A POSITIVE IMPACT UPON TEACHER DIVERSITY

ALTERNATIVE ROUTES TO TEACHER CERTIFICATION

2011 PROGRAM PROPOSAL

Submitted by: City University of Seattle

Date: January 15, 2011
 A Positive Impact on Teacher Diversity
City University of Seattle’s Program Application
for Alternative Routes to Certification

SECTION 1: PROGRAM INFORMATION Page 3

Overview Page 3

SECTION 2: PROPOSAL CONTENTS Page 4

A. Need for Program Page 4

Snapshot of Student and Teacher Diversity Page 5
City University’s Diversity Mandate Page 5

B. Market Analysis Page 6

Geographic Contributions Page 7
Student Access Contributions Page 7
Unique Endorsement Options Page 8
Unique Program Design Elements Page 9
Alternative Routes Decision-Makers Page 10
Considerations for Changing Times Page 10

SECTION 3: COMMITMENT OF PARTNERS Page 11

A. District Need Page 11

B. Classroom Placement Page 11
C. Route 1 and Route 2 Placements Page 13
D. Selection of Mentor Teacher Page 14
E. Field Experience Placement Page 16
F. Program Design Page 18
G. Organizational Capacity Page 26
H. Program Delivery Page 26

APPENDICES
Appendix A: District Letters and Contact Information
Appendix B: Unique Program Design Elements
Appendix C: Field Documents and Eligibility/Entry Requirements
Appendix D: Signed Memorandum of Understanding

2
 SECTION 1 – PROGRAM INFORMATION

Program Name: Albright School of Education

Institution: City University of Seattle
Certificate Type: Residency Teacher Certificate
Proposed Routes: Route 1
Route 2
Route 3
Route 4
Proposed
Endorsements: Single Endorsements:
Early Childhood Special Education
Mathematics
Middle Level Mathematics
Special Education
Dual Endorsements:
English Language Learners and Elementary Ed.
English Language Learners and Mathematics
Mathematics and Elementary Education
Special Education and Elementary Education
Special Education and English Language Learners
Special Education and Mathematics

Organization Type: Private non-profit organization

OVERVIEW

City University of Seattle’s Application for Alternative Routes to Certification seeks

approval to provide programs in all four routes to meet district needs for teachers in
special education, English language learners, mathematics, and early childhood special
education. This proposal will contribute approximately 65 new teachers every two years
to the state’s workforce, with a goal of 35% representing underserved communities.

3
 SECTION TWO - PROPOSAL CONTENTS

A. NEED FOR PROGRAM:

This proposal addresses the shortage of special education, English language learners
(ELL), and mathematics teachers in western Washington school districts. City University
of Seattle has letters of support from Auburn, Everett, Mr. Vernon and Seattle School
Districts. We are also in the process of securing a letter of support from the North Kitsap
School District verifying current or anticipated teacher shortages in these content areas.
The letters also show the districts’ commitment to partnering with City U of Seattle
(CityU) in alternative route programming to meet staffing needs. (Please see Appendix A
for district letters). In some cases, the district/ university partnership is a new one, as
with Auburn, while others are ongoing, as with Seattle whose relationship began in 2004
and extends until 2013 per agreements with the district and the Seattle Education
Association.

All partnerships seek teachers who reflect the diversity of students in their schools. To
attract minority personnel into the teaching profession, CityU requests approval to offer
programming in all four Alternative Routes. Doing so enables us to attract a large
number of applicants and to customize the preparation of the selected participants
according to their individual strengths and qualifications. It is, in fact, the combination of
district needs and student backgrounds that determined the four single subject and six
dual endorsements CityU now proposes.

Supported by a P.E.S.B. special grant entitled “Salish Pathways,” the University is

conducting a needs assessment of the Suquamish and Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribes, the
North Kitsap School District, and other Peninsula agencies on an early childhood special
education model for Native paraeducators. Preliminary results indicate interest in a
Route 1 reservation-based program with a potential start date of June, 2012. Figure 1
below summarizes this and other CityU proposed alternative route partnerships.

Figure 1: City University’s Proposed Alternative Routes Partnership Programs

Routes Endorsement Partnerships Student #
Elementary Ed. + Eng. Lang. Learn. Seattle 6-15
Route 1: Employed paraeducators (AA) Elementary Ed. + Mathematics Auburn 6-15
Elementary Ed. + Special Ed. Everett 6-15
Mathematics + Eng. Lang. Learn. Mt. Vernon 6-15
Special Ed. + Mathematics
Special Ed. + Eng. Lang. Learners
Route 2: Employed paraeducators (BA) Mathematics Everett 5
Route 3: Individuals with bachelors Middle-Level Mathematics Seattle
degrees Mathematics Everett 15
Auburn
Route 4: Individuals with bachelors Middle-Level Mathematics Seattle
degrees plus conditional or emergency Mathematics Everett 3
certificates Auburn

4
 North Kitsap
Route 1: Employed paraeducators with Early Childhood Special Ed. +Tribes 5-10
transfer degrees (In process)
A Snapshot of Student and Teacher Diversity in Washington State

There is an understandable sense of urgency among all educational stakeholders to

increase the diversity of the teacher workforce. As Washington’s K-12 student body
becomes steadily more diverse, the percentage of educators reflecting the communities
they teach in has not kept pace. Numbers from O.S.P.I.’s data administration and report
card websites show that underrepresented students increased from 7.5% of total school
enrollments in 1971 to 26.6% 30 years later in 2001. From 1971 to 2001, non-white
student numbers increased at about .6% a year. Moving ahead eight years from 2001
onward, non-white students represented 36.3% of Washington’s K-12 enrollment by
2009. This rate of change is occurring at 1.2% annually, or twice as fast as previously.
Figure 2 summarizes some of our state’s K-12 diversity data.

Figure 2: Washington State’s Increasingly Diverse K-12 Student Population

October/ Native Total Percent
Year Black Asian American Hispanic White Enrollment Minority
1971 21,431 11,145 12,398 15,411 743,388 803,773 7.5
2001 54,563 75,782 27,281 110,136 741,651 1,010,424 26.6
2009 57,952 90,670 25,974 166,518 660,333 1,036,135 36.3
Data Sources:
For 1971: www.k12.wa.us/dataadmin
For 2001: http://reportcard.ospi.k12.wa.us/summary aspx?groupLevel=District&year=2000-2001
For 2010: http://reportcard.ospi.k12.wa.us/summary aspx?groupLevel=District&year=2009-2010

The demographic make-up of those teaching Washington’s students has not undergone
similar dramatic shifts. In fact, OSPI data for the most recent decade reveals that no shift
has occurred whatsoever.

