Preface

As you read, you may think: “This all sounds quite grand. Who are these high-falutin’ folks?” If so, it’s because we are hopeful and we are ambitious. We really believe in what we do. It’s not the ego talking, it’s the mission.

At the same time, given the immensity of the challenges, we have to approach this work humbly. Taken as a whole, this is a big task for a small team. And we don’t have everything perfect. To that effect, you’ll see some measured self-questioning throughout. That’s not intended as self-deprecation, but rather introspection out-loud.

So, yeah. This is hard work. And that’s ok, because we’re here for the ride. We like to say, “don’t take yourself too seriously…but be serious about education.” You could say that, just as education is a work in progress, so is our work to support it.

This handbook reflects that spirit. Read on to know more about what we do, how we do it, and how we evolve it. Welcome to our world.

PURPOSE: Why do we exist?

We are the first bricks in the bridge between great research ideas and real educational impact.

Education research contains brilliant ideas – world-changing ideas – that have the potential to truly transform learning. But many promising, academia-borne solutions never get off the ground. This is a lose-lose-lose. Researchers become discouraged, educators become disillusioned, and learners never see the benefit of breakthrough science that could actually change their lives.

This isn’t anyone’s fault. These are well-meaning folks acting in good faith to make education better. But there are real challenges to launching research into the world, especially at the initial stages. We’ve identified two big ones: Achieving Lift-off and Setting the Trajectory.

These challenges are non-trivial. Support at the kernel stage – somewhere between “glimmer in the eye of a research team” to “edge of scaling to a school district” – has been shown to make a crucial difference. Often, it is a key differentiator between a project that fizzles out and one that has a sporting chance at changing education.

That’s where the Accelerator Studio comes in. We provide specialized boosts that mobilize promising research at critical moments.

You may say, “that just sounds like a venture studio embedded in a school of education.” In the respect that we nurture ideas, this holds true. But unlike venture studios – who are primarily focused on products – we are squarely focused on impact, measured by how many learners we help and how much knowledge we bring to the world.

In short, we exist to be the catalyst that transforms “that should exist” into “that exists,” propelling initial concepts and solutions towards the educators and learners who need them most. Our unique set of skills animate education research to life, and beyond the walls of Stanford.

#

VALUES: Which principles center our work?

Our values aren’t just words; they’re the engine that helps us transform “that should exist” into “that exists and has impact.” They guide how we collaborate, make decisions, and push the boundaries of education innovation.

1. Serious Play

• Back of the Card: Serious About Learning, Playful in Practice.
• Why it Matters: We balance our serious purpose of building the missing bridge between research and real-world impact with a lighthearted, inquisitive approach. This means being proactive, unafraid to explore new ideas, and fostering personal connections that make the work joyful, not a stressor.

2. Perpetual Trust Fall

• Back of the Card: We’ve Got Your Back. Always.
• Why it Matters: We operate with deep interdependence, believing that collective support is key to achieving lift-off for research ideas. This means seeing projects through together, actively identifying when a team member or partner needs a hand, and asking for help directly. It’s about consistently fostering cross-support, ensuring no one is stranded, and building a foundation of reliability.

3. Best Idea Wins

• Back of the Card: Evidence Over Ego. Always Show Your Work.
• Why it Matters: We champion a collaborative, evidence-based approach where substance always trumps hierarchy. This value means we’re constantly seeking the truth through data and tangible examples, rather than just abstract claims. We’re open to all ideas, but the best ones prove their merit through clear visuals, prototypes, and demonstrations, reflecting our humility and accountability to real results.

4. Cards on the Table

• Back of the Card: Transparent Decisions. Clear On What’s Next.
• Why it Matters: We commit to radical transparency in our decision-making, openly sharing both successes and setbacks to make our thinking visible to everyone – internally and with partners. This means being forthright, owning our mistakes, and clearly communicating limitations or next steps, even when the news isn’t easy. Our goal is to make clear decisions we can learn from, building deep trust and fostering true partnership to transform research into impact.

