Selection Criteria

This table provides guidance on criteria used in reviewing Nevada Reading First applications. Applicants had to meet all program requirements in order to receive funding. The ‘Meets Standard’ column describes the conditions that all applications were expected to meet. The ‘Exemplary’ column describes conditions that, when met in addition to those listed under ‘Meets Standard,’ would be expected to result in the highest quality Nevada Reading First programs and will qualify subgrants for priority status. The ‘Does Not Meet Standard’ column provides guidance on conditions that would not meet the standard for each criterion.

Criteria Exemplary
(In addition to meeting all conditions listed in “Meets Standard”)		 Meets Standard 
(Meets all conditions listed for each criterion)		 Does Not Meet Standard 
(Does not meet one or more of the conditions listed for each criterion)
I. 
Schools To Be Served 		 1. Information is included that documents decisions about which schools that meet eligibility criteria will be served and which schools will not be served. 1. A process has been designed for selecting among eligible schools for Reading First assistance.  Efforts have been made to maintain geographic diversity and sufficient funding for sustainable support 1. Selection process is unclear and/or funding appears insufficient for sustainable support.
2. Information is provided about the districtÂ’s/consortiumÂ’s eligible and targeted schoolsÂ’ location, students, families, and staff. 2. Information is provided about the districtÂ’s/consortiumÂ’s eligible and targeted schools, including current funding, other grants, and school improvement initiatives. 2. Limited information is provided about the districtÂ’s/ consortiumÂ’s eligible and targeted schools.
3. Information on selection process and rationale is detailed and ensures schools with greatest need and least resources will be served. 3. Information on selection process and rationale is listed that ensures schools with greatest need will be served.  A criterion for selection of school plans has been included to ensure that only those of the highest quality are funded.  3. Selection procedures are ambiguous and rationale is insufficient to ensure that schools with the greatest need and highest quality plans will be served.
II. Instructional Assessments 1. All assessment measures currently used are aligned and provide evidence of baseline data for instructional direction. 1. A description and analysis of all state and district assessment data and discussion of studentsÂ’ literacy achievement needs is provided.  1. Some assessment data and/or analysis is missing/not reported.
2. Current classroom assessments provide screening, diagnostic, and progress monitoring efforts. 2. A description of current classroom-based assessments that inform instruction is included.  2. Evidence of classroom-based assessment plans is not apparent.
3. Teachers are already highly skilled in administering and analyzing PALS data and are using it to inform instructional practices. 3. Evidence is provided of teachers who have received training in the PALS assessment and analysis and how that has resulted in the grouping of students and use of the website or teachersÂ’ manual to obtain instructional guidance. 3. No effort has been made to obtain instruction in PALS assessment training.
4. A clear assessment schedule is provided based on the schoolÂ’s start date, number of students to be tested, and scheduled reporting dates. 4. Forms and numbers of assessments that will be used for Nevada Reading First activities are provided, including designated funds to include the costs of the required assessments in Reading First schools. 4. Information on assessment plans is limited or missing.
III. Instructional Strategies and Programs 1. Detailed information is provided about current and planned literacy instruction, including goals and expected improvement as they relate to the Nevada Content and Performance Standards. 1. There is a description of each targeted schoolÂ’s current and planned literacy instruction that offers explicit, systematic instruction in phonemic awareness, fluency, phonics and spelling, vocabulary, comprehension, and writing instruction. 1. Little information is provided describing current and planned literacy instruction.
2. There is a commitment to enforcing a daily, uninterrupted time of more than 90 minutes in literacy instruction. 2. There is a commitment to enforcing a daily uninterrupted 90 minute block of time for instruction in literacy in Nevada Reading First classrooms to include: phonemic awareness, systematic phonics and spelling, fluency, vocabulary, comprehension, and writing instruction based on scientifically-based research.  2. There is no mention of an extended block of literacy instruction time, and/or some of the essential elements of literacy instruction are absent.
3. Evaluation efforts are aligned with assurances that planned activities and programs are coordinated and aligned with instructional materials. 3. Assurances have been made that planned instructional activities and programs include explicit and systematic instructional strategies, have a coordinated instructional sequence, are aligned with instructional materials, and allow ample practice opportunities. 3. Planned instructional activities and programs do not provide explicit and systematic instructional strategies in a coordinated sequence and/or are not aligned with instructional materials.
4. Detailed narrative outlines current scientific research and studies supporting instructional strategies and programs. 4. Support is included that the ConsumersÂ’ Guide to Scientifically Based Reading Programs and Materials information has been adhered to in selecting programs.  A completed Nevada Reading First rubric and narrative are attached that describe how proposed instructional strategies and programs are based on scientifically based reading instruction. 4. Support provided for the use of programs is limited and or sketchy.  Rubric and/or narrative do not adequately document the scientific basis for the instructional strategies or programs.
5. School plans provide a detailed description of planned interventions for at risk student populations. 5. Special support for students at risk is indicated as part of the school plan.  5. Little/no mention is made of special support for students at risk.