Figure 3: The Ethnicity of Washington’s Certified Teachers in FTE Numbers and Percentages
Academic Native Total
Year Black Asian American Hispanic White FTE
1997-98 833 1.6% 1098 2.2% 403 .79% 890 1.8% 50,880 93.6% 50,880
2007-08 778 1.4% 1389 2.6% 406 .75% 1453 2.7% 49,889 92.1% 53,916
Data Source: www.k12.wa.us/DataAdmin/default.aspx

City University of Seattle’s Diversity Mandate

The above data mandates the pursuit of new and aggressive diversity goals. Fortunately,
our university/district partnerships are no longer beginning from scratch. CityU has
analyzed the efficacy of our “conventional” and alternative routes preparation
programs. It is clear that our partnership models have grown increasingly more
successful with students of color. For example, in 2002 only 13% of our pilot cohort was
from under-served communities. Six years later, that number more than doubled.
Evergreen Training and Evaluation (2010) determined that 30% of our multiple cohorts

5
in 2008 were minorities. Such recruiting and retention successes are gratifying for our
partnerships and beyond.
The 2008 percentage of 30% is nearly twice O.S.P.I.’s (2010) finding that 16% of the
state’s newly certified teachers in 2008-09 were non-white. More importantly, 30%
diversity among teachers begins to more closely approximate the diversity of
Washington’s current student population.

Though the efforts of all educational stakeholders are likely necessary to diversify
Washington’s teaching force, CityU’s alternative routes programs propose to improve
our goals and results now. Our goal is to recruit cohorts this year that are at least 35%
diverse candidates. This percentage is more than we have achieved previously, but
there is no time to wait or waste.

Another endeavor is that CityU has infused our alternative model philosophy and design
into all of our “regular” preparation programs. The transformation is so nearly
complete, except for tuition pricing, that Alternative Route 1 participants could be
served in our “conventional” bachelors in education programs. Such program redesign
efforts were necessary. Currently, City University of Seattle is one of the largest teacher
preparation providers in the state. It is incumbent upon us to align both programs with
the state’s Strategic Master Plan for Higher Education (Washington Higher Education
Coordinating Board, 2008) by providing prior learning credit, entry support, intensive
advising, and performance-based, customized preparation.

B. MARKET ANALYSIS:

CityU’s alternative routes programs target additional concerns at the local, state and
national levels. Nationwide studies underscore how several states, including ours,
grapple with consecutive years, if not decades, of chronic teacher shortages in
mathematics, special education, English language acquisition, and, in some cases early
childhood special education (United States Department of Education, 2010; United
States Department of Labor, 2010).

State-specific research by several agencies reinforces the same “high degrees of

shortages” (P.E.S.B., 2008 p.1) throughout Washington (Higher Education Coordinating
Board, State Board for Technical and Community Colleges, and the Workforce Training
and Education Coordination Board, 2009; Office of the Superintendent of Public
Instruction, 2007).

City University of Seattle and its district partners have not encountered competition or
redundancy concerns regarding other institutions. We realize that as more partnerships
implement programs, this situation may change. Until then, Figure 4 summarizes some
of our district/partnership’s distinct roles and contributions:

6
Figure 4: A Sample of CityU’s Alternative Routes Programs’ Contributions
Geographic Reach Student Access Shortage Areas
 Provides multiple locations for  Is the sole provider of Route 1 paraeducator Is the sole provider of Route 1 students
students’ convenience programs in western WA earning math endorsements
 Serves both rural and urban  Is the sole provider for AA transfer degreed Is the sole provider of Route 1 students
districts in western WA. and college-degreed adults in western WA earning ELL and Sp.Ed
 Proposes first reservation-based May be the sole provider for Tribal May be sole provider statewide of early
site in Kitsap County members in community-based program childhood special education

Geographic Contributions

As of this writing, data from the Professional Educators Standards Board (PESB) web
site, http://pathway.pesb.wa.gov/alternative_routes/alt-route-programs/all-programs,
identifies a total of six alternative route providers in Washington State. The six providers
offer programs at a total of ten sites. Geographically, two programs exist east of the
mountains serving students in Yakima, Pasco, and Toppenish. The four in western
Washington have a total of seven sites along the I-5 corridor. The southernmost
provider is in Lacey while the most northern is in Mt. Vernon. Everett is home to the
most western program at this time. This will change, however, if CityU establishes a
partnership further west, in unserved Kitsap Peninsula.

Currently, CityU has four alternative routes sites, twice as many as other providers, in
Seattle, Bellevue, Everett, and Mt. Vernon. In a state with more than 150 rural school
districts, we serve as the only institution offering programs in both urban and rural
locations. If approved, both types of sites will increase with the addition of Auburn and
possibly the state’s first reservation-based alternative routes program at Suquamish.

It should be clarified that City University of Seattle does not expand for expansion-sake.
We have developed a cost-effective infrastructure that insures quality programming for
as few as three participants or as many as 30 in any route or subject area. This flexibility
allows us to serve, rather than shun, the occasional handful of uniquely qualified
participants, who, though small in number, should become teachers because their
talents and skills could benefit hundreds of children. Further, by taking our district/
university programs to our participants rather than requiring them to come to us, the
University actualizes our institutional mission of providing relevant and accessible
education by removing economic, social and geographic barriers.

Student Access Contributions

In reviewing the state’s six alternative route programs, five serve only one of two
distinct student groups, those with baccalaureate degrees or those with associates
transfer degrees. The majority, four out of six current programs, enroll college-degreed
adults exclusively in Route 2, 3, or 4 programs. Fortunately, two institutions, one on
each side of the mountains, provide access for undergraduate participants. The eastern

7
provider is Heritage while CityU serves western Washington. CityU remains the sole
Route 1 provider in all of western Washington. We fill a critical, unduplicated need for
our state’s paraprofessionals wanting to advance their educational careers. We are also
the sole institution serving both undergraduates and graduates by offering all four
routes.

Unique Endorsement Options

Since our partnership programs are unique in which students we serve and where, our
undergraduate endorsement offerings reflect distinct qualities as well. Figure 5 below
displays the six alternative route providers and compares their program components
against ours. Data for this figure was retrieved December 11, 2010 from PESB’s website
at http://pathway.pesb.wa.gov/alternative_routes/alt-route-programs/all-programs.
Please note, not all of each institution’s endorsement offerings are listed in Figure 5.

