Different learners, shared operations.
A school needed one course to support different ability levels. That need reached beyond a placement rule: the schedule, practice material, student experience and staff reporting all had to agree about what each learner should receive.
Feedback from pedagogy and customer success made the staff problem concrete: which activities had a learner completed, which path were they on, and why had particular practice been assigned?
School schedules also arrived in different document formats and conventions. Turning those requirements into a reusable workflow meant resolving ambiguity before saving a plan.
What I owned.
I led the design and AI-assisted implementation of the tiered curriculum capabilities, including placement, differentiated delivery and related teacher and admin tools. I also built a document-driven course planner and iterated with pedagogy and customer-success colleagues on real school requirements.
I worked within an existing learning platform, alongside engineers, pedagogy and customer success. My focus was the curriculum and planning workflow, and the staff tools around it.
Make the rules usable, then keep them consistent.
Keep one course while serving different work.
The course could retain shared structure while learners received different practice. I also had to explain which settings belonged to the source activity, the course or a particular class, so one class’s changes would not silently change another’s setup.
Check real scheduling exceptions.
A schedule importer needed to handle more than a tidy example. Different grades, revised documents and holiday or exam weeks affected the plan. I used those requirements to shape a preview where staff could resolve ambiguous content matches before saving.
Make the learner’s assignment explainable.
I translated staff feedback into class views, completion drilldowns and visibility into practice assignments and skill priorities. Those views needed to agree with what a learner could actually access.
Delivery included the operational follow-through.
The implementation added placement and differentiated delivery, plus the staff surfaces needed to operate them. I stayed involved during rollout, including diagnosing and correcting a live placement problem.
Later work made personalised practice assignments, skill priorities and weekly progress easier for staff to inspect. The evidence here is the delivered workflow and operational follow-through. Learning gains and support-volume changes were not measured for this case study.
A routing rule is only one part of the experience.
A differentiated course creates questions for every person around it: what should this learner receive, why, and what can a teacher change? The staff explanation, correction controls and reporting need as much attention as the placement logic.
Product visuals and interactive examples are recreated for this portfolio with synthetic content. They are not screenshots of learner records or internal systems.
Next case study
Making AI grading reviewable