Prekindergarten through Grade 12 Education

Google Translate Disclaimer

RFP #17-034: Questions and Answers

Building Quality Student Learning Objectives (SLO) Workshops


Program Questions

Question 1. Our program design would include exploring ways to leverage SLOs and the APPR process in order to improve student learning. Would participants have leeway to explore innovative approaches to SLOs design that reflects a student-centered design process?

Answer 1: New York State’s SLO process is tailored to the specific requirements of our teacher and principal evaluation system. We expect our approach will have significant instructional benefit by encouraging educators to be systematic and strategic in their instructional decisions, and lead to improved educator and student performance. Done thoughtfully and collaboratively, the SLO process will lead to an increase in the quality of discussions happening in districts, schools, and classrooms across the state that surround student growth and learning, clearer indications of when and how to adjust instruction to meet students’ needs, and more strategic planning of professional development efforts. Careful consideration should be taken in the selection and/or design of priority content, assessments, and target setting models used across grade and subject areas. The flexibility within the required components of an SLO allows districts/BOCES to tailor each academic goal to the specific needs of the students and nature of the course. Ongoing conversation centered on instruction and student learning are integral components of successful SLO development and implementation.

Question 2. Can the proposed program encourage the review of the use of SLOs themselves to ensure that there is integrity to their design and use within any subject area so as to maximize the assessment of growth relative to what is most important in every subject area?

Answer 2. Yes. Through the SLO workshops included in this RFP, the Department sees an opportunity to bring greater coherence to the evaluation system through an examination of LEAs’ local processes around the development, implementation, and refinement of SLOs.

Question 3. On page 8, there is a reference to “…examination of LEAs’ local processes around the development, implementation and refinement of SLOs.” Is this examination a direct engagement with LEAs or part of the workshop?

Answer 3. The examination of LEAs’ local processes around the development, implementation and refinement of SLOs is a cornerstone of the SLO workshops. The Department envisions these workshops as an opportunity for the vendor to directly engage with the LEA representatives participating in the workshops to collectively examine localized context and current processes. These examinations will then, in turn, be extrapolated into more broadly applicable ways to develop, implement, refine and leverage SLOs that can be shared statewide through the two webinars and subsequent, culminating toolkit.

Question 4. On page 10, a note is made about the vendor will “assist LEA’s in seeing how they can 1) adapt existing successful SLO processes …”. Does the assistance of LEA’s refer to the reviewing LEA-submitted SLOs and preparation and delivery of the workshops and webinars or does this refer to a separate engagement of each LEA?

Answer 4. Prior to the four workshops, the vendor will receive the LEA-submitted SLOs in order to tailor the workshop content so as to lead the examination of LEAs’ local processes around the development, implementation and refinement of SLOs. The intent of these workshops is to provide both individual feedback to each LEA on the processes that they currently have in place while also encouraging peer-to-peer problem solving among the different participants. The vendor is not expected to engage with the LEA participants outside of the workshop and webinar presentations, unless the vendor invites and/or instructs the LEA participants to do as such (e.g., to answer highly specific questions that time does not allot for during a workshop, to provide further explanation/insight into a workshop assignment, etc.).

Question 5. Will the SLOs to be reviewed by the vendor be collected by NYSED or will the vendor be responsible for collecting the SLOs from LEA participants?

Answer 5. The Department will be responsible for collecting the LEA-submitted SLOs and sharing them with the vendor.

Question 6. I would like to validate with you that Canadian-owned businesses are eligible to bid.

Answer 6. Yes, Canadian-owned businesses are eligible to bid.

Fiscal Questions

Question 7. Will DOE provide a space for the SLO workshop meetings, or should the contractor budget for this?

Answer 7. The in-person SLO workshop meetings will take place in meeting rooms at the New York State Education Department (NYSED) in Albany, NY. As such, the vendor need not budget for meeting room space.

Question 8. Can SED share the overall expected budget range for this RFP?

Answer 8. NYSED is not providing an expected budget amount for this project. Bidders should develop budgets based on the expenses associated with carrying out the deliverables outlined in the RFP. Please keep in mind that this is a “best value competitive procurement” with 30 percent of the total points awarded based on cost, with lowest cost proposals receiving the highest score. (See “Criteria for Evaluating Bids” section of the RFP for additional information.) Bidders are encouraged to submit budgets that are cost effective.

M/WBE Questions

Question 9. Are out-of-state M/WBE certifications admissible toward the M/WBE participation goals? We are certified in Massachusetts, however, we are a non-profit organization and therefore not eligible in New York State.

Answer 9. No, out of state M/WBE certifications are not applicable toward the M/WBE participation goals. Providers must be certified by NYS Empire State Development’s Division of Minority and Women’s Business Development office.

Last Updated: October 12, 2017 11:42 PM