Figure 5: City University and Other Alternative Route Programs as of December, 2010
Program CityU’s Proposed Endorsements and Routes Locale
Providers
El Ed ELL Math Mid Sp Ed EC Sp Western Eastern
Math Ed WA WA
Everett, Seattle, Auburn, & in
City 1 1 1,2,3,4 1,2,3,4 1,2,3,4 1 process Mt. Vernon, & Kitsap
Pacific Lutheran* X** 2,3,4 X 2,3,4 2,3,4 X Tacoma
Saint Martin’s * X 2,3,4 2,3,4 2,3,4 2,3,4 X Lacey
Seattle Pacific * 2,3,4 2,3,4 2,3,4 2,3,4 2,3,4 X Seattle
Heritage 1 1 X 1 1 X Toppenish
Regional Consortia* X 2,3,4 2,3,4 2,3,4 2,3,4 X Pasco & Yakima
* These providers offer additional endorsements not listed here
** This endorsement is not offered.

As Figure 5 indicates, CityU’s alternative routes programs make multiple unduplicated

contributions to teacher education in Washington State. Likewise, when considering the
University’s endorsement offerings, we are distinct in:

1. Serving Route 1 participants who want to teach mathematics. As of this writing,

CityU is the sole provider in the state offering this option.

2. Serving Route 1 participants who want to teach special education and/or English
language learners. CityU is the sole provider of these endorsements to
paraprofessionals in western Washington. Heritage University is the sole
provider of similar endorsements in eastern Washington.

3. Offering what may be the state’s first alternative routes Early Childhood Special
Education endorsement to meet the needs of the Kitsap area.

8
 City University of Seattle also proposes continuing our integrated dual endorsement, 90
credits Route 1 program. Our students realize employability benefits from earning
multiple subject credentials while the University is assured that we have done our part
to prepare teachers for a variety of settings. Our dual endorsements include:

Elementary Education + English Language Learners

Elementary Education + Mathematics
Elementary Education + Special Education
Mathematics + English Language Learners
Special Education + Mathematics
Special Education + English Language Learners

While earning dual endorsements is a norm for approximately half of CityU participants,
such is not the case any longer for new teachers statewide. As OSPI (2010) documented
in its Annual Report: 2008-09 Certificates Issued, multiple endorsements were earned by
only 1.4% of the certified teachers in 2008-09. City’s participants’ credentials surpass
those of other new teachers and are a factor in our employment percentage rates that
typically surpass the state’s average.

Dual endorsements are important in a state with 151 rural districts (those with three or
fewer schools and 1000 or fewer students). Research consistently shows that the single
most important qualification for teachers in rural settings is having multiple
endorsements (Barley, 2008; Dadisman, Gravelle, Farmer & Petrin, 2010). City’s dual-
endorsed graduates are well-prepared for teaching in diverse educational settings.

City University of Seattle’s Unique Program Design Elements

In its final report, Evergreen Training and Evaluation (2010) concluded that the models
developed and piloted by CityU in Seattle and Skagit Valley are worthy prototypes for
others. Previously in 2008, the same evaluators cited program components as
“breakthrough” p. 21 and deserving of “kudos” p.23. A sample of unique design features
and tools from various program phases are listed below.

Figure 6: A Sample of City University of Seattle’s Unique Program Features and Tools
Program Phase Feature/ Tool Description
Program inquirers use this tool to self-assess program readiness and as a guide to prepare for
“Self-Assessment for Transitioning admission (See Appendix C)
Before Admission to Teaching”
The “PQ” is a one-quarter option for Route 2 applicants who have not yet passed the special ed
“Prerequisite Quarter” content test. We are exploring this for other subject assessment required by RCW28A-410-220(3)
Upon entry, participant meets with advisory team to assess prior experience and knowledge via
Entry into Program “Individual Plan of Study” transcript review, professional experiences, interviews, proficiency portfolio aligned with state
standards to craft an Individual Plan of Study. (See Appendix C)
Integrated “A” and “B” Curricular “A” courses during Route 1 first year develop professional knowledge and endorsement
Model “Program Handbook” competencies or through the summer intensive and during the year-long mentored internship for
Routes 2,3,and 4. Courses may be waived with portfolio of evidence per Individual Plan of Study.
During the Program (See Sample Program Handbook in Appendix C)
Route 1,2,3,4:
“Performance Tasks Handbook” “B” performance tasks during mentored year develop instructional skill, endorsement
competencies, and individual specialties. Candidates self-pace and have early exit option. (See

9
 sample Performance Tasks Handbook in Appendix C)

Agreements with classified unions and districts seek to enable alternative route candidates to retain
During the Program Route 1,2,4 Job Retention their jobs while in the program. (See Seattle Education Association letter in Appendix A)

Alternative Routes Program Decision-Makers

City University of Seattle has learned many lessons about the “hows” of offering
partnership-based, alternative routes to teacher certification. A necessary first step in
designing and offering such models is to form a program advisory board for each
alternative route model to be offered. Such boards are similar in nature to the
Professional Education Advisory Boards for “regular” preparation programs. Their broad
responsibilities are to

1) design and staff the alternative routes program model;

2) recruit, support, and place the participants;
3) troubleshoot issues as they arise; and
4) evaluate the quality of the participants’ experiences.

Each advisory board includes representatives from all stakeholder groups and includes:

City University program coordinator

City University associate faculty
District administrator from each district partnership
Mentor teacher representative
City University field supervisor representative
Alternative routes participant representative
Family member representative
Classified employee union representative for Route 1 and 2 programs, and/or
Tribal Education committee representative if serving Native participants,
and/or consortia representatives such as community college
representatives

Considerations for Changing Times

The economic downturn that began in 2009 shrunk the state’s teaching workforce
primarily through attrition. However, as 2011 begins, new budget contractions are likely
and layoff of teachers will likely occur. The Professional Education Standards Board has
analyzed recent K-12 teacher data and suggested preliminary policy implications at their
site: https: //sites.google.com/a/pesbdata.org/dataand trends/reduction-in-force.
They estimated that new teacher hiring in 2009-10 was about one-half of what was
expected and attributed the reduced employment numbers to three factors:

10
 1) Lower attrition of continuing teachers
2) Small declines in retirement
3) An overall reduction in the workforce.

