ISTE Partnership (Flash Lab Train-the-Trainer)

Field	Value
Status	🟢 Active — Partnership scoping complete, formalizing next
Category	AI Flash Lab / Capacity Building
Lead	Josh Weiss + Reuben Thiessen
Contact	Jessica Garner (jgarner@iste.org), Joseph South (ISTE), Isabelle Hau (SAL sponsor)
What	Train 3 ISTE faculty (Winston, Beth, Jeremiah) to facilitate Flash Lab independently
Next Action	Isabelle: OTL conversation + dean buy-in. Reuben: Chris Agnew follow-up, Activation Stage concept.
Last Contact	Feb 25, 2026 (partnership scoping meeting)
Tags	[BRIDGE-BUILD] [THOUGHT-PARTNER] [MULTIPLIER] [SCALE-MOMENT]
Watch For	[MULTIPLIER] when ISTE faculty run their own Flash Labs; [VALUE-VISIBLE] if districts start paying

Story Arc

1. Nov-Dec 2025 — Initial conversations with Jessica Garner. ISTE interested in AI PD integration.
2. Jan 2026 — 60-min ISTE Live session proposed → OFF THE TABLE (Flash Lab doesn’t work condensed). Pivoted to train-the-trainer.
3. Jan 15 — Josh 1:1: Internal ISTE folks to train up = most aligned with our goals. Jessica mentioned grant-funded opportunities.
4. Jan 20 — Meeting with Jessica, Josh, Joseph South. Learned ISTE ecosystem: Communities of Practice, 2 cohorts of 90 educators, goal of 200K educators over 3 years. Flash Lab fits their “foundational AI” track.
5. Feb 12 — Josh 1:1: Discussed pricing models, faculty lead model, how ISTE fits the Three C’s.
6. Feb 17 — AS:DE strategy session: Isabelle says non-exclusive. Josh frames Flash Lab as top-of-funnel for GSE programs. Central question: “If ISTE says ‘should we do this?’ — what is the answer?”
7. Feb 19 — Josh 1:1: “ISTE is the test bed for the capacity building model.” Established Playbook/Reach/Revenue metrics framework. Strategy doc written (prep/2026-02-19-iste-strategy.md).
8. Feb 24 — AS:DE end-of-month: Aligned on meeting posture, pricing baseline, three personas framework.
9. Feb 25 — Partnership scoping meeting with Joseph South, Jessica Garner, Isabelle Hau, Josh Weiss. Agreed on authorized provider model (IP stays at Stanford), rev-share on CLS delivery ($7,500/day base), Activation Stage at conference, Google funding angle. Joseph essentially designed the business model for us — very strong buy-in signal. Isabelle taking OTL + dean buy-in as next step.

The Answer: Yes — Train Their People

Scope: Train 3 ISTE faculty members (Winston, Beth, Jeremiah) to facilitate Flash Lab independently.

Cost to us: ~8 hours of Reuben’s time over 6 weeks.

Materials: Already exist at designkit.stanford.edu — facilitator guide, slide deck, activity templates.

6-Week Plan (if Joseph says “can we run this next month?”)

Week	What Happens
1	Reuben runs 2-hour train-the-trainer session (Zoom)
2-3	They co-facilitate one Flash Lab with Reuben observing
4-5	They run one independently, debrief with Reuben after
6	Retrospective — what worked, what to adjust, what’s next

Strategic Positioning

Top-of-Funnel for GSE

Flash Lab is the on-ramp. Every 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

Key framing: This contributes, not cannibalizes. Flash Lab is the appetizer; PLEX is the meal.

Three C’s Alignment

C	How This Delivers
Critical Boost	ISTE facilitators become force multipliers — reach educators we never could
Capacity Building	Scaling the method, not just doing more sessions. Replicates Anna-Lena model.
Cross-Pollination	ISTE’s reach generates signal on market fit, feeds participants back to Stanford

Three Personas (from Feb 24 AS:DE)

After Flash Lab, participants land in one of three personas:

Persona	Driving Question	Pathway
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: likely Instructional Practices — their districts are buying PD on teaching with AI.

Pricing & Business Model (Updated Feb 25)

Agreed Direction: Authorized Provider + Revenue Share

• ISTE becomes authorized provider — trained by Stanford, uses Stanford’s name
• IP stays at Stanford. No co-ownership. ISTE is licensed to deliver, not to modify.
• ISTE CLS (Custom Learning Services) charges $7,500/day to districts. Flash Lab = add-on at $X with rev-share back to Stanford.
• If ISTE funnels participants back to Stanford programs (Tinkery, etc.), rev-share is lower.
• Google funding angle: Joseph suggested Google could fund the differential for broad distribution — ISTE as distribution channel.

