Gateway 1

Although teachers and leaders can benefit from PL and support on a variety of topics, Rivet’s Professional Learning Partner Guide (PLPG) identifies and profiles organizations that specialize in providing PL that supports the adoption of and implementation of HQIM as defined as “meeting expectations” on EdReports. For Science, HQIM is also defined as those curricula that have at least two units per grade-band (K-2, 3-5, 6-8 and 9-12) that have been reviewed and rated on the EQuIP rubric by the EQuIP Peer Review Panel for Science as "High Quality NGSS Design" or "High Quality NGSS Design if Improved. "

Therefore, Gateway 1 ensures PL providers:

• Have expertise in one or more HQIM, and

• Design professional learning that focuses on helping teachers and school and district leaders successfully implement specific HQIM.

Note: Gateway 1 applies to PL organizations who wish to be highlighted in the PLPG for launch PL, ongoing PL for teachers, and ongoing PL for leaders; organizations who only provide professional learning services related to the adoption of HQIM bypass Gateway 1.

Gateway 1 is evaluated at the level of the HQIM— not at the level of the organization— through the eligibility screener.

PL providers can prove their expertise in an HQIM and their ability to design professional learning aligned to it in one of three ways:

1. by indicating they are the publisher or author of the HQIM,

2. by submitting a letter of assurance from the author or publisher attesting to their expertise, or

3. by submitting a response and artifacts that prove they understand the approach, design, and structure/components of the HQIM, and their PL is designed to help teachers use it effectively.

Possible points

0 or 2 points

Application questions

• Is your organization the author or publisher of the instructional materials that you selected above?

• Does your organization have a letter of assurance from the author or publisher of the HQIM attesting to your organization’s ability to provide high-quality PL on their materials?

Evidence collection

Reviewers look for and record:

• The instructional material(s) in which the PL provider claims to have expertise.

• Whether the PL provider responded “yes” to the application question asking them if they are the author or publisher of the instructional materials in which they claim to have expertise.

• A letter of assurance from the author/publisher attesting to the PL provider’s ability to provide high-quality PL on their materials.

Scoring

2 points:

• PL provider is the author or publisher of the HQIM in which they claim to have expertise, or

• PL provider has a letter of assurance from the author or publisher of the HQIM attesting to their expertise.

0 points:

• PL provider is not the author or publisher of the HQIM in which they claim to have expertise, and

• PL provider does not have a letter of assurance from the author or publisher of the HQIM attesting to their expertise.

Possible points

0, 1, or 2 points

Application questions

• Submit a sample set of PL materials (e.g. presentations with facilitator guide/notes, handouts, guidebooks, course syllabi, client work plans, client reflection questions, coaching notes, etc.) that demonstrates your organization’s professional learning is focused on helping educators successfully implement the HQIM.

• Included with the set of materials above is a cover letter than answers the following question: Describe the approach, design principles, and structure/components of the HQIM and how the HQIM supports students’ achievement of grade-level content. (<500 words)

Formatting notes: Submit one PDF per curricula that includes the cover letter and sample PL materials (maximum 200 pages per pdf) with the required evidence. Save each PDF with the following naming convention: PLprovider_HQIM_publisher (e.g. BestPLOrg_EL_LearnZillion).

Evidence collection

Reviewers look for and record:

• The extent to which the PL provider describes the approach, design principles, and structure/components of the HQIM and how the HQIM supports students’ achievement of grade-level content. Is their response accurate? Specific? Comprehensive?

• Evidence where the PL materials explicitly mention and pull samples/excerpts from the HQIM (e.g., information about the design and approach of the HQIM, references to specific units and lessons, screenshots of the system where educators access the HQIM, sample problems, texts, passages, and assessments from the HQIM*)

• Evidence that the PL focuses on building knowledge and skills that help educators successfully implement the HQIM, i.e., the PL should not be agnostic to the HQIM

  1. • For example, the PL may build disciplinary-specific content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and pedagogical content knowledge that is relevant to the HQIM and explicitly aligned to the HQIM; build leaders’ skill in using observation tools to provide feedback on the quality of implementation of the HQIM; build teachers’ skill in internalizing and preparing to teach lessons from the HQIM; build teachers’ ability to reflect on student work from specific lessons and use HQIM-embedded supports to meet the needs of students with unfinished learning.

*Suggested examples of possible materials for submission; Rivet does not require all materials to be submitted to score full points and should only be done so to the extent authorized by the publisher or any copyright owner.

Scoring

2 points:

• The PL provider describes the approach, design principles, and structure/components of the HQIM and how the HQIM supports students’ achievement of grade-level content; the PL provider's response is accurate, specific, and comprehensive.

• The content of the PL materials is aligned to the HQIM throughout with a clear focus on helping educators understand and use their HQIM.

1 point:

• The PL provider describes the approach, design principles, and/or structure/components of the HQIM and/or how the HQIM supports students’ achievement of grade-level content; however, the PL provider’s response contains some inaccuracies about the HQIM, and/or is vague and/or scant.

• The content of the PL materials makes cursory or passing references to the HQIM in some way, but the primary focus of the PL is not on helping educators understand or use their HQIM.

0 points:

• The PL provider does not describe the approach, design principles, and/or structure/components of the HQIM and/or how the HQIM supports students’ achievement of grade-level content, or the PL provider’s response contains significant inaccuracies.

• Content of the PL materials is not aligned to the HQIM.