RFI007_K-5_StructuredLiterac ProfessionalLearningOpportunities_Rubric.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 56 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- RFI:007
- Issued by
- Connecticut
About this file
This is a scoring rubric document developed by the Connecticut State Department of Education (CSDE) for evaluating K-5 structured literacy professional learning providers seeking approval on the state's official list. The rubric establishes comprehensive evaluation criteria across sixteen content sections covering foundational literacy components, instructional methodologies, assessment practices, and support for diverse learners including English Learners and students with dyslexia. Providers must meet all Key Elements and Features requirements in four foundational areas (Professional Learning Content, Instructional Approach, Documentation of Effectiveness, and Staff Qualifications) to proceed to the alignment evaluation phase. The alignment phase requires minimum scores across ten content sections: Language Acquisition and Development (10/12 points minimum), Literacy Acquisition and Development (13/15 minimum), Principles of Explicit Instruction (10/12 minimum), Dyslexia (13/15 minimum), English Learner/Multilingual Learner instruction (10/12 minimum), Assessment Concepts and Practices (13/15 minimum), Phonological Awareness (8/9 minimum), Phonics and Word Identification (15/18 minimum), Reading Fluency (8/9 minimum), Vocabulary (10/12 minimum), Listening and Reading Comprehension (20/24 minimum), and Written Expression (18/21 minimum).
The rubric employs a four-tier rating scale—Exemplary (3), Satisfactory (2), Limited (1), and Insufficient (0)—with detailed descriptors for each tier across all evaluation categories. Providers must demonstrate evidence-aligned instruction grounded in reading science research, with explicit attention to the interconnected nature of oral and written language development, phonological processing, orthographic mapping, and systematic instruction. The rubric emphasizes research-based practices from key literacy researchers including Ehri and explicitly requires providers to address the needs of English Learners, students with dyslexia, and learners with executive function or phonological processing challenges. No specific response dates, due dates, or contract term information is provided in this rubric document, which functions as the evaluation framework for assessing professional learning content quality and alignment to CSDE educator competencies rather than as a formal solicitation notice.
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
Scoring Guidance Kindergarten through Grade Five (K–5) Structured Literacy Professional Learning Opportunities Rubric
Rubric Purpose: In order for a provider to be listed on Connecticut State Department of Education's (CSDEs) approved list of K-5 structured literacy professional learning providers, it must go through a review in which members of the Connecticut State Department of Education (CSDE) team evaluate the professional learning.
| Passing Score Requirements |
| 1. The K-5 structured literacy professional learning must meet all the Key Elements and Features of Evidence-Aligned Literacy Instruction requirements listed. If the professional learning does not meet all the Key Elements and Features of Evidence-aligned Literacy Instruction requirements, the review will be stopped and the provider will be notified that the professional learning has not met the requirements to be approved. |
| 2. The K-5 structured literacy professional learning must meet the minimum score for each section of the Alignment to CSDE's Educator Competencies for Structured Literacy and Dyslexia and Evidence-Aligned Literacy Content Practices requirements listed. If the professional learning does not meet the minimum score for each section of the Alignment requirements, the provider will be notified that the professional learning has not met the requirements to be approved. |
| Rating Scale for the Alignment to CSDE's Educator Competencies for Structured Literacy and Dyslexia and Evidence-Aligned Literacy Content Practices |
| Exemplary (3): All elements addressed with evidence. |
| Satisfactory (2): Some elements addressed with evidence or lacks depth. Reviewers must note evidence of criteria not seen in the content. |
| Limited (1): Element(s) referenced but without evidence. Reviewers must note evidence of criteria not seen in the content. |
| Insufficient (0): Element not present or addressed. |
Key Elements and Features
| Key Elements and Features of Evidence-Aligned Literacy Instruction |
| If you chose no, provide an explanation. Put N/A if you chose yes. |
| Section A: Professional Learning Content | Rating (yes/no) | Evidence |
| The professional learning: | ||
| 1. is founded on theoretical models which are grounded in the science of reading research. May include authors of and citations for the models. (Note in the evidence section if not included, but do not mark as no if not included.) | ||
| 2. explains how the brain learns to read and why learning to read is not a natural process. | ||
| 3. is grounded in the principles and practices of structured literacy, specifically the connection between oral and written language. (Reference the Structured Literacy definition in the RFI proposal.) | ||
| 4. includes evidence-aligned strategies and scaffolds targeted to diverse student learning needs. | ||
| 5. is aligned to the K-5 Connecticut Core Standards for English Language Arts/Literacy. |
| Section B: Professional Learning Instructional Approach | Rating (yes/no) | Evidence |
| The professional learning: | ||
| 1. presents a clear scope and sequence with learning objectives. | ||
| 2. includes resources for participants to engage in knowledge building for pre-learning and to reference for ongoing purposes. | ||
| 3. provides interactive learning opportunities for application practice aligned to the content being taught. | ||
| 4. includes rigorous evaluations throughout the sequence of learning (e.g. checks for understanding, end of knowledge block assessments, self-reflection opportunities, etc.). | ||
| 5. offers a process for documentation of successful completion of the training. | ||
| 6. ensures standardization of content and program delivery for consistency (e.g., presenter materials, delivery formats, participant resources, etc.). |
| Section C: Documentation of Effectiveness | Rating (yes/no) | Evidence |
| The professional learning: | ||
| 1. has evidence documenting advancement in knowledge and skills of participating K-5 educators. | ||
