This proposal grew out of research I did in ETEC 500 on integrating machine learning concepts into secondary school curricula. That reading pointed me toward a simple idea worth building on: if students understand what data a model is trained on and how that shapes its output, AI stops being treated like a black box and starts being understood as a tool with identifiable strengths and limits. That is the premise behind the name GLASSBOX, and it is the outcome that the whole proposal is organized around.
The gap: Most AI training currently purchased by schools teaches staff how to use a chatbot. Very little of it teaches students how the systems work. In the most recent national survey of Canadian teachers, 64.7% reported receiving no training to identify student AI use, and 35.4% said their school had no AI policy at all. I see the student side of that gap in my own experience with students across different settings. It shows up in an English essay as often as a lab report, and in most cases, no one is teaching students how to decide whether an AI’s output should be trusted in the first place.
I am proposing a Grade 10–12 elective and a paid training program for nine teachers, pitched to a B.C. school district’s superintendent and Board of Education. It is an intrapreneurial venture: the ask is for a public school system to fund something new inside it, rather than for outside investment.
The ask. $148,000 over eighteen months. Three secondary schools, roughly 240 students, and an independent university evaluation with thresholds set in advance. Once the pilot is evaluated, the course framework will be published for free on a provincial platform so any other B.C. district can adopt it.
Hi Laila,
I just wanted to let you know that I wasn’t able to find a separate link to your elevator pitch but I could access your GLASSBOX proposal website. I thought I’d mention it in case the link was accidentally left out or isn’t displaying properly.
Looking forward to reading through your proposal.
Hi Laila,
I read your work and found it very well presented, thoughtful, and clearly connected to the concepts covered in the course. GLASSBOX addresses an important and timely problem by helping students understand not only how to use AI, but also how to judge its reliability. I especially liked the focus on training data, model limitations, uncertainty, and critical thinking.
The proposal is also well developed from an implementation perspective. The target group, budget, timeline, teacher training, privacy considerations, and evaluation plan are clearly explained. Starting with three schools and later sharing the framework across B.C. also gives the project good potential for wider impact.
One area that could be strengthened is the comparison with existing AI literacy programs or professional-development options. A clearer explanation of what makes GLASSBOX different from current alternatives could make the funding case even stronger. I would also make sure the Elevator Pitch is directly accessible from the Venture Forum post.
Feedback
FEEDBACK:
Hi Laila, thank you for your Venture Pitch!
I thought GLASSBOX presented a fascinating, and timely problem: students are increasingly using AI without necessarily understanding how these systems work.
I especially liked the distinction between teaching students how to use AI responsibly and teaching them how machine learning systems are actually built, trained, and can fail. The hands-on approach of having students build, manipulate, and “poison” datasets also made the proposed learning experience feel very authentic. The proposal was also exceptionally well researched and provided a strong rationale for why teacher training needs to be part of the solution.
One weakness of your VP is the venture/business model. The proposal seems to e mostly district funded. If you receive the $148,000 pilot and teacher fellowship, how would your project be sustained beyond this? Is your business model scalable and how? This wasn’t clear to me. I also could not find your elevator pitch too like dmouton.
Great job, overall! This is a very unique, and practical venture pitch idea. I would not invest at the moment as I’m unsure if this will be scalable, but perhaps in the future! 🙂
Feedback
Hi Laila, thank you for your Venture Pitch!
Unfortunately, I could not find your elevator pitch, where can I find it?
I thought GLASSBOX presented a very timely and important problem around students using AI without necessarily understanding how it works or when its output should be trusted. I especially liked the focus on having students build models, introduce errors, and then apply that understanding to unfamiliar AI systems. The teacher fellowship and external evaluation plan were also strong because they recognize that teachers need the support and preparation to make this successful.
One concern I had was around some of the risks you identified yourself. As admin, my biggest worry is teacher capacity. Teacher capacity could be a challenge with the amount of training, release time, and curriculum development required. I also wondered about equity and whether an elective might mainly attract students who are already interested in STEM or technology. The rapid pace of AI development could also make keeping the curriculum current difficult. Finally, measuring whether students can actually judge unfamiliar AI systems is challenging, and the proposal acknowledges that the 60% threshold is not yet validated.
Overall, I think this is a strong and well-researched idea with a lot of potential. I would not invest at this time, but I would be interested in seeing the results of the pilot and how these risks are addressed before making a future investment.
Feedback
I like that there is a clear plan in place for future development and it identifies a gap in the market. I also like how the focus is on authentic learning and that your information is well researched. One thing I think could be improved on is how clearly your goal is stated. When I was reading I could not immediately understand what your pitch was about. While I understood after reading further, if I was looking and many different pitches, I may have been put off without immediate information about your goal.
FEEDBACK
Strengths:
I really liked the idea behind GLASSBOX. AI literacy is becoming increasingly important, and I appreciated that your venture goes beyond simply teaching students how to use AI responsibly. Helping students understand how AI is trained, where it can fail, and how to question its outputs really stood out to me. I also liked the hands-on approach and the attention you gave to teacher training, privacy, and evaluation. The three-school pilot seems like a thoughtful way to test and refine the program before expanding.
Weaknesses:
My biggest question is what happens after the pilot. I would have liked to see a little more about how GLASSBOX would be sustained financially and scaled beyond the initial schools. Would school divisions eventually purchase the program, or would it continue to depend on external funding? I think a clearer path forward would make an already strong educational idea even stronger as a venture.
