US dataswitch to UK
Tutors
providing feedback to students, collaborating with students, parents, teachers and monitoring student performance or assisting students in academic environments. 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 lesson plans or learning modules for tutoring sessions according to students' needs and goals. That is a slice of tasks, not of you.
That slice is not coming back; the core of the job, organizing tutoring environment to promote productivity and learning, stays yours. The tools change hands, the accountability doesn't.
Your week, as this page understands it
Instruct individual students or small groups of students in academic subjects to support formal class instruction or to prepare students for standardized or admissions tests. The job title says “tutors”. The real job is the part underneath: organizing tutoring environment to promote productivity and learning. 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 tutors is not one task. It is 19 scored ones, and they are nowhere near equally exposed. The most durable of them, on this evidence, is organizing tutoring environment to promote productivity and learning, and the ledger below shows exactly why.
Where the work sits, by task weight
- shifting to AI
- 30%
- changing shape
- 31%
- staying human
- 39%
These bars are tasks changing hands, not people being counted out. The ledger below shows which.
Whole-job exposure score 50 out of 100 (44–56 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, across 19 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 tutors 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.
- 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
6 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.
Scheduling tutoring appointments with students or their parents
This is reading one thing and writing another: appointments in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Schedule tutoring appointments with students or their parents.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 79 out of 100 (75–83 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: Booking appointments is a solved job for software.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 4/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Preparing lesson plans or learning modules for tutoring sessions according to students' needs and goals
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 or learning modules for tutoring sessions according to students' needs and goals.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 93 out of 100 (89–97 allowing for uncertainty): very high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Lesson planning is one of the tasks current AI does fastest and best.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 4/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Developing teaching or training materials
This is reading one thing and writing another: materials in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 3 · CoreSource: “Develop teaching or training materials, such as handouts, study materials, or quizzes.” (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: Handouts, worksheets and quizzes are produced quickly and to a good standard by AI.
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.
Communicating students' progress
This is reading one thing and writing another: students' progress in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Communicate students' progress to students, parents, or teachers in written progress reports, in person, by phone, or by email.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 65 out of 100 (58–72 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; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Progress reports draft themselves from the records; the difficult calls still come from a person.
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 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Changing shape
5 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.
Reviewing class material with students by discussing text
The software now makes the first pass at class material, 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 5 · CoreSource: “Review class material with students by discussing text, working solutions to problems, or reviewing worksheets or other assignments.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 53 out of 100 (46–60 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; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Working through problems and texts is something AI tutors already do well, though the live exchange matters.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Assessing students' progress throughout tutoring sessions
The software now makes the first pass at students' progress throughout tutoring sessions, 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 5 · CoreSource: “Assess students' progress throughout tutoring sessions.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 53 out of 100 (46–60 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; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Reading how a student is doing in the moment is part of the conversation.
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 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Teaching students study skills, note-taking skills and testing-taking strategies
The software now makes the first pass at students study skills, note-taking skills and testing-taking strategies, 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 · CoreSource: “Teach students study skills, note-taking skills, and test-taking strategies.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 58 out of 100 (51–65 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: 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: Study and test strategies are heavily documented, though they land better delivered by a person.
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 2/4 · how much data exists 4/4.
Staying human
8 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.
Providing feedback to students, using positive reinforcement techniques to encourage, motivate or building confidence in students
The value here is that a specific person handles feedback and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Provide feedback to students, using positive reinforcement techniques to encourage, motivate, or build confidence in students.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 28 out of 100 (21–35 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: Encouragement lands because it comes from someone the student knows and trusts.
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.
Participating in training and development sessions to improve tutoring practices or learn new tutoring techniques
The ratings behind this row put training well outside what today's tools can do on their own.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Participate in training and development sessions to improve tutoring practices or learn new tutoring techniques.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 26 out of 100 (19–33 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over.
The rating behind it: The learning is for the tutor, and much of it happens in sessions with other people.
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.
Organizing tutoring environment to promote productivity and learning
This work happens in the physical world: environment, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Organize tutoring environment to promote productivity and learning.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 8 out of 100 (1–15 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Setting up the space students work in is physical.
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 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Show the other 9 tasks
Researching or recommending textbooks, software, equipment or other learning materials to complement tutoring
shifting to AIThis is reading one thing and writing another: textbooks, software, equipment or other learning materials in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 3 · SupplementalSource: “Research or recommend textbooks, software, equipment, or other learning materials to complement tutoring.” (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: Searching and comparing learning materials is research work software does quickly.
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 records of students' assessment results
shifting to AIThis is reading one thing and writing another: records of students' assessment results in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Maintain records of students' assessment results, progress, feedback, or school performance, ensuring confidentiality of all records.” (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: Keeping and protecting student records is routine, rules-based record-keeping.
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.
