US dataswitch to UK
Instructional Coordinators
observing work of teaching staff to evaluate performance and to recommend changes that could strengthen teaching skills, researching, evaluating and preparing or approving manuals. If that's your week, this page is about your job.
The honest answer
This job is splitting in two: recommending, ordering or authorizing purchase of instructional materials, supplies, equipment and visual aids designed to meet student educational needs and district standards is work AI now does quickly and cheaply, and conducting or participating in workshops is work it can't touch.
Which half fills your week decides your exposure. Moving toward the second half is a real, doable plan.
Your week, as this page understands it
Develop instructional material, coordinate educational content, and incorporate current technology into instruction in order to provide guidelines to educators and instructors for developing curricula and conducting courses. May train and coach teachers. Includes educational consultants and specialists, and instructional material directors. The job title says “instructional coordinators”. The real job is the part underneath: conducting or participating in workshops. That is the thing someone has to be right about.
The exposed part of this job is specific, and we won’t pretend it is coming back. But instructional coordinators is not one task. It is 30 scored ones, and they are nowhere near equally exposed. The most durable of them, on this evidence, is conducting or participating in workshops, and the ledger below shows exactly why.
Where the work sits, by task weight
- shifting to AI
- 43%
- changing shape
- 10%
- staying human
- 47%
These bars are tasks changing hands, not people being counted out. The ledger below shows which.
Whole-job exposure score 48 out of 100 (42–54 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, across 30 scored tasks. The number is the support for the sentence above it, not a headline about anyone’s future.
How we know this
What is measured: Every published task statement for instructional coordinators is rated on five dimensions: can a model produce the output, does the work need a body in a room, does it need a legally accountable person, does it depend on a person being trusted in the moment, and how much data exists. A published formula turns those five ratings into the score; the model never writes the number.
How the bar is built: Each task’s share of the bar is its published importance weight, so a task you do all day counts for more than one you do twice a year.
Release: 2026-q4.1, scores computed 2026-08-04. Read the full method.
Your job, task by task
These are the official task statements for this occupation, in plain English, sorted by what the evidence says is happening to each one. The official wording sits under every line so you can check the rewrite against it.
- 5 of this occupation's scored task statements carry a score that was measured under a different occupation's context, because the statement is shared between jobs and has only been scored once so far. Each one names the occupation it was measured under in the free routes below; none is presented as a measurement for this job.
- Task clusters are not derived in this release, so the task-cluster field is empty and no Collab365 Space routing is attached to this occupation yet.
Shifting to AI
16 tasksTasks today’s tools can already do most of. This is the part we will not soften: where these rows are the bulk of your week, the week changes.
Recommending, ordering or authorizing purchase of instructional materials, supplies, equipment and visual aids designed to meet student educational needs and district standards
This is reading one thing and writing another: purchase of instructional materials, supplies in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Recommend, order, or authorize purchase of instructional materials, supplies, equipment, and visual aids designed to meet student educational needs and district standards.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 64 out of 100 (57–71 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Matching materials and equipment to standards and budgets is documented purchasing work.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Researching, evaluating and preparing recommendations on curricula, instructional methods and materials for school systems
This is reading one thing and writing another: recommendations in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Research, evaluate, and prepare recommendations on curricula, instructional methods, and materials for school systems.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 75 out of 100 (71–79 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Reviewing curricula and methods and writing up recommendations is research and drafting AI handles strongly.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Updating the content of educational programs to ensure that students are being trained with equipment and processes that are technologically
This is reading one thing and writing another: the content of educational programs in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Update the content of educational programs to ensure that students are being trained with equipment and processes that are technologically current.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 75 out of 100 (71–79 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Refreshing course content to match current equipment and methods is research and writing done at a screen.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Adapting instructional content or delivery methods for different levels or types of learners
This is reading one thing and writing another: instructional content in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance not publishedO*NET hasn't yet published importance ratings for this occupation's tasks, so the ordering here is ours, not theirs.
