How to choose a school PD provider (including whether it's us)

Because most of it is designed for delivery, not transfer. A single-day "sit-and-get" workshop can inspire, but implementation research is blunt: without follow-up coaching, modeling, and feedback, almost none of it survives contact with Monday. That's why serious frameworks publish multi-year arcs — the IIRP recommends 3 to 5 years for restorative implementation, and PBIS fidelity data shows only about half of schools hit the Tier 1 benchmark even in a supported first year.

The money is real, too. Districts spend heavily on PD; buying inspiration without implementation is the most expensive way to change nothing.

Synthesizing state education agency guidance (Iowa, Kentucky) and implementation research:

• 1. Evidence base. The provider's framework should align with the ESSA Tiers of Evidence (Strong or Moderate), with the research cited in their materials — independent, peer-reviewed studies, not just internal case studies.
• 2. Embedded, ongoing support. Look for coaching cycles, in-classroom modeling, train-the-trainer capacity building, and a multi-year plan. If the proposal ends at the workshop, so will the change.
• 3. Data-driven customization. A quality partner asks for your referral data, climate surveys, and attendance patterns before proposing content. Pre-packaged is a red flag.
• 4. Models what it teaches. PBL training should run as a project; restorative training should happen in circles; strengths-based leadership PD should be built on your staff's strengths. Facilitation that contradicts its own content tells you everything.
• 5. Systemic alignment. The provider should articulate exactly how their work plugs into your MTSS, strategic plan, and state standards — preventing the "another disconnected initiative" perception that kills staff buy-in.

• "Which independent studies support this approach, and what did they not find?" (Honest providers name limitations — like RAND's mixed academic effects for restorative practices.)
• "What does year two of working with you look like?" (Silence means there isn't one.)
• "What data do you need from us before you'd design anything?" (The answer should be specific: ODRs by subgroup, climate surveys, retention.)
• "How will your facilitators model this practice live, in our classrooms?"
• "How does this connect to the PBIS/MTSS work we already run?" — and watch whether they ask follow-up questions about it.

For the initiative-level version of this diligence — why programs fail even with good providers — read why school initiatives fail.

Fair question — here's the honest self-assessment. We ground our programs in the published research base cited throughout this Learning Center (RAND, PACE, the PBIS evidence base, Gallup's strengths data), and we're explicit about limitations where they exist. Our discipline and restorative trainings are structured as multi-day sequences with coaching follow-up, not one-off keynotes; our workshops are experiential because that's what we teach; and every engagement starts from your climate, discipline, and belonging data — that's what our Climate & Culture Audit is for.

Where we'll tell you we're not the fit: if you need a vendor for a single compliance-hour slideshow, we're the wrong call — and we'll say so. As a 501(c)(3) with 25+ years in schools, we'd rather point you somewhere better than deliver PD we know won't stick.