Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Panelist Training topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission approves Schedule F panelist rubric and outlines reviewer training
Summary
The commission approved the Schedule F advisory-panel application questions and scoring rubric (passing score 80%) and staff outlined two days of training to norm reviewers on rubrics, instructional priorities, and evidence standards; panelist applicants include 39 for social studies.
The Tennessee Textbook and Instructional Materials Quality Commission on Jan. 7 voted to approve the Schedule F advisory-panelist application questions and scoring rubric and reviewed the planned training for reviewers.
Commissioner Mike Bell moved approval of the rubric; Hayden Shannon seconded. A roll-call vote recorded unanimous 'Aye' votes and the motion passed. The rubric guidance includes a 0–4 scoring scale (with guidance allowing use of 1 and 3 as intermediate scores) and a passing threshold of 80 percent of available points.
Candy Collier, senior director of CTE and special projects for the Department of Education, described Day 1 training as focused on rubric expectations, including line-by-line review and made-up examples intended to show weak, middling and strong materials so reviewers can calibrate scoring. "The first day of that panelist training is really providing an opportunity for the panelist to become very familiar with the expectations," Collier said.
Michael Bradburn, senior director for secondary literacy and humanities, summarized Day 2 as hands-on practice: reviewers will analyze grade-band materials, apply the instructional practice guide (IPG), and score sample pieces so they develop consistent evidence-based notes for each rubric item. "So they'll know exactly how to mark those up, what information to share, and what that evidence looks like," Bradburn said.
Lee Houston explained logistics for scoring: commissioners will receive paired applicant lists, the state team will score task elements, and the commission will vote on final panelist selections at a subsequent meeting. Houston also said staff will coordinate with department scorers to set reasonable turnaround dates for scoring tasks before the March 4 meeting.
Why it matters: the commission’s rubric and training shape how reviewers evaluate materials statewide; consistent norming seeks to reduce score variability and provide clearer evidence for districts and publishers. The commission recorded applicant counts for panel roles: 39 social-studies applicants, 8 business, and 6 human-services applicants.
Next steps: staff will circulate panelist applicant lists and scoring timelines to commissioners; selected panelists and their scores will be finalized and voted at the commission’s March meeting.