Source: “Adapt instructional content or delivery methods for different levels or types of learners.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 93 out of 100 (86–100 allowing for uncertainty): very high exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Rewriting the same material for different reading levels and learning styles is something AI does quickly and well.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 4/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Changing shape
3 tasksTasks where the machine takes the producing and a person keeps the checking, the deciding, or the answering-for-it. For most jobs this is the biggest group, and it is where "transformation, not termination" is literally visible.
Interpreting and enforcing provisions of state education codes and rules and regulations of state education boards
The software now makes the first pass at provisions of state education codes, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Interpret and enforce provisions of state education codes and rules and regulations of state education boards.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 56 out of 100 (49–63 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Education codes are published documents, so reading and applying them is largely text work.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Preparing grant proposals, budgets and programing policies and goals or assisting in their preparation
The software now makes the first pass at grant proposals, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · SupplementalSource: “Prepare grant proposals, budgets, and program policies and goals or assist in their preparation.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 58 out of 100 (51–65 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: AI drafts proposals and budgets quickly, but tailoring them to a particular funder still needs real editing.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Assessing effectiveness and efficiency of instruction according to ease of instructional technology use and student learning
The software now makes the first pass at effectiveness, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance not publishedO*NET hasn't yet published importance ratings for this occupation's tasks, so the ordering here is ours, not theirs.
Source: “Assess effectiveness and efficiency of instruction according to ease of instructional technology use and student learning, knowledge transfer, and satisfaction.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 56 out of 100 (49–63 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Much of the evidence is survey and system data, though judging classroom experience still needs first-hand insight.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Staying human
11 tasksTasks that stay with a person, because they happen in the physical world, because the rules need someone accountable, or because the value is that a specific person does them.
Observing work of teaching staff to evaluate performance and to recommend changes that could strengthen teaching skills
This work happens in the physical world: work of teaching staff, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Observe work of teaching staff to evaluate performance and to recommend changes that could strengthen teaching skills.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 18 out of 100 (11–25 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Judging a teacher's classroom practice means sitting in the room watching a real lesson.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Conducting or participating in workshops
This work happens in the physical world: workshops, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Conduct or participate in workshops, committees, and conferences designed to promote the intellectual, social, and physical welfare of students.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 11 out of 100 (4–18 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Workshops and committees are live meetings where being present and contributing is the point.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Planning and conducting teacher training programs and conferences dealing with new classroom procedures
This work happens in the physical world: teacher training programs, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Plan and conduct teacher training programs and conferences dealing with new classroom procedures, instructional materials and equipment, and teaching aids.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 20 out of 100 (13–27 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Course material is easy to draft, but running the training session itself needs someone in front of the group.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Show the other 20 tasks
Defining instructional, learning or performance objectives
shifting to AIThis is reading one thing and writing another: instructional, learning or performance objectives in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance not publishedO*NET hasn't yet published importance ratings for this occupation's tasks, so the ordering here is ours, not theirs.
Source: “Define instructional, learning, or performance objectives.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 93 out of 100 (89–97 allowing for uncertainty): very high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Writing learning objectives follows well-known patterns and software produces them at the quality a specialist would accept.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 4/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Developing instructional materials, such as lesson plans, handouts or examinations
shifting to AIThis is reading one thing and writing another: instructional materials in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance not publishedO*NET hasn't yet published importance ratings for this occupation's tasks, so the ordering here is ours, not theirs.
Source: “Develop instructional materials, such as lesson plans, handouts, or examinations.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 93 out of 100 (89–97 allowing for uncertainty): very high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Lesson plans, handouts and exam papers are standard documents AI produces at or above typical quality.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 4/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Editing instructional materials, such as books, simulation exercises, lesson plans, instructor guides and tests
shifting to AIThis is reading one thing and writing another: instructional materials in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance not publishedO*NET hasn't yet published importance ratings for this occupation's tasks, so the ordering here is ours, not theirs.
