AI Projects for Administrators

Act as a communications advisor to a school principal. I need one message drafted at three levels of directness.

Situation: [describe what happened plainly, using initials only for any student or staff member].
Audience: [Ex. one family, a grade level, all staff].
What this message has to accomplish: [Ex. a meeting, a signature, awareness, a change at home].
What I do not want: [Ex. the family feeling accused, staff assuming someone is in trouble].
What I know about this audience: [Ex. previous contact went badly, English is not their first language].

Write three versions of the same message: warm, neutral, and firm. Each under 200 words.

Rules for all three:
- State facts only. No adjectives about a person.
- One clear ask, in the first three sentences.
- No jargon, no "per our conversation," no passive voice hiding who decided what.
- Assume the reader does not have the full picture and is not the problem.

At the end, tell me which version you would send, why, and the one sentence in it most likely to be forwarded to someone else.

Translate this school communication for families.

Text: [paste the newsletter, permission slip, closure notice, or letter].
Target languages: [Ex. Spanish, Haitian Creole, Arabic, Portuguese].
Audience: [Ex. K-5 families, high school families].

Before translating, do this:
1. Rewrite the English at a 6th-grade reading level and flag any sentence that is ambiguous, since an ambiguous sentence translates badly into every language.
2. Then translate that cleaned-up version into each language.
3. List every term you were unsure how to render (school words like advisory, half day, early dismissal, specials) and how you handled it.
4. Note anything that will not carry over: date formats, phone formats, or an idiom with no equivalent.

Keep the formatting simple enough to paste into an email or a flyer.

A fluent staff member or parent will read every version before it goes out, so tell me plainly which three passages they should check first and why those are the risky ones.

I have one decision to communicate and five channels to communicate it in.

The decision: [state it in one or two sentences].
Effective date: [date]. Who is affected: [Ex. all staff, 6th grade families, bus riders].
The reason behind it, in plain terms: [why].
What I am not going to say publicly: [anything off limits].

Write all five from the same facts:
1. Staff email. Under 150 words, leading with what changes for them.
2. Family text message. Under 320 characters, one link.
3. Website post. Under 200 words, written for someone arriving with no context.
4. Voicemail or robocall script. Under 45 seconds read aloud, at a 6th-grade reading level.
5. One slide for the faculty meeting. A headline and three bullets, no paragraphs.

Rules: identical facts and identical date in all five. No version may imply something the others do not. Flag any place where shortening the message changed its meaning.

Then give me the one question I will be asked in response to all five, and the answer.

Act as a school crisis-communications advisor. I want first-hour holding statements written now, while nothing is happening.

My school: [level, size, and community in one line].
Scenarios to cover: [Ex. lockdown, student death, staff arrest, bus accident, data breach, extended closure].

For each scenario give me:
1. A holding statement for families, under 120 words, for the first hour when I know almost nothing.
2. A separate two-sentence version for staff, sent before the family message goes out.
3. The three facts I must confirm before sending anything, and who confirms each one.
4. The sentences I must not write, and why (Ex. speculation about cause, anything about a student's condition, anything that names a person).

Rules: no promises about what happened, nothing that belongs to a family or to police, and a clear statement of what comes next and when.

Mark every place I need to add a real name, time, or phone number as [FILL] so a draft cannot be sent by accident. Then tell me which scenario I am least prepared for, based on what I gave you.

Rewrite this policy so a family can read it once and know what to do.

Policy: [paste the handbook section, dress code, attendance policy, phone policy, or discipline procedure].
Audience: [Ex. K-8 families, many of whom read English as a second language].

Do all of this:
1. Rewrite it at a 6th-grade reading level. Short sentences, everyday words, active voice, second person where it fits.
2. Keep every requirement, deadline, number, and consequence exactly as written. Simplify the language, never the rule.
3. Put the part families care about first: what they have to do, by when, and what happens if they do not.
4. List every place the original is genuinely unclear or contradicts itself, since those are policy problems rather than writing problems.
5. Tell me which sentences carry legal or contractual weight and should be reviewed by someone before I change a word of them.

Then give me a three-line summary a family could read on a phone screen.

Do not add any rule that was not in the original, and do not soften a consequence to make it sound friendlier.

I have a difficult meeting and I want to walk in prepared rather than surprised.

