Futureproof
Menu

US dataswitch to UK

Self-Enrichment Teachers

instructing students individually and in groups, conducting classes and instructing and monitoring students in the use and care of equipment and materials to prevent injury and damage. If that's your week, this page is about your job.

The honest answer

AI is already taking a real slice of the routine work here: preparing instructional program objectives, outlines and lesson plans. That is a slice of tasks, not of you.

Your move: what you can actually do about this ↓

That slice is not coming back; the core of the job, instructing students individually and in groups, stays yours. The tools change, the responsibility doesn't.

Your week, as this page understands it

Teach or instruct individuals or groups for the primary purpose of self-enrichment or recreation, rather than for an occupational objective, educational attainment, competition, or fitness. The job title says “self-enrichment teachers”. The real job is the part underneath: instructing students individually and in groups. 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 self-enrichment teachers 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 instructing students individually and in groups, and the ledger below shows exactly why.

Where the work sits, by task weight

shifting to AI
20%
changing shape
14%
staying human
66%

These bars are tasks changing hands, not people being counted out. The ledger below shows which.

Whole-job exposure score 32 out of 100 (26–39 allowing for uncertainty): low 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 self-enrichment teachers 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.

Shifting to AI

7 tasks

Tasks 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.

  • Reviewing instructional content, methods and student evaluations to assess strengths and weaknesses and to develop recommendations for course revision, development or elimination

    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 4 · Core
    Source: “Review instructional content, methods, and student evaluations to assess strengths and weaknesses, and to develop recommendations for course revision, development, or elimination.” (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 feedback and results to suggest course changes is analysis of written material.

    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 instructional program objectives, outlines and lesson plans

    This is reading one thing and writing another: instructional program objectives, outlines and lesson plans in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.

    importance 4 · Core
    Source: “Prepare instructional program objectives, outlines, and lesson plans.” (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: Lesson plans and course outlines are one of the things drafting tools produce most reliably.

    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.

  • Maintaining accurate and completing student records as required by administrative policy

    This is reading one thing and writing another: accurate in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.

    importance 4 · Core
    Source: “Maintain accurate and complete student records as required by administrative policy.” (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: Student records follow a set format and are already kept in software.

    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.

  • Assigning and grading class work and homework

    This is reading one thing and writing another: class work in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.

    importance 4 · Supplemental
    Source: “Assign and grade class work and homework.” (O*NET task statement)
    How this row was scored

    Exposure score: 66 out of 100 (62–70 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: Marking class work against a rubric is something AI handles well, with the teacher checking borderline answers.

    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.

Changing shape

4 tasks

Tasks 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.

  • Establishing clear objectives for all lessons

    The software now makes the first pass at clear objectives, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.

    importance 4 · Core
    Source: “Establish clear objectives for all lessons, units, and projects and communicate those objectives to students.” (O*NET task statement)
    How this row was scored

    Exposure score: 48 out of 100 (44–52 allowing for uncertainty): partial 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 clear lesson and unit objectives is standard curriculum drafting that software handles well.

    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 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.

  • Preparing and administering written, oral and performance tests and issuing grades in accordance with performance

    The software now makes the first pass at written, oral and performance tests and issuing grades, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.

    importance 4 · Core
    Source: “Prepare and administer written, oral, and performance tests, and issue grades in accordance with performance.” (O*NET task statement)
    How this row was scored

    Exposure score: 48 out of 100 (41–55 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: Writing and marking tests is well-trodden work for software, though practical tests are watched in person.

    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 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.

  • Selecting, ordering and issuing books, materials and supplies for courses or projects

    The software now makes the first pass at books, materials and supplies, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.

    importance 3 · Core
    Source: “Select, order, and issue books, materials, and supplies for courses or projects.” (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: Choosing and ordering supplies from catalogues is routine purchasing work that software handles.

    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

19 tasks

Tasks 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.

