Best AI for Curriculum Design and Planning in 2026

Quick Answer: AI for curriculum design and planning generates Tyler rationale-aligned curriculum frameworks with clear objectives, learning experiences, organization, and evaluation; Wiggins and McTighe Understanding by Design (UbD) backward design units with Stage 1 (desired results), Stage 2 (acceptable evidence), and Stage 3 (learning plan) fully developed; Erickson concept-based curriculum designs with essential understandings and synergistic thinking; Bruner spiral curriculum progressions; Jacobs curriculum mapping designs for vertical and horizontal alignment; and scope and sequence planning documents for courses, units, and lesson sequences. EduGenius (edugenius.app) supports Grades K-9 educators with credit-based curriculum design content generation.

Curriculum design is where educational intention meets educational reality. The curriculum — the deliberate sequence and organization of what students are expected to learn, how they will learn it, and how they will demonstrate that learning — is the single most important decision an educational system makes, and it is a decision that is made at multiple levels simultaneously: national standards; state or regional frameworks; district curriculum maps; school-level curriculum guides; and individual teachers' unit and lesson plans. The quality and coherence of these decisions, at every level, shape the educational experience that students actually have.

The history of curriculum design theory is a history of increasingly sophisticated answers to a deceptively simple question: what should students learn, and in what order? Ralph Tyler's 1949 question-based framework; Jerome Bruner's insight about the spiral structure of disciplinary knowledge; James Beane's integrative curriculum arguing for cross-disciplinary big ideas; Lynn Erickson's concept-based curriculum centered on enduring understandings rather than surface content; and Grant Wiggins and Jay McTighe's Understanding by Design framework that transformed curriculum planning by starting from the end — what do you want students to understand? — rather than from the beginning of a topic sequence. Each represents genuine progress in understanding how to design curricula that are ambitious, coherent, and intellectually powerful.

Research Foundations of Curriculum Design

Ralph Tyler: The Tyler Rationale

Ralph Tyler (1902-1994), in Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction (1949) — perhaps the most influential book ever written on curriculum — posed four fundamental questions that he argued should guide all curriculum development:

The Four Tyler Questions:

1. What educational purposes should the school seek to attain? (Objectives): Tyler argues that objectives should be derived from three sources — studies of learners (what do students need?); studies of contemporary life outside school (what does society need?); and suggestions from subject specialists (what does the discipline offer?) — and then filtered through two screens: the school's philosophy and the psychology of learning (what do we know about how students actually learn?).

2. What educational experiences can be provided that are likely to attain these purposes? (Learning experiences): Tyler distinguishes between "content" (what is to be learned) and "learning experiences" (the encounters between learner and environment that produce learning). The same content can be encountered through very different learning experiences; the quality of the experience (not merely the content) is what shapes what students learn.

3. How can these educational experiences be effectively organized? (Organization): Tyler identifies three principles of curriculum organization: continuity (vertical repetition of curriculum elements over time); sequence (building successive experiences on previous ones, with each adding more depth or breadth); and integration (horizontal connections among the various subjects students study). A well-organized curriculum ensures that students encounter important concepts repeatedly, in increasing depth, and with explicit connections made across subjects.

4. How can we determine whether these purposes are being attained? (Evaluation): Evaluation for Tyler means systematically determining whether the objectives of the curriculum have actually been achieved — not just grading individual student work but assessing whether the curriculum as a whole is working. This requires defining objectives behaviorally (in terms of observable student behavior change), selecting or constructing instruments that provide evidence of that behavior, and using the evidence to improve the curriculum.

The Tyler Rationale's Enduring Influence: Despite decades of critique — for its behaviorist assumptions; its relative neglect of cultural and political dimensions of curriculum; and its simplification of a complex process — the Tyler Rationale remains the foundational organizing framework for curriculum development, and its four questions continue to structure curriculum planning guides, textbooks, and professional development at every level of education.

Grant Wiggins and Jay McTighe: Understanding by Design

Grant Wiggins (1950-2015) and Jay McTighe, in Understanding by Design (1998/2005) and The Understanding by Design Guide to Creating High-Quality Units (2011), developed the most widely used and most educationally rigorous approach to curriculum design in current practice:

The Backward Design Framework: The fundamental UbD insight is that curriculum planning should begin not with the first day of instruction but with the end — with what students should deeply understand after completing the unit or course — and then design backward from that understanding to identify appropriate evidence of understanding and only then plan the learning experiences that will develop the desired understanding. This reversal of the conventional planning sequence (topic → activities → test) produces dramatically more coherent, focused, and intellectually powerful curriculum.

