Freyja Labs

Professional Development for Cincinnati Public Schools

Customized. Hands-on. Built for your teachers and your students.

Cincinnati, OH · 34,860 students

Map data © OpenStreetMap contributors

What we've been reading

From outside, what we notice

Cincinnati Public Schools is the rare district that has already moved on AI policy — adopted September 2024, a full year ahead of most peers — and is now operating with the funding stability the Issue 28 levy provides over the coming decade. Superintendent Murphy's "Here for Kids" motto and the Three Es (employed, enlisted, enrolled) frame the work, with CTE pathways at every high school and STEM magnets running. Having the policy is the easy part; turning it into classroom practice is the harder one. Freyja Labs comes in to build that practice with your teachers — custom-designed for Cincinnati students, anchored in the Three Es you've already organized around.

If any of this resonates, you might also like

Next ↓ 02 · Sample lessons

Sample lessons — artifacts, not deliverables

We don't deliver lesson plans.

We deliver change for your teachers. The lessons below are the receipts.

These two examples were built for Cincinnati Public Schools — but what we'll actually do together depends on what you tell us about where you are and where you want to go. We custom-build with your teachers around what your students, your community, and your district leadership are actually navigating: AI integration, CS/STEM integration, OH policy, the local context only your educators can read. The artifacts you'll see below are one shape that capability can take.

Tech lesson / with devices
AI workforce-data lab · No micro:bit

Career Data Lab: AI and Workforce Trends

9–12 · CTE / Math · 90 minutes

Kit: micro:bit + sample lesson plan — "Career Data Lab: Using AI to Explore Workforce Trends" (grades 9-12, CTE/math). Students collect and analyze local workforce data using AI tools, then verify findings against Bureau of Labor Statistics data for the Cincinnati metro. Embedded AI literacy: verification protocol applied to AI-generated career projections. Tailored to Cincinnati's Three Es (employed, enlisted, enrolled) and CTE pathway identity.

What's new — what wouldn't have happened before this PD

Without the PD, AI workforce projections land as career advice. After: students verify them against Bureau of Labor Statistics data for the Cincinnati metro and learn to treat AI career guidance as a draft, not a destination.

Show full lesson plan objectives · procedure · materials · assessment · teacher pack ▾

Content Objectives

  • Pull and interpret current Cincinnati-area workforce data from authoritative sources
  • Compare two information sources (AI and BLS) on the same career questions
  • Construct evidence-based positions on the use of AI for career guidance

AI Literacy Objectives

  • Identify divergences between AI-generated career projections and BLS data
  • Apply structured verification practice to AI workforce claims
  • Articulate criteria for when to trust, verify, or override AI career recommendations

What Students Do

Phase 1 · 25 min Pull

Teams of 3+ select 3–5 careers spanning the Three Es (employed, enlisted, enrolled). Query an AI tool for current and projected workforce trends. Record AI claims with timestamps and exact prompts.

Facilitation focus

Don't standardize sensor placement across teams. Different microclimates make Phase 2 richer. Move between teams every 5 minutes; check that students are recording observations *and* numerical readings. The qualitative notes are the wedge they'll use to challenge AI in Phase 3.

Watch for

Teams logging only numbers. Push them to write at least one observation per reading ("breeze picked up", "cloud passed over"). If the campus has visibly varied environments — shade vs. sun, paved vs. planted — push teams to spread out.

Phase 2 · 30 min Verify

Teams cross-reference each AI claim against BLS data for the Cincinnati MSA. Document where AI matches BLS, where it diverges, and where AI introduces context not in the underlying data.

Facilitation focus

Frame the AI tool as a teammate, not an authority. When the AI prediction is wrong, students often default to "we'll fix our data." Interrupt that — the goal is to surface where AI and ground-truth diverge, not to reconcile.

Watch for

Teams that find zero divergence. Either they're smoothing data unconsciously, or the AI is generic enough to match anything. Have them pick a single 5-minute window and compare in extreme detail.

Phase 3 · 35 min Argue

Apply structured verification practice to AI workforce projections. Each team makes a case for or against using AI for student career guidance. Class builds a shared protocol for when AI workforce advice is worth trusting.

Facilitation focus

The class trust guidelines are the deliverable. Push for specificity: not "AI is bad at humidity" but "AI underestimates humidity in conditions like ours when [specific local condition]." Local knowledge + data = the trust criteria.

Watch for

Generic statements ("AI is sometimes wrong"). Reject these gently — every guideline must reference a specific divergence the team observed.

A four-step verification protocol your teachers will build with us

A practice students learn once and apply to any AI output, in any subject, for the rest of their lives.