| 2. has evidence working with local and regional boards of education (LEAs) in the past and/or currently. | ||
| 3. has evidence demonstrating improved student outcomes as a result of educator participation in the submitted professional learning (e.g., survey data, evidence-aligned research studies, etc.). |
| Section D: Qualifications of Professional Learning Staff | Rating (yes/no) | Evidence |
| The professional learning: | ||
| 1. is developed by individuals with educational background, previous work experience, and special training in structured literacy instructional approaches as evidenced in resume submission. | ||
| 2. is delivered by individuals with educational background, previous work experience, and special training in structured literacy instructional approaches as evidenced in resume submission. |
Alignment Alignment to CSDE's Educator Competencies for Structured Literacy and Dyslexia and Evidence-Aligned Literacy Content Practices
Rating Scale for the Alignment to CSDE's Educator Competencies for Structured Literacy and Dyslexia and Evidence-Aligned Literacy Content Practices
| Exemplary (3): All elements addressed with evidence. |
| Satisfactory (2): Some elements addressed with evidence or lacks depth. Reviewers must note evidence of criteria not seen in the content. |
| Limited (1): Element(s) referenced but without evidence. Reviewers must note evidence of criteria not seen in the content. |
| Insufficient (0): Element not present or addressed. |
| Section E: Language Acquisition and Development | Rating | Evidence | |
| The vendor provides evidence that the professional learning provides instruction in: | |||
| 1. oral language as the foundation of literacy and includes information on the (5) language processing requirements of proficient reading and writing: phonological, orthographic, semantic, syntactic, discourse and their connection to reading, spelling, and writing for native speakers of English and English Learners/Multilingual Learners (ELs/MLs). | |||
| 2. evidence-aligned strategies or routines for the various stages and developmental progression of language acquisition and development for native speakers of English and ELs/MLs. | |||
| 3. the three components of phonological processing (phonological awareness, phonological memory, rapid naming/phonological access) and how they contribute to the development of skilled reading. | |||
| 4. the explanation that reading, spelling and writing proficiency depend on language proficiency. | |||
| Total | out of 12 | minimum score 10/12 |
| Section F: Literacy Acquisition and Development | Rating | Evidence | |
| The vendor provides evidence that the professional learning provides instruction in: | |||
| 1. the phases of word reading development as presented by Ehri (1995) with consideration for native speakers of English and ELs/MLs. | |||
| 2. the implications of environmental and individual factors on literacy development (e.g., primary home language, cognition, ability to read, anxiety, socio-economic status (SES), etc.). | |||
| 3. the contribution of orthographic processing to the development of skilled reading and writing. | |||
| 4. comparing and contrasting oral and written language acquisition and explaining the developmental difference between learning to talk and learning to read and write. | |||
| 5. the importance of code-emphasis instruction in K-3 and the role that language comprehension and meaning making play in developing oral language and foundational literacy skills. | |||
| Total | out of 15 | minimum score 13/15 |
| Section G: Principles of Explicit Instruction | Rating | Evidence | ||
| The vendor provides evidence that the professional learning provides instruction in: | ||||
| 1. systematic literacy instruction by (1) referencing a logically ordered scope and sequence; (2) following a gradual release of responsibility model; (3) making connections to previously taught concepts, strategies, skills overt. | ||||
| 2. the components of explicit and systematic instruction, including (1) setting the purpose for instruction, (2) identifying the important details of the concept being taught, (3) providing instructions that have only one interpretation, (4) modeling instructional tasks (skills, strategies, routines), (5) using visuals and manipulatives to teach concepts and content, as necessary, and with consideration for ELs/MLs, (6) engaging student in discourse around new concepts; and (7) providing timely, specific, confirming and corrective feedback. | ||||
| 3. engaging students in meaningful interactions with language by (1) providing and eliciting background information; (2) emphasizing the distinctive features of new concepts; (3) using visuals and manipulatives to teach concepts and content as necessary, and with consideration for ELs/MLs; (4) making relationships among concepts overt; (5) engaging students in discourse around new concepts; and (5) elaborating on students' responses. | 4.3P | remove | ||
| 4. multiple opportunities for students to practice instructional tasks by (1) providing more than one opportunity to practice each new skill; (2) providing opportunities for practice after each instructional step; (3) eliciting group responses when feasible; and (4) providing extra practice based on the accuracy of student responses. | 4.4P | remove | ||
| 5. encouraging student effort by (1) providing timely and specific confirming and corrective feedback; (2) ensuring that most feedback provided is positive; and (3) celebrating and displaying examples of student progress in literacy. | 4.5P | remove | ||
| 6. adjusting the emphasis of lessons to accommodate learners' strengths and needs (e.g., support for chunking information, breaking down content, using visuals, etc.) to support proficient reading and writing. | 4.6P | remove | ||
| 3. the explicit instruction routines identified in (2 above) for the components of a structured literacy lesson for: phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary, fluency, and/or comprehension, including the features and appropriate use of varied texts. | ||||
| 4. understanding the importance of targeting instruction for ELs/MLs by activating and connecting to their fund of knowledge, using visuals, focusing on cross-linguistic features and transfer skills, employing wait time, using manipulatives, organizers, language supports, or total physical response. | ||||
| Total | out of 12 | minimum score 10/12 |
| Section H: Dyslexia | Rating | Evidence | |
| The vendor provides evidence that the professional learning provides instruction in: | |||
| 1. planning for and providing instruction that addresses the student's unique strengths and needs, including but not limited to those related to word reading accuracy, word reading automaticity, oral reading fluency, reading vocabulary, reading comprehension, and written expression. | |||