The Three Stages of Backward Design:

Stage 1 — Desired Results: What should students know, understand, and be able to do? This stage involves:

• Established goals: The relevant content standards, curriculum requirements, and learning expectations
• Transfer goals: What students will be able to do with their learning beyond the current unit — how they will apply, transfer, and extend their understanding in new contexts
• Understandings: The big ideas — the enduring insights — that students will retain and apply long after the specific facts are forgotten. Understandings are stated as complete sentences: "Effective authors choose words precisely to create specific effects on readers"; "Understanding patterns and relationships in data enables predictions about future events." Not topics or concepts, but genuine insights.
• Essential questions: Open, intellectually honest questions that cannot be answered in a sentence; questions that students might continue to wrestle with throughout their lives: "What makes a 'good' government?" "Does mathematics describe or create reality?" "How does where we live shape who we become?"
• Knowledge and skills: What students will know and be able to do as a result of the unit

Stage 2 — Assessment Evidence: How will we know if students have achieved the desired results? Before planning instruction, UbD requires planning assessment — specifically, performance tasks that require students to apply their understanding in authentic, complex contexts. The "Six Facets of Understanding" (explanation; interpretation; application; perspective; empathy; self-knowledge) provide a framework for assessing whether students have developed genuine understanding, not merely surface familiarity.

Stage 3 — Learning Plan: What learning experiences and instruction will enable students to achieve the desired results and perform well on the assessments? This stage plans the sequence of instruction, practice, and feedback that develops the understanding and skills students need.

Understanding vs. Coverage: The most important pedagogical principle Wiggins and McTighe articulate is the distinction between understanding and coverage. "Coverage" — moving through a large amount of content at a pace that allows only surface familiarity — produces students who can recognize information but cannot use it. "Understanding" — developing fewer ideas to genuine depth, making connections, and applying knowledge in varied contexts — produces students who can transfer their learning. The UbD curriculum design process is specifically intended to resist the coverage mentality by forcing curriculum designers to specify upfront what students should deeply understand, not merely what content should be covered.

WHERETO — The Learning Plan Elements: For Stage 3, UbD provides the WHERETO mnemonic for elements of a coherent learning plan: Where (establish where the unit is going; hook student interest); Hook and Hold (engage students with the essential questions and relevant challenges); Equip (provide the knowledge, skills, and experiences students need); Rethink and Revise (opportunities to reconsider, reflect, and revise understanding); Evaluate (self-assessment and reflection); Tailor (individualize as needed); Organize (sequence the learning for coherence and engagement).

H. Lynn Erickson: Concept-Based Curriculum and Instruction

H. Lynn Erickson, in Concept-Based Curriculum and Instruction (1998/2007) and Transitioning to Concept-Based Curriculum and Instruction (2014), developed the concept-based curriculum framework — an approach that organizes curriculum around enduring conceptual understandings rather than around topics and facts:

The Three-Dimensional Curriculum: Erickson argues that traditional curriculum operates in two dimensions: what students know (factual content); and what they can do (skills and processes). Concept-based curriculum adds a third dimension: what students understand — the conceptual insights that transfer beyond the specific topic being studied. A student might know that World War I began with the assassination of Franz Ferdinand (factual), be able to analyze primary source documents (skill), and understand that political conflicts become more dangerous when compounded by nationalism, militarism, and alliance systems (conceptual understanding that transfers to other historical events, current events, and human relationships).

The Concept-Based Planning Framework:

• Topics: The specific content to be studied (World War I; cell division; quadratic functions)
• Concepts: The abstract, transferable ideas within and across topics (conflict; causation; change; system; function; pattern)
• Generalizations/Enduring Understandings: The conceptual insights that result from the intersection of specific content and abstract concepts — stated as full sentences, without proper nouns, that transfer across topics: "Conflicts escalate when multiple parties perceive their core interests to be threatened simultaneously"; "Change in one part of a system typically produces change in other interconnected parts"
• Essential questions: Questions that lead students to construct the generalization through their own inquiry: "What conditions allow a conflict to escalate into a major war?"

