Appendix A - Literacy Dyslexia Endorsement Application.docx
DOCX document 116 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- OEV27007095
- Issued by
- Rhode Island
About this file
This document is an application form for professional learning providers seeking approval from the Rhode Island Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (RIDE) to deliver Literacy/Dyslexia Endorsement training. The application solicits providers from higher education institutions, professional learning organizations, non-profit entities, and vendors to develop teacher professional learning programs aligned with structured literacy and science of reading frameworks that meet state standards under the Right to Read Act. The application window opened December 15 and closes January 31, with RIDE allowing 6-8 weeks for review of submitted materials. Once approved, providers may begin offering the plan of study leading to the endorsement. The application requires submission of detailed responses addressing four core competencies: foundational knowledge of reading science and dyslexia, differentiated instruction for language-based learning disabilities, assessment and data analysis within Response to Intervention frameworks, and structured literacy instruction across all major skill domains including phonological awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension. Applicants must provide supporting documentation including facilitator resumes, course syllabi, PowerPoint presentations with facilitator notes, participant handouts, and evidence of past impact demonstrating actual results from previous professional learning.
The application requires providers to document their continuous improvement processes, identify assessment methods used to evaluate educator competency, specify certifications or credentials participants will earn upon completion, and identify eligible standardized exams such as KPEERI or Pearson Foundations of Reading. Applicants must indicate the grade spans served (Early Childhood, Elementary, Middle, or High School) and provide a detailed description of the plan of study including format (modules, courses, or workshops), total time requirement in days and hours, and associated fees. The form requests up to three references from districts or schools where the provider has previously worked. Review criteria on the embedded rubric evaluate provider qualifications, facilitator experience, adequacy of preparation and assessment methods for each competency, clarity of the plan of study, and evidence of continuous improvement practices. No pricing is established in this application document, as pricing will be determined through a mini-bid process when specific projects are requested under the related Master Price Agreement (MPA 603).
View the file
Other files
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
R.I. DEPARTMENT OF ELEMENTARY & SECONDARY EDUCATION
Shepard Building 255 Westminster Street Providence, Rhode Island 02903-3400
Application for Literacy/Dyslexia Endorsement Providers The Rhode Island Department of Education is seeking providers from higher education institutions, professional learning providers, non-profit organizations, and vendors to become an approved provider of professional learning leading to a Literacy/Dyslexia Endorsement.
Additionally, the Literacy/Dyslexia Endorsement ensures approved providers will develop teacher knowledge in Structured Literacy and the Science of Reading meeting the expectations for proficiency in accordance with the Right to Read Act 16-11.4-6.
Structured Literacy is an approach to teaching that integrates speaking, listening, reading, and writing by providing explicit, systematic, diagnostic-prescriptive instruction in phonological and phonemic awareness, sound-symbol correspondence (phonics), syllables, morphology, semantics, and syntax.
The Science of Reading (also known as Scientific Reading Instruction) is empirically-based instruction that is grounded in the study of the relationship between cognitive science and educational outcomes.
Interested providers must complete the endorsement provider application.
Submission and Review of Application Instructions:
1. Review the competencies associated with this endorsement.
2. Complete this application and provide supporting evidence for each component/concept listed.
3. Please identify the location in your professional learning materials where each of the aforementioned concepts are included.
4. Key program materials including PowerPoints with facilitator notes, syllabus, participant handouts, or other artifacts must be provided for review and be accompanied by this completed review form.
5. Email this application with supporting documentation to Kristin Re at kristin.re@ride.ri.gov The application window is open December 15 through January 31.
6. RIDE will review the submitted documentation to determine if the offerings meet the plan of study for the endorsement. Please allow 6-8 weeks for review. RIDE will notify applicants and publish all approved provider names to the RIDE website.
7. Once approved by RIDE, the provider may begin to offer the plan of study that leads to an approved endorsement area.
Section A: Contact Information Provider Name:
Address:
| City: |
| State: |
| Zip Code: |
Contact Name and Title:
Email:
| Phone Number (with extension, if applicable) (_______) ________ - ____________ x_______ |
| Fax Number: |
Section B: Description of Provider and Qualifications of Facilitators Provide a brief (250-word max.) description of your qualifications. As attachments, provide resumes or curriculum vitae (two-page limit) for staff responsible for overseeing and facilitating the learning experiences/competencies that lead to endorsement in this area.
