Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Staff Certification topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
District reports BloomBoard cohort progress; 32 staff remain in ESL pathway, district covers tuition up front
Summary
Administration updated the board on a BloomBoard partnership to provide ESL and special education endorsements. Thirty‑six staff originally enrolled, two withdrew, and administrators asked for board support for a new cohort this fall.
A district presenter provided a status update on the district’s cohort using BloomBoard (reported in the meeting as “BloomBoard” and at times spoken as “Bloomberg”), a vendored program that the district used this school year to support staff in earning English‑learner (ESL) and special education endorsements. The presenter said 36 staff began the program; two withdrew during the fall semester and the cohort stabilised at 32 staff pursuing an ESL endorsement. Of those, seven have already completed all required credits and are ready to add the endorsement to their license, the presenter said.
District staff said the ESL pathway requires 18 credit hours over three semesters; the special education endorsement required 12 hours for the two participants who chose that track. The district pays BloomBoard’s tuition upfront for participants, the presenter said, rather than relying on individual tuition‑reimbursement processes. The vendor’s current price for the 18‑hour ESL program was reported as $7,650 per person; the presenter did not provide a final per‑person total for the bilingual add‑on course but said the bilingual endorsement requires one additional course plus evidence of language proficiency and an accompanying proficiency test.
The board asked about completion rates, participant satisfaction and retention requirements. The presenter said BloomBoard reported a roughly 94% engagement rate among the 32 remaining ESL participants (reflecting two early withdrawals) and that several participants accelerated completion of coursework. The presenter said the two staff who withdrew are under a payback arrangement to reimburse the district for costs associated with their enrollment.
Member Klingler asked whether there is a retention requirement tied to the district’s funding of tuition. The presenter confirmed there is a promissory note arrangement similar to tuition reimbursement: if a participant leaves the district within a specified period after endorsement, a proportional payback applies. The presenter described the graduated payback schedule presented at the meeting: a payback percentage applies if a staffer leaves within the first year after endorsement, a reduced payback applies in the second year (50% in the presenter’s description), and no payback is required after the third year.
The presenter asked the board to support running a new cohort in fall 2025 and said the district has budgeted the program again in the human‑resources allocation. Board members requested the program’s participant survey results and suggested the administration include clearer communication about the asynchronous, primarily self‑paced format before enrollment to reduce withdrawals. The presenter said they will attend the next information session to ensure prospective participants understand the workload and pacing.
