GA Universal Reading Screener Selection _ Ven.pdf

Georgia Universal Reading Screener Selection

Vendor Inquiries and Committee Responses

Posted September 23, 2024

Inquiry: Is the goal of the RFI to consolidate the current Georgia Department of Education Universal Screener List and Dyslexia Screener List into a single, unified list?

Response: This list is being created in response to the Georgia Early Literacy Act (HB 538 & SB 464). It is unclear how the creation of this list will impact the list of Dyslexia Screeners approved by the State Board of Education.

Inquiry: Is this RPF to replace the current Universal Screener list?

Response: Yes, this RFI is intended to replace the current approved Universal Screener List for Georgia per SB 464.

Inquiry: Is this RPF to replace the current Dyslexia screener list?

Response: It is currently unclear how this list will impact the state of the current Dyslexia Screener List.

Inquiry: Will there be any list of screeners chosen by the Georgia DOE that districts can still purchase or will this be the only list for screeners in Georgia?

Response: The intent of this review is to provide recommendations for the exclusive list of approved universal reading screeners for the state of Georgia as described in the Georgia Early Literacy Act (HB 538 & SB 464). Each LEA will be required to use at least one screener from the list; however, this legislation does not prohibit schools from using additional screeners.

Inquiry: Will part of the process include designating a free screener for which districts can obtain reimbursement with state funds?

Response: The decision regarding which of the five screeners will be free for use by Georgia public and local school systems will be a separate process to include the Georgia Office of Planning and Budget. This RFI does not include consideration of which screener will be free. As specified in SB 464, the free screener will be published on the Georgia Department of Education website for any public or local school system to access.

Reimbursement of state funds is not included in the legislation.

Inquiry: Should the signed addendum be included within the narrative submission portion of the response?

Response: No, the signed addendum should be added to the completed screener evidence form, with the document name "“RFI UNIVERSAL READING

SCREENER EVIDENCE [COMPANY NAME]”.

Inquiry: Should vendors complete the Evaluation tool and submit it with their responses? I see it is similar to the Screener Evidence Form, but I wanted to be sure. Thank you.

Response: No, vendors do not need to complete the evaluation tool or submit it with their response. The evaluation tool will be used by the review panel and is provided solely for transparency.

Inquiry: Will you accept submission of documents and/or appendices through a Padlet format?

Response: No. Submissions should include only the narrative submission, technical manual, and Screener Evidence Form as indicated in the RFI. Links to additional content may be provided in the Screener Evidence Form.

Inquiry: Is the requirement below asking for evidence based on the English version with multilingual students?

14. Provide evidence the screener has been normed for English learners to allow accurate identification of risk and need for intervention among English learners. Provide evidence the screener includes guidance for interpreting scores for multilingual students. Link to the guidance or provide a screenshot.

Response: Yes, this question is requesting evidence based on the English version being administered to multilingual students.

Inquiry: Does the Deal Center intend to provide a cost form to be completed and included with responses to this RFI?

Response: No, this review process does not include consideration of cost. After screener recommendations are submitted to the Georgia State Board of Education, negotiation of cost will be a separate process.

Inquiry: Will there be an opportunity at some point in the selection process for vendors to provide a sandbox/demo site for evaluators to further explore the assessments?

Response: Vendors are welcome to provide demo content for their screeners, but synchronous demos (live or web-based) will not be accepted. While providing demo content is encouraged, it is neither a requirement nor a review criterion. Sandbox/demo content can be provided in response to any relevant items in the evidence form.

Inquiry: In Section 5: Usability and Support, requirement 4 says, "...professional development made available to public school educators through purchase of screener,” does this mean the expectation is that Launch professional development, Strengthen professional development and/or Coach professional development is baked into the cost of the screener itself? Or would the expectation be that it is available for purchase by educators and districts? Thank you.

Response: The response should specifically address what professional development is included with the purchase of the screener itself. Additional information can be provided about professional development and support available at additional cost, but a clear distinction between the two categories should be made.

Inquiry: Will this RFI will result in the list of the five approved screeners?

If no, will that approval process come from the Georgia Department of Education?

Response: Yes, this RFI will result in the list of up to five screeners that will be submitted to the Georgia State Board of Education for approval.

Inquiry: We understand that this RFI is being used to gather information for the Deal Center to make decisions and does not constitute a commitment, implied or otherwise, that the Deal Center will take procurement action on this request. However, the inclusion of the "Evaluation Tool: on Pg. 4 states, “All items above must receive a yes to move on.” Please explain. Will a formal RFP be issued as a result of the outcome of this RFI?

Response: All items in the first section of the evaluation tool are required criteria for a screener to be considered. If a screener does not meet all required criteria, it will not be considered for review or approval. The bid process will include only the screeners recommended to the State Board as a result of this process and will be managed separately by the Georgia Council on Literacy and the Office of Planning and Budget.

Inquiry: We understand that the RAN measure is to include “five or six different token items (stimuli).” Please define what the Deal Center means by “token item.”

Response: A token item is the stimuli that is used in the naming tasks. For example, if the RAN tasks require the naming of letters, then at least five different letters must be used for the naming stimuli

Inquiry: While we understand that pricing is not requested in this RFI process, will the selected vendor provide training to districts at no additional cost, or will the districts purchase training directly from the vendors? It is important for vendors to understand in order to present training offerings that will meet the needs of the State.

Response: This question is outside of the scope of this RFI, however, the question regarding professional learning in the usability section could be answered by providing an overview of the professional learning options offered.

Inquiry: If the vendors are to supply training as part of their overall offering, does the customer prefer in-person or virtual webinar training? Does the state prefer train-the-trainer or direct training format?

Response: This is outside of the scope of this RFI. Georgia's districts have autonomy to choose the type of training that best meets their needs.

Inquiry: What is the expectation for oral language vs oral reading fluency?

Response: Oral language refers to the production and comprehension of the spoken word. Picture naming and picture identification tasks are two examples.

These tasks do not require the child to read any text. Oral fluency refers to how smoothly and quickly a reader can read connected material aloud and how much expression the reader has in reading the passage.

Inquiry: Bidders may want to include screenshots of sample items in their RFI response. However, some items may be “secure” and not available for public release. Would the Deal Center be amenable to bidders marking certain screenshots as secure so that they would only be available to the evaluation team and not released publicly after RFI response evaluation?

Response: While we do not intend to publish or make vendor submissions public, we are required to comply with public records requests. Thus, we cannot ensure the security of screenshots and sample items submitted for review and encourage vendors to submit items at their own discretion.