← Risk register SOC 25-2031 · reviewed 2026-08-11

Secondary School Teachers, Except Special and Career/Technical Education

1,065,210 US workers · median $72,040/yr · Education

SAFE

The paperwork layer of teaching — lesson plans, worksheets, rubrics, first-pass essay feedback, quiz generation, parent email drafts — is already being handled well by AI, and that is real time savings, not a real threat. What is not automatable is standing in a room with 28 sixteen-year-olds, holding attention, noticing who is quietly failing, and being the adult legally responsible for them; state licensure and in loco parentis duty of care make a credentialed human non-optional. The main risk is budget-driven class-size increases and a shift of some content delivery to software, which compresses headcount rather than eliminating the job.

10-year outlook: Still a licensed, in-person, in-demand job in ten years, but with more AI-generated materials, harder fights over assessment integrity, and slow headcount pressure from enrollment decline and larger classes.

US employment, 2019–2025+2.8%
1,035,8501,065,210 workers

Roughly flat across the period, with year-to-year wobble.

Median pay $61,660 → $72,040 -6.5% in real terms (nominal +16.8%, less ~25% US inflation over the period)

The job count is not the verdict

This line is counted by the Bureau of Labor Statistics — the one figure on this page that isn't a judgement of ours. Headcount moves on demand, offshoring, demographics and the business cycle, and automation is one term among several, often not the loudest.

So a falling line is not evidence that AI did it, and a rising one is not evidence that it won't. Both happen in this register: some occupations resist automation and shrink anyway, others are highly automatable and keep growing. The marked year is 2020.

BLS projection, 2024–2034

-1.6% 1,094,500 → 1,076,700 on the projections basis

Hard to automate, but shrinking anyway

The work resists current AI, yet the BLS projects -1.6% by 2034. Whatever is shrinking this occupation, the evidence does not point to automation — demand, demographics, offshoring and industry decline all shrink jobs that no machine could do.

Different clocks. The score is what current AI could do to this work today. The projection is how many of these jobs will exist in 2034. Everything between the two — how fast employers actually adopt, whether demand grows in the meantime — is why they can point opposite ways without either being wrong.

~66,200 openings a year on average, including replacing people who leave.

One email if this score changes. Watch as many occupations as you like from the same address — no account, and nothing is sent on a schedule, only when a verdict actually moves.

Also known as — 24 job titles this covers

Titles reported by people doing this work, from the US Department of Labor's O*NET survey. If your job title is here, this page is about your work even though the name doesn't match.

CoachTeacherEducatorArt TeacherArt EducatorBand TeacherChoir TeacherLatin TeacherMusic TeacherOrgan TeacherPiano TeacherVocal TeacherVoice TeacherArt InstructorChoral TeacherFrench TeacherGuitar TeacherHealth TeacherHebrew TeacherMusic EducatorSewing TeacherSpeech TeacherSports TeacherTyping Teacher

Score — 69/100 resistance

Holding it up: embodiment (15/20). Weakest point: task resistance (12/20).

Five dimensions, 0–20 each, summed. Higher means more protected. The arithmetic is shown so you can check it: 12 + 15 + 14 + 15 + 13 = 69. · Scored 2026-08-11, and re-examined when evidence accumulates rather than on a schedule.

Task resistance 12/20

Mixed — a routine tier and a judgment tier A 12 rather than a 16 reflects that a large slice of the week — writing unit plans to state standards, generating differentiated worksheets, grading multiple-choice and even first-draft essays, logging grades, drafting parent emails — is genuinely machine-assistable now, while the irreducible core (running a Socratic seminar, redirecting a defiant student mid-lesson, re-teaching a concept three ways because you read the room) has no digital substitute.

Embodiment 15/20

Hands-on in uncontrolled environments A high school classroom is an uncontrolled environment by any honest definition — 28 adolescents, hallway and cafeteria duty, breaking up a fight, chemistry lab supervision, fire drills and lockdown drills, bus and field-trip chaperoning — and the 15 rather than 19 only reflects that the intellectual work itself is done seated with a screen and a whiteboard.

Liability shield 14/20

Licensed human required and personally liable State teaching licensure with content-area endorsement is a hard legal gate: an unlicensed adult cannot be the teacher of record, cannot sign off on credits toward a diploma, and cannot discharge in loco parentis duty of care — the 14 rather than 18 is because districts routinely fill seats with emergency and provisional certificates when they cannot hire, and personal malpractice exposure is far thinner than a physician's.

Trust premium 15/20

The human relationship is the product Adolescents work for teachers they trust and stonewall ones they don't, so the relationship is the delivery mechanism for the content — but 15 not 19 because students are assigned to you by scheduling software, not chosen, and the roster resets every September regardless of how good last year's rapport was.

Judgment & accountability 13/20

Meaningful discretion State standards, pacing guides, district curricula and standardized testing calendars constrain a lot of the day, which caps this at 13 — but the calls that matter are yours alone and are made without a script: whether a bruise or a change in a kid's affect triggers a mandatory-reporter call, whether a plagiarism case goes to the office, whether to fail a senior short of credits, whether to escalate a suicide-risk disclosure.

Confidence: high · reviewed 2026-08-11 · how scoring works

What this job involves — and which parts are yours

The verdict above describes this occupation as a whole. Almost nobody does the typical version of a job — tick what's actually in your week and see how your own mix sits.