They suggest that teacher preparation graduates including those in high need
endorsement areas will be affected and some who received alternative route bonded
scholarships may face repayment.

As CityU proposes to provide alternative route programming in western Washington, it

is important that we inform applicants of our uncertain educational environment and
the likelihood of few available positions. That said, there are those among us (authors
included) who assert they must be teachers. CityU has taken proactive steps to address
the viability of institutional and tuition costs so that we may continue providing
alternative route programs while further reducing tuition rates (See Section 3H).
Additionally, we are launching deeper conversations with our partners about
how best to estimate teacher shortages and future district openings. Finally, our
candidates with their personal experiences in the school districts are prepared to be the
first hired even in these difficult hiring times.

SECTION THREE - COMMITMENT OF PARTNERS

3A. DISTRICT NEED

CityU has received letters from four of our district partners verifying their current or
anticipated teacher shortages in endorsements we offer. (See Appendix A).
Please note that conversations are underway with an additional partner, the Kitsap
Educational Agencies including the Suquamish Tribe and Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe
regarding a Route 1 program in early childhood special education. Figure 7 shows the
commitments received to date and letters in process (IP).

Figure 7: City University’s District Partners

Districts Endorsements Routes Letters
Elementary Ed. + English Language Learners 1 
Seattle Elementary Ed. + Special Education 1
Everett Special Education + Mathematics 1 
Mathematics 2,3,4
Middle Level Mathematics
Auburn Elementary Ed. + English Language Learners 1, 3,4 
Elementary Ed. + Special Education
Mathematics
Middle Level Mathematics
Mt. Vernon Elementary Ed. + English Lang. Learners 1  I
Tribes Kitsap Early Childhood Special Education 1 IP

11
3B. CLASSROOM PLACEMENT

“My building, the district, and City U helped support me in every way that I
needed. I was able to truly feel like a teacher with my mentor teacher, my field
supervisor, the consulting teacher for the building and my principal by my side,
either face to face, telephone conversations and email.”
City University Participant cited in Evergreen Training and Evaluation (2010) p.11

The student’s statement above reflects the multiple forms of feedback, supervision and
support from district and university personnel, all of whom adhere to numerous
internship protocols. Supervising mentor teachers must meet pre-determined criteria,
one of which is training by CityU faculty (See district letters in Appendix A and Figure 8).
Candidates verify their readiness for work with K-12 students by securing formal
university approval. CityU assigns a field supervisor when the candidate and mentor
teacher are paired. With these roles in place, internship teams are formed to support
each candidate’s transformation into a teacher. The teams consist of the candidate,
mentor teacher, building principal or designee, university field supervisor, and, in some
cases, other educators as well. It is the primary responsibility of the internship team
members to support and evaluate the candidate the majority of the time.

Candidates are expected to be in their assigned classrooms all day, every day for the
duration of their mentored internship (Appendix C – Field Handbook pp.6-7). To develop
increasingly complex levels of professional excellence, each candidate receives
continuous formative & summative input from at least six district and university
personnel. The schedule and format of feedback are described in the Field Handbook
(Appendix C) and samples are listed in Figure 8. Please note, CityU’s program documents
will be revised for the 2011/12 year upon approval of this proposal.

Figure 8: Intensive Mentoring from District and University Personnel

INFORMAL FORMAL
EVALUATOR FEEDBACK SAMPLES FEEDBACK SAMPLES
Serves as liaison for district Formalizes Teacher Development Plan
University Field  and university & gives  Scores Instructional Plans
Supervisor related feedback monthly or Scores Performance-based Pedagogy
more frequently Scores Impact on Student Learning

Internship Seminars  Once monthly campus-

based reflection with
University Faculty  faculty and cohort
Internship Team: Meets at beginning of
District and University  internship and quarterly
Gives feedback on skills and
District Mentor  knowledge daily or weekly
Teacher and then less frequently
Observes candidate and
Principal  gives informal feedback
Occasionally
Cooperating Teacher, Gives feedback on skills and
If present  knowledge base as needed
 Scores Impact on Student Learning
Reviews quarterly evaluations
 Makes formal recommendations
Signs off on Performance tasks
 Makes formal recommendations
 Conducts one informal and one formal
evaluation
Makes formal and informal
 recommendations

12
The above chart does not reflect the candidate’s active role in self-reflection and
evaluation. Such processes are explained in the Field Handbook (Appendix C), Program
Handbook and Performance Task Handbooks (Appendix B). The amount of feedback and
evaluation does not necessarily decrease when the candidate is in the final phases of
internship since there is no limit to professional development.

All developmental milestones of each candidate are determined by the internship team.
Such decisions include the candidate’s readiness to student teach, recommendation for
certification, and any additional requirements if needed.

3C. ROUTE 1 AND 2 PLACEMENTS

Some CityU school district partners have provided groundbreaking support of Route 1
and 2 candidates by allowing them to retain their jobs during their mentored
internships. Evergreen Training and Evaluation’s final report (2010) cited the efforts of
the Seattle Public Schools, Seattle Education Association and the Mt. Vernon School
District in supporting their paraprofessionals:

“The classified staff union’s involvement and support made a

qualitative impact on the program in Seattle. For example,… the union
helped meet professional development needs, which in turn, helped
reduce the stress of participants. The union also played a critical role in
ensuring that all Seattle participants could keep their jobs while they did
their internships. In Skagit Valley, Mt. Vernon School District allowed
participants to keep their jobs and paid for substitutes while participants
did their student teaching.” p.7

CityU’s Field Handbook addresses paraprofessional and Route 4 candidate employment

during internship. (See Appendix C, pages 3 and 5, currently to be revised for 2011/12.)
CityU strongly encourages district partners to retain employment of their paraeducators
while in program, and encourages districts considering such options. CityU will not
interfere with district requirements or negotiated agreements.

In Evergreen Training’s final report (2010), they reviewed and compared the
characteristics of alternative route programs nationally. They found that few states
considered the issue of job support in their alternative route programs. Washington’s
efforts in this regard are pioneering and necessary. The evaluators claim that, for the
many minority candidates attracted to our state’s model, job support “was a huge factor
in student success and completion of these programs.” CityU recognizes this is a
significant factor to the success of our Route 1 and Route 2 candidates.