#

#

THE WORK: What do we do?

As a team, we focus on a 3-part cycle to get research happening out in the world: design, develop, and disseminate.

Design focuses on shaping ideas and preparing a trajectory. Given our unique specializations, this can look like:

• Centering projects with research-backed learning techniques
• Planning out intentional education technology alongside technical partners
• Advising on roadmaps to impact for lesser experience project leads

Develop focuses on gestating promising applications and feeling out scalable solutions. Given our unique specializations, this can look like:

• Investigating solutions to tech and research blockers alongside research teams
• Concocting prototypes to animate research (and vise-versa) in a sustainable way
• Strategizing networks to impact at various stakeholder levels

Disseminate focuses on sharing out to mobilize knowledge and seed new possibilities. Given our unique specializations, this can look like:

• Translating early signals of solutions, especially with fast-moving tech, for a broader audience
• Capacity-building around practices that increase impact via consultations and workshops
• Reporting out on exciting emerging projects that invigorate community members and invite people in

PRIORITIES: How do we make decisions?

We believe that good decisions compound value -- they advance projects, strengthen relationships, and build capacity simultaneously. Key decisions are filtered through three questions:

1. Does this create meaningful leverage?
When available, we choose paths that multiply impact, not just add to it. High-leverage means we’re co-building something that will grow beyond our involvement. Medium-leverage means we’re removing critical blockers. Low-leverage means we’re sharing knowledge. We prioritize based on potential for systemic change, not just immediate output.

2. Does this strengthen how we work together?
We actively foster moments and methods where we can rely on each other (Perpetual Trust Fall), make our thinking visible (Cards on the Table), honor evidence over hierarchy (Best Idea Wins), and keep the work joyful (Serious Play). If a path forward leaves anyone unsupported or undermines our interdependence, we reconsider.

3. Can we measure what matters?
We aspire to work in which we can track real impact: learners reached (especially under-served), educators empowered, and research lifted off. We measure both quantitative outcomes and relational depth through systematic observation (see codebook in Appendix). If we find ourselves struggling to nail down what success or impact looks like, we take the time to get clear on it.

Our Decision Framework in Practice

When evaluating opportunities, we try to ask a balanced subset of the following:

Project Assessment:

• Will this unlock a stuck project or reach under-served learners?
• Can the solution scale beyond our involvement?
• Do we have unique value to add, or could others do this better?
• Does the timeline allow for us to inject our unique value-adds with real back-and-forth collaboration, if appropriate?

Team Assessment:

• Who has capacity? Who’s the backup?
• Are we setting anyone up to fail by overcommitting?
• How do we ensure no one is becoming isolated, even if currently working on independent tasks?
• Can any team member step in if someone gets stuck?

Evidence Assessment:

• Whose idea are we choosing, and why?
• What data supports this direction?
• How will we measure success?
• When will we evaluate and adjust?

What This Looks Like Day-to-Day (Our values in action)

The questions:

• “Who’s backing you up on this?” is our default question
• “Can you really take this on?” is caring, not doubt
• “Do you have what you need?” keeps us cognizant of resource constraints

The moves:

• We offer help before someone has to ask
• During reflection, we cheer for winning ideas and for who proposed them, and make sure all team members are feeling heard
• As a part of the reflection, we document our reasoning as appropriate.
• We make our impact visible through numbers and stories

The Bottom Line

We say “yes” when we can create leverage, support each other fully, and measure meaningful change. We say “we need to reassess” when the work would strand someone, compromise impact, or need clarity on how this meets our impact measurement. And we always explain why; transparency in decision-making builds interdependence in crucial ways for the long game.

This isn’t about perfection or being nice; it’s about being intentional and reliable. We’d rather make a clear decision we can learn from than a muddy compromise we can’t evaluate. We want to say “yes” only when we can execute well. This is crucial to establishing a coherent launchpad so that the project can take flight.