Who I am meeting: [Ex. a parent, a teacher, a group of families]. Use initials only for anyone involved.
The situation from my side: [describe it].
The situation as they would describe it: [your honest read].
What I can offer, and what I cannot: [both].
History: [Ex. third meeting on this, first contact ever, last meeting ended badly].

Give me:
1. The five concerns they are most likely to raise, in the order they will probably raise them.
2. The three questions I am least prepared for, with one honest line for each, including where the honest answer is that I do not know yet.
3. The moment in this meeting most likely to go badly, and the sentence that resets it.
4. What they probably want that I have not considered.
5. One opening sentence that is not defensive.

Do not tell me I am right. I have already read my own side. Assume nothing about the people involved beyond what I gave you, and mark anywhere your advice rests on a guess about them.

Turn my inbox into one FAQ page.

Here are the questions I keep getting: [paste them with all names, addresses, and identifying details removed].
Audience: [Ex. current families, staff, families enrolling].
My rough answers to the common ones: [paste whatever you have, or write "none yet"].

Do this:
1. Group the questions into themes and tell me how many fell into each. That tells me what to fix, not just what to answer.
2. Write the ten highest-volume questions as one clear question each, phrased the way a family would actually ask it.
3. Draft an answer to each, under 60 words, at a 6th-grade reading level. Where an answer needs a link or a person, mark it [LINK] or [CONTACT] instead of inventing one.
4. Flag any question where the real answer is that a process is broken, since those belong on my task list rather than on an FAQ.

Keep the whole thing to one page, ordered by how often the question is asked rather than by category.

Rewrite this job posting so a strong candidate reads past the first paragraph.

Current posting: [paste it].
Role: [title]. School: [level, size, community in one line].
What is genuinely good about working here: [be honest, Ex. real planning time, a principal who covers classes, a strong team in that department].
What is hard about it: [Ex. large caseload, split building, aging facility].
Non-negotiable requirements: [certification, endorsements, anything legally required].

Rewrite it to:
1. Open with what the role actually offers, in two sentences a person would read aloud to a partner.
2. Describe the work as it will feel on an ordinary Tuesday, not as a list of duties.
3. Keep every legal and posting-compliance line word for word, moved to the end where it belongs.
4. Cut the boilerplate, and show me what you cut.
5. Name one hard thing about the job honestly, since a candidate who finds out later leaves in year two.

Then list the three phrases in my original that would make a good candidate close the tab.

Build me a structured interview protocol so every candidate gets the same interview.

Role: [title, and grade level or department].
The competencies that actually predict success in this role here: [list three or four].
Interview length: [number] minutes. Panel: [who is in the room].

Give me:
1. Eight questions, each tied to one named competency, with the competency labeled.
2. Two follow-up probes per question, for the candidate who answers in generalities.
3. A four-point scoring guide per question describing what a weak, adequate, strong, and exceptional answer sounds like, in concrete terms rather than adjectives.
4. A timed running order that fits my window, including time for the candidate's own questions.
5. The two questions panels ask by accident that they legally should not, in this kind of interview, and the lawful way to get at the same information.

Rules: no brainteasers, nothing answerable straight from the resume, and no question where the best answer is the one that flatters the interviewer.

Keep it to two pages so a panel can actually use it, and tell me to have HR review the legal note in step 5 before we run it.

Write scenario-based interview questions for this role: [Ex. 4th grade teacher, high school math teacher, counselor, assistant principal].

Context that makes them realistic here: [Ex. our families email late at night, we just changed the grading policy, this team has three first-year teachers].

Give me ten scenarios. Each one:
- Two or three sentences, present tense, describing something this person will actually face here.
- No clean right answer, so the candidate's judgment is what shows.
- Comes with the three things I should listen for in a strong answer and the two answers that should worry me.

Include at least one scenario each on: an angry family, a colleague not carrying their share, a student in distress, a directive from me the candidate disagrees with, and a mistake the candidate made themselves.

Then tell me which two are the most revealing if I only have time for two, and give me the one follow-up question that turns a rehearsed answer into a real one.

Build a 30-60-90 day onboarding plan for a new [role].

My calendar for their first three months: [paste the key dates: first student day, back-to-school night, first grading deadline, conferences, breaks, observation windows, PD days].
Who they will work with: [Ex. mentor teacher, team lead, department chair].
What went wrong for our last new hire: [be specific if you know].