1. Check the source

Where did the AI get its data? Is it the same data we used or generated?

2. Check the reasoning

How did the AI reach its conclusion? Can we follow the logic?

3. Check against reality

Does the output match what we observed with our own senses, instruments, or knowledge?

4. Check yourself

What might we have missed? What would we want a second opinion on?

More on the thinking behind this — the framework we built it from.

Materials

  • Student devices with internet access
  • Bureau of Labor Statistics data set for the Cincinnati MSA (printed and digital, at landing page)
  • AI tool access for workforce-projection queries
  • Three Es career-pathway prompt cards (employed, enlisted, enrolled)
  • Spreadsheet, chart paper, markers

Assessment

Each team produces a one-page artifact: their findings, the AI output they evaluated, and a written verdict on when this kind of AI work is worth trusting.

Each team's verdict cites at least three specific AI/BLS divergences and pairs each with a recommendation about how to use (or not use) AI in counseling practice.

Teacher pack — everything you need to teach this

For the Facilitator

Prior Knowledge Required
  • Read and create simple data tables and bar/line graphs
  • Distinguish between an observation (what we measured) and an inference (what we conclude)
  • Familiarity with one-step variable assignment in block-based or text-based code
Exit Ticket

"Describe one moment today when your direct measurement told you something the AI missed. What did you measure, and what should the AI have done differently?"

Look for
  • Specific reference to a measurement (number + unit + location)
  • Specific reference to what the AI output said
  • A concrete claim about what the AI should have changed (input, comparison, caveat)
Anticipated Misconceptions

"If the AI says it, it must be right — it has access to all the data."

→ Show the AI a deliberately wrong dataset and have students predict the (wrong) output. Reinforce: AI confidence ≠ AI correctness. The AI processes whatever input it receives, including noise and bias.

"Our sensor data is wrong because it doesn't match the AI."

→ Have students re-measure with a second device or different location. Direct measurement is the ground truth — divergence with AI is a signal worth investigating, not an error to "fix."

"The AI is broken if it gives a different answer to the same question twice."

→ This is a feature, not a bug. Use it to discuss probabilistic vs. deterministic systems. Two valid outputs can describe the same data — students should learn to ask "what stayed the same?"

Differentiation
Differentiation 1 / 4
Below grade

Pre-load the data table with column headers and one example row. Pair with a peer for the AI comparison phase. Provide a sentence frame for the evaluate phase: "We trust the AI when ___ because ___. We don't trust it when ___ because ___."

At grade

Standard procedure as written.

Above grade

Add a fourth phase: students design a follow-up experiment that would resolve a specific AI-vs-observation disagreement they found. They write the protocol; they don't need to execute it in class.

Multilingual learners

Provide vocabulary cards in advance: sensor, prediction, observation, evidence, divergence. Allow team discussion in students' home language; final class artifacts can be authored bilingually. The verification protocol works in any language — emphasize that direct measurement and lived knowledge are the most authoritative inputs.

Slide Cues — 6 slides
Slide cues 1 / 6
Slide 1 What we are doing today
  • Collect real data on our campus
  • Compare it with what an AI predicts
  • Decide together when AI is worth trusting
Slide 2 The verification protocol
  • Source · Reasoning · Reality · Yourself
  • You don't need to know how the AI works to check its work
  • A protocol, not a checklist — adapt to the situation
Slide 3 Phase 1 — Collect
  • Teams of 3 deploy sensors at chosen spots
  • Record at intervals; vary your locations
  • Log a written observation with each reading
Slide 4 Phase 2 — Compare
  • Input your data into the AI tool
  • Find at least 3 places it agrees, 3 places it diverges
  • Don't correct your data to match the AI
Slide 5 Phase 3 — Evaluate
  • Apply structured verification practice to your divergences
  • Present one trust guideline based on what you found
  • Class builds the shared trust framework together
Slide 6 Exit ticket
  • One moment when your measurement beat the AI
  • Be specific — number, location, what AI missed
Standards Alignment — 9 frameworks
Standards 1 / 9
NGSS MS-ESS3-3