Great job!
FEEDBACK: Hi Laila, I really appreciated GLASSBOX’s focus on moving AI literacy beyond tool use toward understanding how systems are built, trained, and can fail. One question I keep returning to and thinking about from the EVA perspective, is how “trust” itself would be defined and assessed. Trust in AI can involve reliability, transparency, bias, privacy, ethical appropriateness, and suitability for a particular context, which may not always align. This seems particularly complex when students (and ourselves) are evaluating proprietary systems where training data or model processes may not be fully visible. UNESCO’s (2024) AI competency framework similarly emphasizes critical judgment, human agency, and context when evaluating AI rather than positioning trust as simple binary. As AI policy and governance continues to evolve (albeit very slowly in Canada), I wonder whether the goal might therefore be less about determining whether an AI system can be trusted and more about determining what evidence is available, what remains uncertain, and what level of resistance is appropriate within a particular context. I would be interested in how GLASSBOX would establish criteria for assessment of that judgment while still allowing students to reach different, well-supported conclusions.
From an investment perspective, I also wonder about the long-term cost of sustaining and scaling the model. While publishing a curriculum for free creates an accessible pathway for other districts in BC, the initial $148,000 investment also supports teacher fellowships, release time, professional learning, equipment, coordination, and evaluation. I wonder what the implementation would cost a district once the pilot ends, and which supports would remain necessary to maintain the model’s effectiveness for implementation. Greater clarity around the post-pilot implementation model would strengthen my confidence in its scalability.
Reference:
UNESCO. (2024). AI competency framework for students. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.
FEEDBACK
Hi Laila,
I enjoyed reading through your proposal. First, great name. I really think the name is so important and I think GLASSBOX addresses a genuine and increasingly important challenge by shifting AI literacy beyond responsible use toward helping students understand HOW AI systems work, where they fail, and how to critically evaluate their outputs. I also appreciated that this venture is designed by educators. The teacher fellowship, collaborative curriculum development, and independent evaluation make the proposal feel thoughtful and grounded in the realities of schools. I also liked the decision to pitch directly to a Board of Education for pilot funding, as it aligns well with the intrapreneurial nature of the venture.
From an EVA perspective, I was left wondering what differentiates GLASSBOX from existing AI literacy curricula and resources beyond the focus on machine learning. The proposal clearly identifies a gap, but I would have liked a stronger comparison with existing programs to better understand its unique value proposition. I also found the proposal quite text-heavy, which made it harder to quickly identify the core investment opportunity. A more concise visual pitch and the inclusion of the Elevator Pitch video would have made the venture easier to evaluate against the assignment criteria.
Overall, I think this is a well-researched and thoughtful proposal with strong educational merit. A clearer articulation of its competitive advantage and a more visual presentation would strengthen the investment case.
FEEDBACK
Hi Laila, I really like the focus on helping students understand when AI can and cannot be trusted, rather than simply teaching them how to use AI tools. I think this addresses a growing need in schools and gives students skills that will remain relevant as AI continues to change.
From an EVA perspective, I would want to know more about how this could scale beyond the initial pilot and what long-term adoption might look like across school districts. Demonstrating strong student outcomes from the pilot would make me more confident in moving forward.
The part I liked most about your pitch was how clearly you explained the problem and why it matters. I also thought you communicate your idea without overwhelming the audience, making it easy to follow from start to finish.
One area that could be strengthened is explaining a bit more about how the solution would work in practice and what makes it stand out from existing alternatives. Including a brief example or real-world scenario could make the value proposition even more compelling. Overall, I think it’s a well-organized pitch with a strong concept !
FEEDBACK
Thank you for your venture pitch! I really like the hands-on approach of having students build models and manipulate datasets. The intrapreneurial model pitching directly to a school board also fits the venture well.
I am curious how GLASSBOX differentiate from existing AI literacy programs that are already available? A clearer pilot funding model and some comparison with current alternatives would strengthen the case.
FEEDBACK: This was a very thoughtful venture pitch. GLASSBOX seems like a highly relevant elective for high school students who use AI daily but have no idea how to evaluate its output. Your background in secondary education gives this venture clear credibility and a realistic focus on an actual classroom gap.
Through an EVA lens, the idea of teaching students how machine learning models actually fail rather than just how to prompt them is incredibly smart. That said, I feel that implementation in a public high school might be a major hurdle. Getting a locally developed elective approved, timetabled, and staffed by teachers who actually understand machine learning concepts could be difficult. I also worry that an elective might only attract students who are already fluent with technology, rather than the students who truly struggle with AI hallucinations and need critical media literacy the most. I am curious how this might impact the ongoing nature of the venture through the pilot and into the future.
Funding recommendation: Unfortunately, I will not be funding this venture at this time. I would need to see a clearer plan for how this survives after the initial grant money runs out and a concrete strategy for upskilling teachers to deliver this curriculum.
Hello Laila,
Your Venture Proposal was very detailed and thought out. I can see where there is a gap and you measured that need with data to support it. You identified the need and the value that would be offered well. Having just finished the summer intensive around ethics in AI, I like that your venture touched on that and could even see it joining the legal side, as you mentioned in several areas.
The only critique I would see is asking people to work below the standard wage in a pitch for positions that would likely be filled by union members. It would increase the ask but it would be for something that already has a set standard so more in keeping than out of turn to ask for it to be met. I know budgets are tight but its a relevant enough course, asking for the budget that covers it is reasonable.
Great job.