Synergistic Thinking: Erickson's most important cognitive claim is that the interaction between factual content and conceptual understanding produces "synergistic thinking" — a kind of intellectual energy that deepens both the factual understanding and the conceptual understanding simultaneously. Students who are asked to generalize from the facts of World War I develop deeper understanding of the facts (by being forced to find the patterns); and students who encounter a new historical conflict with the generalization in hand can use it to investigate the new case more insightfully.

The Structure of Knowledge: Erickson draws on Hilda Taba's "structure of knowledge" — the recognition that disciplines are organized around a hierarchy of intellectual complexity, from facts at the bottom through concepts and generalizations to theories at the top — and argues that traditional curriculum focuses too much on the lower levels of this hierarchy (facts and skills) at the expense of the higher levels (concepts and generalizations) that are more intellectually demanding and more transferable.

Jerome Bruner: The Spiral Curriculum

Jerome Bruner (1915-2016), in The Process of Education (1960) and Toward a Theory of Instruction (1966), developed two related ideas that have had profound influence on curriculum design:

The Spiral Curriculum: Bruner argues that "any subject can be taught effectively in some intellectually honest form to any child at any stage of development" — a claim that overturned the Piagetian assumption that certain concepts cannot be taught until children have reached the appropriate developmental stage. The key word is "intellectually honest": the concept can be taught in an age-appropriate form that genuinely captures the essential structure of the idea, not a distorted simplification.

The spiral curriculum principle follows: introduce key concepts at an early age in concrete, accessible form; return to the same concepts at increasingly sophisticated levels as students develop; connect each encounter to the previous ones to build cumulative understanding. A spiral curriculum for mathematics might introduce the concept of "equivalence" in kindergarten through matching equivalent sets of objects, return to it in second grade through equivalent representations of numbers, revisit it in fourth grade through equivalent fractions, and develop it further in middle school through equivalent algebraic expressions. Each encounter adds more sophisticated understanding of the same fundamental concept.

The Structure of Knowledge: Bruner argues that curriculum should focus on the fundamental structure of disciplines — the underlying concepts, methods, and principles that give a discipline its organizing power — rather than on surface-level coverage of facts and procedures. A student who understands the structure of mathematics (the logic of proof; the role of abstraction; the relationships among different branches) can navigate new mathematical territory with a degree of confidence and insight that a student who has only learned procedures cannot.

Heidi Hayes Jacobs: Curriculum Mapping

Heidi Hayes Jacobs, in Mapping the Big Picture: Integrating Curriculum and Assessment (1997) and Curriculum 21: Essential Education for a Changing World (2010), developed curriculum mapping as the principal tool for achieving curriculum coherence across teachers, grades, and subjects within a school or district:

The Curriculum Map: A curriculum map is a documented record of what is actually being taught in each course and grade level, including: the content (topics, concepts, and texts actually taught); the skills (what students practice and develop); and the assessments (how student learning is evaluated). Jacobs distinguishes between what teachers plan to teach (projected curriculum map) and what they actually teach (diary curriculum map), and argues that aligning these two is an important first step in curriculum improvement.

Vertical and Horizontal Alignment: Curriculum mapping enables two types of alignment analysis:

• Vertical alignment: Is the curriculum in each grade building coherently on what students learned in previous grades? Are important concepts introduced at the right time and developed in increasing depth over years? Are there gaps (important concepts not taught) or redundancies (the same content taught in multiple years without increasing sophistication)?
• Horizontal alignment: Are teachers at the same grade level teaching comparable content and skills, so that students in different classes have equivalent educational experiences? Are connections being made across subjects (the writing skills developed in English are applied in social studies; the graph-reading skills developed in mathematics are used in science)?

The Curriculum Mapping Review Process: Jacobs advocates for teachers working together in curriculum mapping review sessions to examine their maps collectively: identifying gaps (what important concepts are not being taught?); redundancies (what is being taught in multiple places without adding depth?); and meaningful connections (what opportunities for cross-disciplinary integration exist?).