| 2. addressing different types of reading difficulties or disabilities, including dyslexia, and providing information, research, and practical applications. | |||
| 3. how and why symptoms of reading difficulty are likely to change over time in response to development and instruction. | |||
| 4. the identification of the distinguishing characteristics and risk indicators for dyslexia. | |||
| 5. how dyslexia varies in presentation and degree. | |||
| Total | out of 15 | minimum score 13/15 |
| Section I: English Learner/Multilingual Learner (EL/ML) | Rating | Evidence | |
| The vendor provides evidence that the professional learning provides instruction in: | |||
| 1. multi-tiered approaches and instructional strategies to support a diverse range of ELs/MLs. | |||
| 2. explicit practice and teaching of oral language by having students engage in discussions to make connections and enhance understanding by providing opportunities to engage in conversation and structured oral language activities in the classroom. | |||
| 3. explicit instructional practice of teaching vocabulary, integrating oral and written instruction into teaching, providing regular opportunities to develop writing skills, providing small group interventions and addressing the particular needs of specific groups of ELs/MLs, such as long-term EL/ML learners and late arrival students, and students with limited or interrupted formal education (SLIFE). | |||
| 4. how multilingualism enriches and influences student's thinking and learning during literacy acquisition and development. | |||
| Total | out of 12 | minimum score 10/12 |
| Section J: Assessment, Concepts, Practices, and Applications | |||
| The vendor provides evidence that the professional learning provides instruction in: | |||
| 1. identifying and describing the features and appropriate use of the following types of assessments: Curriculum Based Measure (CBM), Curriculum Based Assessment (CBA), criterion-referenced tests, and norm-referenced tests; and their relevance to universal screening, diagnostic, progress monitoring, and summative assessment applications. | |||
| 2. the identification of the underlying principles of SRBI/RTI/MTSS (e.g., instructional tiers, universal screening with approved measures, diagnostic assessment, continuous progress monitoring to include the use of approved measures, collaborative problem-solving, research-based interventions, fidelity of instruction, etc.) with analysis distinguishing the critical features of each tier of instruction and with consideration for ELs/MLs. | |||
| 3. the principles of progress monitoring and the use of graphs to indicate progress. | |||
| 4. effective utilization of assessment results and related data to plan for appropriate student instruction. | |||
| 5. common statistical concepts, such as reliability and validity, as used in assessment and research. | |||
| Total | out of 15 | minimum score 13/15 |
| Section K: Phonological Awareness | Rating | Evidence | |
| The vendor provides evidence that the professional learning provides instruction in: | |||
| 1. the research, instructional methodologies, and practical applications of phonological and phonemic awareness. This encompasses, but is not limited to, understanding the levels and progression of phonological awareness, addressing articulation, and considering variations in dialects and languages and explain how this knowledge supports learning for native speakers of English and ELs/MLs. | |||
| 2. the general goal of phonemic awareness instruction and how to align that instruction to the content and goals of the reading and spelling lesson to support students' transfer of skills. | |||
| 3. understanding the reasons for students' challenges distinguishing, pronouncing, and associating phonemes with graphemes with consideration for ELs/MLs. | |||
| Total | out of 9 | minimum score 8/9 |
| Section L: Phonics and Word Identification | Rating | Evidence | |
| The vendor provides evidence that the professional learning provides instruction in: | |||
| 1. the instructional techniques and practical applications of systematic, explicit and diagnostic beginning phonics instruction. This includes, but is not limited to, an understanding of the alphabetic principle in learning to read and spell, the reciprocal relationships among phonemic awareness, decoding, spelling and vocabulary knowledge and their role in literacy acquisition and development. | |||
| 2. the instructional techniques and practical applications of the role of orthographic mapping in phonics instruction and research-based strategies for irregular word teaching. | |||
| 3. historical influences on English spelling patterns (e.g.., Old English, Latin, Greek). | |||
| 4. the instructional techniques and practical applications pertaining to advanced word study. This encompasses but is not limited to, syllable patterns, multisyllabic words, morphology and etymology. | |||
| 5. common practice considerations for adapting instruction for students with weaknesses in executive function and phonological processing. | |||
| 6. appropriate uses of decodable and less controlled texts (e.g., trade books) in instruction. | |||
| Total | out of 18 | minimum score 15/18 |
| Section M: Reading Fluency | Rating | Evidence | |
| The vendor provides evidence that the professional learning provides instruction in: | |||
| 1. the instructional techniques and practical applications for developing reading fluency, with consideration of instructional routines that promote improvement in accuracy, rate, and prosody. | |||
| 2. the role of fluent word, phrase, and sentence level skills in oral reading fluency, reading comprehension, and motivation to read. | |||
| 3. appropriate use of assistive technology to enable students with limitations in reading fluency access grade-level content. | |||
| Total | out of 9 | minimum score 8/9 |
| Section N: Vocabulary | Rating | Evidence | |
| The vendor provides evidence that the professional learning provides instruction in: | |||
| 1. the instructional strategies or routines to explicitly teach basic (common words used regularly in speaking and listening), general academic (high-utility words that appear in written text across multiple subjects), and content-specific vocabulary critical for understanding a lesson or reading. | |||
| 2. the wide differences in student's vocabularies and how these factors impact vocabulary instruction. | |||
| 3. the role of vocabulary development and knowledge in comprehension and writing. | |||
