US dataswitch to UK
Special Education Teachers, All Other
adapting instructional techniques to the age and skill levels of students, assessing students' physical progress or needs and assisting in screening or placement of students in adapted physical education programs. 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: maintaining thorough student records to document attendance. That is a slice of tasks, not of you.
That slice is not coming back; the core of the job, instructing students, using adapted physical education techniques, to improve physical fitness, stays yours. The tools change, the responsibility doesn't.
Your week, as this page understands it
All special education teachers not listed separately. The job title says “special education teachers” or “all other”: officially one job, two names. The real job is the part underneath: instructing students, using adapted physical education techniques, to improve physical fitness, gross motor skills. 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 special education teachers, all other is not one task. It is 20 scored ones, and they are nowhere near equally exposed. The most durable of them, on this evidence, is instructing students, using adapted physical education techniques, to improve physical fitness, gross motor skills, and the ledger below shows exactly why.
Where the work sits, by task weight
- shifting to AI
- 18%
- changing shape
- 13%
- staying human
- 69%
These bars are tasks changing hands, not people being counted out. The ledger below shows which.
Whole-job exposure score 29 out of 100 (23–35 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, across 20 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 special education teachers, all other 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 2026-08-05. 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.
- One row is marked low confidence, so treat it as a ballpark rather than a fine measurement.
- 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
4 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.
Maintaining thorough student records to document attendance
This is reading one thing and writing another: thorough student records in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Maintain thorough student records to document attendance, participation, or progress, ensuring confidentiality of all records.” (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: Attendance, participation and progress records are exactly the kind of routine record-keeping software handles well.
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.
Writing reports to summarize student performance
This is reading one thing and writing another: reports in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Write reports to summarize student performance, social growth, or physical development.” (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: Summarizing performance and development into a written report is well-suited to drafting software.
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.
Preparing lesson plans in accordance with individualized education plans
This is reading one thing and writing another: lesson plans in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Prepare lesson plans in accordance with individualized education plans (IEPs) and the functional abilities or needs of students.” (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: Lesson plans built around a student's stated goals and abilities can be drafted quickly from documents already on file.
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.
Requesting or ordering physical education equipment
This is reading one thing and writing another: physical education equipment in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 3 · CoreSource: “Request or order physical education equipment, following standard procedures.” (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: Placing equipment orders by a standard procedure is routine paperwork that software already handles.
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.
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.
Writing or modifying individualized education plans
The software now makes the first pass at individualized education plans, but someone has to be answerable for the result, and it cannot be the software. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Write or modify individualized education plans (IEPs) for students with intellectual or physical disabilities.” (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; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: An education plan can be drafted from existing assessments, but it is a legal document a qualified teacher must stand behind.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Reviewing adapted physical education programs or practices to ensure compliance with government or other regulations
The software now makes the first pass at adapted physical education programs, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Review adapted physical education programs or practices to ensure compliance with government or other regulations.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 59 out of 100 (52–66 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Checking a program against written rules is document work, though knowing local practice still matters.
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 2/4.
Maintaining inventory of instructional equipment
The software now makes the first pass at inventory of instructional equipment, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 3 · CoreSource: “Maintain inventory of instructional equipment, materials, or aids.” (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: Inventory lists are straightforward to maintain in software, with occasional physical counting.
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
13 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.
Adapting instructional techniques to the age and skill levels of students
This work happens in the physical world: instructional techniques, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Adapt instructional techniques to the age and skill levels of students.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 15 out of 100 (8–22 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: Software can suggest ways to pitch an activity, but the real adjusting happens live with the children in front of you.
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 2/4.
Instructing students, using adapted physical education techniques, to improve physical fitness
This work happens in the physical world: students, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Instruct students, using adapted physical education techniques, to improve physical fitness, gross motor skills, perceptual motor skills, or sports and game achievement.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 3 out of 100 (0–10 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: 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 movement skills means being in the gym, demonstrating and guiding students physically.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · 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 2/4.
Providing students positive feedback to encourage them and help them develop an appreciation for physical education
This work happens in the physical world: students positive feedback, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Provide students positive feedback to encourage them and help them develop an appreciation for physical education.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 3 out of 100 (0–7 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: Encouragement only works because a person the child knows is there saying it.
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 4/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Show the other 10 tasks
Communicating behavioral observations and student progress reports
staying humanThe value here is that a specific person handles behavioral observations and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Communicate behavioral observations and student progress reports to students, parents, teachers, or administrators.” (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: Progress reports can be drafted automatically, though telling parents about behavior in person still matters.
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.
Attending in-service training, workshops or meetings to keep abreast of current practices or trends in adapted physical education
staying humanThe ratings behind this row put in-service training, workshops or meetings well outside what today's tools can do on their own.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Attend in-service training, workshops, or meetings to keep abreast of current practices or trends in adapted physical education.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 26 out of 100 (14–38 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, low confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over.
The rating behind it: Keeping up with current practice can be helped by summaries, but attending training and workshops is something a person does.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · 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.
Assisting in screening or placement of students in adapted physical education programs
staying humanThe rules require a named, qualified person to answer for screening, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Assist in screening or placement of students in adapted physical education programs.” (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: someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Screening and placement decisions follow documented criteria a computer can apply, but a qualified professional signs off on placement.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Collaborating with other educational personnel to provide inclusive activities or programs for children with disabilities
staying humanThe value here is that a specific person handles other educational personnel and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Collaborate with other educational personnel to provide inclusive activities or programs for children with disabilities.” (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: Planning inclusive activities can be drafted by software, but agreeing them with colleagues is a working relationship.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · 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 2/4.