[Is it possible to cringe, laugh, and be inspired at the same time? Find out below!]

|

| Listen Now!https://suno.com/s/EgupJLWiYn2BuP5n We’re not chaos, we’re coordination— Strategic punks in collaboration. Say it loud, say it clear: Only the best ideas survive in here. | | :—: | :—: |

#

RITUALS: How do we keep this moving?

Weekly	Monthly	Quarterly	As-needed	Annual
Big goal: Check in on operational and tactical work Outcomes: Stay up-to-date (“Cards on the Table”) Cross-support needs-gathering (“Got your back”) Short-term planning (“best idea wins”) Sharing fun stuff we’re excited about (“serious play”) Form: Team Meeting Around the horn Special items like client planning and budget concerns 1-on-1s In-depth project updates Thinking through tricky conversations Short-term personal and professional development	Big goal: Wrap up 30-day documentation cycle and adjust for next month’s projects Outcomes Close out tasks for the past month Reconcile differences in reporting and tagging Moving tags and quoted impact statements into 1) seed grantee tracking table, and 2) quoted impact Airtable board Identify 2-3 moments/stories worth sharing Form “What did we do?” – Review at a glance all layers (Macro, seed grantee tracking, operations, etc) “What trends are popping up?” – analyzing work and cross-support “What stories are emerging or worth watching?” – surfacing mini-stories and connecting to overall narratives, then entering a subset of them into the “Stories” field in Airtable ** March 2026 amendment: focus on 1) the “what”, 2) the “how”, 3) the “so what” “What should we change?” – discussion on processes and if they need to be tweaked	Big goal: Coalesce stories and data that carried month-to-month, then project capacity and focus for coming quarter Outcomes: Game plan for next quarter Wins and challenges from past quarter Ideas for improvement Determine capacity (can we take on new projects?) Form: Retrospective on closed projects Status updates on current projects Timeline scoping Analysis of wins and challenges from project tracker Analyze trends in codebook tags and OKRs, and particularly how “stories” are building over time Brainstorm opportunities to distill and share AS work	Big goal: (Re)align internal or external factors in-between normal meeting cadence Outcomes: Adjusted plan is agreed on and put into place Form: Depending on severity, async communication, or meeting. Even though meeting is ad hoc, structure of meeting and reporting are somewhat standardized New information Severity/Urgency Impact to Project Additional Information needed? Adjusted plan built Next steps and follow-up scheduled	Big goal: Thinking on an institutional timeline, then reformulating processes at micro level via new version of Team Handbook Outcomes: Look back (“cards on the table”) Look forward (“best idea wins”) Form: Team retreat to a fun place or delicious place or both (“serious play”) Looking at quant and qual data to get holistic picture on all the nooks and crannies of our work over past 9 months Reflecting on decisions through values Reassess/iterate/birth next version of our team handbook

Meeting Protocol Detail (weekly, monthly, strategic huddles)

Each of the following structures should explain how we:

1. Prepare and document during meetings (a protocol, an agenda, etc)
2. Ritually align with our other systems (Airtable, meeting docs, codebook, etc)
3. Script out the meeting (even if only lightly) so that anyone could pick up the guidelines and facilitate the meeting

Expanded Meeting Protocols

Weekly

Outcomes:

• Stay up-to-date (“Cards on the Table”)
• Cross-support needs-gathering (“Got your back”)
• Short-term planning (“best idea wins”)
• Sharing fun stuff we’re excited about (“serious play”)
• Align work with Studio and Accelerator goals
  • Determine priorities of work based on Accelerator OKRs

Form:

• Team Meeting
  • Around the horn
    • Which project(s) are taking up the most time?
      • MO: Show your Airtable and talk about it
        • Get suggestions on how to refine/bolster documenting (eg, “I also noticed how you did this, you should add it in and give yourself credit!”)
      • Who are you working with?
      • Are there any current or foreseen roadblocks?
      • Are we aligning with Accelerator OKRs?
        • Determine priorities of work based on Accelerator OKRs (as needed)
      • “Do you have what you need?”
      • What are potential team crossover points?
        • Note points of connection between team member projects
  • Special items like client planning and budget concerns
  • Post-meeting
    • AI EA summarizes
    • Joe, Reuben, or Josh approve summary or correct the record

Quarterly

Outcomes:

• Game plan for next quarter
• Wins and challenges from past quarter
  • Ideas for improvement
• Determine capacity (can we take on new projects?)