| 4. how to make decisions about which vocabulary words to explicitly teach with consideration for ELs/MLs. | Total | out of 12 | minimum score 10/12 |
| Rating | Evidence | ||
| Section O: Listening and Reading Comprehension | |||
| The vendor provides evidence that the professional learning provides instruction in: | |||
| 1. various sentence structures (e.g., sentence structures such as simple, compound, complex, and compound-complex) and how syntax and sentence level comprehension contributes to students' listening and reading comprehension. | |||
| 2. the characteristics, text features and text organizational structures of the major genres: narrative, informational and opinion/argumentation. | |||
| 3. the major factors that contribute to deep comprehension of text (e.g., background knowledge, vocabulary, verbal reasoning ability, semantic knowledge, syntactic knowledge, knowledge of literacy structures and conventions, and skills and strategies for close reading). | |||
| 4. evidence-aligned strategies or routines to teach all students to identify and use the organizational structure of narrative, informational and opinion/argument texts to support comprehension, including using graphic organizers to illustrate text structure. | |||
| 5. the role of grade level texts and evidence-aligned strategies that can be applied to comprehension of grade-level texts to provide access for all students with consideration for ELs/MLs (e.g., comprehension monitoring, graphic organizers, generating and answering questions, retelling, and summarizing). | |||
| 6. evidence-aligned instructional strategies or routines to teach all students to understand the literal and inferred meanings of words, phrases, and sentences, including the use of cohesive devices, to construct a mental model of the text. | |||
| 7. evidence-aligned instructional strategies or routines to teach all students to identify the basic parts of speech and to relate a word's meaning, spelling, and pronunciation to its grammatical role in a sentence. | |||
| 8. evidence-aligned instructional strategies or routines to build students' ability to use syntax to comprehend (e.g., paraphrasing, identifying the function of words within a sentence, identifying anaphora e.g., pronoun referents, etc.). | Total | out of 24 | minimum score 20/24 |
| Rating | Evidence | ||
| Section P: Written Expression | |||
| The vendor provides evidence that the professional learning provides instruction in: | |||
| 1. comparing and contrasting the processes of text comprehension and those of written composition and explain the usefulness of writing in building text comprehension. | |||
| 2. the major skill domains that contribute to written expression (transcription, composition, ideation). | |||
| 3. the components of the writing process, including the subskills of each and evidence-aligned instructional strategies or routines to teach students to plan, draft, edit, and revise their writing. | |||
| 4. evidence-aligned instructional strategies or routines to teach spelling concepts that match students' levels of spelling development and orthographic knowledge. | |||
| 5. evidence-aligned instructional strategies or routines to teach all students to use the basic parts of speech and relate a word's meaning, spelling, and pronunciation to its grammatical role in a sentence to support fluent writing. | |||
| 6. evidence-aligned instructional strategies or routines to teach sentence composition (e.g., sentence frames, sentence combining, sentence expansion, sentence elaboration). | |||
| 7. appropriate use of assistive technology to support written expression. | Total | out of 21 | minimum score 18/21 |
Review Criteria
| Section E: Language Acquisition and Development | Exemplary (3) | Satisfactory (2) | Limited (1) | Insufficient (0) |
| The vendor provides evidence that the professional learning provides instruction in: | ||||
| 1. oral language as the foundation of literacy and includes information on the (5) language processing requirements of proficient reading and writing: phonological, orthographic, semantic, syntactic, discourse and their connection to reading, spelling, and writing for native speakers of English and English Learners/Multilingual Learners (ELs/MLs). | Clearly and accurately explains oral language as foundational to literacy. Thoroughly addresses all five language processing components (phonological, orthographic, semantic, syntactic, discourse). Explicitly connects each component to reading, spelling, and writing development for both native English speakers and ELs/MLs. Uses relevant research or frameworks to support understanding. | Addresses oral language as a foundation and covers most (at least 3–4) of the five language processing components with generally accurate descriptions. Makes reasonable connections to reading, spelling, and writing. Includes some attention to both native English speakers and ELs/MLs, though may lack depth or nuance. | Mentions oral language and/or some language processing components (1–2), but explanations are vague, inaccurate, or disconnected from literacy outcomes. Limited or no differentiation for native English speakers and ELs/MLs. Lacks clarity or coherence. | Does not address oral language as foundational to literacy or omits the five language processing components. No connections made to reading, spelling, or writing. No mention of native English speakers or ELs/MLs. |
| 2. evidence-aligned strategies or routines across the various stages of language acquisition and development for native speakers of English and ELs/MLs | Provides a comprehensive set of evidence-aligned strategies or routines tailored to multiple stages of language acquisition and development. Demonstrates clear differentiation and intentional application for both native English speakers and ELs/MLs. | Includes a range of appropriate strategies or routines aligned to some stages of language acquisition and development. Addresses both native English speakers and ELs/MLs with moderate differentiation. Some reference to evidence-aligned practices, though not always fully integrated or explicit. | Provides few or generic strategies, with limited alignment to language acquisition stages. May focus on one group (e.g., native speakers only) or inconsistently address ELs/MLs. Evidence-aligned may be unclear or unsupported. | Does not include strategies or routines aligned to stages of language acquisition. No consideration for native English speakers and/or ELs/MLs. Content is missing or not grounded in evidence. |