Advising education professionals of students' physical abilities or disabilities and the accommodations required to enhance their school performance
staying humanThe rules require a named, qualified person to answer for education professionals of students' physical abilities, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Advise education professionals of students' physical abilities or disabilities and the accommodations required to enhance their school performance.” (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: someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Software can draft the list of accommodations, but colleagues act on advice from a qualified professional they know.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Assessing students' physical progress or needs
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: students' physical progress, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Assess students' physical progress or needs.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 16 out of 100 (9–23 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Judging a student's physical progress needs someone watching them move, though software can help organize and compare the results.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Evaluating the motor needs of individual students to determine their need for adapted physical education services
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: the motor needs of individual students, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Evaluate the motor needs of individual students to determine their need for adapted physical education services.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 10 out of 100 (3–17 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Deciding whether a child needs adapted services rests on watching that child move and on professional judgment.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Establishing and maintaining standards of behavior to create safe
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: standards of behavior, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Establish and maintain standards of behavior to create safe, orderly, and effective environments for learning.” (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: Keeping a class safe and orderly depends on a teacher being present and known to the students.
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 3/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Providing individual or small groups of students with adapted physical education instruction that meets desired physical needs or goals
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: individual, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Provide individual or small groups of students with adapted physical education instruction that meets desired physical needs or goals.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 3 out of 100 (0–10 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: 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: Adapted physical education is delivered in person to particular children, with a qualified teacher present.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · 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 2/4.
Providing adapted physical education services to students with intellectual disabilities
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: adapted physical education services, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Provide adapted physical education services to students with intellectual disabilities, autism, traumatic brain injury, orthopedic impairments, or other disabling condition.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 3 out of 100 (0–10 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: 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: Serving students with disabilities in person requires a qualified teacher physically working with them.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · 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 2/4.
What this job pays, and how many people do it
- Median pay
- $76,580a 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
- 33,930in 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: thorough student records in, a record out. The rows above are exactly that shape: maintaining thorough student records to document attendance and writing reports to summarize student performance. 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, using adapted physical education techniques, to improve physical fitness is the middle of this job, and the evidence on this page says it stays with a person.
So, given all that: 18% of this job's task weight sits in rows the software is already learning, 13% in rows that change shape rather than disappear, and 69% in rows it is nowhere near. That is the position, measured across 20 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. Maintaining thorough student records to document attendance 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 thorough student records, 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 instructional techniques 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 writing or modifying individualized education plans. 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, 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 special education teachers, all other (nearest by the work that AI is not taking, not by job title), and none of them survived. The closest was special education teachers, middle school: only about 6% of its durable work is work you already do and it pays 12.8% less. And on the numbers you do not need one. This job scores 29/100 here, with only 18% of the task list in the top band, and “adapt instructional techniques to the age and skill levels of students” is not work that hands over cleanly. None of them beats deepening what you already have.
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.
Special Education Teachers, Middle School
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already communicate behavioral observations and student progress reports to students, parents, teachers, or administrators, and their equivalent is to confer with parents or guardians, other teachers, counselors, and administrators to resolve students'…. Across both published task lists that is about 6% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 6% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step. It is a pay cut, in those words: $66,810 against your $76,580, 12.8% less (OEWS May 2025 (both)). Retraining to earn less is a decision, not advice.
Secondary School Teachers, Except Special and Career/Technical Education
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already communicate behavioral observations and student progress reports to students, parents, teachers, or administrators, and their equivalent is to confer with parents or guardians, other teachers, counselors, and administrators to resolve students'…. Across both published task lists that is about 6% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 6% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step.
Career/Technical Education Teachers, Middle School
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already communicate behavioral observations and student progress reports to students, parents, teachers, or administrators, and their equivalent is to confer with parents or guardians, other teachers, counselors, and administrators to resolve students'…. Across both published task lists that is about 5% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 5% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step. It is a pay cut, in those words: $65,030 against your $76,580, 15.1% 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: 18% of its task weight, across 20 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, using adapted physical education techniques, to improve physical fitness 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 Special and additional needs education teaching professionals 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 Special and additional needs education teaching professionals. 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 special education teachers / all other, 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 18% 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 special education teachers / all other. 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 special education teachers / all other 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 Special Education Teachers, All Other?
- Not as a job, but it is already doing parts of the work. Across the 20 official task statements scored for Special Education Teachers, All Other (United States, SOC 25-2059), 18% of the importance-weighted core work is made of tasks today's AI could already do most of. The overall exposure score is 29 out of 100 (range 23–35, 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 “Special Education Teachers, All Other” can AI already do?
- The highest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Request or order physical education equipment, following standard procedures” (75/100, high); “Write reports to summarize student performance, social growth, or physical development” (66/100, high); “Prepare lesson plans in accordance with individualized education plans (IEPs) and the functional abilities or needs of students” (66/100, 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 “Special Education Teachers, All Other” stay human?
- About 69% 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: “Instruct students, using adapted physical education techniques, to improve physical fitness, gross motor skills, perceptual motor skills, or sports and game…” (3/100, minimal); “Provide adapted physical education services to students with intellectual disabilities, autism, traumatic brain injury, orthopedic impairments, or other disa…” (3/100, minimal); “Provide individual or small groups of students with adapted physical education instruction that meets desired physical needs or goals” (3/100, 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 “Special Education Teachers, All Other” do about AI?
- Start from the ledger rather than the headline: 18% of this job's weighted core work is exposed, and roughly 69% 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 Special Education Teachers, All Other 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 20 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
- One row is marked low confidence, so treat it as a ballpark rather than a fine measurement.
- The match between this job and its counterpart in the other country is partial, so the two pages count slightly different groups of people.
- 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.
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.