I'll cut. You choose.

Dividing up duties in the age of AI.

Bathers at Asnières, 1884, by Georges Seurat.

Divide and choose.

The concept your caregivers probably deployed to settle “my side of the room” disputes has also been deployed to split oceans, and has its own think tank. (1) This method works because the cutter must consider the chooser’s perspective, and the cutter only “wins” when she cuts as close to equal as possible. *

This method, especially when used between the same two parties over time, builds trust and reduces resentment. Each party has an equal chance for a good outcome, whether they are the cutter or the chooser.

Imagine though, if one sibling laid down the masking tape line and a third sibling with no vested interest in the room chose for the second.

The premise falls apart because there is only agreement when the choice belongs to the people affected by the outcome.

EdTech companies both “cut” (define the tasks) and “choose” (decide what gets automated or replaced and what stays with the teacher). Educator autonomy shrinks. Autonomy is one of the highest indicators of job satisfaction for teachers, so we can’t afford to ignore that threat. (2)

Traditionally, teacher duties (lesson planning, direct instruction, assessment, classroom management coaching, lunch duty, crossing guard…I could go on) are divided by administrators, federal, state and board policy, and teachers themselves-often with some negotiation or input from multiple stakeholders in each step.

Though not perfect, the analog system left room for building by building and even person to person adjustment. Scripted curriculums removed instructional autonomy, but still left room for feedback. If you’ve worked in a building, I’m sure you can think of many others.

However, what remains fairly constant are the activities that teachers say most contribute to that feeling of autonomy.

1. Adapting curriculum

2. Selecting teaching methods

3. Setting classroom norms

4. Self directed professional development paths

The Tech Shift: One uninvolved party cuts and chooses

I started keeping a data base of EdTech products and what they do in 2011. I didn’t know that’s what it was yet, but it’s now a gold mine of information. The leading benefits declared by EdTech tools have remained fairly constant.

1. More time for teachers

2. Personalized learning paths

3. Automated grading and feedback

4. Real-time student performance analysis

Anyone else sense trouble brewing?

“More time for teachers” might actually mean “More time for teachers to do the things they never really liked, but tolerated because they loved the rest of the job.”

EdTech chooses these jobs because they look sooo good on a Business Model Canvas.
Most instructional products are self contained by design, require “implementation plans” so everyone understands exactly how we’ll change what we do now to play nicely with what we just bought. (Not the other way around). In some future post we’ll explore this in detail but a quick review on your own will be very eye opening.

If, on the other hand they chose the tedium of paperwork, interoperability, lunch duty, ect. they must integrate into what’s already happening at the school and that is frustrating for the end user. That complicates adoption, stickiness, and scalability.

In other words - EdTech doesn’t want to do these jobs either.

Well, that’s not fair.

How is it that someone from outside your building, your community, sometimes even your state or country can waltz in and earn the right to split the room and pick your side?

Until the wide availability of LLMs, engineers owned “scale”.
(Read this to learn more, you won’t regret it)
The ability to scale - to expand beyond linear outputs and get more with out giving more- is something public education desperately needs.

That’s a power position. So, she who can afford the engineers splits the room.
But now, everyone has access to the fundamental tools needed to solve these problems in the district. It will be slow, but it’s happening.

What’s next?

EdTech partners can see the train coming. They’re more open to feedback than ever before. This is a call for improved product management practices and a constructive, equitable, “You cut, I’ll Choose” way forward.

* If this sort of thing makes your brain buzz, consider a pause to read about the related concept of “The veil of ignorance” which has massive implications for AI development.

---

Sources:

“Divide and Choose.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 22 Apr. 2025, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divide_and_choose. (1)

Ha, Cheyeon, et al. “Teacher Voices Matter: The Role of Teacher Autonomy in Enhancing Job Satisfaction and Mitigating Burnout.” PloS One, U.S. National Library of Medicine, 13 Jan. 2025, pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11729918/. (2)

Newprairiepress, newprairiepress.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&amp=&httpsredir=1&amp=&article=2681&amp=&context=aerc. Accessed 1 May 2025. (3)

Teacher Autonomy: Good for Pupils? Good for Teachers? - Jerrim - 2023 - British Educational Research Journal - Wiley Online Library, bera-journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/berj.3892. Accessed 1 May 2025. (4)