| 3. the three components of phonological processing (phonological awareness, phonological memory, rapid naming/phonological access) and how they contribute to the development of skilled reading. | Accurately defines all three components of phonological processing (phonological awareness, phonological memory, and rapid naming/phonological access). Thoroughly explains the distinct role each plays in the development of skilled reading. Demonstrates strong understanding of the research base and implications for instruction. | Defines all three components with basic accuracy and provides a general explanation of how the three components support skilled reading. Some component roles may be less clearly articulated or connections to reading development may lack detail. | Defines only one or two components or provides vague or incomplete explanations. Connections to skilled reading are weak, overly simplistic, or unclear. | Does not define the components or explain their relevance to reading development. Provides incorrect or unrelated information. |
| 4. the explanation that reading, spelling, and writing proficiency depend on language proficiency. | Provides a thorough explanation that reading, spelling, and writing proficiency are rooted in oral and written language proficiency. Clearly articulates how aspects of language (e.g., vocabulary, syntax, discourse, phonology) underpin literacy development. Draws from research or theory to support the relationship. | Acknowledges that language proficiency supports reading, spelling, and writing, with generally accurate reasoning. May touch on some language components, but connections may lack depth or specificity. | Offers a vague or partial explanation of the relationship between language and literacy. May mention one or two components (e.g., vocabulary), but with little elaboration or clarity. | Does not explain the relationship or conveys inaccurate understanding. No clear link is made between language proficiency and literacy outcomes. |
| Section F: Literacy Acquisition and Development | Exemplary (3) | Satisfactory (2) | Limited(1) | Insufficient (0) |
| The vendor provides evidence that the professional learning provides instruction in: | ||||
| 1. the phases of word reading development as presented by Ehri (1995) with consideration for native speakers of English and ELs/MLs. | Clearly and accurately explains all phases of Ehri’s word reading development model (pre-alphabetic, partial alphabetic, full alphabetic, consolidated alphabetic). Provides detailed insights into how each phase applies to both native English speakers and ELs/MLs, including linguistic and instructional considerations. | Describes most phases of Ehri’s model with general accuracy. Acknowledges differences or instructional considerations for ELs/MLs, but explanations may be brief or generalized. Shows an adequate understanding of developmental progression. | Mentions one or two phases of Ehri’s model but with limited accuracy or clarity. Minimal attention to ELs/MLs, or lacks differentiation in how word reading development may vary for different language learners. | Does not accurately describe Ehri’s phases or does not address the model at all. No consideration is given to ELs/MLs or to developmental word reading progression. Content is either absent or inaccurate. |
| 2. the implications of environmental and individual factors on literacy development (e.g., primary home language, cognition, ability to read, anxiety, socio-economic status (SES), etc.). | Clearly explains how a range of environmental and individual factors (e.g., home language, cognitive profile, reading ability, anxiety, SES) influence literacy development. Demonstrates a strong understanding of how these factors interact and impact learning. Applies insights to instructional decision-making or intervention design. Reflects cultural and linguistic responsiveness. | Identifies several relevant factors and generally explains their influence on literacy development. Acknowledges variability among learners, though connections to instruction or outcomes may be somewhat general or underdeveloped. | Mentions a few factors but does not clearly connect them to literacy outcomes. Explanations may be overly simplistic or missing important nuance or interaction among variables. | Does not identify or misrepresents the impact of environmental or individual factors on literacy development. Lacks relevance or clarity. |
| 3 the contribution of orthographic processing to the development of skilled reading and writing. | Clearly defines orthographic processing and thoroughly explains its role in developing skilled reading (e.g., automatic word recognition, spelling patterns) and writing (e.g., encoding efficiency, spelling accuracy). Connects orthographic processing to other components such as phonics and fluency. Demonstrates deep understanding of the contribution of orthographic processing to literacy proficiency. | Defines orthographic processing and describes its contribution to reading and/or writing with basic accuracy. May emphasize one area (e.g., reading) more than the other. Connections to literacy development are present but not fully elaborated. | Mentions orthographic processing but provides limited or unclear explanation of its role in skilled reading and writing. Connections to literacy development are weak, inaccurate, or overly simplistic. | Does not define orthographic processing or inaccurately explains it. Does not link orthographic processing to reading or writing development in any meaningful way. |
| 4. comparing and contrasting oral and written language acquisition and explaining the developmental difference between learning to talk and learning to read and write. | Provides a clear, accurate, and nuanced comparison of oral and written language acquisition, including key similarities and differences (e.g., implicit vs. explicit, biologically driven vs. culturally acquired). Clearly explains that learning to talk occurs naturally with exposure, while reading and writing require formal instruction and cognitive effort. Demonstrates deep understanding of developmental, neurological, and instructional implications. | Describes both oral and written language acquisition with generally accurate comparisons. Explains the basic developmental difference between learning to talk and learning to read/write. May lack depth, nuance, or complete integration of ideas. | Mentions aspects of oral and written language acquisition or developmental differences but provides vague or incomplete comparisons. May show misconceptions or overlook key distinctions. | Does not compare oral and written language acquisition or explain developmental differences. Provides inaccurate or irrelevant information, showing little to no understanding of the topic. |