AI Applications in Curriculum Design

Understanding by Design Unit Planning

"Design a complete UbD (Understanding by Design) unit for Grade 8 English Language Arts — 'The Art of Argument: How Writers Persuade, Manipulate, and Inspire' — including all three UbD stages: Stage 1 (Desired Results); Stage 2 (Assessment Evidence); Stage 3 (Learning Plan). STAGE 1 — DESIRED RESULTS: Established Goals: CCSS standards for Grade 8 argument reading and writing (RI.8.6: determine author's point of view; RI.8.8: delineate and evaluate argument; W.8.1: write arguments using valid reasoning and relevant evidence; SL.8.4: present claims using appropriate evidence). Transfer Goals: Students will be able to independently use their learning to — (a) evaluate the persuasive techniques in arguments they encounter throughout their lives (advertising; political speeches; opinion journalism; social media); (b) construct their own evidence-based arguments on topics they care about for audiences who matter to them. Enduring Understandings: (a) Effective arguments combine emotional appeal, logical reasoning, and credible evidence — and manipulators exploit each of these elements to deceive. (b) Understanding how arguments are constructed and how they work on audiences is essential to both resisting manipulation and to communicating effectively. (c) What counts as valid evidence and sound reasoning varies across contexts, audiences, and communities — and these variations are often contested. Essential Questions: (a) How do you know when you're being persuaded versus manipulated? (b) What makes an argument fair? (c) Why do people believe things that the evidence doesn't support? Knowledge: Students will know — rhetorical appeals (logos, pathos, ethos); argument structure (claim, evidence, warrant, counterclaim, rebuttal); logical fallacies (at least six); techniques of propaganda and advertising persuasion; how to evaluate source credibility. Skills: Students will be able to — identify rhetorical appeals and logical fallacies in real-world texts; evaluate the quality of evidence and reasoning in arguments; construct a well-structured, evidence-based argument with counterclaim and rebuttal; adapt their argument for different audiences and purposes. STAGE 2 — ASSESSMENT EVIDENCE: Performance Task (primary assessment): Students write and present an evidence-based argument about a real issue in their community or world that they genuinely care about. Requirements: a written argument (600-800 words) with clear claim, evidence from at least three credible sources, acknowledgment and rebuttal of the strongest counterargument; a 3-5 minute oral presentation to a real audience (school community; local organization; public forum); a one-page 'rhetorical analysis' in which they identify the persuasive techniques they used in their own argument and explain why they chose them. Rubric criteria: Quality and credibility of evidence; Soundness of reasoning; Addressing counterargument; Clarity and organization; Oral presentation effectiveness; Rhetorical self-awareness. Other evidence: Weekly 'argument journal' analyzing one real-world argument (advertisement; news editorial; political speech); socratic seminar on a contested current issue; analytical essay on the rhetorical strategies of a historical speech. STAGE 3 — LEARNING PLAN (WHERETO): Week 1 — WHERE and HOOK: Essential question introduction: 'Why does this matter?' Students bring in one example of someone trying to persuade them and share in small groups. Introduction to rhetorical analysis: analyze one advertisement using rhetorical appeals as lens. Week 2-3 — EQUIP (Rhetorical Appeals and Argument Structure): Deep instruction on logos, pathos, ethos with practice analysis; introduction to Toulmin argument structure (claim/data/warrant/backing/qualifier/rebuttal); students analyze three historical speeches; daily argument journal practice. Week 4 — EQUIP (Logical Fallacies and Propaganda): Students investigate six to eight logical fallacies; analyze real political advertising for fallacy use; apply fallacy knowledge to evaluate arguments they encounter; discuss: why do fallacies often work? Week 5-6 — RETHINK AND REVISE (Developing Own Argument): Students select their issue and begin research (source evaluation and note-taking); write first draft of argument; peer review using argument rubric; revise; prepare oral presentation; full class presentations. Week 7 — EVALUATE and SELF-ASSESS: Performance task presentations; self-assessment using the rubric; reflection: How has your thinking about argument changed? What will you do differently when you encounter a persuasive text? Full unit with: all lesson plans; assessment rubrics; speech analysis materials; logical fallacy reference card; source evaluation protocol; peer review form."

