Josh 1:1 Prep — Thursday, March 5, 2026
1. OTL / ISTE Partnership — THE BIG NEWS
Isabelle wrote to David Mallin (OTL Senior Licensing Manager) yesterday about our ISTE partnership. His reply:
- Wants a call Monday afternoon (any time except 3-4pm)
- Needs an invention docket filed at otldisclosure.stanford.edu
Questions for Josh:
- Who joins the Monday call? (Reuben + Josh + Isabelle? Or just Isabelle + Josh?)
- Who files the invention docket? (Reuben, or does Josh want to handle?)
- What do we need to have ready for OTL? (Description of IP — the workshop materials, facilitation methodology, designkit content?)
- Does this change our timeline for ISTE terms?
Context: The authorized provider / revenue-sharing model we discussed with Joseph South (Feb 25) is what Isabelle described to OTL. David’s role is licensing — he’ll advise on how Stanford IP flows through a partnership like this.
2. ISTE Due Diligence — PD Quality
Josh forwarded ISTE’s EdTech Teacher Certification (from Joe Burns). Asked me to evaluate quality.
- I flagged it’s $350 for non-members
- Josh replied: “Too much material. Find something less burdensome on time and budget — just get a taste of their quality.”
Action needed: Find a lighter ISTE PD offering to sample. Options to discuss:
- Free webinar or on-demand session?
- Ask Jessica Garner for internal access / sample?
- Or do we know enough from the Feb 25 meeting to assess quality without enrolling?
3. “Where Do I Want to Go in the Next 12 Months?” — The 3 C’s Conversation
Josh asked me to think about this for today’s 1:1. Here’s my first pass:
Where I Am Now
The last 3 months answered Josh’s “What’s your model?” question. We have:
- A framework (Playbook / Reach / Revenue)
- A lifecycle (SPARK → BUILD → SHARPEN → SCALE)
- Proof points (Courtney, Gregory, Anna-Lena, Oman)
- A partnership moving to licensing (ISTE + OTL)
I built the engine. Now the question is: what do I want to become in the next 12 months, not just what do I want to do?
Three Possible Directions (mapped to the 3 C’s)
Direction A: The Architect — “I design the systems that scale”
- Focus: Build the train-the-trainer methodology, quality frameworks, and facilitator certification
- 12-month outcome: 15-20 trained facilitators running independently; a repeatable TTT playbook anyone at SAL could run
- Risk: Gets abstract. Might lose the hands-on work that energizes me
- C’s alignment: Heavy on Capacity Building, light on Critical Boost
Direction B: The Connector — “I’m the bridge between Stanford and the field”
- Focus: ISTE, LAUSD, NewSchools, international — build the partnership portfolio
- 12-month outcome: 3-5 active partnerships generating revenue; SAL is known externally as the go-to for AI+education PD
- Risk: Becomes business development, less building
- C’s alignment: Heavy on Cross-Pollination + some Critical Boost
Direction C: The Builder-Who-Scales — “I keep building, but I also train others to build”
- Focus: Stay hands-on with prototyping (Health Coach Bot, HarmonAI, seed grants) while growing the facilitator pipeline
- 12-month outcome: 2-3 research outputs + 10 trained facilitators. The “Stanford maker who also multiplies.”
- Risk: Stretched thin. 20 active threads is already a lot.
- C’s alignment: All three C’s, but none deeply
My Honest Gut
I think C with a lean toward A is where I want to go. The prototyping work (seed grants, Health Coach Bot, HarmonAI) is what makes me credible and energized. But the scaling work (ISTE, Gregory, facilitator training) is what makes me valuable at the institutional level. I don’t want to lose either.
The key shift: from being the person who does the workshops to the person who designs the system that produces great workshops. Still build. Still prototype. But invest more in the replicable method.
What I’d Need from Josh
- Permission to say no to more direct delivery (or at least not add new ones)
- Support for the OTL/ISTE process (this is institutional, not just my project)
- A clear signal on whether the dean transition changes any of this
- Regular check-ins on the “5 Questions” at each time horizon
4. Quick Updates
Gregory facilitator training (Mar 3): Completed successfully. He’s ready for the Tinkery Flash Lab on Mar 30.
Health Coach Bot (Mar 3 meeting): Good session with Marily and Michele. Research direction clarifying. Strategic value: connection to Dean Dan Schwartz + validates Build-a-Bot as research infrastructure.
LabGPT: Cathy’s study running this week (Mar 4 done, Mar 9 next). Condition guardrails built and working.
SSIR article: Read Isabelle’s “Welcome to the Era of Relational Intelligence” (Spring 2026 SSIR). Core thesis: invest in relational intelligence as the counterpoint to AI — human connection skills that machines can’t replicate. Directly relevant to our work — Flash Lab is about educators relating to AI, not just using it.
Capacity: 20 active threads (up from 18 in Jan despite 4 completions). Need to watch this.
Key quote from Isabelle’s SSIR article (use if the conversation turns to framing our work within Isabelle’s vision):
“Institutions must be designed around relationships. Schools, in particular, should function as relational hubs, in which teachers serve as relational brain builders. … Schools should also move toward fewer, longer class blocks that give relationships time to form and deepen.”
Connection to our work: Flash Lab’s 3-hour format is a “fewer, longer block” designed for relationships — educators relating to AI tools and to each other through hands-on exploration. Build-a-Bot’s “I made a thing!” moment is relational, not transactional. Our model aligns with Isabelle’s thesis: we’re building relational capacity around AI, not just technical capacity.
5. Agenda Suggestion
- OTL/ISTE — Monday call logistics + docket filing (5 min)
- ISTE PD quality evaluation — lighter option? (3 min)
- “Next 12 months” — my three directions, get Josh’s reaction (15 min)
- Q1 goals quick review — updated this morning, strong progress (5 min)
- Quick hits: LAUSD Mar 19, capacity check, anything from Josh (5 min)
Prepared: Mar 5, 2026 morning
prep/2026-03-05-josh-1on1.md