| 5. The importance of code-emphasis instruction in K-3 and the role that language comprehension and meaning making play in developing oral language and foundational literacy skills. | ||||
| 5a. The importance of code-emphasis instruction in K-3. | Clearly explains code-emphasis instruction as systematic instruction in phonemic awareness, phonics, decoding, and spelling. Provides a strong, evidence-aligned rationale for the critical role of code-emphasis in K–3 literacy development. Demonstrates deep understanding of how code-emphasis instruction supports foundational reading skills and long-term reading success | Defines code-emphasis instruction and explains its value in early literacy instruction. May cite some benefits (e.g., improved decoding), though the explanation may lack depth, specificity, or strong research connections. | Provides a vague or incomplete explanation of code-emphasis instruction. May show some awareness of code-emphasis instructions importance but lacks clarity or contains inaccuracies. Connections to K–3 literacy development are weak. | Does not define or explain code-emphasis instruction. Provides inaccurate or irrelevant information. No meaningful connection to early reading development. |
| 5b. The role that language comprehension and meaning making play in developing oral language and foundational literacy skills. | Thoroughly explains how language comprehension (including vocabulary, syntax, and discourse-level understanding) and meaning making support the development of oral language and foundational literacy skills such as decoding, fluency, and early comprehension. Demonstrates a deep understanding of language comprehension and its reciprocal relationship with meaning making, as well as the instructional implications, particularly in the early grades. | Accurately describes the importance of language comprehension and meaning making, with basic explanation of their roles in literacy and oral language development. Shows awareness of connections, though may not fully articulate how language comprehension and meaning making interact or develop over time. | Mentions language comprehension or meaning making but provides an unclear or underdeveloped explanation of their roles. Limited reference to foundational literacy or oral language connections. | Does not define or explain language comprehension or meaning making. Lacks any meaningful connection to oral language or foundational literacy development. |
| Section G: Principles of Explicit Instruction | Exemplary (3) | Satisfactory (2) | Limited (1) | Insufficient (0) |
| The vendor provides evidence that the professional learning provides instruction in: | ||||
| 1. systematic literacy instruction by (1) referencing a logically ordered scope and sequence; (2) following a gradual release of responsibility model; (3) making overt connections to previously taught concepts, strategies, and skills. | Clearly demonstrates systematic literacy instruction by: (1) referencing and applying a coherent, logically ordered scope and sequence; (2) implementing a clear gradual release of responsibility model (I do, we do, you do); and (3) making explicit, purposeful connections to previously taught concepts, strategies, and skills. Shows strong understanding of instructional design and scaffolding for all learners. | References a scope and sequence and uses elements of the gradual release model. Some connections to prior learning are made but may be implicit or inconsistent. Instruction is generally organized and supportive of literacy development, though not fully optimized. | Mentions a scope and sequence or gradual release model but lacks clarity or proper implementation. Instruction may be disorganized or show weak connections to prior learning. Systematic approach is unclear or underdeveloped. | Does not reference a scope and sequence, lacks use of gradual release, and makes no connections to previously taught content. Instruction appears fragmented, unstructured, or ineffective for literacy development. |
| 2. the components of explicit and systematic instruction, including (1) setting the purpose for instruction, (2) identifying the important details of the concept being taught, (3) providing instructions that have only one interpretation, (4) modeling instructional tasks (skills, strategies, routines), (5) using visuals and manipulatives to teach concepts and content, as necessary, and with consideration for ELs/MLs, (6) engaging student in discourse around new concepts; and (7) providing timely, specific, confirming and corrective feedback. | Accurately identifies and explains all seven components of explicit and systematic instruction. Provides clear examples or rationale for each: purpose-setting, detail emphasis, unambiguous directions, modeling, use of visuals/manipulatives (including for ELs/MLs), student discourse, and feedback. Demonstrates deep understanding of how these practices support effective, equitable instruction and learner engagement. | Addresses most components (at least 5–6) with accurate definitions and explanations. Shows understanding of the importance of clear modeling, student engagement, and feedback. May reference supports for ELs/MLs but without detail. Implementation insights may lack depth or integration. | Mentions some components (2–4), but definitions or applications are incomplete, unclear, or inconsistently aligned with best practices. May overlook differentiation, ELs/MLs, or omit key instructional elements such as modeling or feedback. | Does not define or explain the components of explicit and systematic instruction. Content is missing, inaccurate, or unrelated to effective instructional practice. No consideration for ELs/MLs or student engagement strategies. |
| 3. the explicit instruction routines identified in (2 above) for the components of a structured literacy lesson for: phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary, fluency, and/or comprehension, including the features and appropriate use of varied texts. | Clearly and accurately applies explicit instruction routines to multiple components of structured literacy. Demonstrates understanding of when and how to use varied texts to support instruction and adapts routines effectively for different literacy components. Instructional practices are evidence-aligned and responsive to learners’ needs. | Applies most of the explicit instruction routines to at least a few structured literacy components with general accuracy. Text selection and use are mostly appropriate, though some connections may lack clarity or depth. May not fully differentiate application of routines across components (e.g., phonics vs. comprehension). | References some instruction routines or components of structured literacy but lacks specificity or consistent application. Use of varied texts may be unclear or misaligned. Instructional practices are fragmented or not well-supported by evidence. | Does not apply explicit instruction routines to structured literacy components. Lacks understanding of routines, components, or appropriate use of texts. Information is inaccurate or missing. |