Source: “Edit instructional materials, such as books, simulation exercises, lesson plans, instructor guides, and tests.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 93 out of 100 (89–97 allowing for uncertainty): very high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Editing lesson plans, guides and tests for clarity and consistency is a routine strength of language software.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 4/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Researching and evaluating emerging instructional technologies or methods
shifting to AIThis is reading one thing and writing another: instructional technologies in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance not publishedO*NET hasn't yet published importance ratings for this occupation's tasks, so the ordering here is ours, not theirs.
Source: “Research and evaluate emerging instructional technologies or methods.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 83 out of 100 (79–87 allowing for uncertainty): very high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Researching and comparing learning technologies is reading and summarising, which AI does quickly and well.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 4/4.
Analyzing performance data to determine effectiveness of instructional systems
shifting to AIThis is reading one thing and writing another: performance data in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance not publishedO*NET hasn't yet published importance ratings for this occupation's tasks, so the ordering here is ours, not theirs.
Source: “Analyze performance data to determine effectiveness of instructional systems, courses, or instructional materials.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 75 out of 100 (71–79 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Test scores and completion data are already digital, so analysing what worked is straightforward number work.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Designing instructional aids for stand-alone or instructor-led classroom or online
shifting to AIThis is reading one thing and writing another: instructional aids in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance not publishedO*NET hasn't yet published importance ratings for this occupation's tasks, so the ordering here is ours, not theirs.
Source: “Design instructional aids for stand-alone or instructor-led classroom or online use.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 75 out of 100 (71–79 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Handouts, slides and classroom aids are exactly the kind of material AI drafts to a usable standard.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Designing learning products, including Web-based aids or electronic performance support systems
shifting to AIThis is reading one thing and writing another: products, including web-based aids or electronic performance support in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance not publishedO*NET hasn't yet published importance ratings for this occupation's tasks, so the ordering here is ours, not theirs.
Source: “Design learning products, including Web-based aids or electronic performance support systems.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 75 out of 100 (68–82 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Web-based learning tools are built from documented patterns, though testing them with real users still matters.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Developing measurement tools to evaluate the effectiveness of instruction or training interventions
shifting to AIThis is reading one thing and writing another: measurement tools in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance not publishedO*NET hasn't yet published importance ratings for this occupation's tasks, so the ordering here is ours, not theirs.
Source: “Develop measurement tools to evaluate the effectiveness of instruction or training interventions.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 75 out of 100 (68–82 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Designing tests and surveys to measure whether training worked is a well documented craft software can draft.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Preparing or approving manuals, guidelines and reports on state educational policies and practices for distribution to school districts
shifting to AIThis is reading one thing and writing another: manuals, guidelines and reports in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · SupplementalSource: “Prepare or approve manuals, guidelines, and reports on state educational policies and practices for distribution to school districts.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 66 out of 100 (59–73 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Manuals and policy reports are structured documents that AI drafts well before official approval.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Developing master course documentation or manuals according to applicable accreditation
shifting to AIThis is reading one thing and writing another: master course documentation in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance not publishedO*NET hasn't yet published importance ratings for this occupation's tasks, so the ordering here is ours, not theirs.
Source: “Develop master course documentation or manuals according to applicable accreditation, certification, or other requirements.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 66 out of 100 (59–73 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Course manuals follow accreditation templates, so drafting them is largely document assembly before formal approval.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Providing analytical support for the design and development of training curricula
shifting to AIThis is reading one thing and writing another: analytical support in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance not publishedO*NET hasn't yet published importance ratings for this occupation's tasks, so the ordering here is ours, not theirs.
Source: “Provide analytical support for the design and development of training curricula, learning strategies, educational policies, or courseware standards.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 64 out of 100 (57–71 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Providing analysis and background for curriculum decisions is research and reporting done at a screen.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Recommending changes to curricula or delivery methods
shifting to AIThis is reading one thing and writing another: changes in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance not publishedO*NET hasn't yet published importance ratings for this occupation's tasks, so the ordering here is ours, not theirs.
