An Interview with Lead Reviewer Austine Etcheverry

In February 2026, Rivet Education launched the inaugural set of badges certifying Professional Learning Partner Guide providers with specialized expertise in helping teachers support multilingual learners. Austine Etcheverry was a lead reviewer during this review cycle and offers an inside look into the process.

Q: To start, can you introduce yourself and share a bit about your background in education, your passions, and what drew you to this work?

I have a doctorate in Educational Leadership and Administration. I am a National Board Certified Educator in Special Education and work as a middle school educator and an adjunct professor for a university in Arizona, where I teach special education courses and supervise student teachers.

I also spend time working with educators through a company that supports teachers who are earning micro-credentials and taking courses to advance their educational careers. I love working with educators, and in many roles I listen to teachers share their experiences with the professional development they have participated in.

My other passions include working with students with exceptional needs, promoting inclusion, and spending time reading and visiting great coffee shops around the world.

What drew me to this work is the opportunity to be part of a network of educators who reflect on what high-quality professional development truly looks like. I often struggle with the number of companies and educators delivering professional development without fully understanding adult learners. There is also often a disconnect between high-quality instructional materials, how they support all learners, and how that information is meaningfully connected to the educator in the classroom.

Q: Before reviewing applications, what kind of training or calibration did reviewers go through to prepare?

Prior to reviewing, we learned about the indicators on training calls, talking through the indicators. We also did a pre-calibration call during the review process, but more toward the beginning instead of doing a bigger review call after we had already reviewed everything. Doing this earlier in the process really helped nail down some of the misconceptions that we still had around the indicators. There was also an opportunity to connect with Rivet staff if we needed to clarify anything around the indicators or around the scoring. 

Q: Can you walk us through, step-by-step, the process of reviewing a Multilingual Learner (MLL) Badge application?

Step #1 is to review the evidence that was provided. I like to start by reading through the answers in the executive summary. Next, I open the indicators, read through the first one, and review the sample questions or examples of items I should be looking for. Then, I go to the page the provider identified for the evidence.

After completing that step, if I have not yet found clear evidence for the indicator, I look through the other slides or additional materials they have provided to see if I can locate the information elsewhere. While reviewing, I add the evidence I find into the reviewer portal.

Next, I return to the scoring information, determine the appropriate score, and save my notes. I do not click “complete” until I have finished all of my reviews in case I need to go back and revise something.

Once all reviews are finished, all of the reviewers assigned to the provider’s application hold a final review consensus call where we compare our scores and discuss any differences in scoring, evidence, and alignment to the indicators. After we reach agreement on the final score and the call concludes—sometime before the deadline—I enter the final score and complete the report for any submissions where I am the final reviewer. If there are any discrepancies or questions, I will go back to the reviewers to clarify prior to submitting the final score. 

Q: What are reviewers looking for in a strong MLL Badge application?

I believe that reviewers are looking for PLPG providers to truly understand the biases that educators may have, which could impact the overall learning of students, along with the ability to analyze data to determine what next steps or supports students could benefit from within the curriculum to gain access to grade-level materials. I also believe that reviewers are looking for PLPG providers to recognize that collaboration among the team to support MLLs is key to supporting all students, and the stronger the connection to this, the better the overall support will be for learners.

Q: What stood out to you most as you reviewed applications? Were there any common strengths, trends, or surprises?

Something that stood out to me was how little individual PLPG providers delved into bias on the part of educators regarding learning, even though this really sets the foundation for implementing the curriculum, working as a team, and evaluating data to support learners. There was a trend among PLPG providers of not providing evidence of teams working together or clarifying who was responsible for what when supporting MLLs. 

Additionally, there was a lack of evidence of overall data discussions for administrators and educator teams, as well as an inadequate understanding of overall data and how to break it down when comparing the school as a whole to MLLs. Several PLG providers also did not meaningfully analyze student work to identify data trends.

The strengths I noticed included initial conversations about bias with evidence showing how overall bias can impact learners, although as I mentioned, providers need to do more to provide deep learning on bias. There was also strong evidence of adjusting supports and curriculum to meet the needs of MLLs. I also felt there was a strength in having MLLs engage with curriculum items across multiple areas.

Q: How does the review process help ensure that the MLL Badge is meaningful and credible?

I think that the review process helps ensure that it is meaningful and credible because the review is conducted by educators from across the nation. They bring unique perspectives to the material, and their diverse educational backgrounds support students and help connect the learning nationally, rather than from a single perspective. I believe the review process also enhances credibility because the indicators are clearly mapped out, with examples that reviewers and PLPG providers can reference to say, “I have an example of that” or “I have done that,” minimizing the areas of gray that can sometimes reduce credibility. 

I think it is meaningful because it allows school districts to clearly see which companies provide high-quality educational professional development, helping them support student learning on a day-to-day basis, and which companies claim to provide it but lack evidence to back up their claims.

Q: How do you think the MLL Badge will help improve the curriculum-based professional learning field?

I think that the MLL Badge will help improve what school districts and educators can expect from providers in terms of research-based strategies that support MLLs. Instead of these strategies being treated as an extra or an afterthought, I think the badge will put them at the forefront of planning and implementation. I believe it will also add value to the work that providers are doing as they continue to identify the biases that are inherently present in our work. Additionally, I believe it will help providers and districts see the importance of being intentional about training all educators to work inclusively with students. When several of the indicators highlight teamwork—or reveal that it is missing—it forces people in the field to ask questions like, “Wait a minute, how do I do that at my school? What does that look and sound like here, and how can it be improved?” rather than relying on a single MLL educator to support all students.