AI already does these at usable quality

These still need a person

Active moats on the surviving side: embodiment, licensure, trust

How to future-proof this job

Where to go deeper on what this job runs on: Coursera — teaching and instructional design, audit free free to audit · Khan Academy — reading and vocabulary, all levels, free free · Coursera — active listening and communication skills free to audit · Toastmasters — public speaking practice at local clubs worldwide low · Learning How to Learn — the most-taken course on Coursera, and free free to audit · Coursera — critical thinking and logic, audit free free to audit

All 35 skills ranked by how many jobs they open →

What would move this back up — beyond any one person

The moves above are yours to make. This is the other half: what would have to change in the world for the occupation itself to score higher. None of it is in any one person's gift, but it is where the floor actually comes from. Scores here are not a one-way ratchet. Only two of the five dimensions — task resistance and embodiment — track what machines can do. The other three track law, what buyers will pay for, and who is answerable, and those move in both directions, often in response to the same pressure AI creates. If every lever below landed, this occupation would score around 79/100, still SAFE.

4 specific changes that would raise this score
  • already happening liability shield +3

    State-level mandates that AI instructional tools cannot be the system of record for grades or IEP-adjacent accommodations without a licensed teacher's sign-off — the pattern in emerging state AI-in-education guidance (e.g. California AB 2876-style requirements, and district AI policies requiring a credentialed 'teacher of record' for any course with AI-delivered content, as in Ohio and Texas virtual-school teacher-of-record rules). Also class-size and supervision-ratio statutes written to count only licensed adults, not software-supervised students.

  • already happening task resistance +2

    Genuine two-tier job: if worksheet generation, first-pass essay marking, and lesson planning are fully absorbed, the residual role is behavior management, differentiation for the 5-8 students who are failing, and family conferencing — none of which current systems do. Task resistance rises mechanically as the automatable tier is stripped out, though this compresses headcount at the same time.

  • already happening trust premium +2

    Parent and union resistance to AI-delivered instruction becoming contractual: NEA/AFT locals bargaining language that AI cannot replace direct instruction hours or determine grades (AFT's AI guidance and several 2024-25 district contracts contain versions of this). Separately, private and parochial school marketing that explicitly promises small human-taught classes sustains a paid premium in the ~10% of enrollment outside public systems.

  • plausible judgment accountability +3

    Expansion of mandated-reporter and student-threat-assessment duties: post-Uvalde state laws and district behavioral threat assessment teams (Texas SB 11, Virginia's threat assessment statute) place named teachers on teams making documented consequential calls about student risk. If AI screening tools flag students and a licensed teacher must adjudicate and document the disposition, the judgment tier is formalized rather than advisory.

The limit. Levers protect the credential and the room, not the headcount. Every mechanism above can hold while districts raise class sizes from 28 to 34 and cut positions — the job stays human and there are fewer of them. Nothing here is a lever against budget-driven compression.

These are conditions, not forecasts — what would have to happen, not what will. Specific rules, cases and bills are named so you can go and check whether they exist and where they stand; verify before relying on any of them. Nothing here is legal or financial advice.

Where this work is, and what it pays there

BLS metro figures for 375 areas. The verdict above does not change by city — the rubric judges what the work involves, not where it happens — but pay and headcount do, and the national median hides a very wide range.

Most of these jobs

New York-Newark-Jersey City, NY-NJ 75,780 $100,800 +40%
Chicago-Naperville-Elgin, IL-IN 32,790 $98,970 +37%
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA 32,250 $100,960 +40%
Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX 28,000 $65,890 -9%
Houston-Pasadena-The Woodlands, TX 26,260 $65,540 -9%
Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD 25,460 $80,560 +12%
Boston-Cambridge-Newton, MA-NH 20,600 $98,850 +37%
Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV 20,400 $80,300 +11%

Best paid

Mount Vernon-Anacortes, WA 240 $121,190 +68%
Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura, CA 2,210 $108,850 +51%
San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA 4,130 $108,230 +50%

Percentages are against this occupation's national median of $72,040. Counts are jobs in that metro, not vacancies. Metros where the BLS suppressed the cell are absent rather than shown as zero.

Who is actually doing this — nobody, on the record

We have no reported case of a named organisation automating this occupation. Not one deployment, not one announcement.

That is worth saying out loud next to a score of 69. The verdict above is about what the work exposes — what current AI could do to these tasks. It is not a claim that anyone has done it. For this occupation those two things have come apart completely: the capability argument is on this page, and the evidence column is empty.

Read that as a gap in the reporting we can see, not proof of absence — the dispatch runs on English-language feeds and misses plenty. If you know of a case, tell us, or add a field report from inside the job.

Quick take — do you do this job?

Has AI actually changed your work? One tap, anonymous, and the running tally is public. Nothing else is asked of you.

Self-reported and unverified — a sentiment signal, not a survey. One response per person per occupation; you can change your answer.

Field reports — what people say has changed

No field reports yet. A written account takes a paragraph rather than a tap, goes to an editor before it appears, and is the one thing on this page the rubric cannot produce on its own.

File a field report

Concrete beats general: a tool that arrived, a task that moved, a headcount decision you watched happen. Don't include anything that identifies you or your employer if that would put you at risk.

Watch this verdict
Kept current

Rather than check back: get the digest and we'll tell you what changed — or watch a single occupation from its own page.