ISTE Partnership: Should We Do This?
For Josh 1:1 — Thursday, February 19, 2026
The Question
If ISTE looks at us next week (Feb 25) and says “should we do this?” — what is our answer?
The Answer: Yes — Train Their People
Scope: Train 3 ISTE faculty members (Winston, Beth, Jeremiah) to facilitate Flash Lab independently.
That’s the ask. Not a licensing deal, not an exclusive partnership, not a new product line. We train their people, they run it with their audience, we learn from how it travels.
Why This Is Right
Three C’s Alignment
| C | How This Delivers |
|---|---|
| Critical Boost | ISTE facilitators become force multipliers — they reach educators we never could on our own |
| Capacity Building | We’re scaling the method, not just doing more sessions ourselves. Replicates the Anna-Lena model that already works. |
| Cross-Pollination | ISTE’s reach across districts/schools generates signal on market fit and feeds participants back into the Stanford ecosystem |
Top-of-Funnel Positioning
Every ISTE-facilitated Flash Lab session ends with: “Here’s where to go deeper.”
- AI literacy PD → CSET / PLEX
- Assessment → Challenge Success
- Math → youcubed
- Research connections → PACE
- Sustained cohort work → ISTE’s own Community of Practice
Flash Lab is the on-ramp. We send people to you.
This is the answer to “does it contribute or cannibalize?” — it contributes. Every session is inbound marketing for GSE programs.
Why It Doesn’t Step on PLEX
Flash Lab is a 3-hour hands-on exploration — try tools, build something, leave with a prototype idea.
PLEX courses are structured professional development — multi-session, async+sync, certification, deep skill building.
Flash Lab is the appetizer. PLEX is the meal. They’re complementary, not competing.
The “Next Month” Plan
If Joseph South says “can we run this next month?” — here’s the plan:
| Week | What Happens |
|---|---|
| 1 | Reuben runs a 2-hour train-the-trainer session with Winston, Beth, Jeremiah (Zoom) |
| 2-3 | They co-facilitate one Flash Lab session with Reuben observing |
| 4-5 | They run one independently, debrief with Reuben after |
| 6 | Retrospective — what worked, what to adjust, what’s next |
Materials already exist at designkit.stanford.edu — facilitator guide, slide deck, activity templates. No new development needed.
Cost to us: ~8 hours of Reuben’s time over 6 weeks.
What We’re NOT Saying Yes To
- Exclusive partnership — Isabelle’s direction is non-exclusive
- Revenue sharing — keep the door open but don’t negotiate now
- A 60-minute compressed version — still off the table
- Anything requiring institutional approval beyond our team
- Owning ISTE’s facilitation quality long-term — we train, they own their delivery
Numbers for the Dean
If this works, here’s what we can say in 6 months:
| Metric | Projection |
|---|---|
| Facilitators trained | 3 ISTE + existing partners (Anna-Lena, potentially Tinkery, Vanessa/NewSchools) |
| Reach | ISTE touches 100K+ educators annually — even a fraction is significant |
| Studies | ISTE’s Community of Practice cohorts = built-in research partner for efficacy data |
| Inbound to GSE | Every session refers participants to Stanford programs |
| Revenue potential | ISTE’s “custom learning services” model = districts already pay them for PD. We could be part of that pipeline. |
The One-Liner
Flash Lab is Stanford’s on-ramp to AI in education. We train facilitators, they reach educators at scale, and everyone we touch gets pointed to the right Stanford program for what’s next.
From AS:DE End-of-Month (Feb 24) — ISTE-Specific Updates
Meeting Posture
- Both leaders (Isabelle + Joseph South) in the room — let them talk
- Know what we want, but don’t over-pitch
- If Joseph says “what do you want?” → regular Flash Lab sessions, by trained facilitators, in as many places as possible, + impact data
- This is the meeting to talk $$ — “testing a pricing model to understand the value”
Pricing
- Baseline: 1 hour + materials = $5k
- Ongoing iterative partnership = more
- If Joseph mentions short-term and long-term grant — lean in
CSET Pricing Anchors (from their Core Offerings sheet — internal Stanford reference):
| CSET Tier | Price | Format |
|---|---|---|
| One Time | $1,000–$2,500 | Single session, 2–6 hrs |
| Small Series | $6,000–$10,000 | 3–5 connected sessions + between-session work |
| Mini Co-Design | $10,000–$60,000 | Multi-session + co-facilitation + deliverables |
| Institutes | $125,000+ | Year-long, in-person/hybrid, coaching, certificate |
Note: Our $5k baseline is below CSET’s Small Series floor ($6k). If the ISTE engagement includes train-the-trainer + ongoing co-design + materials, it maps to Mini Co-Design ($10k–$60k). Pricing variables: # participants, mode (virtual/in-person), travel requirements.
Pricing Conversation Script (Feb 25 prep)
Opening: “We’re experimenting with different models…”
Fill-in: “…we’re thinking grant-funded, fee-for-service, or revenue share — depends on what fits how ISTE operates.”
