Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Program committee reviews draft professional learning workflow, proposes peer-led model and rubric
Loading...
Summary
Committee members reviewed a draft professional learning workflow that would recruit two teacher representatives per building, use a 70/20/10 learning model, batch reviews twice yearly and rely on a scoring rubric; members pressed administrators on selection, rotation, scoring ranges and mentor support.
The program committee reviewed a draft professional learning workflow that would formalize how district staff pursue and share professional development, the Chair said. The proposal centers on a 70/20/10 model — "Where 70% of professional learning happens as we collaborate as a team," the Chair said — and would recruit two teachers from each building to help design and run a districtwide system.
The committee discussed implementation details, including turning the proposal into a Google form to guide submissions and adding word limits on application text after a teacher raised concerns about uneven writing ability. "We have to make sure that it's even, that everybody has a fair fair chance at it," the Chair said of the changes intended to equalize opportunity.
Under the draft, requests would be reviewed in two annual batches (around Jan. 1 and Aug. 31) and decisions would be made based on a scoring rubric tied to district priorities. The Chair described an "exit ticket" follow-up after conferences to document how attendees shared learning with their colleagues. Committee members emphasized that no program dollars will be assigned until the process is fully developed and piloted.
Committee members raised operational questions about who was selected to serve on the initial eight-person design team and whether that composition would rotate. "I do notice that there are 8 names here…why these teachers?" one Committee member asked, noting some listed volunteers already carry heavy commitments. The Chair said building leaders recruited volunteers and that rotation of the district-office representative (initially chosen because of budgeting expertise) is planned after the first cycle.
Members also questioned details of the rubric and scoring ranges, including narrow point bands that separate 'strong alignment' from 'aligned' and how the rubric would account for content-area differences and student-support trainings. A Committee member asked how conference reputation and presenter quality would be evaluated in advance; the Chair said the rubric includes relevance and timeliness criteria and the group discussed using mock proposals and inter-rater reliability exercises to calibrate scorers.
The draft envisions mentor and coach support for newer staff to help prepare proposals and to provide feedback when a submission needs revision. "We would coach them. We want them to go," the Chair said when asked how less experienced teachers would be supported.
The committee set an internal target to finalize the draft by May 15 so it can be presented to the full board or program for consideration. The Chair adjourned the meeting at 6:54 p.m.