Identifying, developing or implementing intervention strategies, tutoring plans or individualized education plans, IEPs) for students
changing shapeThe software now makes the first pass at intervention strategies, tutoring plans or individualized education plans, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Identify, develop, or implement intervention strategies, tutoring plans, or individualized education plans (IEPs) for students.” (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: Plans draft well from documented approaches, though formal education plans need qualified staff to agree them.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Providing private instruction to individual or small groups of students to improve academic performance
changing shapeThe software now makes the first pass at private instruction, 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 · CoreSource: “Provide private instruction to individual or small groups of students to improve academic performance, improve occupational skills, or prepare for academic or occupational tests.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 41 out of 100 (34–48 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; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: AI can explain almost any topic, but progress often hangs on the relationship with the tutor.
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 3/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Administering proctor or score academic or diagnostic assessments
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: proctor, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 3 · SupplementalSource: “Administer, proctor, or score academic or diagnostic assessments.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 33 out of 100 (26–40 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: Scoring is automated, but proctoring a test means watching the room.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Preparing and facilitating tutoring workshops
staying humanThe value here is that a specific person handles workshops and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Prepare and facilitate tutoring workshops, collaborative projects, or academic support sessions for small groups of students.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 30 out of 100 (23–37 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Materials generate easily, but running a group session is live work.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Collaborating with students, parents, teachers, school administrators or counselors to determine student needs
staying humanThe value here is that a specific person handles students, parents, teachers, school administrators or counselors and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Collaborate with students, parents, teachers, school administrators, or counselors to determine student needs, develop tutoring plans, or assess student progress.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 28 out of 100 (21–35 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: Agreeing a plan with parents and teachers depends on trust among the people involved.
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 student performance or assisting students in academic environments
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: student performance, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Monitor student performance or assist students in academic environments, such as classrooms, laboratories, or computing centers.” (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: Being in the room with the students is the task.
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.
Travelling to students' homes, libraries or schools to conduct tutoring sessions
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: students' homes, libraries or schools, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 3 · SupplementalSource: “Travel to students' homes, libraries, or schools to conduct tutoring sessions.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 0 out of 100 (0–4 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Getting to where the student is means physically travelling there.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
What this job pays, and how many people do it
- Median pay
- $43,350a 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
- 175,070in 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: lesson plans in, a record out. The rows above are exactly that shape: preparing lesson plans or learning modules for tutoring sessions according to students' needs and goals and scheduling tutoring appointments with students or their parents. What it cannot do is be there in the room, and that is still where environment gets done. Which is why this page talks about your tasks changing, not your job ending.
Your move
Over a pint: what I’d tell you if you were my friend
Your week is splitting in two, and which half fills it is the whole question. Preparing lesson plans or learning modules for tutoring sessions according to students' needs and goals is going; organizing tutoring environment to promote productivity and learning is not.
So, given all that: 30% of this job's task weight sits in rows the software is already learning, 31% in rows that change shape rather than disappear, and 39% in rows it is nowhere near. That is the position, measured across 19 scored tasks. It is not a forecast about you.
The occupation is an average and you are not, so the first job below is finding out where your own week actually sits.
This week: one thing
Print the task ledger above and put your own hours next to each row. Roughly, in pen, in one sitting. Then look at which group your hours actually pile up in. Twenty minutes, this week.
- What you end up holding
- your own week, on one page, sorted into what is shifting and what is not
- How long it takes
- about twenty minutes
If printing it isn’t practical: Read the rows off this page and write the same list on the back of an envelope. Same twenty minutes, same page, and it works just as well said out loud to someone who knows the job. The point is your hours next to the rows, not the paper it is on.
Over the next 90 days
Volunteer toward the durable end, visibly. Over the next ninety days put your hand up for the work in the bottom group (organizing tutoring environment to promote productivity and learning) and let people see you doing it. Not a new project: the same job, with your mix deliberately tilted. The point is that when the rota or the reorganisation comes, the version of you people picture is the one doing the part that stays.
Over the next 12 months
Claim a specialism at the durable end and let the other end go. Over a year, deliberately become the person who handles organizing tutoring environment to promote productivity and learning, and deliberately stop being the first choice for the rows in the top group. That trade costs something, because the exposed work is often the comfortable work. Decide it on purpose rather than by drift. Before you pay for anything, use CareerOneStop - Find local training. It is free, it is the Labor Department's own service, and it is listed below with the rest of the free routes.
The roads out of here, and why I am not sending you down them
I looked at the obvious moves out of this job, and here is what I found.
I checked the 12 nearest US occupations to tutors (nearest by the work that AI is not taking, not by job title), and none of them survived. The closest was special education teachers, preschool: only about 4% of its durable work is work you already do and there are far fewer of those jobs than of yours. Your own job splits about 30/70: that share of the list sits in the top exposure band and the rest does not. On this evidence the honest move is inside the job rather than out of it. Become the person who owns “provide feedback to students, using positive reinforcement techniques to encourage, motivate, or…”, and let the exposed end go.
How that was checked: this job was compared against all 830 US occupations in this release on their official task statements, and the 12 nearest were examined one by one. A move that turns on an industry, an employer or a qualification rather than on the work itself will not show up in a check like that. And this release carries no licence register, so anything you are weighing needs that looked up separately.
3 moves I checked and rejected
These are the obvious-looking jumps. They are here with their reasons rather than quietly dropped, because the ones that fail are worth knowing about. It is one less thing to turn over at night.