"Design a complete concept-based curriculum framework for Grade 5 science — 'Forces, Motion, and Energy: Exploring How the Physical World Works' — using Erickson's three-dimensional curriculum design (facts/skills/understandings) and Bruner's spiral curriculum structure, connecting to concepts students developed in Grades K-4 and preparing the conceptual foundation for middle school physical science. Conceptual Framework: Core Concepts (transferable beyond this unit): force; motion; energy; system; cause and effect; change. Enduring Understandings (generalizations stated without proper nouns, transferable across contexts): (a) 'Forces acting on an object cause changes in its motion; the magnitude and direction of force determine the magnitude and direction of change.' (b) 'Energy exists in multiple forms and can be transferred and transformed, but the total amount remains constant.' (c) 'Understanding the forces and energy flows within a system enables prediction and control of the system's behavior.' Essential Questions: What makes things move? What makes things stop or change direction? Where does energy come from and where does it go? How do engineers use their understanding of forces and energy to design machines and structures? Spiral Curriculum Connections: K-2 (prior knowledge): Students have explored pushes and pulls; they understand that applying a force can cause an object to start moving, stop, or change direction. They have observed that objects fall down (gravity). Grades 3-5 (this unit): Students develop more precise understanding of the relationship between force, mass, and motion; introduce the concept of balanced and unbalanced forces; explore different forms of energy (kinetic; potential; thermal; light; sound) and how energy is transferred; explore simple machines as force and energy systems. Grades 6-8 (future development): Students will formalize the concept of Newton's three laws; develop quantitative understanding of force, mass, and acceleration; explore more complex energy systems including chemical and electrical energy; apply understanding to engineering design challenges. Unit Organization (Jacobs curriculum mapping): Topic 1 — Forces and Motion (Weeks 1-3): Factual content (what students will know): balanced and unbalanced forces; gravity; friction; net force. Skills: measure force with a spring scale; design controlled investigations; represent motion data in graphs. Conceptual understanding: balanced forces produce no change in motion; unbalanced forces cause acceleration in the direction of the net force. Topic 2 — Energy (Weeks 4-6): Factual content: kinetic and potential energy; thermal energy; energy transfer through collisions, conduction, convection, radiation. Skills: construct energy diagrams; identify and measure energy transformations; design systems to maximize or minimize energy transfer. Conceptual understanding: energy can change form but cannot be created or destroyed; energy transfer always occurs from higher to lower concentration. Topic 3 — Simple Machines and Engineering Application (Weeks 7-8): Factual content: lever; pulley; inclined plane; gear — types and mechanical advantage. Skills: calculate mechanical advantage; design and build a simple machine for a specific task; test and refine engineering designs. Conceptual understanding: machines change the direction or magnitude of forces, enabling work that would otherwise require greater force. Synergistic Thinking Culminating Task: Students design and build a marble run that demonstrates their understanding of forces, motion, and energy transformation — then write an analysis explaining every design decision using the enduring understandings as the framework. Full curriculum framework with: unit overview; lesson sequence; investigation protocols; student discussion and reflection guides; concept mapping templates for vertical connections; assessment aligned to conceptual understandings."