Three modes to present:
| Mode | How It Works | Who Pays |
|---|---|---|
| Grant-funded partnership | Jointly pursue funding. We train, they provide reach + data. | Grant covers it |
| Fee-for-service | ISTE pays for training + materials. Train-the-trainer with co-design = $10k–$25k range. ISTE charges districts for delivery (their existing model). | ISTE pays upfront |
| Revenue share | No upfront cost. Flash Lab integrates into ISTE custom learning services. Per-session or per-cohort licensing. | Scales with success |
If they push for a specific number:
“Our colleagues at CSET price similar engagements at $6k–$60k depending on depth — we’re in that range.”
If Joseph says “we don’t have budget”:
“That’s fine — we’re more interested in getting this right than getting paid right now. What if we start with training your three people, treat it as a pilot, and figure out the business model once we see how it lands?”
This is the strongest move — shows confidence the product sells itself, gets you to what you actually want (Flash Lab at ISTE scale with data coming back).
Key framing: “We’ve been doing this pro bono and through grants. We’re at the point where we need to figure out what sustainability looks like.” — Honest, disarming, invites them to help shape the model.
Goal of this meeting: Establish that this has value and agree on next steps.
Three Personas (NEW — from Feb 24 AS:DE)
After Flash Lab, participants land in one of three personas:
| Persona | Their Question | Maps To |
|---|---|---|
| Instructional Practices | “How do I use AI without shortcutting the learning process?” | CSET, ISTE PD |
| Contextual Curiosity | “How could AI specifically help (or hurt) me in my situation?” | Tinkery |
| Identity | “How do I rediscover my value in the age of AI?” | TBD |
For ISTE specifically: Which persona is most pertinent to their audience? Likely Instructional Practices — their districts are buying PD on teaching with AI.
“Achieve Failure” Concept
In the age of breathless AI headlines, there’s value in giving people permission to find something it doesn’t work for. Confidently articulating what doesn’t work (so far) is an output, not a failure.
Talking Points (Feb 25 pre-call prep)
What Is AI Flash Lab
- A 3-hour hands-on workshop where participants explore AI tools by building something real — a prototype, a lesson idea, a workflow — not just watching a demo
- The structure: frame a problem you actually have, explore tools that might help, build a rough prototype, share what you learned
- It’s designed so that no prior AI experience is needed — the format meets people where they are
- The toolkit is open and free at designkit.stanford.edu — facilitator guide, slides, activity templates, all of it
- It’s not “here’s how to use ChatGPT” — it’s “what’s a problem you’re trying to solve, and how could you use AI to assist both in a human-centered design process, and the prototype?”
Why it works (evidence):
- Learning Planet Institute in Paris adapted it for research workshops — 6 new research projects emerged from one session
- Vanessa Monterosa from NewSchools flew home saying “I made a thing!” — only the second time in her career she’d felt that
- The format travels because it’s a structure, not content — anyone can fill it with their context
The key insight for ISTE: Flash Lab is the on-ramp, not the destination. It gives people a concrete experience, then they know what they need next — and that’s where ISTE’s deeper PD, CSET, and other programs pick up.
Three Personas — What Happens After Flash Lab
People leave Flash Lab wanting different things. Three patterns:
1. Improving Instructional Practices
- “How do I use these AI tools in a way that doesn’t shortcut the learning process?”
- Teachers and instructional coaches who are bought in on AI but worried about doing it wrong
- They want frameworks, lesson plans, responsible use guidelines
- Natural next step: CSET, ISTE’s own PD tracks
2. Contextual Curiosity
- “I’m hearing a lot about AI tools, but I don’t know how they could specifically help me — or hurt me — in my context.”
- People who need to explore more before they commit to a direction
- They want to tinker, try things, compare tools for their specific situation
- Natural next step: Tinkery, additional Flash Lab sessions
3. Identity
- “How do I rediscover the value I bring in my role, in the age of AI?”
- The deeper, existential question — especially for experienced educators
- They’re not asking “how do I use AI” — they’re asking “what’s my role now?”
- Natural next step: TBD (least developed pathway)
Why this matters for ISTE:
- Their audience is probably heaviest in Persona 1 — districts are buying PD on teaching with AI
- The magic of Flash Lab is that people discover which persona they are through the experience — you can’t just ask them upfront
- This gives ISTE a diagnostic tool: run Flash Lab, see where people land, then route them to the right deeper engagement
- It turns Flash Lab from a one-off event into the front door of a pathway
The line: “After Flash Lab, participants know what they need next. And we can tell you where to send them.”
Open Questions for Josh
Does this framing work for the Feb 25 meeting?Yes — confirmed Feb 24- Should we lead with the top-of-funnel pitch, or let ISTE propose and respond?
Do we need Isabelle aligned before the meeting, or is her “non-exclusive” direction enough?She’s attending — she’ll speak for herself- What’s the minimum viable agreement — handshake, or does Joseph need a formal MOU?
Prepared: Feb 17, 2026 Updated: Feb 24, 2026 (post AS:DE end-of-month)
prep/2026-02-19-iste-strategy.md