This chapter gives a working overview of Teaching the Discipline: What Your Students Are Reading, focusing on the ideas a reader needs before moving to the next chapter. The chapter moves through Learning outcomes, Opening, The chapter map, Sharing your CLAUDE.md as a classroom artifact, and related ideas. Read it for the main argument, the vocabulary it introduces, and the practical judgment it asks you to develop. Your students have Claude Code for Students.

The teacher was reading Chapter 5 of Claude Code for Students , the five supervisory capacities. Seth was describing how PA had fired when his grading-tool output passed every check and was still pedagogically wrong. The chapter described the moment. The teacher knew this moment. The teacher's own CLAUDE.md, by this point in the school year, spanned three build tiers , class website, grading tool, simulation.

For each chapter of Claude Code for Students, the corresponding teacher build experience and a suggested classroom activity. Fourteen rows. Refer to the table during planning; bring the relevant artifact when you teach the matching student-book chapter. The table is a planning aid. Bring it out when you plan the unit. Pull the relevant CLAUDE.md section, build transcript, or story when you teach the matching chapter. The students book provides the framework; your assets provide the texture.

Your CLAUDE.md is one of the most pedagogically valuable artifacts in your possession. With careful redaction, it can be shared with students as a model. The section (already separate from the main file, per Chapter 2's structure). Specific student names anywhere in Lessons Learned (replace with role: "the ESL student who..." goes to "a student whose grading draft pattern-completed from another submission"). Server credentials, internal URLs, district-IT-sensitive details. The specific assignment file paths from this semester (replace with /). Disciplinary references.

The students book's chapters on running the build and verification introduce the build log , a record of the build as it unfolded, with capacity labels at each decision point. The teacher's chapter map sends students to write build logs alongside their code. The pedagogical move: assess the build log, not (only) the code.

When students are working through their builds in class, the teacher's role shifts. Not the tutor who tells them the right command. Not the silent observer. The conductor's question-asker. "What did Claude's plan-mode output tell you would happen?" "What is your handoff condition for this step?" "Which supervisory capacity is firing right now?" "Is the output the output your specification asked for?" "What would the failure mode have looked like if you had not noticed?" "What goes into CLAUDE.md from this?" "Should this be a Skill, a Hook,

Geoffrey Challen, in his January 2026 Illinois CS faculty retreat talk, said it directly: "The challenge in CS teaching is no longer turning specifications into code. AI is good at that. The challenge is getting your idea out of students' brains and into specifications that coding agents can work with. Teaching specification writing IS CS education."

Apply the chapter's discipline to your own teaching prep. Redact your CLAUDE.md. Produce a CLAUDE.md.classroom version with the redactions named above. Verify nothing FERPA-sensitive remains. Keep the Lessons Learned entries (with names removed); the lessons are the pedagogical content.

A summative version of build-log assessment as a class activity. You provide a build log (your own, redacted) or a curated public one. Students apply the five-dimension rubric to score it. They submit their rubric scores plus a one-paragraph justification for the lowest score they gave.

"Teaching the discipline is just assigning the students book." No. The students book provides the framework. The teacher's PCK , built through their own builds, captured in CLAUDE.md and transcripts , provides the texture that makes the framework teachable. "My CLAUDE.md is too personal to share." Most of it is not. With the section separated and the FERPA-relevant entries redacted, the rest is some of the best teaching material in your possession.

Lee Shulman (born 1938) , American educational psychologist whose 1986 Educational Researcher article "Those Who Understand: Knowledge Growth in Teaching" introduced the concept of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) , the distinct knowledge a teacher needs that is neither pure subject expertise nor general pedagogy, but the specific synthesis of how to teach this particular subject to these particular students.

Lee Shulman (born 1938) , American educational psychologist whose 1986 Educational Researcher article "Those Who Understand: Knowledge Growth in Teaching" introduced the concept of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) , the distinct knowledge a teacher needs that is neither pure subject expertise nor general pedagogy, but the specific synthesis of how to teach this particular subject to these particular students.