13
3D. SELECTION OF A MENTOR TEACHER

Districts are responsible for identifying mentor teachers based on the pre-determined
qualifications identified in the partnership agreement (Figure 9). After districts have
selected mentors, City University faculty are responsible for their training which takes
place over the course of several Saturdays. The focus of the training is on the 25 topics
listed in the Table of Contents in CityU’s Field Handbook Alternative Routes to
Certification (Appendix C). Other mentor topics and processes are mapped out in the
Program Handbook and Performance-Based Tasks Handbook (Appendix B). All mentor
teachers are trained in the co-teaching model. They receive clock hours and payment for
completing training as alternative route mentors.

Figure 9: Mentor Teacher Qualifications

City University of Seattle/District Partnership
Mentor Teacher Selection Criteria
Applicant/ Reviewer: __________________________________________________________________
Date: _______________________________________________________________________________

Mentor Teacher Required Qualifications: Mentor Candidate Qualifications:

A minimum of three years of teaching

A continuing or professional certificate
Endorsement(s) in:
Subject areas taught:
Demonstrated excellence in teaching
Demonstrated positive impact on student learning
Demonstrated strong communication skills
Documented formalized mentor training
Documented CityU alternative route mentor training
Letter of recommendation from district official
Commitment to co-teaching with candidate
Commitment to one -five hrs weekly of mentoring candidate
Lacks prior relationship/personal experience with candidate
Ability to enlist content area, classroom management
or other teacher experts to assist intern if needed
Willingness to fulfill all mentor responsibilities
outlined in Field Handbook

Optional Qualifications, if any: (Samples only)

Prior mentoring experience
Bi-lingual skills
Documented leadership skills

Other University/District Considerations or Special Requests:

All alternative routes mentor teachers are expected to apply co-teaching strategies. In
addition mentors will:
1. participate in candidate team meetings;

14
 2. make decisions about each candidate’s readiness based upon the skills,
knowledge, and disposition the candidate consistently exhibits;
3. understand, support and evaluate the candidate’s performance tasks and
other requirements;
4. secure content area, classroom management or other experts to assist in
strengthening the candidate’s skills and knowledge if needed;
5. recommend the candidate for student teaching and certification
candidacy; and
6. submit quarterly evaluations formatted by CityU
to the program coordinator, and, upon receipt, receive the mentor’s
quarterly stipend.

The mentor model above has an underlying assumption that candidates are placed in
the supervising teacher’s classroom. In CityU’s Alternative Route 4 program, mentors
are assigned to the classrooms. This model and all alternative route models require time
for the mentoring process to take place. CityU makes requests of two key district
partners: administrators and mentors, to either make or create time for mentoring .

Time Requests of Administrators and Their Strategies

CityU asks district administrators and/or building principals to arrange for mentors and
candidates to meet at least one hour weekly. It is preferable if mentoring collaboration
time is for a quarter, semester or the entire school year in advance. Both non-cost and
budget-related strategies have been developed and include:

Non-cost strategies
1. Align planning periods if part of the school’s schedule
2. Swap time by not attending other meetings, field trips, etc.
3. Use scheduled release days or professional development days
4. Bring in a specialist

Budget-related strategies
1. Hire a substitute
2. Pay for other staff member to take over the mentor’s class
3. Pay for a specialist

Time Requests of Mentors and Their Strategies

CityU asks mentors to check in daily with their candidate and dedicate at least one hour
weekly to mentoring. These are strategies that we have observed:

1. Check-in daily: before and after school, during recess or lunch, or between
classes.
2. Hour-long co-planning during preps, before and after school.

15
 3. Mentors serving Route 4 candidates may ask the candidate to videotape their
instruction or management techniques to review later.
4. Ask the principal or other administrator to reduce the mentor’s other
responsibilities, provide release time, align preps, hire a substitute or
specialist, etc.

3E. FIELD EXPERIENCE PLACEMENT

1. Determining Placements

Designated district and university personnel are authorized to arrange classroom

placements. At CityU, this responsibility is filled by faculty level placement coordinators.
At the district level, our coordinators work with Human Resource directors or directly
with building principals depending upon the district’s preferences. To initiate the
process, our candidates complete forms that include brief resumes of their professional
backgrounds and their preferred grade levels and subjects during internship. CityU’s
placement coordinators compile such information and write district partners specifying
the placement requests. Such letters are typically followed up by meetings with district
personnel to review the requests; however, some are comfortable identifying
placements based on the University’s documents. Once a district has determined that
one or more placements are feasible, it schedules a meeting with CityU and district
personnel to orient those involved to the alterative routes placement processes and
expectations.

2. Background Check and Fingerprinting

Prior to the beginning of all field experiences, CityU’s placement coordinators determine
that each candidate has completed the character and fitness form and has cleared
background and fingerprint checks conducted through the Office of the Superintendent
of Public Instruction. In accordance with our district/university field placement
agreements, no candidates are placed without appropriate clearance verification.
Further, the University is responsible for assuring that clearances remain in effect for all
candidates throughout the completion of all field experiences. All background
clearances are handled through the Certification Office. The Certification Officer
monitors clearance dates and determines which candidates have clearances that would
expire while in program. Candidates are notified in advance of clearance expiration to
update their clearance. This allows a seamless transition to the extended clearance
date. It is also incumbent upon the University to keep abreast of any changes in
clearance requirement procedures which is accomplished by the Certification Officer’s
contacts with OSPI and the PESB.

16
3. Field Experiences in City’s District/ University Partnership

It is the expectation of the alternate routes partners that the internship pace and plan
are unique to each candidate while balancing the needs of K-12 students. At CityU, we
are guided by a developmental scheme that unfolds in five phases during a year-long
mentored internship (See Field Handbook in Appendix D).

The first three phases, Orientation, Emerging Competence, and Developing

Competence, recommend appropriate candidate experiences for varied lengths of time.
For example, it is expected that the candidate may observe the mentor teacher’s
classroom as well as those of others (Phase 1); work one-on-one with students or with
small groups (Phase 2); and progress to teaching individual classes up to a partial-day’s
schedule (Phase 3). However, it is also the case that Route 1, 2, and 4 candidates may
waive their Phase One introduction to the classroom depending upon their unique
circumstances. Such decisions are made by the internship team.

