Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Professional Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board declines $25,000 PD contract after debate over scope and transparency
Summary
Board members voted down a proposed $25,000 professional-development contract with Living Yes LLC after concerns that the contract’s boilerplate language referenced topics—equity, implicit bias, restorative practices—some members said were not sufficiently specified. Teachers urged reconsideration in public comment.
The Hillsboro Township Board of Education on June 22 declined a proposed six-month professional-development engagement with Living Yes LLC that district staff described as a train‑the‑trainer program for administrators and teacher cohorts. The contract was presented as a $25,000 multi-step series to train administrators, provide a keynote and run follow-up cohorts; several board members said the proposal lacked sufficient scope and clarity before approving public funds.
Board member questions focused on what the contract would actually cover, whether staff would develop content internally, and whether the contract’s boilerplate language (which referenced possible topics including equity, implicit bias and restorative practices) had been attached to the agenda after committee discussion. “Approving a $25,000 contract without having a scope of what was being done” was a repeated concern, board members said during debate.
Superintendent Mr. Vulpi (presenting the item) said the contract was meant to change the district’s professional-development culture by training administrators first and then creating staff presenters. He described a three-part rollout: administrator training, a keynote event, and several months of cohort work with staff developing peer-led PD. He also said the contract included boilerplate language the vendor uses and that the district’s intent was limited to building internal capacity.
Several board members and the public pressed for more detail. Board members who opposed the motion said they were uncomfortable approving the full amount without clearer, itemized deliverables; some said the topics listed in the vendor’s boilerplate required fuller community discussion given their sensitivity. Others defended the idea of building teacher-led PD and said administrators had already solicited teacher input through so-called “stay interviews.”
Teachers and union leaders at public comment urged the board to reverse the decision. Brittany Hamilton and other classroom teachers who participated in the district’s stay interviews said staff wanted meaningful, sustained professional development and that a tiered trainer program could help shift a long-standing compliance-driven PD culture. Henry Goodwill, representing the Hillsboro Education Association, said the vote sent “a very detrimental message” to staff and argued the district should invest in meaningful PD to improve instruction.
Outcome: The board approved the broader bundle of education motions but voted down item 12.17 (the Living Yes LLC professional-development agreement). Several board members voted explicitly against 12.17 and one member abstained; the item failed. Board members instructed administration to return with clearer scope, deliverables and a cost breakdown should the district pursue external PD again.
Ending: The district’s administration and teachers said they would continue to work on building a PD model in consultation with the board and staff. The board asked administrators to bring more detailed scope and budget information back for review before any renewed contract authorization.
