RDRSSP FAQ

Submitting an Application to the RDRSSP

1. May multiple entities apply in partnership with each other (i.e., an entity with a screening instrument applying jointly with an entity with complementary professional development)? If so, are there any differential submission instructions or evaluation expectations for these joint applications?

   Multiple entities may apply in partnership with one another. However, only one screening instrument (which may cover multiple grades) may be the subject of each application. There are no different submission instructions or evaluation expectations for joint applications, but all partner entities in the application must be identified.

2. For applicants providing RDRSSP members online or digital access to their screening tool, how many login credentials must be provided?

   Login credentials must be provided for at least 15 individuals to access the screening tool simultaneously and be accessible through December 31, 2024. Logins may be different for each individual or may be shared by RDRSSP members and staff if they can be used simultaneously.

3. On the cover sheet, Question 5c asks respondents to describe the average amount of time required for training/professional development for those who administer the screening instrument. Does this question refer only to initial training needed to administer the screening instrument, or should the response also include time related to ongoing training required to administer the screening instrument?

   Applicants should provide information about both initial and ongoing training/professional development requirements, if applicable. Applicants should distinguish between each stage of training/professional development and provide the average amount of time required for each.

4. Some criteria in the rubricand submission form use the words “clear” and “compelling” when describing strong evidence. How should applicants interpret those terms for purposes of providing evidence?

   The terms "clear" and "compelling" are commonly used in educational rubrics to describe the quality of the evidence provided. In particular, "clear” and “compelling" evidence provides specific, detailed, and data-based explanations in a logical and coherent manner. These terms are used throughout the rubric (DOCX) to describe what the Panel would consider strong evidence for each Evidence Statement and Criterion, which, in general, is evidence that is based on research that is theoretically and empirically sound, indicating the instrument is appropriate for screening students from diverse backgrounds.

5. The rubric prioritizes validity at 0.8. What is n-size expected for the sample?

   The rubric (DOCX) does not mention, nor prioritize, validity at 0.8. The rubric (DOCX) describes that strong evidence for most reliability estimates should meet or exceed 0.80. Further, the Panel has not specified minimum sample sizes. This is intentional, as sample sizes can vary based on the type of research study and type of estimates being reported. Sample sizes should adequately support interpretations for the estimates that are reported in the application. In general, the Panel expects that samples reflect the diversity of students in California and that appropriate conclusions are made based on the estimates and sample sizes that are reported in the application.
   

6. What size file can the RDRSSP email inbox accommodate? (Added 15-Aug-2024)

   Application emails submitted to the RDRSSP inbox may not exceed 25 MB.

7. Can additional documents (i.e., an executive summary) be provided along with the required Cover Sheet and Submission Form?

   Applicants are not limited in what can be submitted as part of their application to the RDRSSP. However, the RDRSSP is not obligated to consider materials submitted outside of the Submission Form and Cover Sheet as part of their application evaluation process.
   

8. The Submission Form appears to only allow text input. How should applicants add figures, images, and/or tables to the Submission Form? (Added 15-Aug-2024)

   An updated version of the Submission Form was posted to the RDRSSP web page on August 5, 2024. This new version allows applicants to insert figures, images, and tables into the response sections that were previously limited to text responses. Applicants wishing to use the prior version of the Submission Form may still do so when submitting their application to the RDRSSP.

9. When responding to criterion 3.f.ii. on p. 22 of the submission form, which languages are preferred? (Added 15-Aug-2024)

   State law does not define a preference for languages related to providing student results from a screening instrument to families. However, California Education Code (EC) Section 53008 (g)(1)(E) specifies that, as part of the evaluation criteria that were required to be adopted by the State Board of Education (SBE), those evaluation criteria consider the extent to which, among other things, results to families should be provided in students’ primary languages, which at a minimum should be aligned with the language of the screening instrument.
   
   Applicants may also choose to consider the requirement of EC Section 53008 (n), which requires that notifications that local educational agencies provide to parents or guardians related to the administration and results of screening comply with the translation requirements set forth in EC Section 48985.

10. In providing information about costs on the Cover Sheet, should pricing be provided on a per student basis? (Added 15-Aug-2024)

    In questions 7−9 on the Cover Sheet, applicants are asked to provide various cost information. For question 8a, applicants are requested to provide cost information on a per unit basis and may define “per unit” based on their needs. Applicants may alternatively provide cost information on a per license basis, with specified details of what is included in a license purchase.

11. Are applicants required to attach evidentiary materials at the end of the Submission Form and provide links to materials as well? (Added 15-Aug-2024)

    Applicants should incorporate evidence into responses throughout the Submission Form. Applicants should also complete the List of Supporting Evidentiary Materials at the end of the Submission Form. Evidence that cannot be incorporated into responses may also be appended to the end of the Submission Form. There is no requirement to include evidence twice if evidence is linked or otherwise provided (i.e., through screenshot, charts, pictures, etc.) in the Submission Form responses.