  • Instructing students individually and in groups

    This work happens in the physical world: students, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.

    importance 4 · Core
    Source: “Instruct students individually and in groups, using various teaching methods, such as lectures, discussions, and demonstrations.” (O*NET task statement)
    How this row was scored

    Exposure score: 6 out of 100 (0–13 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence, and it moved between repeat runs, so the range is widened.

    Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.

    The rating behind it: Teaching a class of middle schoolers depends on a licensed adult in the room holding their attention.

    The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 3/4.

  • Preparing students for further development by encouraging them to explore learning opportunities and to persevere with challenging tasks

    The value here is that a specific person handles students and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.

    importance 4 · Core
    Source: “Prepare students for further development by encouraging them to explore learning opportunities and to persevere with challenging tasks.” (O*NET task statement)
    How this row was scored

    Exposure score: 14 out of 100 (7–21 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.

    Why it sits in this group: the value is that a specific person does it.

    The rating behind it: Encouragement works because it comes from a teacher the learner respects.

    The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 1/4.

  • Adapting teaching methods and instructional materials to meet students' varying needs and interests

    The value here is that a specific person handles methods and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.

    importance 4 · Core
    Source: “Adapt teaching methods and instructional materials to meet students' varying needs and interests.” (O*NET task statement)
    How this row was scored

    Exposure score: 34 out of 100 (27–41 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: Reworking materials for different reading levels and interests is a writing job software does quickly and well.

    The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.

Show the other 20 tasks

  • Scheduling class times to ensure maximum attendance

    shifting to AI

    This is reading one thing and writing another: class times in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.

    importance 4 · Supplemental
    Source: “Schedule class times to ensure maximum attendance.” (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: Fitting class times around enrolment data is a scheduling puzzle that software solves 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.

  • Writing instructional articles on designated subjects

    shifting to AI

    This is reading one thing and writing another: instructional articles in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.

    importance 2 · Supplemental
    Source: “Write instructional articles on designated subjects.” (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: Writing instructional articles is well-supported by tools, with huge amounts of published material to draw on.

    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.

  • Participating in publicity planning and student recruitment

    shifting to AI

    This is reading one thing and writing another: publicity in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.

    importance 3 · Supplemental
    Source: “Participate in publicity planning and student recruitment.” (O*NET task statement)
    How this row was scored

    Exposure score: 64 out of 100 (60–68 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: Publicity copy and recruitment materials are exactly the kind of writing tools produce quickly.

    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.

  • Conferring with other teachers and professionals to plan and schedule lessons promoting learning and development

    changing shape

    The software now makes the first pass at other teachers, but the part that matters is a person saying it and standing behind it. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.

    importance 4 · Core
    Source: “Confer with other teachers and professionals to plan and schedule lessons promoting learning and development.” (O*NET task statement)
    How this row was scored

    Exposure score: 40 out of 100 (33–47 allowing for uncertainty): partial 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: Timetables can be worked out automatically, but agreeing them with colleagues happens in conversation.

    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 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.

  • Using computers, audio-visual aids and other equipment and materials to supplement presentations

    staying human

    This work happens in the physical world: computers, audio-visual aids and other equipment and materials, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.

    importance 3 · Core
    Source: “Use computers, audio-visual aids, and other equipment and materials to supplement presentations.” (O*NET task statement)
    How this row was scored

    Exposure score: 32 out of 100 (22–42 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence, and it moved between repeat runs, so the range is widened.

    Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch; work that happens in the physical world.

    The rating behind it: Making slides and other presentation materials is easy for software, though using them happens in front of the class.

    The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.

  • Meeting with parents and guardians to discuss their children's progress and to determine their priorities for their children

    staying human

    The value here is that a specific person handles parents and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.

    importance 4 · Supplemental
    Source: “Meet with parents and guardians to discuss their children's progress and to determine their priorities for their children.” (O*NET task statement)
    How this row was scored

    Exposure score: 28 out of 100 (24–32 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, high confidence.