Special Education Teachers, Preschool
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already provide feedback to students, using positive reinforcement techniques to encourage, motivate, or build…, and their equivalent is to communicate nonverbally with children to provide them with comfort, encouragement, or positive reinforcement. Across both published task lists that is about 4% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 4% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step. And it is a narrow door: about 29,510 of those jobs against 175,070 of yours (OEWS May 2025), 17% as many seats.
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 collaborate with students, parents, teachers, school administrators, or counselors to determine student needs…, 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 3% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 3% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step.
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 collaborate with students, parents, teachers, school administrators, or counselors to determine student needs…, 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 3% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 3% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step. And it is a narrow door: about 16,870 of those jobs against 175,070 of yours (OEWS May 2025), 10% as many seats.
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: 30% of its task weight, across 19 scored tasks. Every row behind it is printed above with the source. Check ours; ignore theirs.
The whole-job doom story
Nothing on this page says this job ends. It says the mix inside it moves. Half the rows above are unchanged or changing shape, and the plan is about which half your week sits in. That is a very different problem, and a solvable one.
Panic-buying a course
Do the twenty-minute sorting exercise first. Most people who buy a course before they have done it buy the wrong one, and the free services listed below will tell you the same thing without charging for it.
The “obvious” next job everyone suggests
I checked the obvious moves and most of them did not survive. The reasons are printed with the routes above, including the pay and the gate. A move that fails on the numbers is worth knowing about so you can stop turning it over at night.
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
In UK official statistics this job is counted as Teachers of english as a foreign language. 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 tutors, 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 30% 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 tutors. 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 tutors 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 Tutors?
- Not as a job, but it is already doing parts of the work. Across the 19 official task statements scored for Tutors (United States, SOC 25-3041), 30% of the importance-weighted core work is made of tasks today's AI could already do most of. The overall exposure score is 50 out of 100 (range 44–56, band: partial). That is a statement about tasks, not about headcount: this measures what AI could do, not whether any employer adopts it, whether the law allows it, or whether doing the routine parts faster creates more demand for the human parts. Figures are from release 2026-q4.1.
- Which tasks in “Tutors” can AI already do?
- The highest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Research or recommend textbooks, software, equipment, or other learning materials to complement tutoring” (93/100, very high); “Prepare lesson plans or learning modules for tutoring sessions according to students' needs and goals” (93/100, very high); “Maintain records of students' assessment results, progress, feedback, or school performance, ensuring confidentiality of all records” (93/100, very high). Each score comes from five published 0–4 ratings turned into a number by a published formula, and each carries the model's one-sentence reason on the page.
- Which tasks in “Tutors” stay human?
- About 39% 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: “Travel to students' homes, libraries, or schools to conduct tutoring sessions” (0/100, minimal); “Organize tutoring environment to promote productivity and learning” (8/100, minimal); “Monitor student performance or assist students in academic environments, such as classrooms, laboratories, or computing centers” (9/100, 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 “Tutors” do about AI?
- Start from the ledger rather than the headline: 30% of this job's weighted core work is exposed, and roughly 39% 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 Tutors 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 19 scored tasks. The prompt, the rubric, the formula and the full dataset are published at https://futureproof.collab365.com/method and https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1 under CC BY 4.0.
Where these numbers come from
Worth knowing about these figures
- The match between this job and its counterpart in the other country is partial, so the two pages count slightly different groups of people.
- 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 2026-08-04.
- Pay and employment
- bls-oews (May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx))bls-oews (May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx))
Figures on this page come from release 2026-q4.1, published 2026-08-05. Every release keeps its own permanent address, so a figure you cite in March is still there, unchanged, in November.
The plain-English wording on this page is assembled directly from the task statements and the published ratings, not written by hand for this occupation. That is why it is specific, and it is also why we say so.
The routes and free resources further up are today’s, not the release’s (last reviewed 2026-08-05). A route is an offer, not a historical fact, so it moves on its own clock.
Using these figures?
Cite this
Everything on this site is published under CC BY 4.0. Quote it, chart it, sell something built on it. Just say where it came from, and cite the dated release rather than the site, so the figure you quote stays checkable.
Plain text
Collab365 (2026). Collab365 Futureproof: task-level AI exposure for US and UK occupations, release 2026-q4.1 (methodVersion 2.0.0, promptVersion task_scoring_v1.0). https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1. Licensed CC BY 4.0. Built with O*NET data (USDOL/ETA, CC BY 4.0); ONS data (Open Government Licence v3.0); GAISI task framework (arXiv:2507.22748, MIT); BLS data (public domain).
BibTeX
@misc{collab365futureproof2026q41,
title = {Collab365 Futureproof: task-level AI exposure for US and UK occupations, release 2026-q4.1},
author = {{Collab365}},
year = {2026},
url = {https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1},
note = {Release 2026-q4.1, methodVersion 2.0.0, promptVersion task_scoring_v1.0, CC BY 4.0}
}Data as of release 2026-q4.1, published . Releases never change after publication; when the figures move, a new dated release is published beside this one and this one stays exactly where it is.