Scope, Sequence, and Curriculum Mapping Design

"Design a complete K-8 mathematics curriculum scope and sequence — 'Building Mathematical Thinkers: A Coherent K-8 Mathematics Curriculum' — using Wiggins and McTighe's backward design (starting from the mathematical understandings students need for high school mathematics and life) and Bruner's spiral curriculum structure (key mathematical ideas introduced at an accessible level in early grades and revisited in increasing depth and abstraction at every grade level through 8). Overarching Mathematical Understandings (what students should deeply understand by end of Grade 8 — the 'Stage 1 Desired Results' for the K-8 sequence as a whole): (a) Number is a system of relationships — the number system is extended to express increasingly sophisticated relationships (integers; fractions; decimals; irrational numbers), and understanding these relationships is the foundation of all quantitative reasoning. (b) Algebra is generalized arithmetic — the same operations and relationships that govern arithmetic generalize to variable quantities, enabling the expression and analysis of general patterns and relationships. (c) Geometry is the mathematics of space and shape — the properties of shapes and the relationships among them can be systematically studied and proven, and spatial reasoning is a fundamental form of mathematical thinking. (d) Data and probability are tools for understanding uncertainty — patterns in data and probabilistic reasoning enable inference, prediction, and decision-making in the face of incomplete information. (e) Mathematical modeling connects mathematics to the real world — real-world situations can be represented, analyzed, and illuminated through mathematical structures. Grade-by-grade progression (Spiral Curriculum for each strand): Counting and Cardinality / Number System: K — count to 100; subitize to 5; compare quantities using 'more'/'fewer'; understand that the last number counted tells how many. Grade 1 — extend counting to 120; understand place value for tens and ones; compare two-digit numbers. Grade 2 — place value to 1000; skip counting; represent and solve problems with addition and subtraction within 1000. Grade 3 — multiply and divide within 100; understand fractions as equal parts of a whole; place value for multi-digit numbers. Grade 4 — generalize place value to millions; multiply and divide multi-digit numbers; add and subtract fractions with like denominators. Grade 5 — fractions as division; multiply and divide fractions; introduction of decimals to thousandths. Grade 6 — rational numbers (positive and negative); ratios and proportional relationships; greatest common factor; least common multiple. Grade 7 — proportional relationships and percent; rational number operations; introduction to irrational numbers. Grade 8 — real number system; integer exponents; scientific notation; introduction to radical expressions. [Equivalent progressions for Operations and Algebraic Thinking; Geometry; Measurement and Data/Statistics and Probability.] Curriculum Mapping Analysis: Vertical alignment check (for each strand): Is each grade's content building on the previous grade's foundation? Are there gaps? Redundancies? Are the connections between grades made explicit in the curriculum materials? Horizontal alignment check (across strands within each grade): Are there missed opportunities for connections between strands? (e.g., using geometry measurement contexts to develop fraction computation in Grade 4; using statistical data collection as a context for fraction and ratio work in Grades 5-6). Full scope and sequence document with: grade-by-grade content standards alignment; key vocabulary progression; major conceptual milestones by grade band; curriculum map template for teacher teams; vertical alignment discussion guide for grade-band meetings."

Classroom Scenario: Claudette's Curriculum Design Work in Saint Kitts and Nevis

Claudette Williams-Nisbett is the head of curriculum design for a Federation of Saint Kitts and Nevis secondary school in Basseterre — the capital city of the Federation of Saint Kitts and Nevis, a dual-island nation that holds the distinction of being the smallest sovereign state in the Americas, both by area (just 261 square kilometers) and population (approximately 53,000 people). Saint Kitts and Nevis gained independence from Britain in 1983; the economy was historically dominated by sugar cultivation (sugar production ended in 2005) and is now primarily driven by tourism. Despite its tiny size, Saint Kitts and Nevis maintains a strong commitment to education, and its secondary schools prepare students for the Caribbean Secondary Education Certificate (CSEC) and Caribbean Advanced Proficiency Examination (CAPE), which are regionally standardized examinations that serve as the primary gateways to university entrance.

Saint Kitts and Nevis's Curriculum Context: The curriculum context in Saint Kitts and Nevis reflects the dual pressures facing most Caribbean education systems: alignment to regional Caribbean Examinations Council (CXC) standards and examinations on one hand, and the desire to develop more locally relevant, conceptually deep, and intellectually challenging curriculum on the other. The CSEC examination system — which is both the dominant organizer of curriculum and the primary accountability mechanism — tends to drive curriculum design toward "coverage" rather than understanding, as teachers and students focus on preparation for the final examination content rather than on developing the deeper conceptual understandings that the examination's better questions actually require.

Claudette's Approach: Claudette has introduced Understanding by Design principles into her school's curriculum planning, working with subject departments to begin every unit planning process with Stage 1 (what should students deeply understand?) rather than Stage 3 (what should we cover?). The shift has not been without resistance — teachers who have spent careers organizing instruction around textbook chapters and examination specifications find backward design unfamiliar and sometimes threatening — but Claudette has approached it as a gradual development rather than a wholesale replacement, helping teachers identify the enduring understandings that the best CSEC examination questions actually require.

EduGenius for Curriculum Design: Claudette uses EduGenius (edugenius.app) to generate UbD unit frameworks for specific CSEC subjects and topics; concept-based curriculum designs that identify the transferable conceptual understandings within the CXC syllabus; curriculum mapping frameworks that help her subject department heads identify gaps, redundancies, and missed connections in their current curriculum; and scope and sequence analysis tools that reveal vertical alignment issues across the school's three-year secondary program.

Internal Resources

• Best AI for Assessment and Grading Innovation
• Best AI for Project-Based Learning
• Best AI for Differentiated Instruction and UDL
• Best AI for School Leadership and Administration
• Best AI for Teacher Professional Development