Related Services For School-Aged Children With Disabilities

Part 3

Source

National Information Center
for Children and Youth with Disabilities

Contents

Forums

Related Articles

How Are Related Services Obtained for Students?

Usually, the need for related services is identified during the process of evaluating a student for special education. Because far-reaching decisions are made based upon the evaluation of a student with a suspected disability, it is useful to know that both the IDEA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act state that decisions about the educational program of a student may not be based solely on the findings of a single evaluation instrument. Rather, data must come from a variety of sources, including "aptitude and achievement tests, teacher recommendations, physical condition, social or cultural background, and adaptive behavior" [34 CFR Section 104.35(c), 1988]. Furthermore, data must be collected in all areas related to the student's suspected disability. This may include, where appropriate, "health, vision, hearing, social and emotional status, general intelligence, academic performance, communicative status, and motor abilities" (Arena, 1989, p. 23). Federal law also requires that the evaluation must be conducted by a multidisciplinary team, including at least one teacher who is knowledgeable in the area of the suspected disability.

The extensive nature of the evaluation process should provide decision-makers with the information they need to determine an appropriate educational program for the student. It also allows them to identify the related services a student will need. At this point, decision-makers -- including the parents and, where appropriate, the student -- sit down and write an Individualized Education Program (IEP) for the student. The IEP details the educational goals and objectives for the student and lists the related services that are necessary to help the student attain those goals and objectives. It is useful to note that related services personnel are not required to participate in the IEP meeting. However, it is appropriate for them to participate or otherwise take part in IEP development. The written findings and recommendations of related services personnel should become part of the child's evaluation report.

"The IEP...is formulated as a team effort, based on what the child needs - not what the school district (local educational agency) can provide" (Arena, 1989, p. 15). Thus, the related services needed by the student must be listed in the IEP, regardless of whether the district currently makes the services available. The IEP establishes the genuine need to be met and must describe related services according to:

• the service(s) needed (e.g., occupational therapy)
  
  
• the type of service (e.g., direct service to the child; consulting services to teachers or others)
  
  
• the type of service provider(s) (e.g., occupational therapist)
  
  
• the frequency and duration of the service (e.g., two 45-minute periods per week).
  
  

The IEP then serves as a written commitment for delivery of services to meet a student's educational needs. The school district must provide all of the services specified in the IEP, in the amount and degree specified. Changes in the amount of services listed in the IEP cannot be made without holding another IEP meeting. However, if there is no change in the overall amount of service, some adjustments in scheduling of services should be possible without the necessity of another IEP meeting.

The above description of the evaluation process, IEP development, and the specification of related services to be delivered to a student with a disability assumes that the student was found eligible for special education and related services. What happens when things don't go so smoothly? For example, the school district may determine, via its evaluation, that the student does not require special education and, thus, is ineligible under the IDEA for related services. Or perhaps the parents are dissatisfied with the way that related services are being provided to their child or believe that their child needs related services that the school district does not provide or feels are unnecessary. What happens then?

Here are some points parents may want to bear in mind in such situations (Education Law Center, 1985; U.S. Department of Education, 1986):

1. The IDEA enumerates procedural safeguards that school districts must adhere to in the delivery of educational services (see Gerry, 1987). These safeguards establish due process procedures through which parents and children with disabilities can resolve differences with the school district (34 CFR Sections 300.500 - 300.514, 1988). Among the procedures are: the right to an independent evaluation at public expense, the right to an impartial due process hearing, the right to an administrative appeal and impartial review of the evidence, and the right to take civil action.
   
   
2. Therefore, if the school district determines that a student with a disability does not require special education and denies that student related services, parents may request that the district pay for an independent evaluation. If the district should refuse this request, parents may ask for a hearing before an impartial hearing officer to resolve this difference.
   
   
3. The parents can also decide to pay for the independent evaluation privately. In this case, they should receive a written evaluation report specifying (a) the problem the child has; (b) precisely how that problem affects the child's ability to make progress toward the goals of his or her IEP; (c) recommendations on the type of service needed, the way it should be provided, how often and for how long, and the type of personnel who should deliver the services; and (d) a description of the goals of the related service program that is recommended. The school district must take the results of the private evaluation into account when making a decision about a student's eligibility for related services.
   
   
4. Parents may also wish to negotiate with the school district to see if the student is eligible for related services under Section 504 criteria. If parents do not agree with the district's decision, again, they can ask that a hearing officer review the evidence. As a final step, parents can also file a complaint with the regional office of the Office of Civil Rights (OCR). An OCR hearing officer will also review the evidence and decide if the district is obligated to provide the related services.
5. When a student's need for related services is not linked to his or her ability to benefit from special education and is, therefore, not part of the IEP, parents have other options apart from the school system. For example, parents may seek services from rehabilitation organizations, private therapists, medical organizations, clinics, and other agencies.
   
   

This latter point may be important for parents to consider when trying to obtain related services for their child with a disability. Although parents do have due process rights which they can invoke when differences with the school district arise, they should be aware the problems can often be worked out informally. "Due process can be expensive, time-consuming, and frustrating" (Callanan, 1990, p. 286), so it is certainly worthwhile for parents to try first to resolve problems with the district in a less confrontational way. Many states have alternatives to the formal appeal process, including conciliatory conferences, administrative reviews, and mediation. Flexibility and reasonableness are key factors in working out differences, and compromise on the parts of both the parents and the school district may be necessary. There are many benefits to resolving differences through compromise and mediation. Not only is time saved and the cost of litigation avoided, but the relationship between parents and the school district will remain a working one, where communication is still open, people are still talking, and future decisions are not made impossible by past differences.

How Are Related Services Delivered?

The district decides how the services enumerated in the IEP will be delivered to the student. The district may provide these services through its own personnel resources, but if this is not possible, they may contract with another public or private agency, which then provides the services.

There are two kinds of related services interventions offered by schools to meet the range of student needs. These can be defined as follows (Association for Retarded Citizens/Minnesota, 1989, pp. 3-4):

• Direct Therapy refers to hands-on interactions between the therapist and the student. These interactions can take place in a variety of settings. The therapist analyzes student responses and uses specific techniques to develop or improve particular skills. The therapist should also monitor the student's performance within the educational environment and consult with teachers and parents on an ongoing basis, so that some strategies can be carried out through indirect means at other times.
  
  
• Indirect Therapy refers to teaching, consulting with, and directly supervising other team members (including paraprofessionals and parents) so that they can carry out therapeutically-appropriate activities. Trained assistants, such as a certified Occupational Therapy Assistant, are sometimes employed to share in the delivery of related services. Three essentials of indirect intervention are: (a) the intervention procedure is designed by the therapist for an individual student; (b) the therapist has regular opportunities to interact with the student; and the therapist provides ongoing training, follow-up, and support to staff members and parents.

One type of service intervention is not necessarily better than the other. The type of service provided depends upon the student's needs and educational goals, and the skills and availability of school staff. Ellen Siciliano, a Parent Involvement Coordinator for the Pennsylvania Department of Education, Bureau of Special Education, sees a trend toward indirect therapy interventions for some related services. She says:

Some parents object to this, feeling that their children should have the direct attention of a therapist for all contact hours. My own opinion is that indirect or consultative forms of therapy are useful. When my daughter was in school, a therapist worked with me, so that I could work with my daughter, and this was beneficial. In rural schools, this kind of service may be very important in ensuring that children receive these services. (Siciliano, personal communication, September 20, 1990)

In small and rural districts, often there are not sufficient numbers of eligible students to justify employing a full-time therapist, or requirements across schools in a district may add up to the need for one related service provider. In such cases, the district may employ one specialist to move from school to school, or several districts may use a cooperative approach, pooling their resources to hire personnel who travel among districts to provide services. The term itinerant services is used to describe this type of service provision, but it refers to the deployment of personnel, not to a specific type of service intervention.

How Are Related Services Coordinated?

The IDEA requires that a multidisciplinary team perform an evaluation of a student to determine his or her eligibility for special education and related services. Likewise, a multidisciplinary team must be involved in any placement decisions. This team generally consists of a representative of the public agency who is qualified to provide or supervise the provision of special education and/or related services, the student's teacher, one or both of the student's parents, the student (where appropriate), individuals whose input is requested by either the parents or the public agency, and a member of the evaluation team who is knowledgeable about how the evaluation was conducted and its findings (Arena, 1989). The student's IEP is developed through the joint efforts of these individuals, and necessary related services are specified.

Obviously, the process of developing an IEP can be complicated, requiring many people to interact and coordinate their efforts. Many school districts appoint a school staff member (such as a teacher, psychologist, or counselor) to act as coordinator or case manager of the IEP process for an individual student or for all children with disabilities in a school. This is not required by law, but it helps the school district manage the complicated task of evaluating students and developing IEPs. The kinds of activities that a coordinator or case manager might do include:

• coordinating the multidisciplinary evaluation;
  
  
• collecting and synthesizing evaluation reports and other relevant information that might be needed to the IEP meeting;
  
  
• communicating with parents; and
  
  
• conducting the IEP meeting (U.S. Department of Education, 1986).
  
  

Beyond development, however, there is implementation of the IEP. Depending on the nature of the related services to be provided, many other professionals may become involved on behalf of the student with a disability. This may include one or more therapists, a special educator, classroom teachers, counselors, the school principal, paraprofessionals, and others. These individuals work not only with the child, but also with the family and community resources. Furthermore, there must be communication between the IEP team and the related service provider(s) to ensure that services are being delivered as specified and that the student is making progress. If the student is not progressing as expected, adjustments in his or her program must be made. The IEP team would need to be involved in any such decisions, and the new plan would need to be communicated to the related services personnel.

Thus, it is highly desirable that related services be delivered in educational settings through a team approach. Related services are not to be isolated from the educational program. Rather, they are to be related to the educational needs of students (Association for Retarded Citizens/Minnesota, 1989). The interactions of professional staff, consultants, community, and family, brought together in the delivery of related services for a student, underscore the usefulness of a case management approach in which a team leader coordinates and orchestrates services on behalf of the student.

How Are Related Services Funded?

Under P.L. 94-142 and its amendments, including the recently passed IDEA, students with disabilities are entitled to a free appropriate public education. State education agencies are responsible for assuming the costs of that public education, and no costs of implementing the IEP for school-aged students can be passed on to parents or guardians. This includes the provision of related services. Students and their families are entitled to receive these services at no cost to themselves.

Funding of related services, of course, presents schools with an enormous fiscal obligation. While districts receive federal funds through the IDEA to assist them in providing special education programs and related services for students with disabilities, the costs can nonetheless become quite staggering. However, "nowhere in the law is there a provision that could be construed as relieving a school system of its responsibility to provide a free appropriate public education even if sufficient funds...are not available" ("Related Services: Funding and Personnel," 1988, p. 3). Even before the passage of the EHA, the landmark case of Mills v. Board of Education of the District of Columbia (1972) affirmed that school districts are responsible for meeting the educational needs of students with disabilities. The school board in Mills argued that it could not afford to offer an appropriate education to all its students with disabilities. The court responded that whatever inadequacies existed in the school system could not be allowed to impact more heavily on the exceptional child than on a child without disabilities.

Although courts appear to becoming more aware of the costs involved in providing related services, the tendency is to consider the appropriateness of different educational options and the costs of each, as in the Clevenger v. Oak Ridge School Board (1984) case. There, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said, "Cost considerations are only relevant when choosing between several options, all of which are for an "appropriate" education. When only one is appropriate, then there is no choice."

Clearly, a school district's responsibility to students with disabilities is extensive and expensive. What other funding sources are available, besides the IDEA, to pay the costs of special education and related services? Since the enactment of the original EHA (P.L. 94-142), several new sources of funding have emerged. The Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act became Public Law 100-360 on July 1, 1988. Although this legislation primarily concerned Medicare and has been repealed, it also contained an amendment to the Social Security Act that affects Medicaid (which is a joint federal-state program providing health care services for low-income persons). The 1988 amendments authorize Medicaid reimbursements for Medicaid-covered related services in the IEPs of Medicare-eligible students with disabilities. The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1989, which further amended the federal Medicaid statute, also provides that treatment needs recommended through Medicaid's Early and Periodic Screening Diagnosis and Treatment process (EPSDT) "must include any services that are available under Medicaid, regardless of whether the state has opted to include such service as part of its Medicaid state plan" ("Can Medicaid," 1990, p. 161). As a result, some school districts are now receiving funds through Medicaid for certain related services that are provided in the public schools. An example of this can be drawn from the case of Melissa, an eleven year old whose disabilities were so severe she required the services of a trained nurse twenty-four hours a day. She attended public school under district funding and, by all accounts, not only benefited greatly herself but also provided a very positive example to her classmates by her enthusiasm and her determination to learn and succeed. Melissa's parent sought a federal court ruling to require the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to use Medicaid funds to pay for the nursing services needed by Melissa while she was in school. HHS denied responsibility on the basis that Medicaid regulations stipulate that private nursing care was not covered by Medicaid for locations outside of a hospital, a nursing facility, or a recipient's home. However, the appellate court found in favor of Melissa, saying that when Medicaid legislation was enacted two and a half decades ago, the assumption may have been widely accepted that a person needing a private duty nurse would be confined to the locations mentioned in the regulations. Fortunately, that assumption is no longer true in today's society. "Rather, private duty nursing is today understood as "setting independent," referring to a level of care rather than to specific locations where the care can be provided" ("Can Medicaid," 1990, p. 161). Thus, the cost of the private duty nurse needed by Melissa while attending school was billable to Medicaid (Detsel v. Sullivan, 1990).

Another potential funding source that has come into use in the last decade is third-party billing. Third-party billing means that parents of students with disabilities use their private health insurance to pay for the individual evaluations or related services that their child receives. The idea of third-party billing arose out of somewhat ambiguous regulations under both EHA and Section 504 that state that insurers are not relieved of their obligation to "provide or pay for services provided to a handicapped child" [34 CFR 300.301(b), 1988]. Third-party billing has been seen as a promising way for school districts to pay for related services, but it has also become controversial. As early as 1980, the U.S. Department of Education released a policy interpretation stating that educational agencies could not compel parents of a child with a disability to file an insurance claim that would pose a realistic threat to the parents in terms of financial loss. Examples of financial loss include, but are not limited to: (1) decreases in available lifetime coverage or other insurance benefits; (2) increases in insurance premiums; (3) discontinuation of the insurance policy; or (4) out-of-pocket expenses such as deductibles. However, the Department of Education did state that districts may require parents to file an insurance claim when: (a) doing so would not result in cost to the parents; and (b) the district ensures that parents do not have to bear even a short-term financial loss, such as paying a deductible. In the latter case, the school district "may insist that the parents file a claim if it [the school district] pays for the services and the deductible in advance" (U.S. Department of Education, 1980, p. 86390).

Many of the same points were reiterated in a 1990 OSEP letter. This letter adds a point concerning the financial loss to parents that results when filing an insurance claim leads to increased insurance premiums. The OSEP letter states that: ...if a public agency offers to pay the increased premiums, the parent would incur no financial loss and, therefore, could be required by the public agency to file an insurance claim. A parent's refusal to file an insurance claim, even where doing so would result in no financial loss, does not relieve the obligations of the public agency to provide FAPE [free appropriate public education] to the parent's child who is handicapped. (Newby, 16 EHLR 549)

The Office of Civil Rights (OCR) has also become involved in the controversy over third-party billing. OCR investigations into how some school districts were using third-party billing to pay for diagnostic and evaluative services revealed that parents were not adequately informed as to (a) the potential consequences and costs of billing their insurance companies, or (b) their right to refuse taking such action. Both OCR and OSEP _ and recently the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitation Services (OSERS) _ have confirmed the original Department of Education's policy that "without parents' voluntary consent to bill their insurance, districts cannot obtain reimbursement through private insurance carriers" ("Third-party Benefits," 1990, p. 5). Moreover, parents should be aware that a district may not terminate services to a student with a disability if parents refuse to file an insurance claim.

The policy interpretation issued by the U.S. Department of Education in 1980 does allow parents to voluntarily use their insurance benefits to pay for related services for their child. The district, however, must be able to prove that parents truly are cooperating voluntarily, rather than because they fear their child will otherwise not receive needed services. Even where parents allow third-party billing, the district may still not be able to get reimbursed by insurance companies for providing related services. Some insurance policies specifically exclude coverage of services that the insured can obtain free under federal, state, or local laws. In a 1990 court case (Chester County Intermediate Unit v. Pennsylvania Blue Shield), parents seeking reimbursement from their insurance company claimed that the EHA forbids insurers from excluding coverage for related services. The Court, however, found that the regulations of the EHA (now IDEA) do not bind private insurers (16 Education of the Handicapped Law Report [EHLR] 925). Thus, insurance companies are within their rights to exclude from coverage related services that should be provided free of cost to students with disabilities under the IDEA. Needless to say, this represents another obstacle to school districts seeking to pay for related services through third-party billing.

Are There Shortages of Personnel for Related Services?

The answer is: Yes. The shortage of related services personnel is a recurring theme in state data on special education programs and related services. For example, in a survey conducted by the University of Maryland (Smith-Davis, Burke, & Noel, 1984), 36 states reported major shortages of physical therapists. In 1986, the number of states reporting shortages in this area had risen to 47 (McLaughlin, Smith-Davis, & Burke, 1986). These results are not unusual. Personnel reported to be in the shortest supply are occupational therapists, physical therapists, psychologists, counselors, social workers, and speech/language pathologists (Office of Special Education Programs, Division of Innovation and Development, 1990). The results of these and several other recent studies (National Easter Seals Society, 1988; Nicholas, 1990; Smith, 1990) attest to the problems that school districts face in finding, hiring, and keeping personnel in these important related services areas. Salaries, of course, are a factor in these shortages, inasmuch as hospitals and private agencies can often offer greater compensation than can schools. But other factors include the lack of trained applicants for school positions and competition with other agencies who provide related services to the elderly population, infants at risk, and accident trauma victims. Mr. Reynaud, Director of Special Education for the Park Hill School District and President of the Council for Exceptional Children's Council of Administrators of Special Education (CASE), describes how this very problem is affecting his district's ability to provide related services.

...Over the years, our district has had an arrangement with St. Luke's Hospital in Kansas City to obtain OT and PT services on contract from its community-based program. This summer, St. Luke's called to say that they could no longer contract with us, because they were experiencing difficulty finding OTs and PTs to meet just the demands of their hospital services, not to mention their community programs. When a big organization like St. Luke's says something like that, you listen. (Reynaud, personal communication, August 3, 1990)

Not only are vacancies difficult to fill in many districts, but the scarcity of personnel leads to heavier case loads for those who are employed. To improve assessment and treatment, increase student contact hours, and allow more services for students who need them most, additional personnel time is certainly needed (Office of Special Education Programs, Division of Innovation and Development, 1990). There is also a pressing need to hire school-employed related service providers, rather than obtaining them through contractual arrangements with other agencies, as is often the case at present. However, many therapists are trained predominantly for clinical work and often prefer clinical rather than school settings. As demographics in the United States change, the shrinking representation of minorities in teaching and related services is also of concern. All of these personnel shortages impact greatly on the school district's ability to provide related services to students with disabilities. "The worst impact," says Dr. Lowell Harris, Director, Division of Exceptional Children's Services for the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, "is to know that children need services and the very disturbing knowledge that services can't be provided appropriately, even though there are funds to provide them." He adds, "The most poignant problem arises when a therapist leaves. Then the prolonged difficulty of finding a therapist begins; children have already been receiving services, but the services are taken away. That's where the hearings come in." (Harris, personal communication, August 3, 1990).

By "hearing," Dr. Lowell is referring to the legal right of parents to lodge a complaint against a school district when related services are not being provided to their child. A hearing is convened to review the evidence and determine if, indeed, the child is eligible to receive the disputed services and, if so, what has happened that they are not. It is clear from recent court cases and investigations by the Office of Civil Rights (OCR) that, regardless of staffing difficulties, school districts are responsible for providing the services students need. For example, a school district on Michigan's eastern Upper Peninsula found itself unable to hire and retain qualified physical therapists and speech pathologists, due in part to the district's isolated location. The district searched for candidates through posting vacancy notices in newspapers and in college placement offices, and tried unsuccessfully to establish a contractual agreement with a neighboring school district and a local sports medicine clinic to use their physical therapist services. A complaint was lodged against the district for failing to provide physical and speech therapy to a boy with cerebral palsy and other students with multiple disabilities. OCR investigated the complaint and held the district in violation of its requirements. OCR then ordered the school district "to take any measures available, such as contracting for services outside the immediate geographic area, to provide services to the children" ("Related Services: Funding and Personnel," 1988, p. 2).

In Conclusion: Addressing the Problems Together

Without a doubt, many school districts face very real problems in meeting their responsibility of providing the related services needed by school-aged children with disabilities. Chief among these problems are a shortage of personnel to provide related services and a shortage of monies to fund them. While school districts are required by federal law to provide related services, constructive action is needed on the parts of parents, practitioners, and school administrators in order to improve the situation. Here are some suggestions for action that can ease the budget and personnel crunch experienced by many school districts, without sacrificing the welfare of students who require related services in order to benefit from their education.

1. Write a complete IEP. Related services needed by a student should be listed in the IEP. Not listing related services in the IEP leads to inaccurate reporting of needed personnel in national and state data collection efforts, which distorts the true picture of the supply/demand problem. Therefore, the documentation of related services and personnel needs begins with the IEP. If that documentation is faulty, understanding of supply/demand becomes skewed. Plans that are made based upon this documentation are similarly skewed, and the problem of personnel shortages is perpetuated.
   
   
2. Walk in each other's shoes. The shortage of personnel and monies is real. There are simply not enough qualified related services personnel to fill all vacancies. At the same time, the news is filled with reports of school districts that cannot pay for the educational services they are required by law to provide. Parents, understandably, find it unacceptable that difficulties may exist in meeting their child's legitimate needs. The law, after all, guarantees their child's right to a free appropriate public education. Many parents may hold the view that the difficulties faced by school districts in terms of personnel and funding are the school district's concern, while the child's welfare is the parent's concern. Ultimately, however, the difficulties school districts face impact most upon those individuals who need the services - namely, eligible students with disabilities.
   
   Addressing parents, Callanan (1990) cautions: "It's important to know and safeguard your legal rights. It can be a mistake, however, to misuse them or to view your relationship with professional educators as one-way, in which they give and you take... Positive participation on your part will further your child's education much more effectively than a series of avoidable confrontations" (p. 249). Thus, parents and school personnel need to develop a mutual recognition of the facts of their own district, appreciate the frustration that all parties have in this predicament, and work together rather than against each other to develop services for children. Both parties are interested in the welfare of the student with a disability, and so both parties need to concern themselves with the issues of funding and personnel shortages.
   
   
3. Improve coordination of services and responsibility- sharing. No single agency alone can handle the increasingly complex needs of children. There is a major and growing need for coordination of services, for resource and program sharing, and for new patterns of interagency collaboration and cooperative services involving schools, mental health, human services, welfare, health agencies, juvenile justice, homeless centers, and other services. Often, coordination and cooperation can be achieved more effectively at the grass-roots level, with the assistance and involvement of concerned citizens, parents, and professionals, rather than through state and federal mandates.
   
   
4. Become a creative networker. There are many ways of finding services and establishing opportunities that go beyond what the school district offers to your child or youth with a disability. Be creative in building a team that utilizes the many resources available within your school and community. These resources can offer valuable learning experiences for your child. Become a networker. Talk to people such as reading specialists in the school, the chairperson of volunteer activities in the school or community, club leaders, librarians, and individuals involved in school or community sports programs. Explore what opportunities can be created for your child in recreational or after-school activities. Many parents have succeeded in networking with people within and outside of special education who are willing to involve children and youth with disabilities in activities offered by their club, organization, or place of employment. Becoming involved in school and community activities can give individuals with disabilities the opportunity to grow and learn academically, vocationally, and socially.
   
   
5. Take constructive action. Local parents, practitioners, and principals can activate entire communities in plans to staff the schools with excellent people. Among the strategies that can be carried out, both in rural and urban areas, are:
   
   
   • encouragement of local students to enter careers in special education and related services;
     
     
   • roles for high school students as tutors and aides;
     
     
   • negotiations with higher education institutions anywhere in the country to place student teachers and interns in the district;
     
     
   • development of community-wide and school-based incentives and a welcoming atmosphere to attract new personnel;
     
     
   • planning with local businesses to offer jobs to spouses of teachers who might relocate;
     
     
   • acquiring and/or raising scholarship funds for promising young people who will return to the community after completing professional training;
     
     
   • arrangements with higher education to deliver locally-based training to increase the population of aides and assistants in the schools, and to provide career ladders whereby these personnel can acquire professional credentials;
     
     
   • human-centered interagency cooperation that can extend and enrich services to all children;
     
     
   • planned agendas of school improvement and community pride activities that will make your town a better place to live and work.