    Why it sits in this group: the value is that a specific person does it.

    The rating behind it: Parents want a real conversation with the teacher who knows their child.

    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 3/4 · how much data exists 2/4.

  • Monitoring students' performance to make suggestions for improvement and to ensure that they satisfy course standards

    staying human

    This work happens in the physical world: students' performance, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.

    importance 4 · Core
    Source: “Monitor students' performance to make suggestions for improvement and to ensure that they satisfy course standards, training requirements, and objectives.” (O*NET task statement)
    How this row was scored

    Exposure score: 24 out of 100 (17–31 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; work that happens in the physical world.

    The rating behind it: Written feedback drafts well, but judging a hands-on performance means watching it happen.

    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 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.

  • Meeting with other instructors to discuss individual students and their progress

    staying human

    The value here is that a specific person handles other instructors and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.

    importance 4 · Core
    Source: “Meet with other instructors to discuss individual students and their progress.” (O*NET task statement)
    How this row was scored

    Exposure score: 23 out of 100 (16–30 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.

    Why it sits in this group: the value is that a specific person does it.

    The rating behind it: Progress notes can be prepared, but the discussion itself is a conversation between teachers.

    The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.

  • Planning and conducting activities for a balanced program of instruction

    staying human

    This work happens in the physical world: activities, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.

    importance 4 · Core
    Source: “Plan and conduct activities for a balanced program of instruction, demonstration, and work time that provides students with opportunities to observe, question, and investigate.” (O*NET task statement)
    How this row was scored

    Exposure score: 18 out of 100 (8–28 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence, and it moved between repeat runs, so the range is widened.

    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: AI can plan a balanced mix of activities, but running them with a class happens in the room.

    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 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.

  • Preparing and implementing remedial programs for students requiring extra help

    staying human

    This work happens in the physical world: remedial programs, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.

    importance 4 · Supplemental
    Source: “Prepare and implement remedial programs for students requiring extra help.” (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: 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: Catch-up plans draft easily, but the extra help itself is given one to one.

    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 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.

  • Preparing materials and classrooms for class activities

    staying human

    This work happens in the physical world: materials, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.

    importance 4 · Core
    Source: “Prepare materials and classrooms for class activities.” (O*NET task statement)
    How this row was scored

    Exposure score: 14 out of 100 (4–24 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence, and it moved between repeat runs, so the range is widened.

    Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch; work that happens in the physical world.

    The rating behind it: AI can create and print activity sheets, but setting up the room and laying out equipment is physical preparation.

    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 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.

  • Enforcing policies and rules governing students

    staying human

    This work happens in the physical world: policies, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.

    importance 4 · Core
    Source: “Enforce policies and rules governing 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: Rules can be written down, but holding a group to them needs an adult in the room.

    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.

  • Attending staff meetings and serving on committees

    staying human

    This work happens in the physical world: staff meetings, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.

    importance 3 · Core
    Source: “Attend staff meetings and serve on committees, as required.” (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: Attending meetings and serving on committees means taking part yourself, though notes and summaries can be automated.

    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 supervising class projects

    staying human

    This work happens in the physical world: class projects, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.

    importance 3 · Core
    Source: “Plan and supervise class projects, field trips, visits by guest speakers, contests, or other experiential activities, and guide students in learning from those activities.” (O*NET task statement)
    How this row was scored

    Exposure score: 9 out of 100 (2–16 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: Trips and projects can be planned on paper, but supervising students during them requires being there.

    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 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.

  • Conducting classes, workshops and demonstrations and providing individual instruction to teach topics and skills

    staying human

    This work happens in the physical world: classes, workshops and demonstrations and providing individual instruction, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.

    importance 4 · Supplemental
    Source: “Conduct classes, workshops, and demonstrations, and provide individual instruction to teach topics and skills, such as cooking, dancing, writing, physical fitness, photography, personal finance, and flying.” (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: 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: Teaching cooking, dancing or flying means demonstrating with your own hands in the same space.

