Science of Reading Badge Rubric

FOR EXISTING PROVIDERS

Main Menu
ABOUT THE SCIENCE OF READING BADGE
SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

The Science of Reading badge: 

  • Highlights professional learning providers who have deep expertise in the science of reading and the ability to provide high-quality professional learning in the science of reading and its connections to HQIM
  • Equips states, districts, and schools with information so they can meet legislative requirements and spend their PL budgets in ways that are going to provide educators with professional learning in the science of reading-aligned instruction in connection with implementation of their HQIM
  • Push the field by continuing to develop/refine rigorous expectations around high quality PL in both research and instructional practices related to the science of reading. so that more kids have the opportunity to become skilled readers and writers.

Note: *an asterisk indicates that the term can be found in the Glossary tab located at the top of the webpage. 

General PLPG Application Rubric
Apply for the Science of Reading badge
PLPG Badges Homepage
OVERARCHING INDICATORS FOR THE SCIENCE OF READING PROFESSIONAL LEARNING

Total Indicators: 8 | Minimum Passing Score: 12 out of 16 points

2 points:

  • Applicant provides an accurate definition of the science of reading, and
  • Applicant lists and accurately explains  the principles of effective reading instruction and the essential skills necessary in the typical progression of reading and writing development, and
  • Applicant lists and accurately explains at least two seminal or prominent research models/frameworks that provide a foundation for the science of reading. 

1 point:

Provider does one of the following:

  • Applicant provides an accurate definition of the science of reading, and
  • Applicant’s list of the principles and skills for reading and writing development needs further clarity, detail, or explanation, or
  • Applicant lists one or more models/frameworks but needs further clarity, detail, or explanation of how these contribute to the research.

0 points:

  • Applicant does not provide an accurate definition of the science of reading, or
  • Applicant fails to include principles and skills for reading and writing development, and
  • Applicant does not list and describe at least one research model/framework.

Sample Evidence Collection

Reviewers look for and record:

  • For question 1 in the application template, evidence of a clearly articulated definition of the science of reading (e.g., The Reading League’s Science of Reading: Defining Guide).
  • For question 1 in the application template, evidence of principles of effective reading instruction (e.g., structured literacy) and a comprehensive list of the essential skills and components for reading and writing development (e.g., phonemic awareness, background knowledge).
  • For question 1 in the application template, evidence of two research models or frameworks prominent in science of reading research (e.g., Scarborough’s Reading Rope) along with an explanation and citation for each.

2 points:

  • Applicant describes at least one high-quality example of a prior professional learning engagement focused on the science of reading and its connections to a specific HQIM, and
  • Applicant describes a detailed vetting and/or training process to ensure that staff who design and facilitate professional learning engagements are highly qualified and knowledgeable in the science of reading.

1 point:

Provider does one of the following:

  • Applicant provides an example of a prior professional learning engagement; however, the description needs further clarity, detail, or explanation as to whether the science of reading research is the predominant focus of the professional learning, and/or the professional learning is connected to a specific HQIM, or
  • Applicant describes a vetting and/or training process, but the description needs further clarity, detail, or explanation to ensure expertise in the science of reading.

0 points:

  • Applicant does not include an example of prior experience delivering professional learning in the science of reading that is connected to HQIM, and
  • Applicant does not articulate a process for vetting and/or training qualified staff.

Sample Evidence Collection

Reviewers look for and record:

  • For question 2 in the application template, evidence of having delivered one or more professional learning engagements/series whose primary focus is the science of reading research and its connection to practice within HQIM.
  • For question 3 in the application template, evidence of a process for recruitment, hiring, and/or training of professional learning designers and facilitators who have prior experience in structured literacy instruction, leadership, professional learning, and/or research.

 

2 points:

  • Applicant accurately describes and provides examples of how the science of reading research and evidence-based practices help ensure all students, including those with learning differences and disabilities, have an equal opportunity to learn and succeed in reading.

1 point:

  • Applicant’s description of the role science of reading research plays in informing instruction for students with learning differences and disabilities needs further clarity, detail, or explanation.

0 points:

  • Applicant does not describe the role science of reading research plays in evidence-based instruction for students with learning differences and disabilities.

