Strengthening Evidence Use in Professional Learning: Evaluating Quality and Fit

District leaders are deeply committed to selecting high-quality professional learning; it not only supports the successful implementation of instructional materials, but also ultimately drives better student outcomes. During the evaluation phase of the curriculum-based professional learning (CBPL) purchase journey, leaders face a host of pivotal decisions: assembling initial vendor lists, applying state standards, and deciding what counts as credible evidence of PL quality. As decision-makers move through this stage, they must assess vendor credibility while weighing claims from a variety of disconnected sources. Within a complex and fragmented market, signals of quality can be difficult to find, interpret, and compare, increasing the likelihood that important forms of evidence are overlooked or misinterpreted.

At the same time, leaders are not just evaluating vendors on alignment with quality standards, but also considering how well their offerings address the unique needs of students and teachers within their district. Identifying CBPL that closely aligns with district goals means navigating an overabundance of information about contextual fit, vendor implementation capacity, and evidence of impact on student learning. Since professional learning has a significant impact on student outcomes and teacher engagement, unresolved challenges at this stage can carry long-term consequences.

Following extensive research with CBPL organizations and district leaders, the EdSignals Studio uncovered three primary factors that shape CBPL evaluations: the need to maintain student and teacher trust, misalignment between vendor messaging and district priorities, and choice overload created by the sheer volume of CBPL information available. In this article, we explore how vendors and third-party education partners can strengthen signals of quality, making evidence more trustworthy, district-aligned, and usable to help time-constrained decision-makers sift through the noise and perform evaluations with confidence.

Trust Signals Drive Evidence Use During Evaluation

Trust is core to all activities during the evaluation phase. Not only does it shape how districts interact with vendors, but it also determines where they seek out information about PL options. Our research revealed that district leaders exhibit a strong reliance on peer recommendations as signals of CBPL quality.¹ They would rather talk to someone who has witnessed the PL taking place or has personally participated in the training than rely solely on third-party reviews or claims made by vendors themselves. In fact, 70% of CBPL buyers prioritize options recommended by someone they know and trust.²

To better understand how trust influences PL decisions, our research delved deeply into the different components of trust, such as competence and integrity. Beyond assessing whether vendors can competently deliver on their promises, districts are also concerned with benevolence—whether a provider appears genuinely invested in teacher needs and student outcomes.¹ District leaders are interested in finding benevolent PL providers because they need to maintain teacher confidence. They want to know that vendors will be available for internal capacity-building and long-term support, ensuring the program is a good fit for the district’s teacher population and delivers lasting results. These priorities are reflected in buyer preferences: 85% of district buyers prioritize services that have proven effective at increasing teacher satisfaction, and 75% favor programs that can demonstrate improved teacher retention.² 

This emphasis on trust and desire for peer validation can serve as key levers for vendors and quality arbiters to drive evidence use among district leaders.¹ Using social proof in resources that indicate PL program quality can be a powerful way to communicate with district leaders. Effective social proof signals should clearly demonstrate peer adoption, such as “Adopted by 37 districts statewide,” or “9 out of 10 district leaders recommend this vendor.” Metrics like these bring social proof to the surface, making it easy for leaders to identify quality PL.

Third-party review organizations are well-positioned to amplify these vendor trust signals. As independent entities, they can aggregate adoption data or peer endorsements across vendors and present these signals from a position of neutrality.¹ When social proof signals come from a trusted intermediary rather than the vendors themselves, it strengthens the credibility of these claims.

District Priorities Shape What Type of Evidence is Considered

Districts don’t shortlist vendors based solely on trust, but also on whether CBPL programs align with their priorities. At this stage, districts may care more about how the PL is delivered and how it translates to student outcomes than what it contains. Some buyers are even willing to trade off some content features for better presenters.¹ District leaders rationalize that an excellent presenter with medium-quality content can still get a few key points across to teachers, whereas a low-quality presenter with high-quality content may not actually transfer any knowledge. For example, there is a clear preference for PL coaches who can adapt to diverse experience levels of teachers and provide support directly within the school environment.² 

These insights show that signals of implementation quality matter just as much as information about program components. Vendors should still provide descriptions of programs and generalized reviews, but districts also want to see teacher feedback on the experience and evidence of facilitator expertise. As a result, providers should add delivery quality as a core metric when presenting evidence of impact. This could mean highlighting the number of presenters with instructional coaching experience or providing teacher ratings reflecting presenter engagement. Messaging focused on deliverability can meaningfully influence perceptions of quality in communications with district leaders. In one recent pilot with a professional learning provider, we found that visual graphics emphasizing PL impact and deliverability significantly boosted perceptions of competence and integrity among district buyers.²

Students are also top-of-mind at this stage: 100% of buyers report that student outcomes are a main consideration when evaluating CBPL.² Overall, district leaders are looking for information that will tell them a PL program will work in their specific district. It follows that vendors should highlight this information in their outreach communications. For example, many buyers would rather see data demonstrating CBPL efficacy within their own state than evidence showing effectiveness nationwide.² 

Choice Overload Creates Barriers to Evidence Engagement

Most buyers are inundated with vendor marketing well before they start looking for CBPL offerings, and the volume of information can quickly become overwhelming. Research from the EdSignals Studio revealed that choice overload is the most significant barrier to evidence use in the evaluation stage.¹ Choice overload occurs when an abundance of options increases cognitive strain, leading to decision fatigue or inaction.³ When district leaders are faced with too many options, committees often default to shortcuts such as options recommended by peers or offerings from familiar vendors. Choice overload can also result in decision paralysis or avoidance; in CBPL purchasing, this might mean defaulting to internal development even after deciding to explore external offerings. The time it takes to search for and compare CBPL options is one of the most significant barriers to CBPL adoption overall.²

One way to mitigate choice overload among district leaders is by placing information about available, quality programs directly in their line of sight. This means making evidence about CBPL available where district leaders are already looking for information, such as local and state education agency platforms. Consolidating this information into easily accessible channels reduces the number of places district leaders need to look to find quality evidence. Creating an accessible evidence hub on education agency platforms can also help overwhelmed district personnel easily review the criteria that matter most to them, reducing choice overload and increasing their confidence in their decisions.

Beyond making evidence more easily accessible, vendors and education partners should work to make evidence easier to interpret; at least one in two surveyed district leaders think evidence of PL quality should be easier to implement into decision-making. Certifications are a simple way to communicate information about program quality without requiring that district leaders independently analyze complex reports or interpret research findings. These certifications further reduce cognitive burden by helping district leaders quickly winnow down potential contenders to those that meet recognized quality standards.

Making Quality Signals Clear, Credible, and District-Aligned

As districts evaluate CBPL, leaders are heavily focused on issues of teacher trust, delivery quality, and student outcomes. With these complex priorities in mind, assessing a large selection of CBPL options can quickly lead to choice overload, making it difficult for decision-makers to interpret and act on evidence of quality.

Clear signals of quality are crucial for helping district buyers make decisions rooted in evidence of impact. Vendors can increase buyer trust by leveraging social proof and presenting concise, visual metrics that demonstrate CBPL delivery quality and teacher satisfaction. Meanwhile, quality arbiters and education agencies are well-positioned to create accessible, centralized hubs where district leaders can find and compare vetted CBPL offerings, reducing the mental effort required to identify credible options. 

Strengthening the evaluation stage means designing signals that reflect district priorities and align with how leaders make decisions, encouraging engagement with evidence at the moment when it matters most.

Sources

1. EdSignals Studio, Cohort 1, 2025
2. EdSignals Studio, Pilot Cohort, 2024
3. Jacob, B. M., Thomas, S., & Joseph, J. (2024). Over two decades of research on choice overload: An overview and research agenda. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 48(2), e13029. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.13029