Form:

• Retrospective on closed projects
  • What went well? How do you know?
  • If we could do it again, what would we do differently?
• Status updates on current projects
  • What is moving forward? What is not?
  • Do we have what we need to get things moving for ourselves and for others?
• Analysis of wins and challenges from project tracker
  • How have we documented and measured our impact on the project(s)?
  • How have we documented and measured the project’s impact?
• Analyze trends in codebook tags and OKRs
  • What is the data telling us?
  • How consistent has our tracking and coding been?
• Brainstorm opportunities to distill and share AS work
  • How have we shared our work?
  • What should we put a spotlight on going forward?
  • What stories from others can we integrate or boost?
• Wrap-up
  • “Is this enough?” (structure, work patterns, mission alignment, having fun, etc)

#

Strategic Huddles

Outcomes:

• Team feels up-to-date on latest developments across all (or subset) of projects.
• Identified areas to offer of cross-support as appropriate
• (Re)alignment of Priorities with Mission/Values
• Uncovering unknown unknowns (if exist)

Form:

• One-by-one updates across projects.
  • Recap project status:
    • What key developments or changes have occurred since our last meeting, and where might you benefit from support?
    • Have any unexpected challenges or opportunities emerged?
  • Short discussion/Q\&A
• Big Picture reflection
  • Checking uniformity/consistency with codebook. Are we missing anything?
  • Looking across all projects, what patterns or opportunities for collaboration do you see?
  • Are our current efforts aligned with our mission/values, or are there areas where we’ve drifted? (For example, do we still have the capacity to execute well?)
• Plan next steps and schedule follow-up as appropriate.
  • What critical actions need immediate attention, and who can help?
  • Scheduling moves identified in the reflection
  • Start making any alignment moves identified in the reflection
  • Schedule next meeting

#

ROLES: Who must do what?

Name	Title	General Responsibilities
Josh Weiss	Director of Technology and Innovation	Strategy, budget, messaging, and keeping the train running. You can also find me doing project management, learning design, research collaboration, technical advising, and communications.
Joe Sherman	Digital Media Lead	Produce, advise, and support media content for the Accelerator
Reuben Thiessen	Emerging Technology Lead	Explore and test emerging technologies, especially AI and virtual media, for use in education Work with researchers, designers, and engineers to develop and pilot new learning tools and systems

#

#

#

#

#

Appendix

TAGS (v2):

