ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ
1
Institution: CSU East BaySecond Review Finding Second Review Feedback
2
Program(s) and Pathway(s): Multipe Subject Traditonal and Intern
3
Link to Submission: https://sites.google.com/csueastbay.edu/credentialprograms/literacy-instruction-certification-submission-documentation
4
Initial Review
5
Table 3.1 - 7.5/U7.5 Foundational SkillsIntroducedPracticedAssessed
6
The information provided in 3.1 indicates that the concepts are clearly introduced/included in coursework
(Indicate Y or N)		The information provided in 3.1 indicates that the concepts are clearly practiced by candidates in coursework or clinical practice
(Indicate Y or N) 		The information provided in 3.1 indicates that candidates are assessed on these concepts
(Indicate Y or N)		If no is indicated on any of the previous three columns, please comment on what is missing or unclear.Reviewer Instructions
For any element that was not addressed in the initial review, review institution's response.

Select Yes or No from the drop down menu. If feedback is fully addressed, select Yes. If additional information is needed, select No and use Column G to provide additional feedback. 		Reviewer Instructions
If the response is not sufficient, please provide additional feedback.

If the response addresses the feedback, no additional feedback is needed.
7
a. print concepts, including letters of the alphabetYesYesNoI: I:
8
P: P:
9
A: Could not access TED 508 finalYesA:
10
b. phonological awareness, including phonemic awarenessYesYesNoI: I:
11
P: P:
12
A: Could not access TED 508 finalYesA:
13
c. phonics, spelling, and word recognition, including letter-sound, spelling-sound, and sound-symbol correspondencesYesYesNoI: I:
14
P: P:
15
A: Could not access TED 508 final; Could not find rubric for TED 509 case study part C&DYesA:
16
d. decoding and encoding, including morphological awarenessYesYesNoI: I:
17
P: P:
18
A: Could not access TED 508 finalYesA:
19
e. text reading fluency, including accuracy, prosody (expression), and rate (as an indicator of automaticity)YesNoNoI: I:
20
P: The link for the fluency activity does not work, so it was not possible to review this evidenceYesP:
21
A: Could not access TED 508 finalYesA:
22
f. instruction that is structured and organized as well as direct, systematic, and explicitNoNoNoI: The slides provided are an overview to the class; there does not appear to be information presented about YesI:
23
P: The exit ticket asks specifically about phonics instruction in the question about Mrs. Moore, but reviewers don't see how this is an opportunity for students to practice or apply their understanding of instruction that is structured and organized as well as direct, systematic, and explicit as it applies to foundational skills as a whole; reviewers could not open the TED 580 fieldwork observation summative evaluation so that evidence could not be reviewedYesP:
24
A: The lesson plan provided for TED 508 does not mention the need to plan instruction that is structured and organized as well as direct, systematic, and explicit and since a rubric is not provided, reviewers cannot determine if that is being assessed in this assignment. Reviewers could not access the TED 581 summative evaluation beyond the first page unless reviewers filled out the form, which reviewers are not comfortable doing. Please provide a link to the specific parts of this form that will assess 7.5fYesA:
25
g. connected, decodable textYesYesNoI: I:
26
P: P:
27
A: Could not access TED 508 finalYesA:
28
h. Provide instruction in text reading fluency that emphasizes spelling and syllable patterns, semantics, morphology, and syntax.YesYesNoI: I:
29
P: P:
30
A: Could not find rubric for TED 509 case study part C&D; could not access TED 508 FinalYesA:
31
i. Advance students’ progress in the elements of foundational skills, language, and cognitive skills that support them as they read and write increasingly complex disciplinary texts with comprehension and effective expression.YesYesNoI: I:
32
P: P:
33
A: Could not access rubrics for case study & lesson planYesA:
34
Standard 7a. Foundational Skills: English Learners

Reviewers can find information on 7a in Section 3.2 of the institution's submission.		The evidence contained in the literacy coursework indicates program is aligned to standard 7a as it relates to multilingual and English Learner students. (Indicate Y or N)If the response in the previous column is no, please indicate what is missing or unclear related to this aspect of standard 7a.Reviewer Instructions
For any element that was not addressed in the initial review, review institution's response.

Select Yes or No from the drop down menu. If feedback is fully addressed, select Yes. If additional information is needed, select No and use Column G to provide additional feedback. 		Reviewer Instructions
If the response is not sufficient, please provide additional feedback.

If the response addresses the feedback, no additional feedback is needed.
35
Standard 7a: The program also includes evidence-based means of teaching foundational skills to multilingual and English learner students while they are simultaneously developing oral English language proficiency, and in some cases literacy skills in an additional language. The program teaches candidates to plan foundational skills instruction based on students’ previous literacy experiences in their home languages and to differentiate instruction using guidance from the ELA/ELD Framework, including knowledge of cross-language transfer between the home languages and English.NoSection 3.2 does not mention multilingual and English learners or the ELA/ELD framework. This information is provided in reference to the Education Specialists, but it is not mentioned in any of the descriptions related to the multiple subjects credential. Yes
36
The feedback on this sheet is provided for all programs and pathways listed on Row 2 of this sheet.The feedback above is for all programs and pathways (Indicate Y or N)General Comments:
For the evidence related to the case study in TED 509, there are descriptions of the assignment and a point value for each part, but there is not evidence of how these components will actually be assessed. A rubric that shows how candidates earn points for each section would be helpful in reviewing this evidence.
37
Yes
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100