Source: “Recommend changes to curricula or delivery methods, based on information such as instructional effectiveness data, current or future performance requirements, feasibility, and costs.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 64 out of 100 (57–71 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Weighing effectiveness data, cost and feasibility to suggest changes is analysis on information already written down.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Advising teaching and administrative staff in curriculum development
staying humanThe value here is that a specific person handles administrative staff and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Advise teaching and administrative staff in curriculum development, use of materials and equipment, and implementation of state and federal programs and procedures.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 39 out of 100 (32–46 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: The advice can be drafted from documented practice, but colleagues take it on board through conversation.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Presenting and making recommendations regarding course design
staying humanThe value here is that a specific person handles recommendations regarding course design and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance not publishedO*NET hasn't yet published importance ratings for this occupation's tasks, so the ordering here is ours, not theirs.
Source: “Present and make recommendations regarding course design, technology, and instruction delivery options.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 39 out of 100 (32–46 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: The options can be researched and written up, but recommendations land through discussion with the people affected.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Coordinating activities of workers engaged in cataloging
staying humanThe ratings behind this row put activities of workers well outside what today's tools can do on their own.
importance 3 · SupplementalSource: “Coordinate activities of workers engaged in cataloging, distributing, and maintaining educational materials and equipment in curriculum libraries and laboratories.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 37 out of 100 (30–44 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Cataloguing systems can be automated, but coordinating the staff and the physical stock still needs a person.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Conducting needs assessments and strategic learning assessments to develop the basis for curriculum development or to update curricula
staying humanThe ratings behind this row put needs assessments well outside what today's tools can do on their own.
importance not publishedO*NET hasn't yet published importance ratings for this occupation's tasks, so the ordering here is ours, not theirs.
Source: “Conduct needs assessments and strategic learning assessments to develop the basis for curriculum development or to update curricula.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 37 out of 100 (30–44 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: The framework is documented, but a useful needs assessment depends on what staff and learners say locally.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Interviewing subject-matter experts or conducting other research to develop instructional content
staying humanThe value here is that a specific person handles subject-matter experts and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance not publishedO*NET hasn't yet published importance ratings for this occupation's tasks, so the ordering here is ours, not theirs.
Source: “Interview subject-matter experts or conduct other research to develop instructional content.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 30 out of 100 (23–37 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Desk research is easy to automate, but getting knowledge out of an expert depends on a real conversation.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Teaching instructors to use instructional technology or to integrate technology with teaching
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: instructors, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance not publishedO*NET hasn't yet published importance ratings for this occupation's tasks, so the ordering here is ours, not theirs.
Source: “Teach instructors to use instructional technology or to integrate technology with teaching.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 20 out of 100 (13–27 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Showing teachers how to use new technology works best hands-on, with someone in the room to help.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Advising and teaching students
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: students, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Advise and teach students.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 12 out of 100 (5–19 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Teaching and advising students depends on a relationship built in person over time.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Addressing public audiences to explain program objectives and to elicit support
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: public audiences, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Address public audiences to explain program objectives and to elicit support.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 7 out of 100 (3–11 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: The speech can be written for you, but winning over a room of parents or governors means standing in front of them.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
What this job pays, and how many people do it
- Median pay
- $77,440a year, the middle of the range, so half earn more and half earn less.bls-oews, 2025 · May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx)
How we know this
Source: bls-oews
Reference period: May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx)
Rounding: Shown as published.
- People doing this job
- 227,760in the US, 2025.bls-oews · May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx)
What is deliberately not here: a forecast of how many of these jobs exist in ten years. Where an official projection exists for a market we publish it with its vintage; where it does not, we leave the space empty rather than borrow the other country’s number.
Why this is shifting
The reason is boringly specific. Most of what is shifting here is reading one thing and writing another: purchase of instructional materials, supplies in, a record out. The rows above are exactly that shape: recommending, ordering and researching, evaluating and preparing recommendations on curricula, instructional methods and materials for school systems. What it cannot do is be there in the room, and that is still where workshops get done. Which is why this page talks about your tasks changing, not your job ending.