Section C: Evidence of Meeting Competencies For each of the competencies listed, please provide a detailed response to the following questions:
Competency I:
Demonstrate and apply foundational knowledge on the science of reading development and reading difficulties derived from interdisciplinary research with special emphasis on language/literacy needs of students with dyslexia and other language-based learning disabilities.
Briefly (250-word max.) describe how you prepare educators to demonstrate Competency I above. How do you assess it?
Knowledge and Skills Related to the Reading Process, Science of Reading Research and Methods:
| Component/ Concepts: |
| Location within Plan (be specific: pg#, slide number, etc.) |
Theoretical Models including the Simple View of Reading, Scarborough’s Rope and the Four-Part Processor
How the brain learns to read
Permanent word storage and orthographic mapping
Neurobiological learning differences including dyslexia (decoding) and developmental language disorder (word comprehension)
Literacy needs of students with language-based learning difficulties
Please provide attachments or links to documents that demonstrate how you prepare educators to demonstrate this competency. Examples include, but are not limited to, a syllabus, a PowerPoint presentation with facilitator notes, or participant handouts. If you have an online platform, please provide a sample login to assist the review committee in understanding the nature of your offerings. Please list the artifacts here or within the table above.
Please describe the opportunities for educators to apply their knowledge and understanding of Competency I. Please provide a list of applied practice opportunities that includes:
· Identifying which components of Competency I the opportunities support
· When the applied practice opportunities occur (e.g., during professional learning time, in classrooms, in a tutorial setting)
· How reflection and feedback for the applied practice opportunities are provided to educators
Competency II:
Differentiate, accommodate, and scaffold instruction to address the reading difficulties demonstrated by students with dyslexia and other language-based learning disabilities.
Briefly (250-word max.) describe how you prepare educators to demonstrate Competency I above. How do you assess it?
Instruction:
| Component/ Concepts: |
| Location within Plan (be specific: pg#, slide number, etc.) |
Systematic
Explicit
Incorporating multiple modalities
Code emphasis vs. meaning emphasis in student texts, teaching approaches, and curriculum materials
Differentiating and scaffolding instruction for students with language-based learning differences
Accommodations for students with dyslexia (e.g., audiobooks, speech-to-text)
Please provide attachments or links to documents that demonstrate how you prepare educators to demonstrate this competency. Examples include but are not limited to a syllabus, a PowerPoint presentation with facilitator notes, or participant handouts. If you have an online platform, please provide a sample login to assist the review committee in understanding the nature of your offerings. Please list the artifacts here or within the table above.
Please describe the opportunities for educators to apply their knowledge and understanding of Competency I. Please provide a list of applied practice opportunities that includes:
· Identifying which components of Competency II the opportunities support
· When the applied practice opportunities occur (e.g., during professional learning time, in classrooms, in a tutorial setting)
Competency III:
Select and conduct assessments within a Response to Intervention or Multi-Tiered Systems of Support Framework, analyze assessment data to inform instruction, and communicate findings with students, families and other educators.
Briefly (250-word max.) describe how you prepare educators to demonstrate Competency III above. How do you assess it?
Assessment:
| Component/ Concepts: |
| Location within Plan (be specific: pg#, slide number, etc.) |
Diagnostic-Prescriptive
Criterion referenced assessment measures
Using assessment measures to understand a student’s learning profile
Using assessment data within Multi-tiered Systems of Support Framework
Communicating findings of assessment data with students, families, and other educators
Please provide attachments or links to documents that demonstrate how you prepare educators to demonstrate this competency. Examples include but are not limited to a syllabus, a PowerPoint presentation with facilitator notes, or participant handouts. If you have an online platform, please provide a sample login to assist the review committee in understanding the nature of your offerings. Please list the artifacts here or within the table above.
Please describe the opportunities for educators to apply their knowledge and understanding of Competency I. Please provide a list of applied practice opportunities that includes:
· Identifying which components of Competency III the opportunities support
· When the applied practice opportunities occur (e.g., during professional learning time, in classrooms, in a tutorial setting)
Competency IV:
Implement structured literacy instruction in all major skill domains (phonological and phonemic awareness, phonics and word recognition, automatic and fluent reading of text, vocabulary, listening and reading comprehension, and written expression) and review instruction based on analysis of student data.
Briefly (250-word max.) describe how you prepare educators to demonstrate Competency IV above. How do you assess it?