The fourth phase is referred to as Demonstrating Competence and includes Student

Teaching (internship) using the co-teaching model in which the candidate assumes the
lead role in co-planning, co-instructing and co-assessing. Arriving at this stage, or any
other milestone, is not the decision of any one individual. The full internship team must
agree that the candidate is ready. At this point, the team notifies CityU’s Alternative
Routes Program Coordinator. The Coordinator is the one who notifies the candidate as
explained in CityU’s Field Handbook that they are “cleared for student teaching” p.4.
The fifth and final phase of mentored internship is Ramping Down where the lead roles
are transitioned back to the mentor to ease the K-12 students’ adjustment over one to
two weeks’ time.

Though the above accommodates a year’s timeframe, it is possible for Route 2, 3, and 4
candidates to do an early exit from the program. This option can be considered after the
candidate has spent a minimum of one-half of a year in the classroom and all members
of the internship team agree. The team also determines that all requirements are
complete with the necessary scores. For the internship, such requirements include:

1. All performance tasks are completed and scored “At Standard” or “Quality.”
2. All criteria on the performance-based pedagogy assessment were met.
3. Received “Positive” on all elements of the field evaluation of professional
attributes and essential dispositions.
4. Completed evidenced-based portfolio and presented positive impact on student
learning.

If this appears to be the case, a University certification audit is conducted through the
Office of the Registrar. When the candidate receives a “cleared for certification” notice,
the appropriate paperwork is sent to the State of Washington’s Office of Professional

17
Practices for a temporary permit. Additional information is available in the Program
Handbook in Appendix B.

4. Roles and Responsibilities of the Candidates, Supervisors and Mentors

Extensive descriptions of the roles and responsibilities of the partnerships’ candidates,

supervisors, and mentors are available in CityU’s Field Handbook in Appendix C. Three
additional contributors, the school principal, the cooperating teacher (if needed) and
the internship team are also described. As explained in 3D above, it is necessary for
mentor teachers to demonstrate their responsibilities during the internship. They are
able to do so from the training provided by CityU faculty and from their participation in
the internship team.

3F. PROGRAM DESIGN

1. Description of the Routes and Partnership Roles

The intensive alternative routes programs require the combined contributions of the
partnership from designing the program model to supporting students as they transition
to teaching. A description of the alternative routes programs and how they are jointly
operated follows below in Figure 10.

Figure 10: The Operation of the Alternative Model Programs

District Role Route Descriptions* University Role

Identify shortage area needs
Establish and serve on Advisory Board
Co-design Route 1 model
Recruit and screen applicants
District teachers may be Associate
Faculty in Year 1 for Route 1 students or
in the summer intensive for Route
2,3,4 students
Select mentor teachers and insure they
complete training
Districts place students with mentors
Mentor teacher supports and evaluates
candidates
Mentor teacher evaluates the
performance tasks
Route 1
Begins July 1 and ends June 30 two
years later. Students take A courses
year 1.
Do student teaching, performance
tasks, and capstone project during
year 2.
Route 2, 3, 4
Begins July 1, and ends June 30
one year later. Students take
intensive summer program.
Route 2 students may also
participate in the pre-req quarter
which is held spring quarter prior
to the summer intensive.
Contact districts to identify shortages
Establish and serve on Advisory
Board
Co-design Route 1 model
Recruit and screen applicants
Provide faculty for Year 1 for Route 1
students or for the summer
intensive if Route 2, 3, or 4 students
Develop and implement mentor
training
Contact district regarding mentors
Provide supervising faculty who
observe and evaluate candidate
Faculty and field supervisors
evaluate PPA and capstone project

Mentor signals readiness for student Informs University of readiness and

teaching and completion after audit clears student for student
teaching and program completion
*Route 2, 3, and 4 variations

18
2. Entry Requirements for Each Alternative Route Program

CityU’s website at www.cityu.edu/programs introduces potential applicants to the four

alternative routes options, the endorsement areas the University provides, descriptions
of the programs, application processes, and eligibility requirements. The eligibility
requirements clearly specify those listed by the state legislature and the P.E.S.B. in its
proposal materials. CityU’s application documents are in Appendix C. Please note, as of
this time the application materials are scheduled to be revised with more targeted
specific route content for 2011-12 alternative route students if this proposal is
approved.

The screening of applicants involves both district and university partners in some cases.
For example, Seattle Schools pre-screens its applicants as have other districts in the
past. CityU screens all applicants who are also interviewed in small groups as well as
individually. Our admissions rubric is included in Appendix C. Applicants must complete
a spontaneous writing sample while on campus.

Upon entry, each participant meets with the advisory team to assess their prior
experience and knowledge according to state standards, endorsement competencies,
and performance-based pedagogy assessment/TPA. Student’s transcripts, professional
experiences, and proficiency portfolios are aligned with such standards to determine the
Individual Plans of Study. Such plans serve as a blueprint of each student’s customized
and individualized course and field experiences. Please see the sample Plan of Study in
Appendix B.

3.Teacher Development Plan

City University of Seattle is in the process of piloting a customized approach for each
alternative route candidate. This avoids duplication of learning and unnecessary loss of
time or expense. In addition to a packaged tuition basis, the program has built in
processes to waive course and field experiences based upon a candidate’s prior learning
and/or demonstrated proficiency during the mentored internship. The following
explains how CityU accommodates each candidate’s knowledge and skills by crafting an
Individual Plan of Study for the field and course components of the alternative routes
preparation program.

Field-based Indicators of Proficiency

CityU uses a minimum of eight standards and performance-based indicators to

determine a candidate’s teaching proficiency throughout the year-long mentored
internship. It is assumed that the Individual Plan of Study will require a year’s time in the
field to develop the skills and competencies in using the tools. However, this timeframe
may be changed as explained in the next section. The eight tools address the state’s
standards for the residency certificate by integrating the endorsement competencies

19
and the knowledge and skills of WAC 181-78A-270. Members of the internship team
evaluate the candidate’s performance once quarterly, or more frequently if appropriate,
using pre-designated portions of the following standards- and performance-based tools:

1. Performance Tasks: These university-developed tasks address the endorsement

competencies and the state’s required knowledge and skills.
2. Performance-based Pedagogy Assessment/Teacher Performance Assessment –
This state-developed tool assesses the instructional skills of the candidate.
3. Essential Dispositions Rubric – Establishes the blueprint for Internship.
4. Evidenced-based portfolio – This is a candidate created tool that demonstrates
proficiency in State Competencies.
5. Before the end of the year-long, mentored internship, an additional evaluation
from the school principal, or designee, will occur. This fifth tool will be of the
school district’s choice, reflecting the performance indicators of certified
teachers.
6. Before candidates are recommended for residency certification, they must
complete CityU’s capstone project that demonstrates their Positive Impact on
Student Learning. This project meets the state’s required knowledge and skills.
7. Professional Development Plan – Informs continual professional development.
8. CityU’s Instructional Plan and Unit Plan – Evidence of planning, instruction,
assessment and differentiation.