| 4. understanding the importance of targeting instruction for ELs/MLs by activating and connecting to their fund of knowledge, using visuals, focusing on cross-linguistic features and transfer skills, employing wait time, using manipulatives, organizers, language supports, or total physical response. | Clearly explains and supports the importance of targeted instruction for ELs/MLs. Accurately describes and applies multiple strategies, including activating background knowledge, using visuals, highlighting cross-linguistic transfer, allowing wait time, and using manipulatives, organizers, language scaffolds, or total physical response. Demonstrates a strong understanding of how these practices promote access, engagement, and language development. | Identifies several strategies for supporting ELs/MLs (e.g., visuals, wait time, organizers) and provides a general explanation of their purpose. Acknowledges the role of cultural and linguistic knowledge, though may not fully integrate or explain all strategies. | Mentions a few instructional supports but lacks clear understanding or coherent application. May overlook the role of students’ fund of knowledge or cross-linguistic transfer. Strategies may be inconsistently applied or inaccurately described. | Does not identify or explain strategies for supporting ELs/MLs. Lacks understanding of culturally and linguistically responsive instruction. Content is inaccurate, missing, or not relevant. |
| Section H: Dyslexia | Exemplary (3) | Satisfactory (2) | Limited (1) | Insufficient (0) |
| The vendor provides evidence that the professional learning provides instruction in: | ||||
| 1. planning for and providing instruction that addresses the student's unique strengths and needs, including but not limited to those related to word reading accuracy, word reading automaticity, oral reading fluency, reading vocabulary, reading comprehension, and written expression. | Clearly demonstrates the ability to plan and deliver instruction tailored to individual student strengths and needs across multiple literacy domains: word reading accuracy, automaticity, oral reading fluency, vocabulary, comprehension, and written expression. Uses assessment data to inform instruction and adapt materials and methods. Shows strong understanding of differentiation and responsiveness to diverse learners. | Plans instruction with attention to students’ needs in several literacy areas. Uses some data or observation to guide instruction, though application may lack depth or precision. Instruction is mostly specific but may be more generalized than individualized. | Acknowledges varying student needs but offers limited or nonspecific instructional planning. May address one or two areas (e.g., fluency or vocabulary) without a cohesive or data-informed approach. Differentiation is minimal or unclear. | Lacks planning for or addressing individual student needs. Does not consider different literacy components. Instruction is one-size-fits-all, inaccurate, or lacks intentionality. |
| 2. addressing different types of reading difficulties or disabilities, including dyslexia, and providing information, research, and practical applications. | Clearly identifies and differentiates multiple types of reading difficulties, including dyslexia. Provides accurate, evidence-aligned explanations and strategies. Includes practical applications for instruction and intervention. Demonstrates strong understanding of how to support diverse learners. | Describes at least a few types of reading difficulties, including dyslexia, with generally accurate information. Offers some research background and practical strategies, though detail or application may be limited. Shows a basic understanding of how to respond to student needs. | Mentions dyslexia or reading difficulties, but provides vague, incomplete, or partially inaccurate information. May lack references to research or practical instructional strategies. Instructional relevance is unclear or minimal. | Does not address reading difficulties or disabilities accurately. Omits mention of dyslexia or misunderstands its nature. No relevant research, information, or instructional applications are provided. |
| 3. how and why symptoms of reading difficulty are likely to change over time in response to development and instruction. | Clearly explains that the symptoms of reading difficulty can change as students develop and receive targeted instruction. Demonstrates a strong understanding of how effective instruction may mitigate or mask some symptoms while revealing others. Includes instructional and developmental implications. | Explains that symptoms of reading difficulty may shift over time, with general references to developmental changes or instruction. Acknowledges instructional impact, but may not fully explore how specific symptoms evolve or emerge. | Provides a minimal or unclear explanation. May mention change over time, but lacks depth or specificity about how instruction or development influence symptom presentation. | Does not address how or why symptoms change. May present misconceptions or provide irrelevant or incorrect information. |
| 4. the identification of the distinguishing characteristics and risk indicators for dyslexia. | Accurately identifies the core characteristics of dyslexia and early risk indicators. Demonstrates a strong understanding of developmental trajectories, early signs across age groups, and how these indicators can inform screening and intervention. | Identifies several key characteristics and risk indicators of dyslexia with reasonable accuracy. Shows basic understanding of the importance of early identification but may lack detail or omit some age-specific signs. | Mentions dyslexia and some associated difficulties but lacks clear identification of distinguishing features or early risk indicators. May include inaccuracies or generalizations. | Does not identify core characteristics or risk indicators of dyslexia. Provides incorrect or unrelated information. No evidence of understanding the importance of early identification. |
