Dr. Jorge Valenzuela

Jorge Valenzuela contrasts schools that “integrate AI” by buying tools with those that integrate it through instructional design.

• Strong projects and assessment routines give teachers evidence of how students used AI, not just whether they used it.
• In this view, AI does not replace good teaching; it makes the quality of instructional design more visible.

In one post, Dr.

• Jorge Valenzuela describes a structured project-based learning experience assessed with a simple single-point rubric.
• The setup lets teachers see students’ decisions and reasoning when AI is available.

Read original · Original 2

Jorge Valenzuela presents project-based learning as a way to strengthen core instruction while connecting academic work to essential life skills.

• Projects become rigorous when they are research-informed and deliberately designed, rather than added on as activities.
• They describe developing PBL+, a framework for this work, and say it is implemented with districts and schools through sustainable professional learning.

A post says PBL+ helps schools move “beyond activity-based projects toward rigorous, real-world learning that delivers results.”

Read original

That evidence lets educators evaluate intellectual ownership and AI use.

• Dr.
• Jorge Valenzuela connects the approach to research on visible thinking, clarity, and feedback, while keeping the classroom tool practical.

Dr.

• Jorge Valenzuela recommends a single-point rubric and links to it in a post about AI literacy.
• The rubric offers a simple way to assess project work and see how students are using AI.

Read original · Original 2

Jorge Valenzuela argues that instructional innovation is not the same as using more technology.

• Tools should add meaningful value; sometimes students need discussion, collaboration, reading, writing, and hands-on experiences.
• In a podcast preview, guest Ashley Reed, director of technology and innovation at Temple Beth Am, argues that trust and psychological safety are essential to a healthier innovation culture.
• Dr.
• Jorge Valenzuela connects that view to the leadership side of instructional innovation.

The post says, “The learning should always drive the technology, not the other way around,” and previews the conversation with Ashley Reed.

Read original

Jorge Valenzuela frames PBL+ implementation as partnership work with districts and schools across the country, delivered through sustained professional learning.

• The emphasis is on changing instructional practice over time rather than delivering a single event.
• The posts also invite schools and districts to discuss AI literacy support.

One post says Dr. Jorge Valenzuela partners with districts and schools to implement PBL+ through sustainable professional learning; another invites schools or districts to talk about boosting AI literacy.

Read original · Original 2

Start here for the core argument and a practical assessment artifact.

Dr.

• Jorge Valenzuela contrasts schools that “integrate AI” by buying tools with schools that do so through instructional design.
• They describe a structured project-based learning experience assessed with a simple single-point rubric, which lets teachers see how students used AI, not just that they used it.
• The post says AI does not remove the need for strong instruction and offers to talk with schools or districts about boosting AI literacy.

For brands planning a campaign

Supports a keynote or workshop that trains teachers to design PBL tasks and single-point rubrics that make AI use visible, framing AI literacy as an instructional-design problem rather than a detection or platform purchase.

Start here for the fullest statement of the instructional philosophy.

This post says AI is exposing a long-standing issue: instructional design matters more than tools.

• Dr.
• Jorge Valenzuela advocates project-based learning and strong assessment structures that make student thinking visible: students justify decisions, explain reasoning, apply knowledge to authentic contexts, and reflect on process.
• They cite Harvard Project Zero’s visible-thinking research and Hattie’s work on clarity and feedback, and argue that school AI conversations should move beyond detection, restriction, and platforms to instructional clarity, authentic assessment, student reasoning, reflection, and intellectual ownership.
• The post links a single-point rubric and asks school and district leaders how they balance AI literacy and instructional integrity.

For brands planning a campaign

Offers a district-ready professional learning angle that pairs AI literacy with visible thinking and feedback practices; the linked single-point rubric can serve as a concrete takeaway in a workshop or keynote.

Start here to see the practical program behind the posts.

Dr.

• Jorge Valenzuela describes PBL+ as a research-informed framework for strengthening core instruction while connecting academic learning to essential life skills.
• The post says the framework helps schools move beyond activity-based projects toward rigorous, real-world learning, and that they partner with districts and schools across the country to implement PBL+ through sustainable professional learning.