Just as more time and focus can be added to any of the above tools during the year-long
mentorship, it is also true that candidates may, after a half year or more in the field,
accelerate the demonstration of their proficiencies. In that event, a new timeframe will
be written into the Individual Plan of Study.

Open Exit Option

After one-half of a school year or longer of the mentored internship, all members of the
internship team, including the candidate, may agree that the candidate is teaching
proficiently. The team determines if all field-based requirements are complete with the
necessary scores:
1. All performance tasks are completed and scored “At Standard” or “Quality.”
2. All criteria on the performance-based pedagogy assessment were met.
3. Received “Positive” on all elements of the field evaluation of professional
attributes and essential dispositions.
4. Completed performance portfolio and presented positive impact on student
learning.
If this appears to be the case, a university certification audit is conducted through the
Office of the Registrar. When the candidate receives a “cleared for certification” notice,
the appropriate paperwork is sent to the Certification Office for a temporary permit and
then to OSPI.

20
Individual Plan of Study Development

Upon entry into the alternative routes program, candidates and their faculty advisors
will develop an Individual Plan of Study (IPS) to avoid redundancy and to streamline and
individualize the candidate’s focus and time in the program. The IPS involves several
steps and components. To formulate a plan, the following items must be secured and
used:

1. CityU’s alternative route course syllabi

2. CityU’s performance tasks
3. State’s Performance-based Pedagogy Assessment Tool/TPA
4. Essential dispositions
5. Copies of candidate’s transcripts, job descriptions, military experience, job
evaluations, self-studies, portfolios, and/or any form of prior learning
documentation
6. The State’s WAC 180-78A-270
7. CityU’s Pre-Individual Plan of Study Assessment rubric that follows.

Instructions for Completing the Pre-Individual Plan of Study

Assessment Rubric

Candidates are responsible for making an initial analysis of their potential prior learning
areas that may fulfill program components. This is done by comparing one’s
documented experiences against University’s courses, performance tasks, the state
performance-based pedagogy assessment tool/Teacher Performance Assessment and
the state’s knowledge and skills of teachers WACs 180-78A-270.

 Select your prior experience and log it on the Pre-IPS rubric below or make a
template of your own.
 Name the document that provides evidence of your relevant prior experience
and attach it to the rubric (copies only).
 Describe the outcome(s) the prior learning document addresses.
 Assess the level at which your prior learning meets the program requirement:
fails to meet, meets, or exceeds.

When you have done this preliminary assessment, request a meeting with your advisor
who will review your prior learning assessments with you. The advisor will determine if
prior learning efforts meet the program requirements. The advisor may also request
additional evidence from the candidate or discuss with the program coordinator
appropriate next steps to take.

21
 Pre-Individual Plan of Study Assessment Chart

Candidate’s CU’s Course Candidate’s Candidate and CU’s Candidate’s Candidate and
Documented Syllabus Description of City U Advisor Performance Description of City U Advisor
Evidence Component Prior Learning Assessment: Task Prior Learning Assessments:
and Related Outcome to 1) Fails to Meet Endorsement Outcome to 1) Fails to Meet
WAC component Waive Course 2) Meets Component Waive 2) Meets
Component 3) Exceeds Performance 3) Exceeds
Task
Candidate Advisor Candidate Advisor

22
WAC 180-78A-270

Foundational Knowledge
(a) The state learning goals and essential academic learning requirements.
(b) The subject matter content for the area(s) they teach, including relevant methods
course work and the knowledge and skills for each endorsement area for which the
candidate is applying (WAC 181-82).
(c) The social, historical, and philosophical foundations of education, including an
understanding of the moral, social, and political dimensions of classrooms, teaching,
and schools.
(d) The impact of technological and societal changes on schools.
(e) Theories of human development and learning.
(f) Inquiry and research.
(g) School law and educational policy, including laws pertaining to school health and
safety.
(h) Professional ethics.
(i) The responsibilities, structure, and activities of the profession.
(j) Issues related to abuse including the identification of physical, emotional, sexual,
and substance abuse, information on the impact of abuse on the behavior and
learning abilities of students, discussion of the responsibilities of a teacher to report
abuse or provide assistance to students who are the victims of abuse, and methods
for teaching students about abuse of all types and their prevention.
(k) The standards, criteria and other requirements for obtaining the professional
certificate.

Effective Teaching
(l) Research and experience-based principles of effective practice for encouraging the
intellectual, social, and personal development of students.
(m) Different student approaches to learning for creating instructional opportunities
adapted to learners from diverse cultural or linguistic backgrounds.
(n) Areas of exceptionality and learning -- including, but not limited to, learning
disabilities, visual and perceptual difficulties, and special physical or mental
challenges.
(o) Effective instructional strategies for students at all levels of academic abilities and
talents with an awareness of the influence of culture and gender on student
learning.
(p) Instructional strategies for developing reading, writing, critical thinking, and problem
solving skills.
(q) The prevention and diagnosis of reading difficulties and research-based intervention
strategies.
(r) Classroom management and discipline, including:
(i) Individual and group motivation for encouraging positive social interaction, active
engagement in learning, and self-motivation.

23
 (ii) Effective verbal, nonverbal, and media communication for fostering active inquiry,
collaboration, and supportive interactions in the classroom.
(s) Planning and management of instruction based on knowledge of the content area,
the community, and curriculum goals.
(t) Formal and informal assessment strategies for evaluating and ensuring the
continuous intellectual, social, and physical development of the learner.
(u) Collaboration with school colleagues, parents, and agencies in the larger community
for supporting students' learning and well-being.
(v) Effective interactions with parents to support students' learning and well-being.

Professional Development
(w) The opportunity for candidates to reflect on their teaching and its effects on student
growth and learning.
(x) Educational technology including the use of computer and other technologies in
instruction, assessment and professional productivity.
(y) Strategies for effective participation in group decision making.

4. Strategies for Recruiting Candidates from Under-Represented Populations

Previously, CityU’s district/university partnership has employed outreach strategies to

recruit diverse cohorts. While these have proved effective and will continue to be used,
we have identified new approaches based on different assumptions about how to
recruit. As Figure 11 shows, there is a shift from informing to involving targeted
individuals and services to assist us. We also intend to involve ourselves by giving service
to local community agencies. By forging relationships and establishing a presence in
communities of color, we hope to see a reciprocal response. Another effort on our part
is to write and promote diversity goals and develop related appropriate materials.