Your move
Over a pint: what I’d tell you if you were my friend
Your week is splitting in two, and which half fills it is the whole question. Recommending, ordering or authorizing purchase of instructional materials, supplies is going; conducting or participating in workshops is not.
So, given all that: 43% of this job's task weight sits in rows the software is already learning, 10% in rows that change shape rather than disappear, and 47% in rows it is nowhere near. That is the position, measured across 30 scored tasks. It is not a forecast about you.
The occupation is an average and you are not, so the first job below is finding out where your own week actually sits.
This week: one thing
Print the task ledger above and put your own hours next to each row. Roughly, in pen, in one sitting. Then look at which group your hours actually pile up in. Twenty minutes, this week.
- What you end up holding
- your own week, on one page, sorted into what is shifting and what is not
- How long it takes
- about twenty minutes
If printing it isn’t practical: Read the rows off this page and write the same list on the back of an envelope. Same twenty minutes, same page, and it works just as well said out loud to someone who knows the job. The point is your hours next to the rows, not the paper it is on.
Over the next 90 days
Volunteer toward the durable end, visibly. Over the next ninety days put your hand up for the work in the bottom group (conducting or participating in workshops) and let people see you doing it. Not a new project: the same job, with your mix deliberately tilted. The point is that when the rota or the reorganisation comes, the version of you people picture is the one doing the part that stays.
Over the next 12 months
Claim a specialism at the durable end and let the other end go. Over a year, deliberately become the person who handles conducting or participating in workshops, and deliberately stop being the first choice for the rows in the top group. That trade costs something, because the exposed work is often the comfortable work. Decide it on purpose rather than by drift. Before you pay for anything, use CareerOneStop - Find local training. It is free, it is the Labor Department's own service, and it is listed below with the rest of the free routes.
The roads out of here, and why I am not sending you down them
I looked at the obvious moves out of this job, and here is what I found.
I checked the 12 nearest US occupations to instructional coordinators (nearest by the work that AI is not taking, not by job title), and none of them survived. The closest was education and childcare administrators, preschool and daycare: only about 3% of its durable work is work you already do and it pays 23.4% less. Your own job splits about 43/57: that share of the list sits in the top exposure band and the rest does not. On this evidence the honest move is inside the job rather than out of it. Become the person who owns “observe work of teaching staff to evaluate performance and to recommend changes…”, and let the exposed end go.
How that was checked: this job was compared against all 830 US occupations in this release on their official task statements, and the 12 nearest were examined one by one. A move that turns on an industry, an employer or a qualification rather than on the work itself will not show up in a check like that. And this release carries no licence register, so anything you are weighing needs that looked up separately.
3 moves I checked and rejected
These are the obvious-looking jumps. They are here with their reasons rather than quietly dropped, because the ones that fail are worth knowing about. It is one less thing to turn over at night.
Education and Childcare Administrators, Preschool and Daycare
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already update the content of educational programs to ensure that students are being trained…, and their equivalent is to plan, direct, and monitor instructional methods and content of educational, vocational, or student…. Across both published task lists that is about 3% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 3% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step. It is a pay cut, in those words: $59,300 against your $77,440, 23.4% less (OEWS May 2025 (both)). Retraining to earn less is a decision, not advice.
Education Administrators, Kindergarten through Secondary
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already advise and teach students, and their equivalent is to teach classes or courses to students. Across both published task lists that is about 3% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 3% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step.
Special Education Teachers, Kindergarten and Elementary School
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already advise and teach students, and their equivalent is to meet with parents or guardians to discuss their children's progress, advise them on…. Across both published task lists that is about 2% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 2% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step. It is a pay cut, in those words: $65,120 against your $77,440, 15.9% less (OEWS May 2025 (both)). Retraining to earn less is a decision, not advice.
What I’d stop worrying about
A friend tells you what not to spend fear on. This is that list.
The headline number you read somewhere
The big “X% of jobs” figures are about the whole economy, not about you. The number that describes your job is on this page: 43% of its task weight, across 30 scored tasks. Every row behind it is printed above with the source. Check ours; ignore theirs.
The whole-job doom story
Nothing on this page says this job ends. It says the mix inside it moves. Half the rows above are unchanged or changing shape, and the plan is about which half your week sits in. That is a very different problem, and a solvable one.
Panic-buying a course
Do the twenty-minute sorting exercise first. Most people who buy a course before they have done it buy the wrong one, and the free services listed below will tell you the same thing without charging for it.
The “obvious” next job everyone suggests
I checked the obvious moves and most of them did not survive. The reasons are printed with the routes above, including the pay and the gate. A move that fails on the numbers is worth knowing about so you can stop turning it over at night.
If you run a team doing this job
If you run a team doing this job, the conversation you owe them is the one on this page, and sooner than feels comfortable. Show them the ledger rather than a reassurance: the rows moving toward the software are recommending, ordering or authorizing purchase of instructional materials, supplies, and the rows that are not are where you want your people visible. Ask each of them to do the this-week move and bring the list to your next one-to-one. It turns a rumour into a piece of work, and it tells you which parts of your team's week are actually at stake. And say the thing out loud that a team lead usually leaves unsaid: a shrinking team is your exposure too, so do the move yourself as well.
You are reading the United States figures
The United Kingdom splits this work across more than one official group, of which Education advisers and school inspectors is the closest. The pay and employment figures are not directly comparable, and we do not average them together.
Switch to the United Kingdom page →partial match
In UK official statistics this job is counted as Education advisers and school inspectors. Pay and employment stay on this page’s own group; the task list and the scores do not cross over.
Your route through this
Where to go next, and what it costs
Free, and complete
The moves above cost nothing. These are the real services that go with them: public, government-funded, and free at the point of use. Nothing on this page is behind an email address or a payment.
Anywhere in the US:
CareerOneStop - Find local training
Search what's running near you, from the Labor Department's own database, before anyone sells you a course.
Free to search; individual programs vary, and some are funded
Anywhere in the US:
An American Job Center will sit down with you for free. Find yours by ZIP code.
Free
Anywhere in the US:
CareerOneStop - Licensed occupations finder
Check what your state actually requires before you pay for anything.
Free
Anywhere in the US:
Free
No Space for this job, but one for what is happening to it
Nothing Collab365 runs is built for instructional coordinators, and we are not going to point you at the nearest one and call it a fit.
There is one that is not about a job title at all. The AI Authority is about being the person who directs these tools at work rather than the person they get compared to. That is worth saying here, because 43% of the work on this page is already inside what they can do.
7 days free, no card needed. Explore up to 2 Spaces before you choose a plan: you pick a plan later, not now.
The AI Authority is a general community about working with AI, not a course for instructional coordinators. You do not need it to act on anything here: the moves above cost nothing and stand on their own. The data on this page is the same either way.
Noted, and thank you. We’ll email you if a Space for instructional coordinators launches. Nothing else.
That did not look like an email address, so nothing was saved. Have another go below.
We could not save that. The fault is ours, not yours, and your address was not stored. Please try again later.
No deadline on any of this. The page will still be here, and the data is refreshed on a published schedule rather than when someone wants a headline.
Questions people ask about this job
- Will AI replace Instructional Coordinators?
- Not as a job, but it is already doing parts of the work. Across the 30 official task statements scored for Instructional Coordinators (United States, SOC 25-9031), 43% of the importance-weighted core work is made of tasks today's AI could already do most of. The overall exposure score is 48 out of 100 (range 42–54, band: partial). That is a statement about tasks, not about headcount: this measures what AI could do, not whether any employer adopts it, whether the law allows it, or whether doing the routine parts faster creates more demand for the human parts. Figures are from release 2026-q4.1.
- Which tasks in “Instructional Coordinators” can AI already do?
- The highest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Adapt instructional content or delivery methods for different levels or types of learners” (93/100, very high); “Define instructional, learning, or performance objectives” (93/100, very high); “Develop instructional materials, such as lesson plans, handouts, or examinations” (93/100, very high). Each score comes from five published 0–4 ratings turned into a number by a published formula, and each carries the model's one-sentence reason on the page.
- Which tasks in “Instructional Coordinators” stay human?
- About 47% of this job's task weight sits in work that scores low for AI exposure. The lowest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Address public audiences to explain program objectives and to elicit support” (7/100, minimal); “Conduct or participate in workshops, committees, and conferences designed to promote the intellectual, social, and physical welfare of students” (11/100, minimal); “Advise and teach students” (12/100, minimal). Low scores usually mean the task needs a body in a room, a legally accountable human, or trust built in real time. Those are the three things the scoring rubric treats as gates rather than obstacles.
- What should someone working in “Instructional Coordinators” do about AI?
- Start from the ledger rather than the headline: 43% of this job's weighted core work is exposed, and roughly 47% is not. The practical move is to spend more of your week on the tasks that score low, the ones above, and to get fluent at directing AI through the tasks that score high, because those are the parts that change whether or not you are ready for them. This page does not predict your job, and nothing here is career advice tailored to you: the score describes the occupation, not the person.
- How is the AI exposure score for Instructional Coordinators calculated?
- Each official task statement for the occupation is rated on five published 0–4 dimensions (output replicability, physical embodiment, licensed accountability, real-time human trust, and data availability) by claude-opus-5 using scoring prompt task_scoring_v1.0. The model never writes the score; a published formula turns the five ratings into a 0–100 number, so every score can be recomputed by hand. The occupation figure is the importance-weighted mean across 30 scored tasks. The prompt, the rubric, the formula and the full dataset are published at https://futureproof.collab365.com/method and https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1 under CC BY 4.0.
Where these numbers come from
Worth knowing about these figures
- The match between this job and its counterpart in the other country is partial, so the two pages count slightly different groups of people.
- 5 of this occupation's scored task statements carry a score that was measured under a different occupation's context, because the statement is shared between jobs and has only been scored once so far. Each one names the occupation it was measured under in the free routes below; none is presented as a measurement for this job.
- Task clusters are not derived in this release, so the task-cluster field is empty and no Collab365 Space routing is attached to this occupation yet.
- Task statements
- onet-dbProcessing: catalogue-bridge → onet-im-rt-weighting → task-scoring → score-aggregation
- Task weights
- onet-db (im-rt-with-imputed)
- Scores
- Rubric task_scoring_v1.0, model claude-opus-5, computed 2026-08-04.
- Pay and employment
- bls-oews (May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx))bls-oews (May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx))
Figures on this page come from release 2026-q4.1, published 2026-08-05. Every release keeps its own permanent address, so a figure you cite in March is still there, unchanged, in November.
The plain-English wording on this page is assembled directly from the task statements and the published ratings, not written by hand for this occupation. That is why it is specific, and it is also why we say so.
The routes and free resources further up are today’s, not the release’s (last reviewed 2026-08-05). A route is an offer, not a historical fact, so it moves on its own clock.
Using these figures?
Cite this
Everything on this site is published under CC BY 4.0. Quote it, chart it, sell something built on it. Just say where it came from, and cite the dated release rather than the site, so the figure you quote stays checkable.
Plain text
Collab365 (2026). Collab365 Futureproof: task-level AI exposure for US and UK occupations, release 2026-q4.1 (methodVersion 2.0.0, promptVersion task_scoring_v1.0). https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1. Licensed CC BY 4.0. Built with O*NET data (USDOL/ETA, CC BY 4.0); ONS data (Open Government Licence v3.0); GAISI task framework (arXiv:2507.22748, MIT); BLS data (public domain).
BibTeX
@misc{collab365futureproof2026q41,
title = {Collab365 Futureproof: task-level AI exposure for US and UK occupations, release 2026-q4.1},
author = {{Collab365}},
year = {2026},
url = {https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1},
note = {Release 2026-q4.1, methodVersion 2.0.0, promptVersion task_scoring_v1.0, CC BY 4.0}
}Data as of release 2026-q4.1, published . Releases never change after publication; when the figures move, a new dated release is published beside this one and this one stays exactly where it is.