    The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.

  • Attending professional meetings, conferences and workshops to maintain and improve professional competence

    staying human

    This work happens in the physical world: professional meetings, conferences and workshops, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.

    importance 3 · Core
    Source: “Attend professional meetings, conferences, and workshops to maintain and improve professional competence.” (O*NET task statement)
    How this row was scored

    Exposure score: 7 out of 100 (0–14 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.

    Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world.

    The rating behind it: Attending conferences and workshops is about being there; nobody can go on your behalf.

    The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 2/4.

  • Instructing and monitoring students in the use and care of equipment and materials to prevent injury and damage

    staying human

    This work happens in the physical world: students, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.

    importance 4 · Supplemental
    Source: “Instruct and monitor students in the use and care of equipment and materials to prevent injury and damage.” (O*NET task statement)
    How this row was scored

    Exposure score: 6 out of 100 (0–13 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence, and it moved between repeat runs, so the range is widened.

    Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world.

    The rating behind it: Showing students how to handle equipment safely means being beside them while they use it.

    The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 2/4.

  • Organizing and supervising games and other recreational activities to promote physical

    staying human

    This work happens in the physical world: games, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.

    importance 3 · Supplemental
    Source: “Organize and supervise games and other recreational activities to promote physical, mental, and social development.” (O*NET task statement)
    How this row was scored

    Exposure score: 6 out of 100 (2–10 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: Running games and activities means being there with the group.

    The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.

  • Observing and evaluating the performance of other instructors

    staying human

    This work happens in the physical world: the performance of other instructors, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.

    importance 4 · Supplemental
    Source: “Observe and evaluate the performance of other instructors.” (O*NET task statement)
    How this row was scored

    Exposure score: 6 out of 100 (0–13 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 another instructor's teaching means sitting in their classroom and watching them work.

    The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.

  • Observing students to determine qualifications

    staying human

    This work happens in the physical world: students, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.

    importance 4 · Core
    Source: “Observe students to determine qualifications, limitations, abilities, interests, and other individual characteristics.” (O*NET task statement)
    How this row was scored

    Exposure score: 4 out of 100 (0–11 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: Reading a learner's abilities and interests comes from watching them in the room, which is hard to capture in data.

    The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 1/4.

What this job pays, and how many people do it

Median pay
$46,800a 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
332,110in 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: instructional program objectives, outlines and lesson plans in, a record out. The rows above are exactly that shape: preparing instructional program objectives, outlines and lesson plans and reviewing instructional content. What it cannot do is be answerable: students need a named person the rules will accept, and software cannot be that person. 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

Start with what does not change: instructing students individually and in groups is the middle of this job, and the evidence on this page says it stays with a person.

So, given all that: 20% of this job's task weight sits in rows the software is already learning, 14% in rows that change shape rather than disappear, and 66% in rows it is nowhere near. That is the position, measured across 30 scored tasks. It is not a forecast about you.

So the thing worth your attention is not the job going away. It is the layer around it. Preparing instructional program objectives, outlines and lesson plans is the part turning into software, and being the person who understands that layer is worth money.

This week: one thing

Ask the one question. Find whoever is bringing new software into your workplace (the manager, the office, whoever runs the system) and ask them what it is meant to do to instructional program objectives, outlines and lesson plans, and what it is not meant to touch. Ten minutes, this week, before anyone decides it for you.

What you end up holding
a straight answer about what is actually being rolled out, and when
How long it takes
ten minutes

If there’s nobody obvious to ask, or you’d rather not ask your manager: Put the same question to your union rep, your shift lead or the person who has been there longest, in person, over a break. Same ten minutes, same answer, and you will usually get a straighter one. Write down what they say. The note is the artifact, and it tells you whether students are in scope or not. Nothing to log into, no license needed.