For brands planning a campaign

Points to a workshop or keynote on PBL+ implementation and sustainable professional learning, rather than a one-off activity session.

Jorge Valenzuela approaches innovation culture, trust, and technology adoption beyond tools. Start here to understand the leadership and culture side of the work.

This post argues that instructional innovation is not about using more technology but about improving teaching and learning.

• Dr.
• Jorge Valenzuela previews a Lifelong Learning Defined podcast episode with Ashley Reed, Director of Technology and Innovation at Temple Beth Am, about why trust and psychological safety matter for a healthier innovation culture.
• The post connects the topic to Instructional Innovation+ and says technology should be used when it adds meaningful value, with learning driving the technology.

For brands planning a campaign

Offers a keynote or workshop theme on building trust and psychological safety during instructional innovation, useful for districts adopting AI or new platforms.

They argue that projects need rigorous design so students can connect academic work to real-world tasks and teachers can see how learning is happening. They describe developing PBL+, a research-informed framework, and say it is implemented with districts and schools through sustained professional learning.

For brands planning a campaign

A workshop or keynote can focus on what makes a project rigorous: the instructional decisions made before it starts, the evidence collected along the way, and how projects build essential life skills. This is a stronger fit for a district improving teaching practice than for a buyer seeking a generic project-ideas session.

Examples: Source 1 · Source 2

They propose instructional design that makes student reasoning observable: students justify decisions, explain their reasoning, apply knowledge in authentic contexts, and reflect on their process. This lets educators judge how AI was used, not merely whether it was used.

For brands planning a campaign

Frame a session around assessment and instructional routines that reveal student thinking when AI is available. A district seeking practical ways to redesign tasks and rubrics can ask how AI use can become part of the evidence rather than a separate compliance problem.

Examples: Source 1 · Source 2

The method offers a simple way to assess project work and see how students are using AI. Valenzuela also connects it to research on visible thinking, clarity, and feedback, while keeping the classroom tool concrete.

Use a single-point rubric to specify expected evidence, then examine student justification, reasoning, application, and reflection—not just the final product.

For brands planning a campaign

A workshop can include a completed example and a blank single-point rubric for participants to adapt to their own project. This gives the district a usable artifact and a common way to discuss AI use in student work.

Examples: Source 1 · Source 2

They say tools should be used when they add meaningful value, while discussion, collaboration, reading, writing, and hands-on work may be the better choice. A podcast preview with a school technology director links this to trust and psychological safety as conditions for a healthier innovation culture.

For brands planning a campaign

Position the session as help for leaders deciding when to use AI or digital platforms—and when not to. A keynote can give district teams a decision routine tied to learning goals, teacher support, and school culture rather than a product demonstration.

Examples: Source 1

They also invite schools and districts to discuss AI literacy support. The focus is on changing instructional practice, not a one-off event.

For brands planning a campaign

A district should evaluate Valenzuela for a workshop, keynote, or longer professional learning engagement with follow-through. The strongest case will name the instructional problem, the grade levels or schools involved, and how the district will support teachers after the session.

Examples: Source 1 · Source 2

Terry argues that software alone does not produce transformation and that ratings must rest on aligned, observable evidence—a close match for Valenzuela's insistence that instructional quality matters more than the tool.

Terry writes from inside teacher evaluation and talent retention, focusing on rating consistency and defensibility, TIA-aligned models, and workflow friction in evaluation systems.

• Terry also names a vendor advisory role.
• Valenzuela's posts stay with classroom-level design: projects, rubrics, and how teachers can see AI use in student work.

Read original · Original 2

Karabinos' posts ask where guardrails should go, how AI changes teaching and learning, and what schools and districts need to do next—questions that overlap directly with Valenzuela's themes of AI literacy and instructional integrity.

Karabinos approaches AI through governance, policy guidance, and professional development for a defined region, and reports on conversations with academic guests. Valenzuela approaches it through project design and assessment, treating AI use as something teachers observe in student reasoning rather than a policy problem to resolve first.

