1. “Service Only” Plans and Special Education Related Services Karen R. McNamara Director of Student Services Wrentham Public Schools

2. Problem Statement As an alternative to developing related service only IEPs, students who were identified as having a significant weakness in the areas of OT, PT or S/L, but were making effective progress academically, were placed on “Service Only Plans.” These written plans required a parent signature since the services were provided outside of the classroom, and they were reviewed annually, similar to IEPs. There were no guidelines to determine eligibility, no established goals, no documentation of progress, and no criteria to determine whether or not students continued to require these support services.

3. Problem Summary As the new Director, I was concerned about these plans for the following reasons: - Caseloads of the related service providers often included more students with “service only” plans than students with IEPs. - Therapists were not held accountable to provide consistent services or document progress for the “service only” students. - Many of these students had been on “service only” plans for multiple years, receiving the same services, without any documentation of progress. - There was parent confusion about what these plans were, how they compared to IEPs, and whether or not their child was making progress. - The district was not receiving federal entitlement funds for students who may have qualified for IEPs.

4. Relating the Problem… The key stakeholders in this process were primarily the related service providers: OT, PT and S/L therapists. The therapists were hesitant to make changes to this process since it had been saving them time, and significantly reduced their paperwork and accountability. They did acknowledge that it would be helpful to develop consistent entrance and exit criteria for each service area to establish guidelines for special education eligibility. They expressed their belief in providing early intervention services through general education, especially for children in the early grades who may have typical developmental delays. They were uncomfortable having an “all or nothing” approach to supporting only those students who qualified for IEPs.

5. Problem Examined… Wrentham is an elementary district of approximately 1300 students. As of 9/09, 180 students were on IEPs, and 77 students were on “Service Only” plans. Information was gathered from area school districts to identify their process for providing related services, as well as the specific entrance and exit criteria they used for OT, PT and S/L eligibility.

6. Greatest number of “Service Only” plans in Speech/Language Therapy

7. Intervention Strategy The “service only” data and information from area school districts was shared with the Wrentham related service providers; they developed their own entrance/exit criteria for their respective service areas. It was decided that short-term intervention plans could be developed for students who demonstrate developmental weaknesses in related service areas after informal screenings. These would be based on an RTI model, similar to the general education interventions used by the Student Support Teams. Student progress must be monitored and documented to determine the effectiveness of the intervention or the need for a special education evaluation by the end date of the intervention.

8. Intervention Strategy continued… It was also decided that by the annual review date of each “service only” plan, the therapists would determine one of the following based on their newly developed criteria: – Student is making effective progress and his/her skills are developmentally appropriate – services no longer required. – Student is making effective progress but requires an extension of the short-term intervention to meet the identified, measurable goal. – Student is not making effective progress and requires a special education evaluation to determine eligibility for a related services only IEP.

9. Results – September to November 26% reduction in Service Only plans – 57 total 2 – IEPs, 3 – intervention plans, 15 – dismissed, 4 – being evaluated

10. Plans to extend and continue… Creation of a written process and procedure for related service referrals and short-term interventions in the areas of OT, PT and S/L. Development of consistent forms and letters for screenings, interventions, and follow-up documentation to be used by the therapists. Data collection system to assist in determining success of short-term interventions for related services as part of a general education RTI process. Elimination of all “Service Only” plans by June 2010.

11. Lessons Learned It was beneficial to include the therapists during the initial steps of examining the data and determining a solution. They appreciated the fact that their belief about intervening early for students with typical developmental delays was valued. The change in process and procedure needed to be made slowly throughout the school year to minimize staff frustration and parent confusion. Although this change is resulting in extra time and effort for the therapists, I believe it is in the best interest of the students and the district.