Over the next 90 days

Get inside the tool rollout rather than waiting for it. Over the next ninety days, ask to be in the group that tests, checks or signs off whatever new system arrives near establishing clear objectives for all lessons. It is usually an unglamorous seat that nobody fights for, and it is the one that decides how the software is used on your job rather than to it.

Over the next 12 months

On this evidence I would not retrain out of this job, and I will say that plainly rather than hedge it. The task list here is dominated by work that stays with a person. What I would do with a year is get formally recognised for the layer around it (the systems, the compliance, the planning), so you are the one who understands the software instead of the one it is done to. 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

You did not come here for a career change and I am not selling you one. But two roads out of here are worth knowing about, so here they are with the bill attached.

  • Self-Enrichment TeachersAdult Basic Education, Adult Secondary Education, and English as a Second Language Instructors

    a year or morematched on shared tasks

    One of the tasks on your list is on theirs in the same words: “observe students to determine qualifications, limitations, abilities, interests, and other individual characteristics”. Take both published task lists together and about 54% of the work in that job that the software is not taking is work you are doing today.

    Half of what they do, you do already. The argument is about the other half, not about starting again.

    The work the two jobs share

    • You already do

      “Observe students to determine qualifications, limitations, abilities, interests, and other individual characteristics.”

      They do

      “Observe students to determine qualifications, limitations, abilities, interests, and other individual characteristics.”

    • You already do

      “Instruct students individually and in groups, using various teaching methods, such as lectures, discussions, and demonstrations.”

      They do

      “Instruct students individually and in groups, using various teaching methods, such as lectures, discussions, and demonstrations.”

    • You already do

      “Prepare students for further development by encouraging them to explore learning opportunities and to persevere with challenging tasks.”

      They do

      “Prepare students for further education by encouraging them to explore learning opportunities and to persevere with challenging tasks.”

    What you would not already have: Nothing in your task list touches “conduct classes, workshops, and demonstrations to teach principles, techniques, or methods in…”, “register, orient, and assess new students according to standards and procedures” or “collaborate with other teachers and professionals in the development of instructional programs”. That is the part you would be learning from scratch, and it is roughly the 46% of their durable work you do not already hold.

    The honest bill

    Pay: $61,540 against your $46,800 (OEWS May 2025 (both)).

    • The licence gate: Default-closed. This release carries no licence-register snapshot, so I could not check whether that job is regulated, which means I have to assume it might be. Before you spend a penny, look it up on the US Labor Department’s licensed-occupations finder; the free routes below link straight to it. The route is banded a year or more because of that unknown, not in spite of it.
    • The entry ticket: Typical entry-level education is published for only ten occupations in this release, and neither this job nor that one is among them. So I cannot tell you whether a qualification stands in the way. Treat that as an open question to settle before you commit, not as a green light.
    • What the pay gap is telling you: $61,540 against your $46,800, 31.5% more (OEWS May 2025 (both)). A real difference, not a life-changing one. Take the move for the work, not the raise.
    • What you live on meanwhile: Nobody is going to pay you to retrain. This is evenings and weekends alongside the job you already have, for a year or more, and if that is not possible right now then this route is not open right now, which is worth knowing before you start. The free American Job Center service listed below will talk training funding through with you before you pay anyone.
    • How many seats there are: About 37,310 of those jobs against 332,110 of yours (OEWS May 2025), 11% as many seats. A real door, not a wide one.
    • Is the target job itself holding up: Adult Basic Education, Adult Secondary Education, and English as a Second Language Instructors scores 33/100 on this site’s own exposure measure (low), with 24% of its tasks in the top band. Employment projections are not published for this occupation in this release, so this is the exposure leg of the check only. It passed, which is the only reason it is here.

    How long: A year or more, part-time, alongside the job you have. That band is set by the unchecked licence question and by the 46% of their work you would be learning, not by any one course.

    See what AI is doing to adult basic education, adult secondary education, and english as a second language instructors

  • Self-Enrichment TeachersCareer/Technical Education Teachers, Middle School

    a year or morematched on shared tasks

    One of the tasks on your list is on theirs in the same words: “instruct students individually and in groups, using various teaching methods”. Take both published task lists together and about 45% of the work in that job that the software is not taking is work you are doing today.