Tag	Definition	Example
[NUGGET]	“Air dropped” one-time advice	“Suggested using Claude API for their chatbot, they implemented it the next day”
[TOOLBOX]	The right tool at the right time	“Introduced them to Google Vids for quick and easy video creation”
[STUDIO-BUILD]	We take on the development of a product for others (in contrast to CO-CREATE)	“Built complete MVP for their learning platform”
[REFRAME]	Already have an idea or plan in play, but advice helps set a modified direction	“They were building a curriculum that was just matter-of-fact static content, we helped them incorporate contrasting cases”
[ANCHOR]	Provide grounding (best practices, research evidence, guardrails) to keep project from drifting	“Monthly check-ins kept their project aligned with learning theories research”
[SPARK]	Our input triggers a novel line of thinking or project that didn’t exist before	“Discussion about accessibility led them to create entirely new inclusive design curriculum”
[CO-CREATE]	Deep collaborative building with shared ownership	“Built AI module together - they handled pedagogy, we handled tech”
[BREAKTHROUGH]	Partner overcomes major technical/design blocker through intervention	“After 3 months struggling with data pipeline, implemented our solution in 2 days”
[LEVEL-UP]	Clear before/after capability transformation	“Went from ‘what’s an API?’ to building custom integrations”
[MULTIPLIER]	Trainee becomes trainer without involvement	“Workshop participant now running monthly sessions for colleagues”
[VALUE-VISIBLE]	Unprompted recognition of unique contribution	“Told other seed-grantees ‘couldn’t have done this without Accelerator Studio’”
[SCALE-MOMENT]	Project hits growth inflection point; expands beyond pilot	“Went from 1 classroom to 15 schools in 3 months”
[RIPPLE]	Organic adoption beyond original scope without direct involvement	“Teachers sharing tool with other districts on their own”
[EQUITY-WIN]	Documented impact on historically marginalized communities	“Rural schools with no CS teacher now offering AI course”
[SYSTEM-SHIFT]	Project influences broader educational systems or policy	“District adopted as official tool after pilot success”
[BRIDGE-BUILD]	Relationship enables others to connect	“Introduced researcher to practitioner, now co-authoring paper”
[THOUGHT-PARTNER]	Provide new perspective to bounce ideas off and arrive at solution	“Brainstormed assessment strategies together, found innovative approach”
[CHECK-IN]	Light-touch engagement, mostly relational, not technical	“Monthly coffee chat to maintain connection and prevent siloing”
[SOUNDING-BOARD]	Groups that want conversation but not intervention	“They needed to talk through options, we listened without directing”
[VULNERABLE-SHARE]	Partner reveals real challenges, showing deep trust	“Admitted that curriculum design wasn’t their strong suit, and asked for help”
[ALIGN]	Helps group reconcile work with Stanford’s or SAL’s/seed grant priorities	“Helped reframe project goals to match grant requirements”

Anecdote Codebook for Accelerator Studio

Practical Starting Point

Create a shared doc with three columns: (Maybe add tab to Airtable?)

1. What happened (the story)
2. Why it matters (the impact)
3. What it enables (the future possibility)

The “Quoted Impact” System

Make anecdotes countable:

• Collect exact quotes in a simple doc
• Tag with impact type: “confidence boost,” “breakthrough,” “direction change”
• Quarterly count: “15 partners said we ‘changed their trajectory’”

Template: “[Date] [Partner]: ‘[Exact quote]’ → [What happened next]”

AI prompt to analyze email/communications with partners for 3 measurement lenses to quantify anecdotes

Lenses:

• Stories we tell ourselves about ourselves
• Stories we tell about ourselves to other people
• Stories other people tell other people about us.

Codebook tags

Category	Tags
R\&D	[NUGGET] [TOOLBOX] [STUDIO-BUILD] [VALUE-VISIBLE] [REFRAME] [ANCHOR] [SPARK] [BRIDGE-BUILD] [BREAKTHROUGH] [EQUITY-WIN] [SYSTEM-SHIFT] [CO-CREATE]
Capacity-building	[LEVEL-UP] [MULTIPLIER] [VALUE-VISIBLE] [TOOLBOX] [SPARK] [BRIDGE-BUILD] [SCALE-MOMENT] [BREAKTHROUGH] [RIPPLE]
Engagement	[VALUE-VISIBLE] [REFRAME] [BRIDGE-BUILD] [THOUGHT PARTNER] [CHECK-IN] [ANCHOR] [SOUNDING-BOARD] [VULNERABLE-SHARE] [ALIGN] [BREAKTHROUGH]

Implementation Protocol

Frequency	Activity	Output
Weekly	Team shares 1-2 moments, assigns tags collectively	Tagged moments in shared log
Monthly	Count tag frequency, identify patterns	Pattern analysis (e.g., [BREAKTHROUGH] often follows [VULNERABLE-SHARE])
Quarterly	Select 3-5 strongest examples per category	Impact narratives with quantified outcomes