Read original · Original 2

Delane's argument that families notice engaged students who are moving, thinking, and collaborating echoes Valenzuela's emphasis on demonstrable rather than passive learning.

Delane frames active learning around enrollment growth, campus tours, and school marketing, connecting it to a specific mixed-reality product and platform. Valenzuela frames it around instructional design and assessment artifacts; the posts present no product of their own beyond the rubric they link.

Read original · Original 2

The posts argue that buying a product does not guarantee transformation, that evaluation systems measure performance without validating the documentation behind a rating, and that two principals can rate the same lesson differently, shifting compensation, Texas Teacher Incentive Allotment (TIA) designations, and trust.

• A district heading into summatives, or working inside a TIA-aligned model where a small margin decides a designation, may need that documentation layer more than another instructional-design session.
• Terry also writes from the implementation side of vendor work, pressing vendors to help districts operate inside real constraints, and names a role on the RefynED Advisory Board, whose stated focus is evaluation-system friction, retaining teachers, and working alongside technology districts already own.
• If the district's question is how to defend classroom AI use inside an evaluation system, this is the closer match.

The tradeoff is that these posts focus on what happens after instruction: how documentation is gathered, aligned across campuses, and defended.

• That is a different buyer task from helping teachers redesign a project and judge student AI use.
• A district that already has evaluation and retention under control, or wants teachers to leave with a revised task and completed rubric, is better served by Dr.
• Valenzuela's instructional-design angle.
• The posts do not document keynote or workshop packages, pricing, booking terms, or a published curriculum the district could inspect.
• Ask for those details before booking.

Examples: Source 1 · Source 2

One post works through the report that the Pentagon is reconsidering parts of its relationship with Anthropic after the company declined to provide unrestricted access to its AI systems, and asks who gets access, under what conditions, and with what oversight as AI becomes foundational infrastructure.

• The other is a conversation with Mark DiMauro about classroom AI, covering an Augmented Classroom Framework that gives teachers and professors consistent language for AI use on any assignment, why the governance problem is circular, four competing definitions of the word agent, and curiosity as the skill to build in students.
• Karabinos also offers AI guidance, policy support, and professional development in the IU8 region of central Pennsylvania, so a district in that area gets a provider with local context.
• If the district needs guardrails and vocabulary written before it redesigns instruction, this is closer than a project-based learning session.

The tradeoff is that the classroom post is a podcast conversation and episode summary, not a documented framework, workshop plan, or reusable rubric the district can inspect as it can a single-point rubric.

• The governance post is national and procurement-focused, not a classroom model.
• A district that already has AI policy language and needs teachers to redesign tasks and assessment is better served by Dr.
• Valenzuela's instructional-design angle.
• The posts do not document keynote or workshop packages, pricing, booking terms, or how either creator's approach would be delivered as a district-wide program.
• Ask for those details before booking.

Examples: Source 1 · Source 2

The posts target private schools that must raise academic outcomes and give families a clear reason to choose them.

• One promotes SMALLab, a mixed-reality learning environment where students learn by moving and collaborating, and cites Arizona State University research on embodied learning, including an 86 percent increase in learning, 6.7 times higher engagement, and 33 percent better teacher performance.
• The other explains what families notice on a school tour: whether students are engaged, whether the classroom is energetic or passive, whether students collaborate, and whether learning feels alive, with innovation framed as a differentiator.
• If the campaign goal is a visible classroom experience that supports enrollment marketing, this is a more direct route than a project-based learning and AI-literacy workshop.

The tradeoff is scope and intent.

• The posts promote a specific product, SMALLab, and measure success in enrollment and word of mouth.
• They do not address project-based learning design, AI literacy, rubrics, or teacher professional learning in the way a district seeking to change project design and AI-use assessment requires.
• A public district would also need to weigh a product-linked message against its instructional goals.
• The posts do not document availability, pricing, booking terms, or independent verification of the cited research.
• Ask for those details before treating the numbers as a basis for district decisions.

Examples: Source 1 · Source 2