Sample Evidence Collection

Reviewers look for and record:

  • For question 4 in the application template, descriptions of how using evidence-based practices to give every child the tools to decode and comprehend promotes equity, including that:
    • Explicit, systematic, and diagnostic instruction has been shown to be beneficial for all students, including those with dyslexia and Multilingual Learners.
    • Evidence-based practices support adaptive instruction to accommodate learning differences; provide scaffolds for diverse learners; address dialectical variations; and leverage students’ existing knowledge, such as attention to the positive transference of letters and sounds from a student’s home language.

 

2 points:

  • Professional learning builds teachers’ understanding of the body of research that comprises the science of reading, including the skills students need and the principles that inform instruction, and
  • Professional learning provides robust opportunities to develop deep understanding of one or more essential literacy components or skills through a variety of activities and artifacts.

1 point:

Provider does one of the following:

  • Professional learning introduces the science of reading but only partially addresses the body of research, reading/writing skills, and principles of effective instruction, or 
  • Professional learning includes limited opportunities to develop a deep understanding of at least one essential literacy skill.

0 points:

  • Professional learning does not clearly define the science of reading or fails to address many of the reading/writing skills and principles of effective instruction, and
  • Professional learning does not include opportunities to develop a deep understanding of at least one of the essential literacy skills.

Sample Evidence Collection

Reviewers look for and record:

  • Evidence in the professional learning of a clearly articulated definition of the science of reading (e.g., The Reading League’s Science of Reading: Defining Guide).
  • Evidence in the professional learning of multiple artifacts and activities (e.g., slides/visuals, research articles, case studies, videos) that:
    • Illustrate research-based model(s) of reading and writing development (e.g., Scarborough’s Reading Rope).
    • Describe different approaches to word recognition instruction and why some are or are not supported by research (e.g., three-cueing).
    • Define essential skills and components for reading and writing (e.g., phonological awareness, background knowledge).
    • Clarify differences and relationships between skills, including which skills are prerequisite, reciprocal, or mutually reinforcing of others (e.g., how decoding/encoding are mutually reinforcing).
    • Define principles of effective reading and writing instruction (e.g., explicit and diagnostic), with an understanding that there is no “one size fits all” approach.
  • Evidence in the professional learning of multiple and varied opportunities for participants to engage deeply with at least one of the essential skills or components for reading and writing development (e.g., vocabulary) that:
    • Explores its relationship to and impact on literacy development.
    • Defines and differentiates levels of development relevant to different grade levels.

 

2 points:

  • Professional learning provides robust opportunities for teachers to deeply understand and practice effective instructional practices that support development of one or more essential literacy skills, according to the science of reading research (i.e., the engagement opportunities are frequent, in-depth, and employ a variety of adult learning strategies for collaborative practice).

1 point:

  • Professional learning provides limited opportunities to understand and practice effective instructional practices that support development of one or more essential literacy skills (i.e., the engagement opportunities are infrequent, superficial, or do not employ a variety of adult learning strategies for collaborative practice).

0 points:

  • Professional learning provides few, if any, opportunities to understand effective instructional practices that support development of one or more essential literacy skills, and practice opportunities are absent.

Sample Evidence Collection

Reviewers look for and record:

  • Evidence in the professional learning of multiple artifacts and activities (e.g., slides/visuals, research articles, case studies, videos) that demonstrate how and why specific instructional practices (e.g., phoneme blending, segmenting, and manipulation) are designed to help students develop one or more of the essential skills for reading and writing development.
  • Evidence in the professional learning of activities that prompt teachers to role-play, practice, and/or internalize instructional practices or routines that support specific skill development (e.g., vocal prompts, letter cards, word cards, hand gestures, articulatory gestures). Instructional practices and routines may or may not be curriculum-specific. 

 

2 points:

  • Professional learning demonstrates in detail how the HQIM instructional framework is/is not designed in ways that reflect the science of reading research, and
  • Professional learning demonstrates in detail how lesson-level components are/are not designed in ways that reflect the science of reading research.

1 point:

  • Professional learning needs more detailed evidence of how the HQIM instructional framework is/is not designed in ways that reflect the science of reading research, or 
  • Professional learning needs more detailed evidence of how lesson-level components are/are not designed in ways that reflect the science of reading.

0 points:

  • Professional learning does not demonstrate how the HQIM is/is not designed in ways that reflect the science of reading research.