IV. Instructional Materials 1. Evaluative methods of assuring continued high quality and appropriateness of materials to allow for updating instructional materials is included. 1. Selected instructional materials are determined to be of high quality and are verified by scientifically based reading research and are appropriate for the targeted student population.  1. Instructional materials are of limited quality, lack a scientific basis, and/or are inappropriate for targeted school population.
2. Detailed narrative outlines current scientific research and studies supporting instructional materials 2. There is confirmation that the ConsumersÂ’ Guide to Scientifically Based Reading Programs and Materials information has been adhered to.  The scoring rubric and accompanying narrative support are included.  2. Support provided for the use of materials is limited and or sketchy.  Rubric and/or narrative do not adequately document the scientific basis for the instructional materials.
3. Explanations include information on the purchase of ample classroom sets of leveled materials that are appropriately targeted to the students in the schools. 3. There is verification that the materials selections will provide student with access to a wide array of appropriate and engaging reading materials, including both expository and narrative texts, and to resources and materials that might be needed to support Limited English Proficient learners and children with special needs.  3. Materials appear to be limited in scope and inappropriate for the student reading achievement and interest levels.
4. Information is provided illustrating how materials are well integrated and coordinated with existing and/or planned for scientifically based programs and materials 4. Evidence is provided that the selection of materials will not allow layering of selected materials on top of non-research based materials or programs already in use.  4. Materials appear to be layered on top of non-research based materials.
V. Instructional Leadership 1. Provisions are included for qualified literacy leadership dedicated solely to the Reading First work at both the district and school level. Their job responsibilities and duties are clearly outlined. 1. Measures are in place to provide dissemination and sustainability for Reading First work. Qualified literacy leaders with time and expertise to oversee the project are provided for at both the district and school levels.  1. Inadequate measures to provide for qualified literacy leadership at the district and/or school levels. 
2. At least two literacy leaders are dedicated at each site to full time Reading First activities and will be active participants in the REA/RF meetings for ongoing development and support of their role(s).. 2. At least one qualified literacy leader will be selected and approved as indicated in the Nevada Reading First grant for each site.  He/she will be dedicated full time to Reading First work at each targeted school.  He/she will take part in statewide REA/RF Literacy Leaders Cohort activities and will participate in statewide Reading First work. 2. A part-time position is allocated to provide school support for Reading First activities.  No assurances are provided for active participation in literacy leader cohort statewide. 
3. The principal and other any other site administrators will be active participants in the school wide literacy team plans and training and will commit to working with other principals in district teams and in a statewide cohort. 3. There is evidence of high-quality leadership activity plans and a commitment to join statewide efforts.  Strategies are included to ensure that principals, as part of their school-wide team, attend Nevada Reading First Academies and join the Reading First PrincipalsÂ’ Cohort.  3. Principals will be unavailable for literacy instruction activities and training. 
VI. 
District and School Based Professional Development		 1. Site-based teams, facilitated by the site literacy leader, have developed personal and school wide goals and plans for professional development based on specific staff needs. 1. Long-term goals and plans are present for ensuring teachers and administrators in targeted schools learn about scientifically based reading research.  Indications of expected changes/results based on site goals are presented clearly.  1. Goals and plans for professional development for educators in the districts and schools is limited in scope and is not part of a sustained professional development plan. 
2. Districts and sites will assist in planning and dissemination activities of scientifically based reading research through Reading First Academies. 2. Content of professional development activities is aligned with scientifically based reading research activities and is clearly articulated.  Viable plans are in place to support Nevada Reading First Academies.  2. Content of professional development is not aligned to scientifically based reading research.
There is little/no evidence of support for Nevada Reading First Academies.
3. Specifically designed, on-going professional development support for a school site will be provided by knowledgeable and qualified individuals in literacy education. 3. There is a description of clear plans and processes for delivery of full range of professional development by highly knowledgeable and qualified individuals concerning the essential elements of literacy instruction, including screening, diagnostic and classroom based instruction and assessments. 3. Plans and processes for delivering professional development are limited to training in the use of commercial materials.
4. Plans include initial delivery and sustained, job-embedded practice as well as evaluation strategies for implementing new strategies and programs with individual peer coaching and feedback. 4. Plans for professional development indicate it will be intensive, focused, and of sufficient duration, as well as being scheduled to allow adequate time for studying, observing, practicing, and evaluating instructional techniques.
Targeted professional development will be provided for teachers who need additional assistance with skills and strategies related to improving reading instruction.		 4. Disconnected, single event workshops will be the main delivery mechanism for professional development.
VII. 
District Based Technical Assistance		 1. District/consortium will assist with state-wide dissemination and sharing of technical assistance, linking all principalsÂ’ and literacy leadersÂ’ statewide efforts. 1. District/consortium leadership will provide sustained technical assistance to principals and literacy leaders collaboratively with Reading First Task Force. 1. There is little/no evidence for collaborative support for targeted Reading First activities.
School team efforts are disjointed and commitment is unsure.
2. Districts and/or consortiums will commit to assist Reading First Academies with resources and planning. 2. Evidence of a means by which the district and/or consortium will facilitate teacher participation in Reading First Academies is present.  There is a viable plan for disseminating information and professional development efforts in an ongoing manner for long-term sustainability.  2. No plan for assuring teacher participation in Reading First Academies is included.