12. In relation to the criteria described pursuant to 1.a.ii. in the rubric, how does the Panel define “visual attention”? (Added 21-Aug-2024)

    The Panel has not provided its own definition for the criteria and constructs included in California Education Code (EC) Section 53008(g)(1). Instead, the Panel relies on extant research and literature for definitions and appropriate measurement.
    
    EC Section 53008(g)(1) requires the State Board of Education (SBE), as part of the evaluation criteria, to consider the extent to which an application addresses many factors, as specified. One of these factors, as listed under subparagraph (B), is the measurement of visual attention. In the rubric adopted by the SBE on May 8, 2024, applicants are directed to respond to how the constructs in their screener are directly measured at each grade level and are informed that constructs may include, but are not limited to, a list of constructs including visual attention.f
    

13. What are the expected cohort sizes for screening in grades kindergarten, grade one, and grade two respectively? (Added 21-Aug-2024)

    Cohort sizes will likely differ by local educational agency. If screening instruments are designed for use with a specific cohort size, that cohort size should be specified under “Administration Grouping” within the charts for section 4 of the Cover Sheet (DOCX).
    

Administration of Screening Instrument

14. Which school employees may administer screening instruments?

    Any appropriately trained school employee may administer a screening instrument for risk of reading difficulty to meet the requirements of California Education Code (EC) Section 53008. Pursuant to paragraph (5) of subdivision (o) of EC Section 53008, “screening instrument” is defined as “… a brief tool administered by an appropriately trained school employee, including, but not limited to, a certificated teacher of record, measuring discrete areas to determine pupils at risk of reading difficulties, including dyslexia.”

15. When are screening instruments required to be administered during the school year?

    Local educational agencies (LEAs) have the discretion to determine when during a school year to administer screening instruments, and must consider, as part of this determination, whether students have received sufficient reading instruction to be validly screened. Pursuant to subdivision (e) of EC Section 53008, “[I]n determining when during the school year to administer each screening instrument, a local educational agency shall consider whether pupils have received sufficient instruction in foundational reading skills to support a valid assessment.”

    Additionally, when a student enrolls in kindergarten through second grade during the school year and after the screening instrument has been administered, subdivision (f) of EC Section 53008 requires LEAs to screen that student within 45 days of enrollment, with some exceptions, as specified.
    

16. How should student language proficiency for a screening instrument be determined?

    Language proficiency thresholds are determined during the development of a screening instrument and support the instrument’s validity. Therefore, applicants are expected to identify the language proficiency thresholds that support the validity of their screening instrument for the students for whom they are intended.

    The RDRSSP will be using the rubric (DOCX) adopted by the State Board Education on May 8, 2024, to determine which screening instruments will be approved for use in meeting the requirements of subdivision (e) of EC Section 53008. This rubric (DOCX), which was developed based on the criteria described in paragraph (1) of subdivision (g) of EC Section 53008, requires that applicants demonstrate the validity of their screening instrument, among other criteria. This information should be provided where appropriate on the submission form (DOCX).

State Funding for Screening for Risk of Reading Difficulties

17. Section 117 of Chapter 38 of the Statutes of 2024 (2024 Education Budget Trailer Bill) appropriated $25 million to LEAs to implement the requirement to screen kindergarten through second grade students for risk of reading difficulties beginning in the 2025-26 school year. What types of expenditures can LEAs use these funds for?

    LEAs must expend these funds to train educators to administer student screenings pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 117 of Chapter 38 of the Statutes of 2024.

RDRSSP Process Questions

18. What is the term over which screening instruments approved by the Panel remain on the approved list? Will applicants be able to reapply if they are not part of the initially adopted list? (Added 15-Aug-2024)

    Statute does not establish a fixed term for the list of approved screening instruments adopted by the RDRSSP. However, California Education Code (EC) Section 53008 (b) provides the State Board of Education (SBE) with the authority to periodically reconstitute the RDRSSP, update the review process, and, at the SBE’s request, direct the RDRSSP to amend the approved list of screening instruments.

    Applicants may reapply to be considered for inclusion on the list of approved screening instruments upon the establishment of a new review process by the SBE.

19. How public will the evaluation of the applications be? Will applicants’ names be used? (Added 21-Aug-2024)

    Pursuant to California Education Code (EC) Section 53008(c)(1), the RDRSSP and all of its meetings are subject to the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act (Article 9 [commencing with Section 11120] of Chapter 1 of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code).
    
    As described in the Invitation to Submit:

    • Per Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act requirements, RDRSSP members (Panelists) will engage in one or more public deliberation sessions to review and discuss submissions. As such,
      
      
      • Applicant names will be replaced with a numeric system; complete anonymity is not guaranteed.
        
        
      • Panelists will come to a consensus regarding the submissions and develop a tentative list of approved screening instruments.
        
        
    • The RDRSSP will share the tentative list with applicants and post it online for public comment.
      
      
    • With consideration of public comment, the RDRSSP will adopt a final list of approved screening instruments at a public meeting.