Give me a week-by-week plan across all three months. For each week:
- The one thing they must accomplish.
- What I or their mentor owe them that week, named as a person and a task.
- The building knowledge nobody thinks to explain, and which week to explain it (Ex. how to get copies made, who to call about a flooded bathroom, what a family means when they bring up something that happened before I got here).

Front-load anything tied to a deadline into the first 30 days. Mark the two hardest weeks and what support goes in ahead of them.

End with the five questions to ask them at day 30, day 60, and day 90, and tell me which answer would mean I am about to lose them.

Help me build a coverage plan for chronic substitute shortages.

My situation: [Ex. building size, average daily absences, sub fill rate, how many periods go uncovered in a normal week].
What I do now: [describe it, including who ends up covering].
My hard constraints: [paste the relevant contract language on coverage and duty-free time, plus my budget reality].
What I have already tried, and what happened: [list it].

Give me:
1. Eight coverage approaches, including ones I did not list, ranging from scheduling changes to staffing to how absences get reported.
2. For each: what it costs, who absorbs the work, and how long it takes to set up.
3. A pressure test of each against my contract language and budget. Say plainly which ones my contract appears to prohibit and which would need association agreement.
4. The two most likely to work in my building, and the first step on each.
5. What each option costs in staff goodwill, since that is the resource I cannot buy back.

Flag anything that turns on contract language you are not certain about, and name who should read it before I act.

Act as a curriculum director reviewing vertical alignment.

Here are the scope-and-sequence documents for consecutive grades: [paste them, each labeled by grade].
Subject: [subject]. Standards: [state or framework].

Do this:
1. Build a table of standards by grade, showing where each is introduced, developed, and assessed.
2. List every standard taught in more than one grade at the same depth, which is repetition rather than spiraling.
3. List every standard in the framework that appears in none of these documents.
4. Name the grade transitions where one year assumes a skill the year before never taught, since those are where students look like they regressed.
5. Tell me which gaps actually matter for students and which are paperwork problems.

Then write the agenda for a 60-minute vertical team meeting where teachers see this and decide what to change, phrased so it does not read as a list of their failures.

Where a document is too vague to judge, say so instead of guessing what a teacher meant by it.

Here are my classroom walkthrough notes: [paste them with all teacher names and identifying details removed, keeping only grade level or subject].

Number of classrooms: [number]. Time span: [Ex. six weeks]. What I was looking for: [your focus, or "general" if there was not one].

Do this:
1. Name the three patterns that appear most often, with a count and two or three quoted examples of each.
2. Separate the patterns that are a skill problem from the ones that are a systems problem, since PD cannot fix a systems problem.
3. Tell me which pattern would improve student experience most if it moved, and why that one.
4. Turn the top three into PD priorities, each with one line on what teachers would be able to do afterward.
5. Name what my notes are not capturing, based on what I chose to record, since my own blind spot shapes this list.

Then flag anything that reads as an observation of one individual rather than a pattern, so it stays out of a building-wide plan and out of this document.

Turn my observation evidence into feedback a teacher can act on. I am pasting my own notes only, with the teacher's initials, not an evaluation document.

My raw notes: [paste them].
Lesson context: [grade, subject, where this sits in the unit].
Framework or rubric: [Ex. Danielson, Marzano, or paste ours].
My vague impression, in the words I would use out loud: [Ex. good energy, kids were engaged, felt a little flat].

Do this:
1. Translate my vague impression into the specific, observable things the teacher did that produced it, citing my own evidence for each.
2. Write two strengths as named teaching moves the teacher could repeat on purpose tomorrow.
3. Write the single highest-leverage next step, with a concrete example of what it would look like in this lesson.
4. Write the two questions for the post-conference that get the teacher to name the moment themselves.
5. Flag anything in my notes that is a judgment rather than evidence, since that does not belong in written feedback.

Under 300 words in the teacher-facing part. Address the teaching, never the person, and do not score anything. This is coaching, not evaluation language.

Here are the open-ended responses from my staff survey: [paste them with names and identifying details removed].

Staff size: [number]. What I asked them: [paste the survey question].
Time I actually have: [number] minutes, on [Ex. an early release Wednesday, an August PD day].

Do this:
1. Group the responses into themes, with a count for each and two representative quotes, kept anonymous.
2. Separate what teachers asked for from what the responses suggest they need, and say plainly where those two differ.
3. Name the one theme to build this session around, and why that one first.
4. Write a 90-minute session outline built on a real activity: something teachers do, produce, or try, not a slideshow. Include timings, materials, and what they walk out holding.
5. Write the opening two minutes, where I show staff their own words and say what I am doing about them.

Then list the themes I am not addressing this time, with the one sentence I should say about each, since ignoring them silently is how a survey stops getting answered.

Build a facilitator guide for a teacher presenting PD for the first time.

Topic: [what they are presenting].
Audience: [number] staff, [Ex. all grade levels, one department], and their likely starting attitude [Ex. skeptical, tired, genuinely interested].
Time: [number] minutes. Room: [Ex. tables of six, auditorium rows].

Write it so a nervous first-time presenter can follow it:
1. A timed agenda to the minute, with the transitions written out.
2. The exact opening lines, including how they introduce themselves and why they are the one presenting this.
3. Three discussion prompts, each with the two responses most likely to come up and how to build on them.
4. What to do when nobody talks: the specific move, word for word, plus a fallback that needs no volunteers.
5. What to do when one person takes over, and what to do when someone pushes back on the whole premise.
6. The one thing to cut if they are running behind.

Keep it to two pages. Write it as instructions to them, warmly, assuming they know their content and are only unsure about the room.

Argue against my plan. Act as a skeptical veteran teacher with 22 years in this building who has watched initiatives arrive and leave.

The plan: [describe it, including what teachers would be asked to do and by when].
Why I think it is needed: [your reasoning].
What we tried before in this area: [anything you know].

Respond in that teacher's voice, and do not be polite about it:
1. The five strongest objections, starting with the one that would land hardest in a staff meeting.
2. The question that exposes the part of this I have not thought through.
3. What this asks teachers to give up, named specifically, including time.
4. What would have to be true for this to work, and whether it is true here.
5. The version of this plan that teacher would actually support.

Then drop the character and tell me straight: which objections are fair and should change the plan, which are resistance to change and should not, and the one thing to fix before I present this.

Be blunt. A comfortable answer here costs me a year.

Build a curriculum-adoption rubric so my committee compares the same things.

Subject and grade band: [Ex. 6-8 math].
What matters most to us, in rough priority order: [Ex. alignment to our standards, usability for a first-year teacher, embedded supports for multilingual learners, assessment quality, five-year cost, professional learning included].
Committee: [number] people, [who they are]. Materials under review: [number].
Standards: [state or framework].

Give me:
1. Eight to ten weighted criteria, weights adding to 100, with one line justifying each weight.
2. A four-point scale per criterion describing what each score looks like in a real textbook or platform, in terms a reviewer can point at.
3. The evidence a reviewer collects for each criterion, so scores rest on something.
4. A one-page scoring sheet.
5. The three criteria reviewers most often disagree on, and a norming activity to run before scoring starts.

Then name what a rubric like this systematically misses, so we look at that separately instead of pretending the total score is the whole answer.

Explain my assessment results the way a parent would hear them.

Data: [paste aggregate, anonymized results only. No student names, and no subgroup small enough to identify an individual].
Assessment: [what it is and what it claims to measure]. Grades: [grades]. Comparison: [Ex. last year, district average, state].

Do this:
1. Write what this data actually says, in plain English, under 200 words, with no percentile talk that is not immediately translated.
2. Write what it does not say, since that is where most misreadings start.
3. Name the two or three results a parent would care about most, and the honest sentence for each.
4. Flag anything that looks like a trend but sits inside normal year-to-year noise, and say so directly.
5. List the three questions this data raises that it cannot answer.

Then give me the same explanation at two lengths: one paragraph for a newsletter, and three sentences for someone stopping me in the hallway.

Do not tell a story the numbers do not support. Where a result is ambiguous, call it ambiguous. I will check every figure against the source before this goes anywhere.

Help me write the narrative for a board presentation.

The numbers: [paste them, aggregate and anonymized].
The point I am making: [state it in one sentence].
The board's likely concern going in: [Ex. cost, test scores, a recent incident, staffing].
Time: [number] minutes. Slides: [number].

Give me:
1. Eight sentences that connect the numbers to the point, in the order I should say them. Each one must be defensible from the data I gave you.
2. The sentence to lead with, and the one to close on.
3. A slide-by-slide outline: the headline on each and which figure belongs on it.
4. The three questions a board member will ask, with a straight answer for each, including where the answer is that we do not know yet.
5. Every place in the narrative where I am reaching past the data, flagged plainly.

Rules: no figure appears that I did not give you. Mark any number you round or restate. If you cannot support a sentence from my data, say so rather than writing it.

I will verify every figure myself before this is presented.

Act as a scheduling consultant. I am not asking you to build my master schedule. I am asking you to show me the tradeoffs.

My constraints: [paste them: sections by course, teacher FTE and certifications, singletons, period structure, lunch waves, shared staff, bus times, required minutes, contract limits on consecutive teaching periods, room and lab constraints].
What is genuinely non-negotiable: [list it].
What broke in last year's schedule: [describe it].

Do this:
1. Identify the constraints that conflict with each other, and name which pairs cannot both be fully satisfied.
2. Tell me which of my non-negotiables does the most damage to everything else, and what relaxing it by one period would buy me.
3. Describe three scheduling approaches, with what each protects, what it sacrifices, and who feels the sacrifice.
4. Name the courses and teachers most likely to end up with a bad schedule under each approach.
5. List the questions I should answer before anyone touches the grid.

Do not output a period-by-period schedule. You cannot verify it and I would have to check every cell. Give me the tradeoffs and the order to decide in.

Act as a skeptical school finance committee member reviewing my proposal.

The proposal: [what I am asking for, the amount, and the funding source].
Why I say we need it: [my reasoning and any data I have].
Budget context: [Ex. flat enrollment, expiring grant funds, a levy last year, a hiring freeze].
Who is on the committee: [Ex. board members, CFO, community members].

Give me:
1. The twelve questions this group will ask, ordered by how likely and how hard.
2. For each, a straight answer in three sentences or less, and a note where the honest answer is that I do not have that number yet.
3. The question that exposes the weakest part of this proposal, and what to do about it before the meeting rather than during it.
4. What they will ask me to cut first, and what I should say.
5. The recurring cost buried in this request that nobody asks about in year one but everybody asks about in year three.

Then give me the strongest one-sentence version of this ask, and the one sentence that would sink it.

Turn this document into a two-page brief for people who will not read the original.

Document: [paste the compliance report, audit, state report, or program evaluation].
Who reads the brief: [Ex. cabinet, board, department chairs].
What they need it for: [Ex. making a decision, being informed, preparing a response].

Structure it as:
1. Findings that require action, each with what it requires, the deadline, and who should own it. These come first.
2. Findings that require monitoring but no action now.
3. Every date and deadline in the document, as one list, earliest first.
4. What the document says that is likely to be quoted back at us, with page or section references.
5. Anything the document is ambiguous about, since an ambiguity in a compliance document is a decision we have to make ourselves.

Rules: cite the page or section for every item so anyone can check it. Do not paraphrase a legal or regulatory requirement, quote it. Where a required action does not say who is responsible, say so instead of assigning it.

Two pages maximum, plain sentences, no summary of the summary.

Build a debrief protocol we run after every emergency drill.

Drill types: [Ex. fire, lockdown, secure, evacuate, shelter, reunification].
Building: [level, size, and layout notes like multiple floors, portables, or a shared campus].
What went wrong in past drills: [list what you remember].

Give me:
1. A single-page debrief form, ten questions maximum, that a principal or safety lead can finish within 20 minutes of the drill ending.
2. Questions that surface what drills actually fail on: staff who did not know their role, a door that did not lock, a student unaccounted for, a room nobody checked, a message that did not reach someone.
3. Three questions for staff and two for students, worded for [grade band].
4. A short section tracking whether the problem from the last drill was fixed, so the same finding cannot appear three years running.
5. What happens to the form: who receives it, what triggers a follow-up, and how it shapes the next drill.

Keep every question specific and answerable. Anything that invites "it went fine" is a question worth rewriting, so rewrite it.

Give me twenty ways to make good teaching visible in my building that are not a pizza party.

Staff: [number] people, [Ex. K-5, split across two buildings].
Budget: [amount, or "essentially nothing"].
What we do now: [describe it].
What staff have said about recognition: [anything you have heard, including the cynical version].

For each of the twenty:
- What it is, in two sentences.
- What it costs in money and in my time.
- Who it recognizes, and who it quietly leaves out.
- Why it might land badly, since recognition done wrong reads as favoritism.

Include ideas in all of these categories: things that cost nothing, things that give time back, things that reach a teacher's family or the community, things that name specific work rather than general effort, and things that come from colleagues rather than from me.

Rules: nothing that creates a competition, and nothing that requires a teacher to stand up in front of the staff unless they chose to.

Then write the short ballot I hand staff so they pick the five they actually want.

Help me write a staff survey that produces answers I can act on.

What I actually want to learn: [state it plainly, Ex. why people are leaving, whether the new schedule is working, whether staff feel safe raising a concern].
Staff size: [number]. How anonymous this can genuinely be: [be honest, since a subgroup of three is not anonymous].
What I am prepared to change based on the results: [list it].

Give me:
1. Ten questions maximum, each written so the answer tells me what to do differently. Mostly specific and behavioral, not satisfaction ratings.
2. For each, one line on what a concerning answer would look like, so I know what I am watching for.
3. The two or three open-ended questions worth including, phrased so people answer them instead of skipping them.
4. The demographic questions to leave out, because in a staff this size they would make responses identifiable.
5. The questions I should not ask, because I am not prepared to act on the answer.

Then write the invitation email, under 100 words, saying what I will do with the results and by when. And tell me what I owe staff after it closes, since an unanswered survey poisons the next one.

Help me prepare for a hard conversation with a staff member. Initials only, and I am not pasting an evaluation, a discipline record, or any personnel document into this.

The issue in behavioral terms: [what is happening, what I have observed, and when].
What I have already said, and when: [previous conversations].
What needs to change, specifically: [the outcome].
What is relevant about their circumstances: [only what matters, in general terms].

Give me:
1. The opening two sentences, written out. Direct, not cushioned, not cruel.
2. The three most likely responses (denial, an explanation, distress) and my next sentence for each.
3. The one question I should ask and am probably going to skip.
4. What I want them to leave knowing, in one sentence, and what I want them to leave feeling.
5. Where this crosses from coaching into evaluation or personnel territory, so I know when to stop and involve HR.

One page. Do not script the whole conversation, I need the first minute and the branches. You do not know this person and I do, so mark anywhere your advice rests on an assumption about them.

Build me a timed agenda that ends on time.

Topics: [list everything on the list, with who raised each one].
Hard stop: [start and end time]. Attendees: [number and who].
What must be decided today: [list it]. What is information only: [list it].

Give me:
1. A timed agenda with a start and end minute per item, adding up to less than my window, since meetings run long.
2. For each item, the decision it needs, phrased as a question with a yes or no or a choice between named options. Anything with no decision gets labeled information.
3. Every item that should have been an email instead, moved to a section at the bottom called Sent Instead.
4. The one item most likely to eat twenty minutes, and the sentence that closes it.
5. A three-line pre-read to send the day before, so nobody arrives needing context.

Rules: no item over 15 minutes without being broken into parts. Put the hardest decision second, not last. Leave the final five minutes for who is doing what by when.

One page, ready to send.

Build me a Friday reset checklist I will actually run in fifteen minutes.

My priorities this year: [list three or four].
My recurring commitments: [Ex. classroom visits, family calls, team meetings, PD facilitation].
What I want to stop letting slide: [be honest].
How my week usually goes: [Ex. mornings in the halls, afternoons in meetings, duty at dismissal].

Write it as a checklist, under twelve items, grouped into people, classrooms, promises, and next week.

It has to make me answer:
- Which staff member have I not had a real conversation with this week, and who is now overdue.
- Which classrooms have I not entered, and which one am I avoiding.
- What did I promise someone on Monday that I have not done.
- What happens next week that will go badly if I do not prepare for it today.
- What did my week actually go to, and was it the priorities above.

Rules: every item answerable in under a minute, and each one ends in either a note to myself or something on next week's calendar. Nothing that requires pulling a report. Initials only in the version I fill in.

Then give me a blank template I can copy every Friday.