throwaway202528

The last actual report, June 5th:

Nonfarm payrolls jumped a seasonally adjusted 172,000 for the period, down slightly from the upwardly revised 179,000 in April and far above the Dow Jones consensus estimate for 80,000.

The unemployment rate held steady at 4.3%, as expected.

Average hourly earnings rose 0.3% for the month and were up 3.4% over the past year..

More jobs, more jobs than expected, and higher wages.

https://www.cnbc.com/2026/06/05/jobs-report-may-2026.html

AI shouldn't really be needed for every lesson plan as:

* Lessons can have a generic core to base off, like learning objectives, content, methods, vocab, tools, experiments, etc.

* Routines are important for kids, so the same set of learning methods, activities are familiar and don't need to be taught themselves - there is no need (indeed it is detrimental) to have new activities each class.

* The teacher should know their class better than AI for customisation (for now, until every student gets monitored for everything); a lot of customisation from systematic marking, etc, can exist without AI and simply by being planned and using deterministic tools.

AI can spice things up, for sure. But using AI systematically for lesson planning suggests -

A. The teacher doesn't have access to what should be a solved problem: tens of thousands of teachers repeating the same lesson plan from scratch - even with AI - across the country is not efficient.

B. The teacher doens't have planning time or skills in order to implement a systematic course plan, formative assessment and on-going improvement system.

Using AI to rush or bootstrap A or B suggests their problem is systematic and that AI will not solve this. In programming lingo, AI use hides further accumulation of technical debt.