Apply scientific principles to design monitoring method for human impact

NGSS MS-ETS1-3

Analyze data from tests to determine best design solutions

CCSS Math 6.SP

Statistics & Probability — Grade 6

CCSS Math MP.4

Model with mathematics — Math Practice

CSTA 2-DA-08

Collect data using computational tools; transform for reliability

CSTA 2-DA-09

Refine computational models based on generated data

CSTA 2-IC-21

Discuss bias and accessibility in technology design

ISTE ISTE-3b

Evaluate accuracy, credibility, relevance of information

ISTE ISTE-5b

Collect data and identify data sets; use tools to analyze data

Family / Guardian Letter — copy & paste, edit to fit

Dear families, This week your student is learning a skill that will matter for the rest of their lives: how to decide when to trust an AI system. In this lesson, students used real sensors to measure conditions around our school and compared what they measured with what an AI predicted. The point is not that AI is bad — the point is that AI works best when paired with someone who knows the real situation. Your student is learning to be that someone. We call the protocol the verification protocol. It has four steps: check the source the AI used, check the reasoning, check the result against reality, and check yourself for what you might have missed. You can use this with your student at home — every time an AI assistant gives you an answer, ask: "How would we check this?" Questions? hello@freyjalabs.com — Freyja Labs (working with Cincinnati Public Schools)

↑ Top of Tech lesson ↑ Top of Lessons Next: Unplugged Lesson →
Unplugged lesson / no screens
No screens · Three Es interview design

The Three Es Interview: What AI Cannot Ask

9–12 · CTE / ELA · 60 minutes

The Three Es Interview: What AI Cannot Ask — Teams design interview questions for community members about career pathways (employed, enlisted, enrolled). They compare what a human interviewer learns with what an AI job-matching algorithm would recommend from a resume. Students discover what gets lost when career guidance becomes automated. Tailored to Cincinnati's CTE identity.

What's new — what wouldn't have happened before this PD

Without the PD, an AI job-matching recommendation reads as a fit. After: students design human interview questions in parallel — and discover what the Three Es (employed, enlisted, enrolled) require that no resume scanner can ask.

Show full lesson plan objectives · procedure · materials · assessment · teacher pack ▾

Content Objectives

  • Read AI-generated career recommendations critically
  • Design open-ended interview questions that surface candidate context
  • Construct a protocol for combining algorithmic and human judgment

AI Literacy Objectives

  • Identify what AI job-matching captures and what it cannot ask
  • Distinguish between resume data and lived candidate context
  • Articulate when human interview judgment should override an AI recommendation

What Students Do — No Screens, No Devices

Phase 1 · 15 min Examine

Teams receive printed AI job-matching recommendations for 3 fictional candidates pursuing different paths across the Three Es. Note what the recommendation says and what data it used.

Facilitation focus

Print the artifact packets in color so detail is preserved. Don't tell students which AI claims are "right" — let them notice divergence on their own. Their lived knowledge of the topic IS the comparison standard. Treat it that way explicitly.

Watch for

Teams that pick a "winning" artifact immediately. Slow them down — every artifact reflects the AI's best guess given its inputs. The question is not which is right but how anyone could have known in advance.

Phase 2 · 20 min Design

Each team designs human interview questions to ask the same candidates about career fit. Compare what an interviewer can learn that an AI scanning a resume cannot.

Facilitation focus

Distinguish three error types: factual (X is asserted but isn't true), framing (the description emphasizes one thing while ignoring others), absence (something important is left out entirely). Most AI artifacts fail in framing and absence, not facts.

Watch for

Teams that only catch factual errors. Push deeper — what story is the AI telling? Whose perspective is implicit? What did it not have access to?

Phase 3 · 25 min Argue

Teams build a shared protocol: when is an AI job-matching recommendation a reasonable starting point, and when should a counselor override it? Anchor in the Three Es framework — employed, enlisted, enrolled paths require different verification.

Facilitation focus

Frame the argument as advice to a real decision-maker who will act on it. Students must commit to a recommendation AND name specifically what would change their mind.

Watch for

Hedging ("we can't really know"). True — but the decision still has to be made. Push students to commit to a recommendation AND explain what new information would flip it.

Materials

  • Printed AI job-matching recommendations for fictional candidates (PDF at landing page)
  • Fictional candidate resume packets
  • Three Es interview-question template cards
  • Verification protocol reference card; chart paper, markers

Assessment

Each team produces a one-page artifact: their findings, the AI output they evaluated, and a written verdict on when this kind of AI work is worth trusting.

Each team's final protocol references specific limitations of AI candidate matching and at least three interview questions that surface what the AI missed.

Teacher pack — everything you need to teach this

For the Facilitator

Prior Knowledge Required
  • Read and discuss informational text in small groups
  • Cite evidence to support a claim — written or verbal
  • Familiarity with the difference between a prediction and a confirmed result
Exit Ticket

"An AI tool gives someone you care about a recommendation. What three things should they check before they accept it?"