| 5. how dyslexia varies in presentation and degree. | Clearly explains that dyslexia exists on a continuum and varies significantly across individuals in both symptoms and severity. Describes how differences may manifest in phonological processing, decoding, spelling, fluency, and reading comprehension. Addresses factors influencing variability (e.g., age, instruction, co-occurring conditions, and protective factors such as vocabulary or cognitive strengths). Demonstrates deep understanding of the individualized nature of dyslexia. | Explains that dyslexia can present differently among individuals and vary in severity. Describes some areas of variation (e.g., fluency vs. decoding), though explanation may lack detail or full context. | Acknowledges variability in dyslexia but provides little detail or clarity. May oversimplify or generalize the condition, showing only partial understanding. | Does not recognize or accurately describe variation in dyslexia. Presents it as uniform in presentation or severity, or provides incorrect information. |
| Section I: English Learner/Multilingual Learner (EL/ML) | Exemplary (3) | Satisfactory (2) | Limited (1) | Insufficient (0) |
| The vendor provides evidence that the professional learning provides instruction in: | ||||
| 1. multi-tiered approaches and instructional strategies to support a diverse range of ELs/MLs. | Thoroughly explains how multi-tiered systems of support (MTSS) apply to ELs/MLs. Describes linguistically and culturally responsive strategies at each tier instruction. Demonstrates understanding of how to distinguish language acquisition needs from learning difficulties. Addresses diverse language backgrounds, proficiency levels, and cultural contexts. | Describes the use of a multi-tiered approach with ELs/MLs and identifies some relevant strategies. Shows basic understanding of differentiation, though may not fully address the range of linguistic diversity or clearly differentiate between tiers. | Mentions MTSS or instructional strategies for ELs/MLs, but explanation is vague or generic. Limited detail on how supports vary across tiers or how strategies respond to language learning needs. | Does not address MTSS or misapplies the multi-tiered approach to ELs/MLs. Lacking considering linguistic or cultural diversity. Content is missing, inaccurate, or not relevant to the population. |
| 2. explicit practice and teaching of oral language by having students engage in discussions to make connections and enhance understanding by providing opportunities to engage in conversation and structured oral language activities in the classroom. | Clearly explains the importance of explicitly teaching oral language. Describes a variety of purposeful, structured activities (e.g., partner talk, academic discourse routines, language-rich discussions) that promote meaningful connections and comprehension. Prioritizes active student engagement and scaffolds language development across content areas. Demonstrates strong alignment with research and diverse language needs. | Describes the value of oral language practice and includes some structured opportunities for student talk. Strategies support language development and comprehension, though they may not be consistently integrated or sufficiently scaffolded for all learners. | Mentions oral language or classroom talk but offers few or unclear strategies. Activities may be unstructured or lack intentional focus on language development and comprehension. | Does not address the teaching or importance of oral language. No discussion of conversation, discussion, or structured oral activities. Content is missing or irrelevant. |
| 3. explicit instructional practice of teaching vocabulary, integrating oral and written instruction into teaching, providing regular opportunities to develop writing skills, providing small group instruction and/or interventions and addressing the particular needs of specific groups of ELs/MLs, such as long-term EL/ML learners and late arrival students, and student with limited or interrupted formal education (SLIFE). | Demonstrates clear and intentional integration of explicit vocabulary instruction, oral and written language practice, and writing development. Provides frequent, scaffolded writing opportunities. Describes targeted small group instruction/interventions and clearly addresses the distinct instructional needs of specific EL/ML subgroups, including long-term ELs/MLs, late-arrival students, and SLIFE. Instruction reflects research-based practices and equitable access to content learning. | Includes explicit vocabulary instruction and opportunities for oral and written language use. Addresses small group instruction/interventions and shows some awareness of different EL/ML learner profiles, though strategies for subgroups may be general or underdeveloped. Writing support is present but may lack consistent depth or scaffolding. | Mentions vocabulary or writing instruction and some form of language support but lacks specificity. Small group instruction/intervention may be mentioned without targeted strategies for different EL/ML subgroups. Integration of oral/written language is weak or inconsistent. | Lacking addressing explicit vocabulary or writing instruction. No mention of differentiated supports for EL/ML learners or subgroups. Instruction is not tailored, or includes inaccuracies regarding EL/ML needs. |
| 4. how multilingualism enriches and influences students' thinking and learning during literacy acquisition and development. | Clearly explains how multilingualism positively contributes to students’ cognitive flexibility, metalinguistic awareness, and literacy development. Demonstrates strong understanding of how multiple language systems interact to support reading, writing, and vocabulary growth. Emphasizes multilingualism as an asset and integrates this perspective into instructional planning and classroom practice. | Acknowledges the benefits of multilingualism in literacy development (e.g., enhanced vocabulary knowledge, transfer of language skills). Provides a general explanation of how multilingualism can influence thinking and learning, though may not fully explore instructional or cognitive implications. | Briefly mentions multilingualism but provides a vague explanation of its impact. May acknowledge value without linking it clearly to literacy development or learning processes. | Does not recognize multilingualism as a factor in literacy acquisition or presents it as a barrier rather than a resource. Contains inaccurate or deficit-based assumptions. |
| Section J: Assessments, Concepts, Practices, and Applications | Exemplary (3) | Satisfactory (2) | Limited (1) | Insufficient (0) |
| The vendor provides evidence that the professional learning provides instruction in: |
This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .