Right-click to download the video or click here to view or subscribe in iTunes.
State TPEP Teacher Workbook
- Glossary
- Visual Model Diagram
- Revised Criteria & Definitions
- Summative Performance Level Evaluation Statements
Othello’s Teacher Model
- Introduction
- Comprehensive Instructional Frameworks
- Rubrics
- Measures & Evidence
- Final Summative Evaluation
- Stakeholder & Community Engagement
- Communication
- Professional Development
- Data
- Tools & Forms
- Contact Us
State TPEP Principal Workbook
- Glossary
- Visual Model Diagram
- Revised Criteria & Definitions
- Summative Performance Level Evaluation Statements
Othello’s Principal Model
- Evaluating Principal Leadership in a Performance-Based School
- Principal Rubrics
- Measures & Evidence
- System for Determining Final Summative Principal Rating
- Stakeholder & Community Engagement
- Communication
- Professional Development
- Data
- Tools & Forms
- Contact Us
State TPEP Teacher Workbook
Glossary
The What
Revised Teacher Evaluation Criteria: (Defined in RCW)
The Legislature passed E2SSB 6696 and Governor Gregoire signed the bill into law (RCW 28A.405.100) on March 29, 2010. The criteria form the backbone of the new evaluation system. The TPEP districts have used the evaluation criteria language and existing or new instructional frameworks to develop the rubrics. According to the RCW, “the four-level rating system used to evaluate the certificated classroom teacher must describe performance along a continuum that indicates the extent to which the criteria have been met or exceeded.”
Criteria Definitions: (Defined in WAC and not determined until the conclusion of TPEP Pilot)
Based on feedback from experts and our TPEP districts, we have created definitions for each of the new teacher criterion. Each of the TPEP districts submitted definitions and we synthesized those into one brief sentence. This is intended to delineate the criteria in order to minimize the overlap between the criterion and create more consistency across the state in setting clear evaluation targets for teachers and principals as we move to statewide implementation.
Comprehensive Instructional Framework: (Defined in draft by TPEP Pilots)
The comprehensive instructional framework (common language/model of instruction) provides districts with a way to talk about instruction that is shared by everyone in the district/ESD. Marzano states that teachers and principals use the instructional framework “to converse about effective teaching, give and receive feedback, collect and act upon data to monitor growth regarding the reasoned use of the strategies, and align professional development needs against the framework.” There are several instructional frameworks being utilized by the TPEP districts. Because the new teacher criteria are unique to Washington, the TPEP districts have aligned the instructional frameworks (and subsequently the rubrics) to the new state criteria.
Rubrics: (Defined in draft by TPEP Pilots)
The rubrics (based on the instructional frameworks) are the clearly defined continuum that describes unsatisfactory through effective teaching practice based on the 8 teacher criteria. The rubrics should be used to train principals to identify strengths and weaknesses in practice based on clearly defined evidence and measures. These rubrics could take into account the variations of novice to expert teachers.
Measures and Evidence: (Defined in draft by TPEP Pilots)
The measures and evidence are used to determine the “teacher’s performance along a continuum that indicates the extent to which the criteria have been met or exceeded.” The measures used in the evaluation system should have strong correlation to the criteria being evaluated. There are four areas under the “measures and evidence” section: classroom observation, teacher self-assessment, student growth data, other measures/evidence. This section should represent the district’s system for determining final summative evaluation score.
Final Summative Evaluation: (Defined in WAC and not determined until the conclusion of TPEP Pilot)
The final summative evaluation is a critical definition in order to ensure consistency across the state as teachers are evaluated and data is submitted in aggregate. In the late fall 8 of the 9 TPEP sites and WASA submitted a summative evaluation statement for each of the 4 tiers. Similar to the standards- based system for students, clear targets for both the distinct criteria and the final summative evaluation will drive principals and teachers to a evaluation system that promotes growth and prevents stagnation.
The How
Stakeholder Engagement:
The TPEP project has been a collaborative process from the beginning. Successful development and ultimately implementation has and will require looking at this process through multiple lenses. Please include any documents your district/consortium has used to incorporate authentic stakeholder engagement through the pilot development year. (This will include the norms and protocols you used in setting up your district’s TPEP steering committee).
Communication:
Communication is a key component to successful development and implementation of the new evaluation system. The collaborative approach at both the state and district levels is critical. Include the plan and documents that would explain your communication process.
Professional Development:
Looking at this new evaluation system as a process in continuous improvement, professional development to train the staff involved in the pilot will be key. Please include your district’s plan for ongoing professional development for your teachers, principals and district administrators involved in the 2011-12 TPEP pilot year.
Data:
Many aspects of the new teacher and principal evaluation system will depend heavily on the acquisition and use of data. Include a description of resources your district already uses relating to instructional data and any additional resources you will need to implement the new evaluation system. (Include any technology, databases related to teacher, student, and/or principal data).
Forms & Tools:
Many parts of the new evaluation system will require changing the forms and tools used in the evaluation process. Please include and forms and tools developed for the new evaluation process. (Please note which ones are electronic and which are paper-based). Examples: Principal observation tools (pre, during and post), MOUs, artifact collection and observation tools, parent or student surveys, etc.)
Visual Model Diagram
Revised Criteria & Definitions
| Revised Teacher Evaluation Criteria | Criteria Definitions | |
| 1. | Centering instruction on high expectations for student achievement. | PLANNING: The teacher sets high expectations through instructional planning and reflection aligned to content knowledge and standards. Instructional planning is demonstrated in the classroom through student engagement that leads to an impact on student learning. |
| 2. | Demonstrating effective teaching practices. | INSTRUCTION: The teacher uses research-based instructional practices to meet the needs of ALL students and bases those practices on a commitment to high standards and meeting the developmental needs of students. |
| 3. | Recognizing individual student learning needs and developing strategies to address those needs. | REFLECTION: The teacher acquires and uses specific knowledge about students’ individual intellectual and social development and uses that knowledge to advance student learning. |
| 4. | Providing clear and intentional focus on subject matter content and curriculum. | CONTENT KNOWLEDGE: The teacher uses content area knowledge and pedagogy to design and deliver curricula, instruction and assessment to impact student learning. |
| 5. | Fostering and managing a safe, positive learning environment. | CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT: The teacher fosters and manages a safe, culturally sensitive and inclusive learning environment that takes into account: physical, emotional and intellectual well-being. |
| 6. | Using multiple student data elements to modify instruction and improve student learning. | ASSESSMENT: The teacher uses multiple data elements (both formative and summative) for planning, instruction and assessment to foster student achievement. |
| 7. | Communicating and collaborating with parents and school community. | PARENTS AND COMMUNITY: The teacher communicates and collaborates with students, parents and all educational stakeholders in an ethical and professional manner to promote student learning. |
| 8. | Exhibiting collaborative and collegial practices focused on improving. | PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE: The teacher participates collaboratively in the educational community to improve instruction, advance the knowledge and practice of teaching as a profession, and ultimately impact student learning. |
Summative Performance Level Evaluation Statements
These statements support teacher self-reflection, inform and structure professional conversations, and suggest areas for further professional growth.
| 1 | Professional practice at Level 1 shows evidence of not understanding the concepts underlying individual components of the criteria. This level of practice is ineffective and inefficient and may represent practice that is harmful to student learning progress, professional learning environment, or individual teaching practice. This level requires immediate intervention. |
| 2 | Professional practice at Level 2 shows a developing understanding of the knowledge and skills of the criteria required to practice, but performance is inconsistent over a period of time due to lack of experience, expertise, and/or commitment. This level may be considered minimally competent for teachers early in their careers but insufficient for more experienced teachers. This level requires specific support. |
| 3 | Professional practice at Level 3 shows evidence of thorough knowledge of all aspects of the profession. This is successful, accomplished, professional, and effective practice. Teachers at this level thoroughly know academic content, curriculum design/development, their students, and a wide range of professional resources. Teaching at this level utilizes a broad repertoire of strategies and activities to support student learning. At this level, teaching is strengthened and expanded through purposeful, collaborative sharing and learning with colleagues as well as ongoing self-reflection and professional improvement. |
| 4 | Professional practice at the Level 4 is that of a master professional whose practices operate at a qualitatively different level from those of other professional peers. Teaching practice at this level shows evidence of learning that is student directed, where students assume responsibility for their learning by making substantial contributions throughout the instructional process. Ongoing, reflective teaching is demonstrated through the highest level of expertise and commitment to all students’ learning, challenging professional growth, and collaborative leadership. |
Adapted from “Framework for Teaching Levels of Performance Sample Operational Definitions” created by Pam Rosa, Danielson Group Associate.
Othello’s Teacher Model
Introduction
Process
The evaluation philosophy of the Othello School District is designed to improve the teaching and learning process. Our evaluation program encourages educators to develop professionally and challenges educators to be the best they can be and to align their talents and skills with the goals of our district. Evaluation and appraisal should be a cooperative venture.
Our evaluation process has the following goals:
- To ensure high-quality educators;
- To support educators in their own professional growth and development; and
- 3. To determine contract renewal when necessary.
The primary purpose of the Othello School District is to provide students with the best possible education.
View Othello’s Evaluation Philosophy here (PDF).
Comprehensive Instructional Frameworks
❒ Danielson
❒ Marzano
❒ 5-D (Center for Educational Leadership)
❒ McRel
✓ Other (Teaching as Leadership, National Board, Star Protocol, BERC, etc)
Othello used a locally developed instructional framework based on the teaching and learning framework developed by Washington D.C. public schools. The Othello document is referred to as the QTL (Quality Teaching and Learning). This project was part of the district’s Summit work and was collaboratively developed by teachers and administrators prior to beginning the TPEP project. It is research-based with a particularly strong Marzano (Classroom Instruction that Works and The Art and Science of Teaching) and Charlotte’s Danielson (Framework for Teachers) influence. Other resources included: National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, New Teacher Center’s Development Continuum, Doug Reeve’s Unwrapping the Standards, Mike Schmoker’s Results Now, Teach for Americas’s Teaching as Leadership Rubric, Wiggins & McTighe’s Understanding by Design, Insight Education Groups’ Strategic Design for Student Achievement, and Carol Dweck’s Mindset. The exciting piece for Othello is that the instructional framework was already part of the district tapestry, thus providing a strong foundation upon which to build the new evaluation model. (copy attached)
View Othello’s QTL document here (PDF).
Rubrics
The rubrics for the teacher evaluation were developed by the entire TPEP team. Together, the team determined the elements and indicators, continually referring back to the QTL (Quality Teaching and Learning) document to assure alignment. The team frequently returned to completed criteria to modify both elements and indicators to eliminate redundancy. The process was extremely valuable – each team member recognized and appreciated the varied perspectives represented at the table.
Measures & Evidence
| Observation | Self-Assessment | Other Measures & Evidence | Student Growth Data |
| Extensive examples of observable actions for each indicator are included in an appendix to the rubrics. (copy attached)
Required observable evidence is listed on the actual rubric. |
Self-assessment will be included in the pre/post conference dialogue between the teacher and administrator. | Extensive examples of artifacts for each indicator are included in an appendix to the rubrics. (copy attached)
Required artifacts are listed on the actual rubric. |
Othello will not use student growth data as a measure of evidence for teacher evaluation. |
Final Summative Evaluation
System for Determining Final Summative Teacher Rating
✓ Proficiency Progression Model: This model requires choosing one or more criteria that are most critical for the proficiency the first year of implementation/teaching. Subsequent years would stair step proficiency requirements by adding criteria. This model can be combined with other models.
❒ Qualitative/Holistic Model: This model requires collection of artifacts and observation by the evaluator and holistically deriving a qualitative rating on the 4 tiers for each teacher.
✓ Mathematical Formula Model: This model uses a mathematical algorithm to add up each component and divide by the number of indicators/components to drive out a number for each criterion. The same process is completed for the criteria to finalize a summative rating.
❒ Percentage and/or Points Model: This model assigns percentages or points to each form of evidence (Example: Observations are worth 65%, Artifacts 15%, Impacts on Student Learning 15% and self reflection/reflection 5%)
❒ Raw Score Model: This model uses appropriate evidence (observation, artifacts, impact on student learning, self-assessment) to derive a raw score for each criterion. Those criterion scores are then added up to create a summative raw score. Summative rating is defined through a Raw Score Range (Example: Level 1: 8-13 Level 2: 14-19 Level 3: 20-26 Level 4: 27-32)
✓ Raw Score/Conditions Hybrid Model: This model combines the above raw score model with certain district level conditions (example: cannot be overall proficient with one unsatisfactory criterion score or unsatisfactory in safety criterion automatic overall unsatisfactory)
❒ Conditions Model: This model puts certain evaluation conditions depending on the contract status of the teacher.
❒ Other: Many of the above models can be combined or altered to fit the needs of your district evaluation model.
The Othello model is a blended model including mathematical formula, conditions, proficiency progression and raw score ranges. The TPEP team wanted the scoring model to be easy to explain, easy to understand and fair. After considerable discussions, the team landed on a system that is expected to work well for the pilot participants.
View Othello’s Teacher Evaluation Summary Tool (PDF), TPEP Scoring System, and Scoring Do’s and Dont’s (PDF)
Community and Stakeholder Engagement
Teachers have been engaged throughout the process. The assistant superintendent has reported the TPEP work to all stakeholders after each meeting. All teachers attended a session to provide feedback on the rubric. The board of directors has been kept informed on the team’s progress, as well. (see communication plan)
View Othello’s TPEP Action Plan (PDF), Synthesis of Staff Feedback on Draft Rubric Proficiency Indicators (PDF), and Teacher Feedback Process (PDF).
Communication
A communication plan was developed by the TPEP team for the next six months (copy attached). The plan articulates the key messages, the groups that need the information, how the information will be communicated and when.
View Othello’s communication plan in full (PDF) or Othello TPEP agendas here (PDF).
Professional Development
A detailed professional development plan with four distinct modules will be offered on June 14-15. The training has been designed and will be delivered by the TPEP members. The initial training is targeted for the pilot teachers, although the morning of June 14 is open to all teachers. The professional development plan is outlined through 2012 (copy attached).
View Othello’s Professional Development Plan here (PDF).
Data
For Othello, one key data piece will be time spent by the TPEP pilot teachers – time spent meeting, collecting evidence, self- assessment.
Tools & Forms
The TPEP team will use the summative rubric as the formative tool, as well. In addition, the team designed a summative summary page (attached).
View Othello’s Tools and Forms:
Examples of Observations & Documentation (PDF)
Operational Tools and Processes (PDF)
Menu of Evidence (PDF)
Contact Information
If you have questions about the Othello model, please contact:
Dr. Mike A. Villarreal
Assistant Superintendent
(509) 488-2659
State TPEP Principal Workbook
Glossary
The What
Revised Principal Evaluation Criteria: (Defined in RCW 28A.405.100)
The Legislature passed E2SSB 6696 and Governor Gregoire signed the bill into law (RCW 28A.405.100) on March 29, 2010. The criteria form the backbone of the new evaluation system. The TPEP districts have used the evaluation criteria language and resources such as AWSP’s document “Evaluating Principal Leadership in a Performance-Based School” to develop the rubrics. According to the RCW, “the four-level rating system used to evaluate the principal must describe performance along a continuum that indicates the extent to which the criteria have been met or exceeded.”
Criteria Definitions: (Defined in WAC and not determined until the conclusion of TPEP Pilot)
The Criteria Definitions for the state’s principal criteria are being developed by AWSP and will be available soon. The research-based definitions are an extension of the AWSP document “Evaluating Principal Leadership in a Performance-Based School.”
Rubrics: (Defined in draft by TPEP Pilots)
The rubrics (based on the instructional frameworks) are the clearly defined continuum that describes unsatisfactory through effective teaching practice based on the 8 teacher criteria. The rubrics should be used to train principals to identify strengths and weaknesses in practice based on clearly defined evidence and measures. These rubrics could take into account the variations of novice to expert teachers.
Measures and Evidence: (Defined in draft by TPEP Pilots)
The measures and evidence are used to determine the principal’s performance along a continuum that indicates the extent to which the criteria have been met or exceeded.” The measures used in the evaluation system should have strong correlation to the criteria being evaluated. There are four areas under the “measures and evidence” section: observation, perception data, student achievement growth data, and other measures/evidence. This section should represent the district’s system for determining final summative evaluation score.
Final Summative Evaluation: (Defined in WAC and not determined until the conclusion of TPEP Pilot)
The final summative evaluation is a critical definition that increases consistency across the state as principals are evaluated and data is submitted in aggregate. Similar to the standards-based system for students, clear targets for both the distinct criteria and the final summative evaluation will drive districts to and evaluation system that promotes growth and prevents stagnation.
