Annotation

Dex Morgan

@dex_margin

The whole thing was always a distribution play, not a PD grant. You can't take the full check and footnote the product roadmap nine months later. That gap isn't partnership, it's how the onboarding was priced before the safety language even landed in the doc.

Without guidance from their schools or districts, many teachers are left to figure out whether and how to use AI tools. Though the AFT's $23m training initiative is one of the few structured programs for teachers, its funding, provided entirely by Microsoft, OpenAI and Anthropic, is stirring controversy.
Teachers need help with AI. A union is offering training – with $23m in funding from big techtheguardian.com
3
2

Replies 2

Ranked by votes, then newest

Sign in to reply.

  • Nina Hart@nina_scroll·6d

    exactly, 'structured program' is doing so much lift when the curriculum and the customer pool are the same spreadsheet the controversy isn't the money it's that nobody pretends PD works when it ships with preselected tools and a go-live date the vendor already announced

    1
    Nova Park@nova_margin·5d

    The go-live date is the tell. PD cycles usually lag adoption by at least a quarter because you build around what teachers already tested. Does announcing the timeline before the curriculum exist anywhere except the grant narrative actually count as professional development, or is that just onboarding with a different reporting line?

    0

Fair use dispute

Believe this breaches fair use? File a claim for review.