Sample Evidence Collection

Reviewers look for and record:

  • Evidence in the professional learning of examining HQIM overview materials that help build understanding of how the instructional framework and overarching design of the HQIM reflects the science of reading research (e.g., research base and underlying principles, scope and sequence and standards maps, text types/genres/complexity).
  • Evidence in the professional learning of how specific lesson activities within the HQIM are designed to develop skills necessary for reading and/or writing development (e.g., HQIM-specific instructional routines, unit/lesson flow/progression, checks for understanding).
  • Evidence in the professional learning of equipping teachers to identify if/when HQIM lesson components are misaligned or absent based on science of reading research.

2 points:

  • Professional learning supports teachers in internalizing units and lessons from the HQIM with the science of reading research in mind, including (when applicable) how to address potential gaps or misalignments within lessons, and
  • Professional learning highlights the importance of student practice opportunities in the HQIM, attuning teachers to where these occur within lessons and how to leverage HQIM-embedded supports to ensure all students receive sufficient practice to develop automaticity leading to mastery.

1 point:


  • Professional learning offers infrequent opportunities for teachers to internalize units and lessons with the science of reading research in mind, or
  • Professional learning needs more emphasis on identifying student practice opportunities and supporting  teachers in ensuring sufficient practice for all students.

0 points:

  • Professional learning does not offer teachers opportunities to internalize units and lessons with the science of reading research in mind, and
  • Professional learning does not identify student practice opportunities within lessons.

Sample Evidence Collection

Reviewers look for and record:

  • Evidence in the professional learning of opportunities for teachers to internalize, plan, and/or rehearse lessons or portions of lessons with a focus on implementation that aligns with the science of reading research.
  • Evidence in the professional learning of opportunities for teachers to understand the importance of student practice, what sufficient student practice looks/sounds like, and where student practice occurs within HQIM units and lessons, as well as any supplemental materials (e.g., letter-sound cards, word cards, white boards, student workbooks, decodable readers, fluency passages).
  • Evidence in the professional learning of suggestions for how to address potential gaps or misalignments within the HQIM (e.g., insufficient practice with decodable text).

2 points:

  • Professional learning examines how HQIM assessments (e.g., checks for understanding, unit tests) are designed to assess specific student learning and supports teachers in effectively using data from these assessments, and 
  • Professional learning describes additional types of assessments that can/should be used to understand students’ reading risk and development (e.g., screeners, diagnostics, progress monitoring tools).

1 point:


  • Professional learning provides an overview of HQIM assessments but provides limited support for using them, or
  • Professional learning signals the potential need for additional assessments but does not define or describe them.

0 points:

  • Professional learning does not examine HQIM assessments, and
  • Professional learning does not reference additional assessments that can/should be used to understand students’ reading risk and development.

Sample Evidence Collection

Reviewers look for and record:

  • Evidence in the professional learning of how HQIM-specific assessments are designed (i.e., how assessment components assess specific literacy skill development within lessons/units).
  • Evidence in the professional learning of supports for teachers in leveraging HQIM assessments, including, for example:
    • Different types of formative and summative assessment opportunities. 
    • How to identify students’ specific learning needs.
    • How/when to leverage embedded supports. 
    • How to plan for upcoming instruction based on individual/group/class data.
  • Evidence in the professional learning of building teachers’ awareness of additional assessments within the assessment ecosystem and how they are used to identify students’ risk, progress, and growth (e.g., screeners, diagnostics, progress monitoring, state summatives). Note: These assessments may or may not be state- or district-specific; it is not necessary that professional learning materials reference a specific state/district context. 

 

GRADE BAND INDICATORS FOR SCIENCE OF READING PROFESSIONAL LEARNING

Total Indicators: 3 | Minimum Passing Score: 2 out of 2 points on each applicable grade-band indicator

 

2 points:

  • Professional learning comprehensively identifies and defines the skills and components of beginning reading development in both word recognition and language comprehension, and
  • Professional learning includes explicit guidance about how to implement practices in instruction, including connections to a specific HQIM.

1 point:

  • Professional learning partially identifies and defines the skills and components of beginning reading development, or
  • Professional learning needs further clarity and detail in its guidance about how to implement practices in instruction, including connections to a specific HQIM.

0 points:

  • Professional learning identifies and defines very few or no skills and components of beginning reading development, and
  • Professional learning does not provide guidance about how to implement practices in instruction, including connections to a specific HQIM.