No plan for disseminating information and sustaining professional development efforts is present.
3. District will provide resources to assure that technology remains operable to sustain Reading First efforts. 3. District assurances are provided that adequate technology will be in place to support assessments and data collection as well as professional development efforts.  3. There are no assurances for district assistance in maintaining the technology to support Reading First activities.
4. There is strong evidence of collaboration on the planning of this work.  Members of the advisory committee will continue in a technical assistance capacity to Reading First schools.
High quality assistance will be available to schools in assessing needs and determining goals including student achievement projections and budgets.
 		 4. There is evidence of collaboration on the planning efforts for this work.  An assurance is provided of at least one member from each of the following on the grant writing and advisory committee: a district curriculum coordinator in literacy, a representative of the state NELIP team from their area, a principal with teaching experience in K-3, an area/regional superintendent from one of their districts, a UCCSN based literacy expert, a community/ business partner, a parent from an eligible elementary school, a member of a local school board, an NSEA affiliate officer, and an experienced, practicing K-3 classroom teacher.  Technical assistance to schools in goal setting is provided.  4. Members from one or more categories of the grant advisory committee are missing.
VIII. Evaluation Strategies 1. School-based literacy teams, with the assistance of the district, will collect and analyze all assessment data and provide measures to compare goals and progress of schools on an annual basis. 1. A clear explanation is included of how the district/consortium will evaluate the effectiveness of Reading First activities at the regional/district level as well as for individual schools through the use of multiple assessment data, i.e., all assessment data collected at the state, district and school levels.  A plan is incorporated to assist principals with evaluation procedures.  1. Explanation of evaluation plans is unclear and/or single assessments are used to evaluate the work.
2. A schedule is provided for district and school-based staff to collect and chart data of student activities and assessments. 2. There is a timeline with clear expectations for data collection on student activities and achievement concerning: phonemic awareness, systematic phonics and spelling, fluency, vocabulary, comprehension, and writing, that is due to the state annually on July 1 of each funding year.  2. A timeline of expectations for data collection is not included.
3. Targeted achievement goals will be provided for each of the special populations.  3. Reporting procedures are included with disaggregated data that will provide information by low-income, LEP, racial/ethnic minorities, and special education populations.  3. Data will be limited to classroom and school wide reporting.
4. Additional assistance is provided to schools in evaluating their Reading First plan and outcomes. 4. Planned protocols are in place for dealing with schools that continue to not show significant progress.  4. No specific plans are in place for consistent non-achieving schools.
5. Evaluation of professional development activities will be used to guide on-going decisions in sustained efforts. 5. A calendar/timeline for documented evaluation of professional development activities at the district/ regional level and at the site level is provided that will include annual July 1 progress reports.  5. No evaluation of professional development efforts is present.
IX. 
Access to Print Materials		 1. A site-based system of inventorying and making print materials available for students, teachers, and families is provided 1. A description of the process used in selecting and/or developing print materials for classrooms is included. 1. There is a limited or missing description of the process used in selecting print materials. 
2. A site-based system of inventorying and making print materials available for students, teachers, and families is provided 2. Plans to assure access to a variety of print materials with leveled text in both informational and narrative genres are indicated. 2. Plans to assure access to a variety of print materials are inadequate or missing.
3. School and/or local librarians are part of the school literacy team. 3. Procedures to collaborate with school and local libraries to secure appropriate print materials are included. 3. There is little/no evidence of collaborative plans with local libraries.
4. Plans to collaborate with other schools to share information and resources for ELL and special needs students is included. 4. Measures to provide resources and materials to support limited English proficient learners and children with special needs are included. 4. Measures to provide differentiated resources and materials to special populations is limited or missing.
X. 
Additional Criteria		 1. Time lines and contact persons for planned collaborations are included. 1. Plans for collaboration with other literacy initiatives in the state are indicated.  Ways of leveraging work beyond site levels to include district and community efforts are included 1. There is little/no appearance of plans for collaboration with other literacy initiatives.
2. Plans for tracking and maintaining budgetary records are included. 2. A budget with sufficient detail and an appropriate level of funding to provide sufficient resources to accomplish the goals and plans is included.  Requested amount is justifiable given the number of students and teachers it will serve.  2. Budget is insufficient and/or funding level is inadequate for the work plan. Budget is not justified for the number of students served.
3. There is evidence of community/family support to assist targeted school communities in Reading First activities 3. There is potential for community/family support to assist targeted school communities in Reading First activities. 3. Little/no effort has been made to include community/family support.
4. Districts/consortiums provide assurance that they will participate in state and federal evaluation efforts of Reading First. 4. Assurances are not provided.
XI. Competitive Priorities 1. Detailed data is provided indicating large percentages of students in need of literacy intervention. 1. Information is provided on targeted schools that indicate at least 15% of students served are from families with incomes below the poverty line 1. Information on eligible student populations is missing.
2. Site-based planning is established and goals are developed based on data already received 2. Schools will use/are in the process of using school improvement tools (e.g., KEYS through NSEA) to facilitate school change efforts.

Back to Home Page