Look for
  • At least one item references the source or input data the AI used
  • At least one item references the AI's reasoning or comparison with known facts
  • At least one item references checking with a person, lived experience, or independent source
Anticipated Misconceptions

"AI is just like a calculator — if you give it the right numbers, you get the right answer."

→ Use a worked example where two students give the same prompt and get different outputs. AI is more like a human reader making a judgment call than a calculator computing a formula.

"If we can't see the math, we just have to trust it."

→ Pivot the protocol — "Check the reasoning" — to focus on what we CAN check: source, comparison to known facts, internal consistency. You don't need the math to evaluate a claim.

"AI hallucinations only happen with chatbots."

→ Show a printed AI example that contains a confident but factually wrong statement. Hallucinations are a property of how generative models work, not a chatbot quirk.

Differentiation
Differentiation 1 / 4
Below grade

Reduce to two artifacts in the packet (instead of three or four). Provide a graphic organizer with three columns: What the AI said / What I know / What I would tell someone who asked me. Sentence frames provided for the final argument.

At grade

Standard procedure as written.

Above grade

Add a meta-question: students draft two or three rules for when the kind of AI tool in this lesson should and should not be used by adults in their lives. The rules are evidence-cited from the packet.

Multilingual learners

Encourage discussion in students' home language. The artifacts in the packet can be discussed in any language — the analysis transfers. Final class artifacts can be authored bilingually. Pair vocabulary cards if helpful: source, reasoning, reality, evidence.

Slide Cues — 6 slides
Slide cues 1 / 6
Slide 1 Real decisions, real evidence
  • AI tools are showing up in decisions that matter
  • Your job today: evaluate whether the AI's reasoning holds up
  • No screens. Just the artifacts in front of you.
Slide 2 Verification protocol — without the machine
  • Source · Reasoning · Reality · Yourself
  • Same protocol whether you're looking at a sensor reading or a printed AI claim
  • Adapt to what's in front of you
Slide 3 Phase 1 — Examine
  • Read the artifacts carefully
  • Note what the AI got right and wrong
  • Don't pick a winner yet
Slide 4 Phase 2 — Investigate
  • WHY did the AI reach this conclusion?
  • What data did it have? What did it miss?
  • Was it the model, or what the model knew?
Slide 5 Phase 3 — Argue
  • Make a defensible recommendation
  • "It depends" is allowed if followed by "specifically, on these things"
  • Cite evidence from the packet
Slide 6 Exit ticket
  • Three things to check before accepting any AI recommendation
Standards Alignment — 6 frameworks
Standards 1 / 6
CCSS ELA RI.7

Reading Informational Text — Grade 7

CSTA 2-IC-21

Discuss bias and accessibility in technology design

CSTA 2-IC-23

Describe tradeoffs between public and private information

ISTE ISTE-3b

Evaluate accuracy, credibility, relevance of information

ISTE ISTE-7b

Use collaborative tech to examine issues from multiple views

NCSS C3 D2.Civ.14.6-8

Compare historical/contemporary means of changing society

Family / Guardian Letter — copy & paste, edit to fit

Dear families, This week your student practiced something most adults haven't been formally taught: how to evaluate an AI-generated claim before accepting it. In this lesson, students worked from printed artifacts — no screens — and applied a four-part verification protocol: check the source, check the reasoning, check the result against reality, and check yourself. They learned that the right answer to "should I trust this AI?" is almost always "let me check first." At home, you can use the same protocol. The next time an AI assistant gives your family information, ask your student: "What would we need to check before we acted on this?" Questions? hello@freyjalabs.com — Freyja Labs (working with Cincinnati Public Schools)

↑ Top of Unplugged lesson ↑ Top of Lessons Next: How we'd work together →

Worth saying again: the lessons above are receipts, not the goal. The point of the engagement is change for your teachers — their confidence to design the next ten lessons themselves, for whatever Cincinnati Public Schools faces next. We don't deliver lesson plans. We deliver capability.

More on how we think about this work

Next ↓ 03 · How we'd work together

Engagement Options

How We Can Work Together

We don't sell a packaged curriculum — every engagement is shaped around what your district tells us it needs. The options below are starting shapes; the actual work gets co-designed with your team. Click any that look promising and tell us what you're thinking.

Click any option below to mark it as interesting — then use the form to send a quick note.

Next ↓ 04 · Reach out

We do not provide generic materials. We provide the empowerment and support for teachers to build lessons like these — tailored to their students, grounded in their community's experience.

Mike Borowczak, Ph.D.

Andrea C. Burrows Borowczak, Ed.D.

Where growth begins.

hello@freyjalabs.com