Gateway 3

2 points:

• Professional learning provider has systems and processes to learn about clients’ goals, resources, and requirements to meet clients’ needs.

1 point:

• Professional learning provider describes their approach to learning about clients’ goals, resources, and requirements to meet clients’ needs, but does so in general terms, lacking detail about specific systems or processes.

0 points:

• Professional learning provider does not provide any examples of systems or processes to learn about clients’ goals, resources, and requirements to meet clients’ needs.

Evidence Collection

Reviewers look for and record:

• Evidence that the professional learning provider has systems and processes to learn about and account for a client’s context (e.g., goals, resources, and requirements) prior to facilitation to inform planning and increase the effectiveness of their services. This could include:
  • Gathering information about participants’ prior experiences with the HQIM or existing familiarity with materials.
  • Establishing agreed-upon outcomes for the engagement.
  • Providing and/or soliciting information about how participants will access the HQIM materials throughout implementation (e.g., digital access and print materials).
  • Working with the client to ensure the provider has access to necessary materials owned, licensed, or managed by the client. (For example, does the provider need access to a school- and district-specific digital platform during session(s)?)
• Descriptions of protocols, systems, or processes that are used with clients prior to professional learning facilitation that addresses:
  • Goals of professional learning and how they will meet the needs of teachers and leaders.
  • Resources available to teachers that will impact the professional learning (e.g., technology, trade books, teacher or student materials, etc.).
  • Client-specific requirements (e.g., length of session, the timing of sessions, number of participants, grade, content, and/or experience level of participants).

Scoring (0, 1, or 2 points)

2 points:

• Professional learning provider evaluates the impact of its professional learning services on three or more Guskey5 levels, and
• Professional learning provider has a process for collecting, sharing, and debriefing impact and evaluation data with clients.

1 point:

• Professional learning provider evaluates the impact of its professional learning services on three or more Guskey levels, and
• Professional learning provider does not have a process for sharing and debriefing data with clients.

0 points:

• Professional learning provider evaluates the impact of its professional learning services on two or fewer Guskey levels, and
• Professional learning provider does not have a process for collecting, sharing, and debriefing data with clients.

Evidence Collection

Reviewers look for and record:

• Examples of collecting data on the impact of professional learning for one client on at least three Guskey levels of evaluation.
• Evidence that the provider has a process for collecting, sharing, and debriefing impact and evaluation data with district partners. 
• Evidence that the professional learning provider engages participants to provide feedback on the quality of services and/or facilitation.
• Instances in which the provider measures the effectiveness of professional learning in a variety of formats, such as:
  • Evidence of pre and post-professional learning meetings with the provider and the client.
  • Collection of self-reporting on quality of implementation as a result of Professional learning.
  • Use of quantitative and/or qualitative data.
  • In-person and/or video observations. 
  • Surveys.
  • Interviews.
  • Focus groups.
• Evidence that the provider uses data to improve their professional learning services.
• Specific data demonstrating the impact of improvement on the quality of the professional learning (e.g., increase in net promoter scores, participant scoring of professional learning impact and effectiveness, and student data pulled from the HQIM).

Scoring (0, 1, or 2 points)

2 points:

• Professional learning provider provides specific examples of how it evaluates facilitator candidates for hire for knowledge of content, content pedagogy, HQIM, and adult learning practices, and
• Professional learning provider has systems and processes in place to provide facilitators with initial training.

1 point:

• Professional learning provider does not provide examples of how it evaluates facilitator candidates for hire for knowledge of content, content pedagogy, HQIM, and adult learning practices, or
• Professional learning provider does not have systems and processes in place to provide facilitators with initial training.

0 points:

• Professional learning provider does not provide any examples of how they evaluate facilitator candidates for hire for knowledge of content, content pedagogy, HQIM, and adult learning practices, and
• Professional learning provider does not have systems and processes in place to provide facilitators with initial training.

Evidence Collection

Reviewers look for and record:

• Description of systems, protocols, or practices aligned to content and/or HQIM that are used to hire all facilitators, such as:
  • Performance tasks.
  • Interview questions.
  • Application submissions.
• Evidence of evaluation for knowledge of content, content pedagogy, and adult learning practices.
• Description of systems and processes that provide facilitators with initial training (e.g., working with a publisher to provide certified training, hosting HQIM training sessions for new facilitators, etc.).

Scoring (0, 1, or 2 points)

2 points:

• Professional learning provider has a defined process to evaluate facilitator/coach effectiveness and address individual facilitator needs, and 
• Professional learning provider has a defined process to use data to improve overall services.

1 point:

• Professional learning provider process for evaluating facilitator/coach effectiveness lacks concrete details, or
• Professional learning provider’s process for using data to improve overall services lacks concrete details.

0 points:

• Professional learning provider does not evaluate facilitator/coach effectiveness, or
• Professional learning provider does not use data to improve overall services.

Evidence Collection

Reviewers look for and record:

• A process for evaluating facilitators with the goal of improvement and maintenance.
• Specific, concrete examples of how facilitators are evaluated (e.g., examples of timelines, self-evaluations, agendas, surveys, feedback protocols, routines, and/or a measurement system).
• A description of how the provider uses data from evaluations of facilitators to improve overall services.
• A description of how the process for evaluating facilitators was used to address an individual facilitator’s needs.

Scoring (0, 1, or 2 points)

2 points:

• Applicants for Initial Implementation, Ongoing Implementation for Teachers, and Ongoing Implementation for Leaders: Professional learning provider has a clear process for staying up to date on publication formats.
• Applicants for Adoption: Professional learning provider has a clear process for staying up to date on materials that meet the definition of HQIM and the evaluation process that can impact whether or not materials meet the definition of HQIM.

1 point:

• Applicants for Initial Implementation, Ongoing Implementation for Teachers, and Ongoing Implementation for Leaders: Professional learning provider’s process for staying up to date on publication formats is not clear.
• Applicants for Adoption: Professional learning provider’s process for staying up to date on materials that meet the definition of HQIM and the evaluation processes that can impact whether or not materials meet the definition of HQIM are not clear.

0 points:

• Applicants for Initial Implementation, Ongoing Implementation for Teachers, and Ongoing Implementation for Leaders: Professional learning provider does not have a clear process for staying up to date on publication formats.
• Applicants for Adoption: Professional learning provider does not have a clear process for staying up to date on materials that meet the definition of HQIM and the evaluation processes that can impact whether or not materials meet the definition of HQIM.

Evidence Collection

Reviewers look for and record:

• A specific process for staying up to date on publication formats or content updates to HQIM and updating materials accordingly.
  • For organizations that are the author/publisher: e.g., how you ensure alignment and collaboration between your product, engineering, and professional learning teams.
  • For organizations that are not the author/publisher: e.g., how you communicate and collaborate with the author(s)/publisher(s) to stay up to date on changes to content and publication format. How do you update your professional learning materials to reflect changes to the HQIM? (e.g., content and platform) 
• A specific process for ensuring they are up to date on materials that meet the definition of HQIM and any updates to evaluation processes that can impact whether or not materials meet the definition of HQIM.