Empowering educators. Inspiring students.
Apply for beta
Empowering educators. Inspiring students.
Apply for beta
The buttons below are sample questions an educator might bring into eduimpact.ai. Choose one and the session mock updates: first the educator's prompt, then a reviewed coaching response grounded in K–5 practice.
Reviewed means human review shapes what the system learns. The AI extends coaching support; it does not replace the human coach.
We're reviewing applications now for our first cohort of 50 K–5 educators. No card required.
Each layer makes the layer above it stronger. Teachers get support the moment they need it. Coaches focus where it matters. Leaders see where to invest attention.
Coaching shaped by your curriculum, available the moment a teacher needs it. Reviewed by your coaches — it gets better the more you use it.
eduimpact.ai handles the in-between: the 9pm question, the teacher who wouldn't book a meeting. Your in-person time goes where only humans can.
Patterns of teacher growth over time, surfaced as you'd expect from instructional coaching done well. Aggregated across grades, subjects, and schools — never individual surveillance. The signal sharpens as your coaches review it.
Enter your district's real numbers. We'll show what's reaching teachers today, what it would cost to close the gap by hiring alone, and where eduimpact.ai changes the math. In large Texas districts, most K–5 buildings sit at 45–55 teachers per coach — the slider below defaults to a mid-size suburban shape; adjust to yours.
Your district
Leakage factors
Financial inputs
Benchmark
Effective coaching capacity
1.95
coaches' worth of instruction actually reaching teachers, after 35% lost to travel and admin
Your actual coaching ratio
1:77
vs. the 1:45 benchmark — 71% above target
⚑ Coaching desert — high isolation riskCoaches needed to reach benchmark
+1.4
additional effective FTE required — accounting for leakage, you'd need to hire 3–4 people to get 1.4 coaches' worth of real coverage
Annual cost to close the gap via hiring alone
$281K
fully-loaded cost for 3–4 new coaches, before onboarding or first-year turnover risk
Every figure here is grounded in either peer-reviewed research, government data, or field conversations with district and charter instructional coaches — including 1-IC-per-campus public districts (low travel) and multi-site charter networks (higher travel). The leakage model is a working assumption you can adjust to your district's reality.
Even when a coach is on payroll, a real share of the day goes to transit between sites and administrative load — scheduling, reporting, non-instructional meetings. We call this leakage. The formula converts raw headcount into actual coaching hours reaching teachers.
Total teachers divided by effective coaches gives the real ratio. The higher this number, the more isolated each teacher is from meaningful coaching support. Above 1:60, teachers reach the "coaching desert" threshold — where research consistently links isolation to attrition.
To reach the benchmark ratio, you need a target number of effective coaching FTEs. But every human coach you hire also suffers the same leakage, so you need to hire significantly more people than the gap suggests on paper.
The cost model uses fully-loaded compensation: base salary × benefits multiplier, applied to humans required. This excludes recruiting fees, onboarding load, and first-year turnover risk — so the real number tends to land higher than this card.
Research & field sources
We start with a single school or grade band. Pilot terms are written into the contract from day one.
