Design access and differentiation routes

1

Research

Why this matters, and what good looks like

Access planning keeps the project goals stable while changing how students reach and show them. PBLWorks asks teachers to use varied strategies so all students can reach project goals. UNESCO requires AI use to protect dignity and respect cultural diversity. UK DfE guidance asks schools to check personal-data use with their data-protection or IT lead. That source is England-specific; follow your own law and school policy, and keep learner details in approved processes.

Describe barriers in the task or environment before proposing support.
Start with universal access that helps many students.
Add individual routes only from verified need and approved guidance.
Keep challenge and success criteria stable across routes.
Plan when temporary scaffolds can be reduced.

These sources support inclusive planning and human oversight. They do not validate AI-generated accommodations or establish time savings.

Where the evidence comes from

Strong for inclusive planning; AI benefit early and risk-sensitive.

2

Workflow

Brief it, steer it, check it

Audit the project for barriers

Use the real task, format and setting. Describe barriers without names, diagnoses or personal histories.

Prompt 1 · Barrier audit

CONTEXT
Approved project brief: [paste it].
Required learning and evidence: [paste them].
Task formats, spaces, tools and deadlines: [add them].
Class-level barrier patterns that do not identify a learner: [add them].
Approved accommodation types: [name only class-level support types; keep individual records outside the prompt].
School accessibility and privacy guidance: [paste it].
School approval for using this tool with the supplied information: [confirm it].

REQUEST
Identify possible barriers in the project design and where they occur.

QUALITY BAR
Describe barriers in the task or environment.
Do not infer a diagnosis, ability, culture or motivation.
Do not include personal data or combine rare details that could identify a learner.
Stop and use the school support process outside AI if the information could identify an individual.
Keep the required learning and quality bar unchanged.

FORMAT
Use a table with project point, barrier, supplied evidence, who may be affected and teacher or specialist check.

Draft access routes

Ask for alternatives that change representation, process or expression while protecting the same learning goal.

Prompt 2 · Access routes

CONTEXT
Verified barrier audit: [paste it].
Required learning and evidence: [paste them].
Available resources and assistive routes: [add them].
Approved accommodation types held at class level: [add them without personal details or rare combinations].

REQUEST
Draft universal supports, chunking, language supports, optional scaffolds, expression choices and extensions for each verified barrier.

QUALITY BAR
Keep expectations and required evidence stable.
Do not assign a route to a learner group.
Use only available resources and approved accommodations.
Mark specialist approval where it is needed.
Keep individual accommodations separate from universal supports and class-wide optional routes; retain specialist governance.

FORMAT
Use a table with barrier, universal support, optional route, language or chunking support, extension, evidence protected and approval needed.

Test for lowered expectations

A support can remove a barrier or quietly remove the learning. Make that difference visible before approval.

Prompt 3 · Expectation check

CONTEXT
Required learning and success criteria: [paste them].
Draft learner-access plan: [paste it].
Non-negotiable evidence: [paste it].

REQUEST
Find places where a support changes, removes or hides the required learning.
Find wording that stereotypes or assumes a fixed learner profile.

QUALITY BAR
Quote the exact support or wording that creates each concern.
Do not propose a lower standard.
Do not decide which student receives a support.

FORMAT
Use a table with exact support wording, lowered-demand or stereotype risk, evidence and teacher or specialist decision needed. Do not revise the plan.

Plan use and fade points

Decide how the teacher will introduce, monitor and reduce temporary support. Keep permanent access routes available when needed.

Prompt 4 · Support plan

CONTEXT
Teacher-approved access routes: [paste them].
Project sequence and checkpoints: [paste them].
Evidence the teacher can observe without personal data: [add it].
Specialist decisions already confirmed: [add them].

REQUEST
Draft introduction points, monitoring checks and possible fade points for each temporary scaffold.

QUALITY BAR
Treat every fade point as a teacher decision.
Do not remove a permanent accommodation.
Do not infer readiness from completion speed or surface polish.

FORMAT
Use a table with support, introduction point, evidence to watch, possible fade point and decision owner.

Check before you use it

Does each route answer a verified barrier rather than a stereotype?
Do all routes preserve the required learning and evidence?
Could combined class-level details still identify a learner?
Do language and chunking supports preserve the required learning?
Are permanent accommodations protected?
Does every specialist decision have the right reviewer?
Are fade points based on observed independence rather than speed or polish?

Stop rule

Stop if AI stereotypes a learner group, exposes personal data or substitutes lower expectations for access.

3

Reuse it

So the next one takes minutes

Suitable

Build a skill

Save this as a reusable instruction you can run on any project.

The barrier review and support-planning sequence can be reused with new project material.

Not suitable

Build an agent

Chain the steps, with a checkpoint where you approve.

Sensitive learner decisions require a teacher and relevant specialists in one controlled planning session.