. Offer two times for a brief call or in-person meeting. Close with confidence in the student. 150-200 words. No exclamation points. No 'I'm sure' or other minimizers.

Generate a 3-question exit ticket for [GRADE] [SUBJECT] on the objective: [OBJECTIVE]. Question 1 = recall (can the student state the concept). Question 2 = application (can they apply it to a routine example). Question 3 = transfer (can they apply it to an unfamiliar context or recognize when it doesn't apply). All three should be answerable in under 4 minutes total. Include an answer key with notes on common misconceptions revealed by likely wrong answers — what does it tell me if a student misses Q2 but gets Q3, or vice versa. No multiple choice unless I ask — prefer short open response so I can see thinking.

I just finished a [LENGTH]-week unit on [TOPIC] in [GRADE] [SUBJECT]. I'll dump my unstructured notes below. Organize my reflection into: (1) What worked — instructional moves, materials, sequencing decisions that landed. (2) What didn't — places where most of the class struggled, lessons that needed reteaching, time misallocations. (3) Surprises — anything I didn't expect (good or bad). (4) Three specific changes for next year. (5) One question I still don't have a good answer to. Don't soften my critique of my own teaching — I want honest, not affirming. Don't add fake insights I didn't put in my notes. Notes: [PASTE NOTES HERE — no student names, use 'Student A' or 'the class' or 'about 6 kids']

Write a 120-150 word classroom newsletter blurb for families of [GRADE] [SUBJECT] students. This week we covered: [TOPIC]. Highlight: (1) The big idea in plain language a family member with no background in [SUBJECT] can understand, (2) One thing students did this week that I'm proud of — phrased as a class accomplishment, not naming individuals, (3) One thing families can ask their student about at dinner to extend learning (a real conversation prompt, not 'ask about their day'), (4) Heads-up on next week. No emoji. No exclamation points beyond one. Tone: confident, warm, slightly wry — like a teacher who knows their stuff and likes the kids.

Draft three variations of a measurable annual IEP goal for a student in [GRADE] working on [SKILL DOMAIN — e.g., 'reading comprehension of grade-level informational text']. Present level (no identifying info): [BRIEF DESCRIPTION — e.g., 'currently reading 2 grade levels below, decodes accurately but loses meaning across paragraphs']. Format each goal: condition + behavior + criterion + measurement schedule. Use observable verbs (identifies, states, writes, demonstrates) — not internal verbs (understands, knows, appreciates). Specify criterion as a percentage AND a frequency (e.g., '80 percent accuracy on 4 of 5 trials'). Include progress monitoring method appropriate for the goal. Three variations should differ in ambition level — one conservative, one stretch, one moderate.

I'm about to grade a stack of [GRADE] [SUBJECT] essays on [PROMPT]. My rubric has these dimensions: [LIST DIMENSIONS, e.g., 'thesis clarity, evidence use, organization, mechanics']. For each dimension, write a sharp 1-sentence description of what a 4 looks like, a 3, a 2, a 1. Then give me one example sentence or paragraph that exemplifies each level — short, realistic for the grade level. Then list 3 common rater-bias traps I should watch for when grading (e.g., halo effect from clean handwriting, fatigue in the back half of the stack, bias against non-standard dialect). After I grade, I'll spot-check 5 random essays against the rubric to verify I stayed calibrated.

::case study · composite anonymized

One human. One year. The pattern.