Figure 11: Recruiting Strategies to Increase Program Diversity

Ongoing Recruiting Strategies

Outreach via district administrators, classified staff
Outreach via specialized programs
Outreach to other districts and agencies
Secure local media coverage
Outreach to unions
Outreach to community/technical colleges

New Recruiting Strategies

Develop specialized materials
Tap employee connections to recruit
Ask faculty and teachers of color to recruit
Provide services to community groups, agencies
Use targeted radio, TV, and local newspapers
Enlist community leaders as spokespeople
Create diversity statement and promote

24
 5. The Number of Candidates to Enroll at Each Site
Please refer to Figure 1 on page 3 for the numbers of students we expect at each site.

6. Formal Components of the Mentored Internship Leading to Certification

Elsewhere in this document, we have described many attributes of the mentored

internship. Figure 8 above listed sample formative and summative tools to frame the
mentoring experience and to evaluate a candidate’s proficiency as a classroom teacher.

What follows next is a sequential accounting of what tools are used and individuals
responsible for evaluation.

Figure 12. Formative and Summative Evaluation Tools of Mentored Internship

Purpose Tools Evaluators

Establishes Blueprint for Internship Essential Dispositions Rubric Field Supervisor, Faculty Advisor

Professional Growth Plan Mentor Teacher, Faculty Advisor

Structures Observations
Evidence of Planning, Instruction,
Assessment, & Differentiation
Demonstration of Proficiency in State
Competencies
Evidence and Demonstration of Student
Achievement
Inform Continued Professional Development
Classroom and Student Characteristics Field Supervisor, Faculty Advisor
Candidate, Faculty Advisor
Targeted Experiences List
CityU Instructional Plan & Unit Plan Candidate, Field Supervisor, Mentor Teacher, Faculty Advisor
Candidate, Field Supervisor, Mentor Teacher, Faculty Advisor
PPA/TPA
Performance Tasks Candidate, Mentor Teacher
Candidate, Faculty Advisor, Mentor Teacher, Peers
Evidence Based Portfolio
Positive Impact on Student Learning (Capstone Project) Candidate, Mentor Teacher, Field Supervisor, Faculty Advisor
Professional Development Plan Candidate, Faculty Advisor

Program Plan for Open Exit Option

After one-half of a school year or longer of the mentored internship, the internship
team may determine that the candidate is teaching proficiently. The team determines if
all other requirements have been met. For the internship, such requirements include:

1. All performance tasks are completed and scored “At Standard” or “Quality.”
2. All criteria on the performance-based pedagogy assessment/TPA were met.
3. Received “Positive” on all elements of the field evaluation of professional
attributes and essential dispositions.
4. Completed performance portfolio and presented positive impact on student
learning.

If this appears to be the case, a University certification audit is conducted through the
Office of the Registrar. When the candidate receives a “cleared for certification” notice,

25
the appropriate paperwork is sent to the State of Washington’s Office of Professional
Practices for a temporary permit. Additional information is available in the Program
Handbook in Appendix B.

3.G. ORGANIZATIONAL CAPACITY

1. Key Personnel
Judy Hinrichs, Dean of the School of Education and Division of Arts and Sciences
Dr. Craig Schieber, Director of Teacher Certification Programs
Sue Seiber, Academic Location Leader
Micki Evans, Stephen Smith, Alternative Route Program Coordinators
Jennifer Stack, Retta Main, Cescilio Chavez, Faculty Advisors
Gary Benedetti, Dale Fortenbacher, Placement Coordinators
Nicole Zeger, Certification Officer
Evette Dean, Kristen Graham, Administrative Assistants
2. Student-Faculty Ratio: 15-1
3. Prior Experience in Offering Alternative Route Programs:
Citu U has been offering Alternative Route Programs since 2002.
4. Signed Memorandum of Understanding(See Appendix D)

3.H PROGAM DELIVERY

CityU recognizes that alternative routes programs must be package-priced with cost
savings for paraprofessionals, career-changers and conditionally certified teachers. We
have developed meaningful processes to acknowledge students’ prior experience and to
support their individual rate of progress throughout the program. All of our alternative
routes candidates experience price reductions through several programmatic design
strategies:

1. Performance Tasks – These are a hallmark of CityU’s alternative routes programs

and are required of all Route 1, 2, 3 and 4 students. Currently our regular BAED
students are charged up to $1750* for performance tasks*. Alternative route
candidates have that fee waived.
2. Student teaching – These timeframes are reduced for all four alternative routes
models based upon prior experience and individual pace and growth. Alternative
route students will take only 8 credits of student teaching greatly reducing their
costs. Further individualized reductions may occur due to the length of time
candidates are in the field.
3. Integrated Bachelors of Arts with Dual Endorsements – Route 1 candidates will
take 8 credits of student teaching as opposed to the 20 credits regular BAED
candidates will be taking for an additional reduction in tuition of $2,472*. In

26
 addition, up to three internship credits may be eliminated based on the prior
experience and endorsement areas for an additional cost savings of up to
$927.00*.

Up to an additional six credits may be waived based on prior experience and

coursework for a possible reduction in tuition of up to $1,854*.

Program Costs for Route 1 Students in the BA ED + Dual Endorsements*

a. Cost for Route 1: $27,910 - $28, 223 based on the Individual Teacher Plan
b. Cost for Traditional Route: $33, 372
c. Length of program: 8 – 10 quarters
d. Projected start date: Summer, 2011
e. Projected enrollment: 20 total
f. Location(s): Bellevue, Everett, Tacoma

Program Costs for Route 2, 3, 4 Students *

g. Cost for Alternative Route 2, 3, 4: $12,00 - $14,214 based on the Individual Teacher
Plan
h. Cost for Traditional Route: NA
i. Length of program: 4 quarters
j. Projected start date: Summer 2011
k. Projected enrollment: 15 total
l. Location(s): Bellevue and Everett

*2010-11 tuition. Tuition may be adjusted for future years.

APPENDICES
Appendix A: District Letters and Contact Information
Appendix B: Unique Program Design Elements
Appendix C: Field Documents and Eligibility/Entry Requirements
Appendix D: Signed Memorandum of Understanding

27