Previous Thinking (pre-Feb 25)

• Original baseline: 1hr + materials = $5k (now superseded by ISTE’s own $7,500/day CLS rate)
• CSET anchors: Small Series $6k–$10k, Mini Co-Design $10k–$60k

Still Open

• OTL (Office of Technology Licensing) review — Isabelle’s homework
• Dean buy-in on partnership structure
• Exact rev-share percentage / per-session fee
• Google funding viability

What We’re NOT Saying Yes To

• Revenue sharing (keep the door open but don’t negotiate now) → Rev-share is now the agreed model
• Exclusive partnership (Isabelle’s direction: non-exclusive)
• A 60-minute compressed version (still off the table — but 20-30 min Activation Stage intro is OK)
• Co-development of new IP (that would be a different conversation per Joseph)
• Owning ISTE’s facilitation quality long-term (we train, they own delivery)

Feb 25 Meeting Outcomes

With: Joseph South (ISTE), Jessica Garner (ISTE), Isabelle Hau, Josh Weiss, Reuben

What Was Agreed

• Authorized provider model — ISTE trained by Stanford, uses Stanford’s name, IP stays at Stanford
• Rev-share on CLS delivery — Flash Lab as add-on to $7,500/day CLS offerings
• Activation Stage at conference — 20-30 min intro + CTA for full experience at school/district
• Research articles — potential series in EL magazine or blog. Chris Agnew is the contact.
• stretchAI integration — ISTE expanding their RAG tool, could incorporate Stanford research

Key Signal

Joseph designed the business model for us. The authorized provider structure, the rev-share, the Google funding angle — all came from him unprompted. Very strong buy-in from the ISTE side.

Resolved Questions

1. What does “grant funded” mean? → Google funding angle: Google funds the differential, ISTE distributes
2. Legal/contracts? → Isabelle taking to OTL + dean. Formalize once approved.
3. 2-hour forum slots? → Not available. But Activation Stage (20-30 min or 1hr) works as intro/funnel.

Still Open

• Winston, Beth, Jeremiah — training logistics TBD
• OTL + dean buy-in (Isabelle — she has a contact at OTL)
• Chris Agnew follow-up (research articles / stretchAI)
• Exact rev-share terms

Post-Meeting Debrief with Josh + Isabelle (Feb 25)

Quick call after the ISTE meeting to align on internal strategy.

Strategic Framing

• Retain IP, license to ISTE. “Powered by Stanford” branding.
• Friends, not competition — additive to ISTE’s offerings, not competing
• Focus on impact as the #1 outcome (not revenue)
• Start as a pilot — small scale, see if fit is there before scaling

Due Diligence Needed

• How many trainings does ISTE actually do? What is the real revenue potential?
• Full due diligence on ISTE’s PL offerings — understand their capacity
• Clarify: are CLS faculty the same as the 90 contractors? How do they overlap?
• How transient are contractors? How often would TtT refreshers be needed?
• Training delivery logistics — how, where, how often?

Quality Control

• More comfortable with us training ISTE staff first, then CLS faculty takes it further
• Need a quality control framework — what happens when we’re not in the room?
• Branding must be right — “certified trainer” designation, not just “attended a training”

Josh’s Key Positions (from email to Isabelle)

• Authorized provider model is the right frame — sets us up for deploying with other authorized providers in the future (not just ISTE)
• Direct TtT only for now — Josh does NOT want second-hand training (ISTE staff training a trainer). Reuben or SAL should have direct hand in all TtT sessions. Phase 2 = they do it without us, if things go well.
• Tinkery angle — Gregory could run quarterly CoP meetings with Tinkery partner schools, but he hasn’t done this before. Growth opportunity + capacity building test.
• Watch for: How educators perceive authorized providers; conflict with other Stanford AI PD units

Ongoing notes doc (Josh’s): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1mXa2fxnbLxEDsRfU8TfVapwgYENsbPTqXoqAvhbNgv4/edit?usp=sharing

Timeline Signal

• All CLS faculty meeting at ISTE Live — sign partnership before ISTE Live?
• Pilot first → evaluate → then scale if fit confirmed

Numbers for the Dean

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 for PD

Key Dates

• Feb 25, 2026 — Stanford <> ISTE+ASCD meeting (1pm) — partnership scoping
• Feb 26 — Josh 1:1 debrief
• Spring 2026 — New ISTE cohort (4-12 STEAM teachers)
• Wed Jul 1, 2026, 9:00–10:30am — ISTE Live Flash Lab session confirmed (San Antonio). Co-presented with Josh. Session info to be submitted to Nadia Selim (nselim@iste.org) after Josh review in 1:1.
• Fall 2026 — 90-educator convening (1.5 day in-person kickoff)
• Pre-conference — Jessica has 5 hours available

ISTE Ecosystem Context

• Custom learning services: schools/districts pay ISTE for PD
• 6 PD tracks: AI literacy, assessment, policy/guidelines, teaching & learning, foundational AI, evaluating EdTech
• Community of Practice: Year-long “problem of practice” cohorts, starting with 1.5-day in-person convening
• Goal: 200K educators over 3 years
• Market research note: PBLWorks National Faculty model is closest comparable. ISTE’s own AI PD is course-based — space for experiential formats like Flash Lab.

Related Files

• Strategy doc: ../prep/2026-02-19-iste-strategy.md
• Jessica profile: ../people/jessica-garner.md
• Josh 1:1 notes: ../meetings/josh-1on1s.md
• Market research: ../reference/market-research-comparable-orgs.md