Before you commit to an offer, ask what will change

Keep three outcomes separate

1. Teacher learning: What knowledge or skill should participants gain?
2. Classroom practice: What should teachers do differently, and how will the school observe it?
3. Student learning: Which student outcome might change, over what period, and how will it be measured?

Attendance, satisfaction and confidence can be useful implementation signals. They do not by themselves show that classroom practice or student learning changed.

What two evaluations found

An IES randomized trial assigned 90 high-poverty urban or urban-fringe U.S. public schools, including 270 second-grade teachers, to an eight-day reading institute, the institute plus in-school coaching, or the district’s usual professional development. Both study groups improved on a teacher-knowledge measure and on one of three measured instructional practices. Neither produced a statistically significant increase in student reading scores. Coaching did not produce a significantly greater impact on teacher practice than the institute alone. The findings concern two specific programmes and a particular U.S. setting; they do not show that professional development or coaching generally is ineffective. Garet, M. S., Cronen, S., Eaton, M., Kurki, A., Ludwig, M., Jones, W., Uekawa, K., Falk, A., Bloom, H., Doolittle, F., Zhu, P., & Sztejnberg, L. (2008). The Impact of Two Professional Development Interventions on Early Reading Instruction and Achievement (NCEE 2008-4030). National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.

A second IES randomized study examined more than 100 hours of seventh-grade mathematics professional development on rational-number topics, delivered through institutes, seminars and in-school coaching. Schools in 12 districts were assigned to intensive or usual district professional development; the second year was offered in six districts. After two years, the study found no statistically significant impact on teacher knowledge or student achievement in rational numbers. Teacher turnover limited the average programme dosage received. This is a finding about that programme, subject and implementation, not all professional development. Garet, M. S., Wayne, A. J., Stancavage, F., Taylor, J., Eaton, M., Walters, K., Song, M., Brown, S., Hurlburt, S., Zhu, P., Sepanik, S., & Doolittle, F. (2011). Middle School Mathematics Professional Development Impact Study: Findings After the Second Year of Implementation. Executive Summary (NCEE 2011-4025; full report NCEE 2011-4024). Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.

These studies show why a proposal should name its intended outcome and the evidence behind that claim. Improvement in teacher knowledge should not be reported as a student-learning gain unless student outcomes were measured and the design supports that conclusion.

Review the offer

Complete the questions before approving a course, coaching contract or school-wide programme. Write “not supplied” when the proposal does not answer a question.

Define the decision

• What decision or learning problem is this offer meant to address?
• Which staff and student groups are in scope?
• What local evidence suggests this is the right problem?

Check the evidence behind the offer

• Was this specific programme evaluated, or is the evidence about a different course or model?
• Who took part, in what school setting and subject? What was the comparison group?
• Which outcomes were measured: teacher knowledge, classroom practice, student learning or something else?
• How long after the programme were outcomes measured? What limitations or outcomes that did not improve were reported?

Check fit and implementation

• What must participants do after the training for the approach to reach classrooms?
• What protected time, coaching, materials or leadership support is included?
• How might staff turnover, timetable changes or competing initiatives affect participation and follow-through?
• Which differences from the evaluated setting matter here: curriculum, age, language, staffing, school year, resources or local requirements? What needs adapting, and who will decide?

Agree a local follow-up

Do not promise a student outcome when the offer has no plausible route to it or when the school cannot measure it responsibly. If a comparison group is not feasible, describe the follow-up as a local check, not proof that the programme caused a change.

Make the decision explicit

• Decision: approve, pilot, revise, defer or decline.
• What is the strongest reason for this decision?
• What evidence would change our view?
• When will the team review the decision and its evidence?

Do not add the responses into a total score. This worksheet structures a conversation; it has not been validated as a provider-ranking tool.