About
A trusted advisor, not a tech evangelist
Background
I'm Lisa MacLeod, and I've spent a career in international education — designing policy, building partnerships, and advising governments, universities, and international organizations across the Middle East, Asia, and North America. Along the way, one thing stayed constant: technology adoption in education rarely stalls from lack of enthusiasm. It stalls from the absence of a clear, honest standard for what's actually safe to bring into a classroom.
I watched that play out with earlier waves of EdTech, and again, faster and higher-stakes, in September 2025, when seven countries began requiring AI across the K-12 curriculum. Teachers were learning tools the same week they were required to teach with them, students moved faster than anyone could track, and the rules meant to guide it all were largely absent. Educators started reaching out to me directly — soon followed by business professionals facing the same gap. That's the moment this became the work I wanted to do.
That's the gap Learn AI Ethically exists to close. What started as a weekly newsletter now reaches over 1,900 subscribers across 36 countries, with workshops and training that have reached 500+ educators and administrators. The advisory and certification work on this site applies that same rigor to one specific question: does this AI tool deserve your trust?
Why “ethically”
The word does real work here. It means the review has a standard behind it, that standard is published, and the conclusion doesn't shift depending on who's paying for it. In practice, ethics looks less like a manifesto and more like a checklist someone actually applied — the same criteria, the same rigor, whether the tool in question is free, expensive, from a household name, or from a two-person startup. That consistency is the point. If a "responsible AI" review can be talked out of an unfavorable conclusion, it isn't one.
Practical over theoretical
Principles documents don't help someone deciding whether a class of ninth graders can use a specific tool on Monday. The work here ends in a decision.
Transparent by default
The rubric is public, the reasoning is written down, and the limits of any review are stated plainly. If I'm uncertain, I say so.
No hype, either direction
AI is neither salvation nor catastrophe. It's a set of tools with specific risks and specific benefits, and both can be assessed.