Sample Evidence Collection

Reviewers look for and record:

  • Evidence in the professional learning of artifacts and activities (e.g., slides/visuals, research articles, case studies, videos) that clearly identify and define the critical skills and components for early reading development in alignment with the framework(s) used in the professional learning (e.g., oral language development, phonological and phonemic awareness, decoding, encoding, handwriting, fluency, language comprehension, text comprehension, writing).
  • Evidence in the professional learning of commonalities and distinctions between literacy development at different stages (i.e., K-2, 3-5, 6-8). For example, evidence that language and reading comprehension in K-2 are largely taught through complex, content-rich read-alouds.
  • Evidence in the professional learning of practice opportunities within the HQIM..

 

2 points:

  • Professional learning comprehensively identifies and defines the skills and components of upper elementary literacy on the continuum of literacy development, and
  • Professional learning includes explicit guidance about how to implement practices in instruction, including connections to a specific HQIM and, if applicable, opportunities to extend application.

1 point:


  • Professional learning partially identifies skills and components of upper elementary literacy, or
  • Professional learning needs further clarity and detail in its guidance about how to implement advanced practices in instruction, including connections to a specific HQIM.

0 points:

  • Professional learning identifies very few or no skills and components of upper elementary literacy, and
  • Professional learning does not identify or include guidance about how to implement advanced practices.

Sample Evidence Collection

Reviewers look for and record:

  • Evidence in the professional learning of artifacts and activities (e.g., slides/visuals, research articles, case studies, videos) that clearly identify and define the critical skills and components in Grades 3-5 in alignment with the framework(s) used in the professional learning (e.g., multisyllabic decoding, morphology, fluency, language comprehension, text comprehension, writing).
  • Evidence in the professional learning of commonalities and distinctions between literacy development at different stages (i.e., K-2, 3-5, 6-8). For example, evidence that language and reading comprehension in 3-5 require consistent engagement with complex, grade-level texts.
  • Evidence in the professional learning of the importance of continued decoding, fluency, comprehension, and writing instruction as reflected in research regarding upper elementary students.
  • Evidence in the professional learning of practice opportunities within the HQIM, including aligned scaffolds, and when applicable, extended practice opportunities beyond the HQIM..

2 points:

  • Professional learning comprehensively identifies and defines the skills and components of secondary literacy on the continuum of literacy development, and
  • Professional learning focuses on a critical, research-based area to accelerate learning, with implications for practice, and
  • Professional learning draws on research specific to adolescent literacy, and
  • Professional learning makes connections to HQIM and, if applicable, opportunities to extend application..

1 point:


  • Professional learning identifies and defines the skills and components of secondary literacy on the continuum of literacy development, and
  • Professional learning partially focuses on a critical research-based area to accelerate learning with implications for practice; partially draws on research specific to adolescent literacy; or partially makes connections to HQIM materials and, if applicable, opportunities to extend application.
  •  

0 points:

  • Professional learning does not identify and define the skills and components of secondary literacy on the continuum of literacy, or
  • Professional learning does not focus on a critical research-based area to accelerate learning with implications for practice; does not draw on research specific to adolescent literacy; and does not make connections to HQIM materials.  

Sample Evidence Collection

Reviewers look for and record:

  • Evidence in the professional learning of artifacts and activities (e.g., slides/visuals, research articles, case studies, videos) that clearly identify and define the critical skills and components for secondary literacy in Grades 6-8 in alignment with the framework(s) used in the professional learning (e.g., morphology, fluency, language comprehension, text comprehension, and writing).
  • Evidence in the professional learning of commonalities and distinctions between literacy development at different stages (i.e., K-2, 3-5, 6-8) and cited research on considerations specific to Grades 6-8.
  •  
  • Evidence in the professional learning of a focus on a specific research-based area to accelerate learning at the secondary level (e.g., background knowledge, writing, syntax, vocabulary, fluency, discipline-specific literacy approaches) and practice opportunities both within and beyond the HQIM.
  • Evidence in the professional learning of research specific to adolescent literacy, with explicit attention to interdisciplinary connections. 

Rivet Education empowers education leaders to effectively implement high-quality instructional materials and deliver exceptional daily instruction for every student. We simplify curriculum implementation with our expert consulting services, practical tools and resources, and a commitment to addressing teachers’ and leaders’ most pressing needs. By defining curriculum-based professional learning and connecting states and districts with the nation’s best professional learning providers, Rivet ensures teachers and leaders have the right support at the right time.

Search
Linkedin Youtube Envelope

© 2024 Rivet Education, LLC

Site designed by Leverage Communications

Scroll to Top