    About 45% of it you could do on Monday. The catch is not the work, it is how few of those jobs there are.

    The work the two jobs share

    • You already do

      “Instruct students individually and in groups, using various teaching methods, such as lectures, discussions, and demonstrations.”

      They do

      “Instruct students individually and in groups, using various teaching methods, such as lectures, discussions, and demonstrations.”

    • You already do

      “Enforce policies and rules governing students.”

      They do

      “Enforce all administration policies and rules governing students.”

    • You already do

      “Prepare students for further development by encouraging them to explore learning opportunities and to persevere with challenging tasks.”

      They do

      “Prepare students for later educational experiences by encouraging them to explore learning opportunities and to persevere with challenging tasks.”

    What you would not already have: Nothing in your task list touches “confer with parents or guardians, other teachers, counselors, and administrators to resolve…”, “guide and counsel students with adjustments, academic problems, or special academic interests” or “provide students with disabilities with assistive devices, supportive technology, and assistance accessing…”. That is the part you would be learning from scratch, and it is roughly the 55% of their durable work you do not already hold.

    The honest bill

    Pay: $65,030 against your $46,800 (OEWS May 2025 (both)).

    • The licence gate: Default-closed. This release carries no licence-register snapshot, so I could not check whether that job is regulated, which means I have to assume it might be. Before you spend a penny, look it up on the US Labor Department’s licensed-occupations finder; the free routes below link straight to it. The route is banded a year or more because of that unknown, not in spite of it.
    • The entry ticket: Typical entry-level education is published for only ten occupations in this release, and neither this job nor that one is among them. So I cannot tell you whether a qualification stands in the way. Treat that as an open question to settle before you commit, not as a green light.
    • What the pay gap is telling you: $65,030 against your $46,800, 39.0% more (OEWS May 2025 (both)). A real difference, not a life-changing one. Take the move for the work, not the raise.
    • What you live on meanwhile: Nobody is going to pay you to retrain. This is evenings and weekends alongside the job you already have, for a year or more, and if that is not possible right now then this route is not open right now, which is worth knowing before you start. The free American Job Center service listed below will talk training funding through with you before you pay anyone.
    • How many seats there are: About 16,870 of those jobs against 332,110 of yours (OEWS May 2025), 5% as many seats. A real door, not a wide one.
    • Is the target job itself holding up: Career/Technical Education Teachers, Middle School scores 27/100 on this site’s own exposure measure (low), with 17% of its tasks in the top band. Employment projections are not published for this occupation in this release, so this is the exposure leg of the check only. It passed, which is the only reason it is here.

    How long: A year or more, part-time, alongside the job you have. That band is set by the unchecked licence question and by the 55% of their work you would be learning, not by any one course.

    See what AI is doing to career/technical education teachers, middle school

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.

  • Middle School Teachers, Except Special and Career/Technical Education

    Why it looked obvious: It cleared every check: about 45% of its durable work is work you already do.

    Why I am not recommending it: Nothing is wrong with this one. It passed every check and then came next on shared work behind the routes above, and a page carries two at most. It is here so you can see it was weighed rather than missed.

    Look at that job’s page anyway →

  • Elementary School Teachers, Except Special Education

    Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already instruct students individually and in groups, using various teaching methods, and their equivalent is to instruct students individually and in groups, using teaching methods. Across both published task lists that is about 40% of the durable work in that job.

    Why I am not recommending it: I will not move you off one melting floe onto another: that job is projected to shrink 2.0% between 2024 and 2034 (BLS Employment Projections).

    Look at that job’s page anyway →

  • Kindergarten Teachers, Except Special Education

    Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already prepare students for further development by encouraging them to explore learning opportunities and…, and their equivalent is to prepare children for later grades by encouraging them to explore learning opportunities and…. Across both published task lists that is about 31% of the durable work in that job.

    Why I am not recommending it: It is closer than most, and still not close enough: about 31% of that job's durable work is already yours, against the 35% I want to see before I will call something a route.

    Look at that job’s page anyway →

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: 20% of its task weight, across 30 scored tasks. Every row behind it is printed above with the source. Check ours; ignore theirs.

  • The headlines about your trade disappearing

    They are usually about the technology, not the timetable. Changes to work like instructing students individually and in groups arrive through rules, insurance and money, slowly and visibly. This page tracks the task evidence and will move when it moves.

  • Retraining out of a job that is holding up

    On this evidence I would not spend money leaving. Spend it on the layer around the job instead: the tools, the paperwork, the planning. That is where the change actually is.

  • 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.

You are reading the United States figures

The United Kingdom splits this work across more than one official group, of which Teachers of english as a foreign language 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

The other groups this work is counted across:

In UK official statistics this job is counted as Teachers of english as a foreign language, Driving instructors, Fitness and wellbeing instructors and Sports coaches, instructors and officials. Pay is shown separately for each of those groups (medians cannot be averaged together), while the task list and the scores on this page are for this group only.

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.

No Space for this job, but one for what is happening to it

Nothing Collab365 runs is built for self-enrichment teachers, 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 20% of the work on this page is already inside what they can do.

Try The AI Authority free →

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 self-enrichment teachers. 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.

Nearby moves

The jobs above, as pages you can read the same way as this one. Your job shares its core work with these. That is what the match is, and it is all it is.

Noted, and thank you. We’ll email you if a Space for self-enrichment teachers 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 Space for self-enrichment teachers yet. Should there be one?

Collab365 Spaces is built by the same people as this site. We find the problems that AI and automation are creating inside one kind of work, then solve them as short courses, briefings and Blueprints. Each Space is the community too, so the research and the people doing your job are in the same place.

What a Space actually is, in full

Collab365 launches new communities where the need is real. If one for self-enrichment teachers existed, with researched problems, courses and people in the same boat, would you want in?

We use your email address for one thing: to tell you if a Space for self-enrichment teachers launches. We never sell it, never use it for unrelated marketing, and every email has a one-click unsubscribe. Our privacy policy has the full version.

This unlocks nothing. Every figure, every row and every step on this page is already yours, whether you fill this in or not.

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 Self-Enrichment Teachers?
Not as a job, but it is already doing parts of the work. Across the 30 official task statements scored for Self-Enrichment Teachers (United States, SOC 25-3021), 20% of the importance-weighted core work is made of tasks today's AI could already do most of. The overall exposure score is 32 out of 100 (range 26–39, band: low). 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 “Self-Enrichment Teachers” can AI already do?
The highest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Prepare instructional program objectives, outlines, and lesson plans” (93/100, very high); “Schedule class times to ensure maximum attendance” (93/100, very high); “Write instructional articles on designated subjects” (83/100, 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 “Self-Enrichment Teachers” stay human?
About 66% 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: “Observe students to determine qualifications, limitations, abilities, interests, and other individual characteristics” (4/100, minimal); “Observe and evaluate the performance of other instructors” (6/100, minimal); “Organize and supervise games and other recreational activities to promote physical, mental, and social development” (6/100, 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 “Self-Enrichment Teachers” do about AI?
Start from the ledger rather than the headline: 20% of this job's weighted core work is exposed, and roughly 66% 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 Self-Enrichment Teachers 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

About the data on this page

  • 5 tasks scored differently between repeat runs, so their range on this page is wider. We would rather show the wobble than hide it.
  • The match between this job and its counterpart in the other country is partial, so the two pages count slightly different groups of people.
  • 17 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)
Scores
Rubric task_scoring_v1.0, model claude-opus-5, computed 2026-08-05.
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.

How we score a jobDownload this releaseLook up another job

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}
}

Permalink

https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1

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.