The How
Stakeholder Engagement:
The TPEP project has been a collaborative process from the beginning. Successful development and ultimately implementation has and will require looking at this process through multiple lenses. Please include any documents your district/consortium has used to incorporate authentic stakeholder engagement through the pilot development year. (This will include the norms and protocols you used in setting up your district’s TPEP steering committee.)
Communication:
Communication is a key component to successful development and implementation of the new evaluation system. The collaborative approach at both the state and district levels is critical. Include the plan and documents that would explain your communication process.
Professional Development:
Looking at this new evaluation system as a process in continuous improvement, professional development to train the staff involved in the pilot will be key. Please include your district’s plan for ongoing professional development for your teachers, principals and district administrators involved in the 2011-12 TPEP pilot year.
Data:
Many aspects of the new teacher and principal evaluation system will depend heavily on the acquisition and use of data. Include a description of resources your district already uses relating to instructional data and any additional resources you will need to implement the new evaluation system. (Include any technology, databases related to teacher, student, and/or principal data.)
Forms & Tools:
Many parts of the new evaluation system will require changing the forms and tools used in the evaluation process. Please include and forms and tools developed for the new evaluation process. (Please note which ones are electronic and which are paper-based). Examples: Observation protocols (pre, during and post), MOUs, artifact collection and observation tools, parent or student surveys, etc.)
Visual Model Diagram
Revised Principal Criteria
| Revised Principal Evaluation Criteria | |
| 1. | Creating a school culture that promotes the ongoing improvement of learning and teaching for students and staff. |
| 2. | Demonstrating commitment to closing the achievement gap. |
| 3. | Leading the development, implementation, and evaluation of a data-driven plan for increasing student achievement, including the use of multiple student data elements./font> |
| 4. | Assisting instructional staff with alignment of curriculum, instruction, and assessment with state and local district learning goals. |
| 5. | Monitoring, assisting, and evaluating effective instruction and assessment practices. |
| 6. | Managing both staff and fiscal resources to support student achievement and legal responsibilities. |
| 7. | Partnering with the school community to promote student learning. |
| 8. | Providing for school safety. |
AWSP Summative Principal Ratings
Below are two approaches to explaining the summative evaluation levels for principals. Each combines in some way the scores of the state’s eight principal evaluation criteria and the school’s student achievement data (or data from other agreed upon annual school goals).
Norm’s Example
Norm is a famous principal from years past. He tends to see things (and people) in terms of how close to, or far away from, normal they are. Norm-referenced tests were named after him. Norm looked at this task through the lens of comparison—that is, comparing principals or schools to each other. His proposal reflects this bias and thus limits the number of principals who can achieve a level-four rating. Norm helped Kim Marshall and Anacortes develop their descriptions.
Level 1 – Unsatisfactory: A first-level principal is one whose ratings in the eight evaluative criteria are relatively low, and whose student achievement data show no growth, or relatively limited growth compared to other schools. There will likely be a few “unsatisfactory” principals each year in most districts.
Level 2 – Emerging: A second-level principal is one whose ratings in the eight evaluative criteria show some deficiencies, and whose student achievement growth data are acceptable but not stellar. Or, a second-level principal is one whose ratings from the eight evaluative criteria are acceptable, but whose student achievement data show no growth or limited growth compared to other schools.
Level 3 – Effective: A third-level principal is one whose ratings in the eight evaluative criteria are strong, but whose student achievement growth data are only acceptable. Or, a third-level principal is one whose ratings in the eight evaluative criteria are acceptable, but whose student achievement growth data are strong compared to other schools.
Level 4 – Distinguished: A fourth-level principal is one whose ratings in the eight evaluative criteria are high compared to other principals, and whose student achievement growth data are strong, as compared to data from other schools. There will likely be a few “distinguished” principals each year.
Stan’s Example
Stan is a retired distinguished principal who determines value by using a set of standards, rather than comparing people to each other. In fact, Stan’s name is short for his birth name, “Standard” (not “Stanley”… strange parents). Stan’s proposal reflects the philosophy that all individuals are capable of gaining proficiency in all eight evaluative criteria, and thus allows for an unlimited number of principals to achieve a level-four rating. Stan helped North Thurston, Kennewick, North Mason and the Consortium develop their descriptions.
Level 1 – Unsatisfactory: A first-level principal is one whose ratings in the eight evaluative criteria are low, and whose student achievement data show limited or no growth. There may be no “unsatisfactory” principals each year, or there may be many.
Level 2 – Emerging: A second-level principal is one whose ratings in the eight evaluative criteria show some deficiencies, and whose student achievement growth data are acceptable but not stellar. Or, a second-level principal is one whose ratings from the eight evaluative criteria are acceptable, but whose student achievement data show limited or no growth.
Level 3 – Effective: A third-level principal is one whose ratings in the eight evaluative criteria are strong, but whose student achievement growth data are only acceptable. Or, a third-level principal is one whose ratings in the eight evaluative criteria are acceptable, but whose student achievement growth data are strong.
Level 4 – Distinguished: A fourth-level principal is one whose ratings in the eight evaluative criteria are strong, and whose student achievement growth data are strong. There may be no “distinguished” principals each year, or there may be many.
Othello’s Principal Evaluation Model
Principal Leadership Framework
Please provide the explanation of how you’ve used the AWSP document (PDF) (updated 3/8/12 with rubrics) and/or other resources in developing your principal evaluation model:
Othello’s TPEP team primarily used the AWSP model, but integrated parts from other pilot districts.
Rubrics
The rubrics for the principal evaluation were developed by the entire TPEP team. Together, the team determined the elements and indicators, continually referring back to the AWSP model and ISLLC standards. The team frequently returned to completed criteria to modify both elements and indicators to eliminate redundancy. The process was extremely valuable – each team member recognized and appreciated the varied perspectives represented at the table.
| Observation | Self-Assessment | Other Measures & Evidence | Student Growth Data |
| Extensive examples of observable actions for each indicator are included in an appendix to the rubrics.
Required observable evidence is listed on the actual rubric. |
Self-assessment will be included in the pre/post conference dialogue between the principal and supervisor. | Extensive examples of artifacts for each indicator are included in an appendix to the rubrics.
Required artifacts are listed on the actual rubric. |
Othello will not use student growth data as a measure of evidence for principal evaluation. |
System for Determining Final Summative Principal Rating
✓ Proficiency Progression Model: This model requires choosing one or more criteria that are most critical for the proficiency the first year of implementation/teaching. Subsequent years would stair step proficiency requirements by adding criteria. This model can be combined with other models.
❒ Qualitative/Holistic Model: This model requires collection of artifacts and observation by the evaluator and holistically deriving a qualitative rating on the 4 tiers for each teacher.
✓ Mathematical Formula Model: This model uses a mathematical algorithm to add up each component and divide by the number of indicators/components to drive out a number for each criterion. The same process is completed for the criteria to finalize a summative rating.
❒ Percentage and/or Points Model: This model assigns percentages or points to each form of evidence (Example: Observations are worth 65%, Artifacts 15%, Impacts on Student Learning 15% and self reflection/reflection 5%)
❒ Raw Score Model: This model uses appropriate evidence (observation, artifacts, impact on student learning, self-assessment) to derive a raw score for each criterion. Those criterion scores are then added up to create a summative raw score. Summative rating is defined through a Raw Score Range (Example: Level 1: 8-13 Level 2: 14-19 Level 3: 20-26 Level 4: 27-32)
✓ Raw Score/Conditions Hybrid Model: This model combines the above raw score model with certain district level conditions (example: cannot be overall proficient with one unsatisfactory criterion score or unsatisfactory in safety criterion automatic overall unsatisfactory)
❒ Conditions Model: This model puts certain evaluation conditions depending on the contract status of the teacher.
❒ Other: Many of the above models can be combined or altered to fit the needs of your district evaluation model.
The Othello model is a blended model including mathematical formula, conditions, proficiency progression and raw score ranges. The TPEP team wanted the scoring model to be easy to explain, easy to understand and fair. After considerable discussions, the team landed on a system that is expected to align well with the pilot teacher evaluation system.
Community and Stakeholder Engagement
Please see the Teacher Model’s Community and Stakeholder Engagement section.
Communication
Please see the Teacher Model’s Communication section.
Professional Development
(Updated soon)
Data
(Updated soon)
Tools & Forms
View Othello’s Menu of Evidence for Principal Evaluations (PDF)
Contact Information
If you have questions about the Othello model, please contact:
Dr. Mike A. Villarreal
Assistant Superintendent
(509) 488-2659