A focused workshop
Work on the lessons, materials and repeat tasks already on your staff’s desks.
AI training for educators
Plan lessons, adapt materials and reduce repeat admin, while protecting sensitive information and checking the results.
I’m Chris: 15 years teaching, three in school leadership. I help educators put AI to work.
We choose the focus around your staff’s work and experience. These areas can stand alone or form a longer program.
Know what to share, what to protect and when AI is not the right tool. Questions and skepticism are welcome.
Draft instructions, examples and checks for understanding from a lesson you already teach.
Change the reading demand or format. Keep the learning goal intact.
Turn meeting notes into action lists, draft routine emails and organize recurring reports. Automate the repeat steps, with staff review before anything is sent or used.
Create reusable tools for teaching teams, departments, campuses or districts, with guided practice and support.
Book a workshop, a planning day or ongoing support.
Work on the lessons, materials and repeat tasks already on your staff’s desks.
Bring stakeholders together. Set priorities, address concerns and agree on the first steps.
On-site within 60 miles of Orange County, virtual, or on-site anywhere with travel costs covered.
Regular consultation to plan and adjust, launch and follow-up workshops, and asynchronous activities. An LMS and leadership dashboard I build for your district.
I design and build your LMS around your school’s priorities and district-wide goals, including its design, layout, branding, content and leadership reporting.
Cedar Grove Unified, its staff and all results are fictional. Explore the learner homepage, a sample lesson and leadership reporting. This is not a live platform or results from your answers.
My learning
Grade 6 teacher Cedar Grove Middle
Assigned course PL-101
Knowledge check: 4 of 4
Knowledge check: 2 of 2
Check the output. Make it usable.
Practice checking an AI draft before using it.
Module outline · Sample only
Review an AI-generated exit ticket against its source passage and learning goal.
In a full course, you would submit your revision for feedback. This preview shows the outline only.
AI in everyday practice · Fictional pilot cohort
Example staff record · Cedar Grove Middle
2 of 3 lessons complete. One assignment needs changes before it can pass.
Rubric score: 6 of 8
Verify the policy claim, revise the agenda and resubmit it in the LMS.
| Lesson | Progress | Quiz score |
|---|---|---|
| Safe starting points | Complete | 4 of 4 correct |
| Context in AI | Complete | 2 of 2 correct |
| Review & improve | Not started | Not taken |
Finishing a lesson does not automatically pass its assignment. Submitted work is scored separately.
One lesson, less repeat prep
Start with a simple request. Then tell AI how much time you have, what happened and what everyone should leave with.
Read each row below: a detail added to the request → an example of how the meeting plan changes.
“Plan a staff meeting.”
“We have 20 minutes.”
“At Thursday’s open house, families got lost between the front desk and the classrooms.”
“Every staff member should leave able to give families the same clear directions.”
These are example changes to look for, not guaranteed results. You still check the answer.
Watch a vague request become a plan that fits. 32 seconds, no sound needed.
Prepared demonstration with example answers, not a recording of a live AI tool. Silent, with on-screen explanations.
The request: “Plan a staff meeting about AI.” The example draft assumes a 60-minute tool tour, including creating accounts.
The missing context: “We have 20 minutes, no devices. Teachers have tried AI. Help each person choose one low-risk task to try.”
What changes: The revised example uses 3 minutes to name a repetitive task, 7 to compare printed AI drafts, 6 to discuss errors and risks, and 4 to choose a task to try. Those activities fit the stated constraints. You still need to check the plan and choose suitable examples.
Choose an answer, then continue. You can go back or skip a question.
Question 1 of 2
“Plan a 20-minute staff meeting about AI. Teachers have tried it. No devices will be available.”
The AI’s agenda says: “District policy allows any AI tool.”
Sample target: 2 of 2 correct. One point per question.
Answer both questions to get your score. Skipped questions are not recorded as failures.
Answer the question to see the reasoning.
Answer the question to see the reasoning.
Fictional example. Nothing is sent or saved.
Your agenda fits the meeting. Check the district’s actual AI policy and update the follow-up instruction before using it.
Fictional training brief: printed, invented examples only; no accounts or uploads in the meeting. Later tool use must follow actual district guidance.
Plan a 20-minute meeting for teachers who have tried AI. No devices. Use printed, fictional examples. Each teacher should leave with one low-risk task to try and a way to check the result.
0–3 min: Each teacher names a repeated planning task. 3–10 min: Pairs compare two printed AI drafts for the same task. 10–16 min: Discuss errors, missing context and what needs checking. 16–20 min: Each teacher chooses a low-risk task and a checking step. Follow-up: District policy allows any AI tool. Try your chosen task this week.
I checked the timing, no-device format and takeaway. I did not check the policy claim.
0 = not demonstrated, 1 = partly demonstrated, 2 = met. To pass: at least 6 of 8, including both verification points.
This preview lets you try both roles. After resubmitting, choose Facilitator to grade the work. Changes do not update the sample district records.
Workshop tasks and asynchronous learning feed the same record. Leaders can see participation, knowledge-check scores, rubric-assessed work and where follow-up is needed, by staff member, team or site. We agree on the measures together. Missing evidence is not a failing score; completion alone does not prove growth.

I’m Chris Baarstad. I spent 15 years teaching and three in school leadership. Now I combine that experience with practical AI training and custom software development.
I delivered technology and AI training for Johnson & Johnson in 2025 and 2026. The 2026 session explored AI in family life through practical scenarios and discussion.
I designed and built a custom LMS to move a business off a larger corporate platform that didn’t meet its needs. The new system was built specifically around its staff and training workflows. I’d take the same approach with your district.
You work directly with me, from planning the training to building the tools.
Let’s talk about your schoolQuestions and skepticism are welcome. I teach faculty and staff why privacy matters in AI and how to handle information thoughtfully. When I build systems around a district’s needs, protecting faculty and staff information is a core design consideration.
I’m also developing a student-facing program. It is not ready for a demo yet. Privacy and student safety guide those decisions from the start.
Not necessarily. I build tools around your district’s needs and existing systems, rather than asking your staff to fit a one-size-fits-all product.
Where needs overlap, some learning content may start from a shared template. The tools, training and setup are shaped around your district and how your people work.
No. We plan around experience: a useful start for newcomers, deeper work for confident users. The five areas are not five mandatory courses.
Both, plus support staff. Tasks are tailored to their roles. A partnership brings workshop evidence and asynchronous learning into a shared picture of progress and follow-up needs.
An initial conversation is free. I then propose the format, scope and fee, including course curation and consultation cadence where relevant.
Tell me about your staff and what gets in their way.
chris@baarstadconsultancy.comFree initial conversation. Workshops, full-day planning and ongoing partnerships are paid engagements. No private staff or student details, please.