Knowledge and Skills Related to Phonology:
| Component/ Concepts: |
| Location within Plan (be specific: pg#, slide number, etc.) |
Phonology
Phonological Awareness
Phonemic Awareness
Articulation of the sounds
Knowledge and Skills Related to Phonics, Decoding and Encoding:
| Component/ Concepts: |
| Location within Plan (be specific: pg#, slide number, etc.) |
Alphabetic Principle
Decoding
Correspondence of letters and sounds
Encoding
Syllable types
Syllable division rules
Schwa
Morphology Supports Word Composition and Spelling (e.g., Latin Bases, Prefixes, Assimilated Prefixes, Inflectional and Derivational Suffixes, and Greek Combining Forms)
Spelling rules and generalizations
Student text selection including decodable text
Assistive technology supports
Knowledge and Skills Related to Fluency:
| Component/ Concepts: |
| Location within Plan (be specific: pg#, slide number, etc.) |
Rate
Accuracy Prosody
Instruction and practice
Knowledge and Skills Related to Vocabulary:
| Component/ Concepts: |
| Location within Plan (be specific: pg#, slide number, etc.) |
Taught directly and indirectly
Developing vocabulary through oral language
Morphology Supports Word Comprehension and Vocabulary Building Across Contents: (e.g., Latin Bases, Prefixes, Assimilated Prefixes, Inflectional and Derivational Suffixes, and Greek Combining Forms)
Multiple meanings and contexts
Choosing and Leveling Words for Explicit Instruction
Knowledge and Skills Related to Comprehension:
| Component/ Concepts: |
| Location within Plan (be specific: pg#, slide number, etc.) |
Listening and reading comprehension
Background knowledge
Assistive technology accommodations including audiobooks to build background knowledge
Grammar
Text Structures
Pre-Reading, During Reading, and After Reading: Metacognitive Strategies to support Executive Functioning
Connecting writing to reading to further comprehension (e.g., explicit instruction in pronoun referents, cohesive ties, and syntax elements including sentence types and sentence combination activities)
Please provide attachments or links to documents that demonstrate how you prepare educators to demonstrate this competency. Examples include but are not limited to a syllabus, a PowerPoint presentation with facilitator notes, or participant handouts. If you have an online platform, please provide a sample login to assist the review committee in understanding the nature of your offerings. Please list the artifacts here or within the table above.
Please describe the opportunities for educators to apply their knowledge and understanding of Competency I. Please provide a list of applied practice opportunities that includes:
· Identifying which components of Competency IV the opportunities support
· When the applied practice opportunities occur (e.g., during professional learning time, in classrooms, in a tutorial setting)
Section D: Offering Details
Plan of Study:
Provide a detailed description of how the plan of study will be taught (modules, courses, PL sessions or workshops), the time requirement to complete endorsement area (number of days, hours) and the fee.
Describe the provider’s continuous improvement process and the data sources and specific data points used to inform improvements to their offering.
Certifications/ Assessment:
List any certifications or credentials participants will be eligible for upon completion of your professional learning (e.g., IMSLEC, AOGPE, Micro-credential):
List the exam(s) participants will be qualified and/or prepared to take upon completion of your professional learning:
_____ KPEERI
_____ Pearson Foundations of Reading _____ Vendor Created Final Assessment _____ Other: _________________________________________________________
Evidence of Past Impact:
Provide evidence of impact from past professional learning your organization has conducted. Evidence reported must include actual results of the professional learning (e.g., percent increase in student achievement), not simply a description of how the evidence was gathered.
Which grade spans do the offerings focus on? Check all that apply.
☐ (PK-12) All Grades ☐ (Birth-G2) Early Childhood ☐ (K-5) Elementary ☐ (6-8) Middle ☐ (9-12) High Section E: District/ School References:
List up to three references of districts or schools with whom you have worked in the past who can speak to the quality of your professional learning support.
| Organization/School |
| Contact Name & Role |
| Phone/Email |
1.
2.
3.
Section F: Assurance Please assure the following statement by checking the box, and printing your name below:
☐ On behalf of the organization/provider, I assure that the information provided is accurate.
Organization or Provider Name Date
Name and Title Signature
Please e-mail this application and supporting documentation to Kristin Re at kristin.re@ride.ri.gov
To be completed by the Review Committee
Section B: Provider Description and Staff Qualifications
| 0 |
| 1 |
| 2 |
| 3 |
| Provider Description |
| The application does not include a description of qualifications of facilitators. |
| The qualifications of the provider and facilitators are insufficient. |
| The provider and facilitators have sufficient qualifications related to the endorsement area. |
| The provider and facilitators have significant qualifications relevant to the endorsement area. |
| Staff Qualifications |
| The application does not include staff resumes or the facilitators’ resumes do not include evidence of facilitation learning experiences. |
| The facilitators’ resumes include evidence of facilitating learning but not in the endorsement area. |
| The facilitators’ resumes include evidence of facilitating learning in the endorsement area. |
| The facilitator’s resumes include evidence of significant experience facilitating learning experiences in the endorsement area. |
Section C: Competencies
| 0 |
| 1 |
| 2 |
| 3 |
| Competency I |
| Preparation |
| The provider does not describe and/or provide artifacts that demonstrate how it will prepare educators to demonstrate Competency I. |
| The description and evidence provide insufficient detail about how the provider will prepare educators to demonstrate Competency I or the evidence does not reflect best practice. |
| The description and evidence provide sufficient examples of how the program will prepare educators to demonstrate Competency I. The evidence reflects research and best practice. |
| The description and evidence are strong examples of how the program will prepare educators to demonstrate Competency I. The evidence reflects research and best practice. |
| Assessment |
| The provider does not describe how it will assess Competency I. |
| The provider describes how it will assess Competency I, but the description lacks detail; the assessment method is unclear. |
| The provider describes clearly how it will assess Competency I. |
| The provider describes clearly how it will assess Competency I in authentic ways. |
| Competency II |
| Preparation |
| The provider does not describe and/or provide artifacts that demonstrate how it will prepare educators to demonstrate Competency II. |
| The description and evidence provide insufficient detail about how the provider will prepare educators to demonstrate Competency II or the evidence does not reflect best practice. |
| The description and evidence provide sufficient examples of how the program will prepare educators to demonstrate Competency II. The evidence reflects research and best practice. |
| The description and evidence are strong examples of how the program will prepare educators to demonstrate Competency II. The evidence reflects research and best practice. |
| Assessment |
| The provider does not describe how it will assess Competency II. |
| The provider describes how it will assess Competency II, but the description lacks detail; the assessment method is unclear. |
| The provider describes clearly how it will assess Competency II. |
| The provider describes clearly how it will assess Competency II in authentic ways. |
| Competency III |
| Preparation |
| The provider does not describe and/or provide artifacts that demonstrate how it will prepare educators to demonstrate Competency III. |
| The description and evidence provide insufficient detail about how the provider will prepare educators to demonstrate Competency III or the evidence does not reflect best practice. |
| The description and evidence provide sufficient examples of how the program will prepare educators to demonstrate Competency III. The evidence reflects research and best practice. |
| The description and evidence are strong examples of how the program will prepare educators to demonstrate Competency III. The evidence reflects research and best practice. |
| Assessment |
| The provider does not describe how it will assess Competency III. |
| The provider describes how it will assess Competency III, but the description lacks detail; the assessment method is unclear. |
| The provider describes clearly how it will assess Competency III. |
| The provider describes clearly how it will assess Competency III in authentic ways. |
| Competency IV |
| Preparation |
| The provider does not describe and/or provide artifacts that demonstrate how it will prepare educators to demonstrate Competency IV. |
| The description and evidence provide insufficient detail about how the provider will prepare educators to demonstrate Competency IV or the evidence does not reflect best practice. |
| The description and evidence provide sufficient examples of how the program will prepare educators to demonstrate Competency IV. The evidence reflects research and best practice. |
| The description and evidence are strong examples of how the program will prepare educators to demonstrate Competency IV. The evidence reflects research and best practice. |
| Assessment |
| The provider does not describe how it will assess Competency IV. |
| The provider describes how it will assess Competency IV, but the description lacks detail; the assessment method is unclear. |
| The provider describes clearly how it will assess Competency IV. |
| The provider describes clearly how it will assess Competency IV in authentic ways. |
Section D: Offering Details
| 0 |
| 1 |
| 2 |
| 3 |
| Plan of Study |
| The provider does not describe how the plan of study will be taught. |
| The provider’s description of how the plan of study will be taught is unclear or missing key details. |
| The provider’s description of how the plan of study will be taught is clear and generally reflects best practice. |
| The provider’s description of how the plan of study will be taught is clear and reflects best practice. |
| Continuous Improvement Process |
| The provider does not describe a continuous improvement process. |
| The provider’s description of its continuous improvement process is unclear. |
| The provider describes clearly its continuous improvement process and the data it uses to inform improvements. |
| The provider describes its continuous improvement process and gives examples of how it has used data and the process in the past to inform improvements. |
image1.jpg
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .