Chariho School Parents’ Forum

May 28, 2007

Westerly Sun reports on May 22 meeting

Filed under: RYSE paperwork — Editor @ 7:49 pm

Legality of RYSE program questioned By Brian Quinlan

The Sun Staff

WOOD RIVER JUNC­TION – Chariho Superintendent Barry Ricci has asked the school’s attor­ney for a legal opinion regarding whether the Reaching Youth through Support and Education Program (RYSE) exists in violation of the Chariho Act. School Committee mem­ber William Felkner said he asked Ricci to get a legal opinion on the matter and wants to know whether the RYSE Program – which offers both educational and clinical services to students with mental health needs – is “ an extension of the school” and should have required voter approval.

He pointed to Section 9 (6) of the Chariho Act, which says the district can not “build a building, purchase land or extend the scope of the functions of the school without voter approval.”

 Along with the district’s $26 million building plan, administrators have pro­posed building a 12,000­square- foot building to house the RYSE School. Felkner has also questioned whether the proposed build­ing would also be in viola­tion of the Chariho Act.

Ricci said he hopes to hear back from the school’s attorney within the next week, but defended the merits of the program dur­ing an interview. Administrators, he said, have a responsibility to stay flexible to meet the changing needs of the student body.

“ Our responsibility under federal law is to educate all kids,” Ricci said. “ Whether we send them out of district and pay their tuition or educate students in dis­trict, we still have to edu­cate students. If we offer the services here and can do a superior job, of course we would keep them ( in dis­trict).”

According to data regard­ing the RYSE program pro­vided by Ricci, some 69 stu­dents have been enrolled in the RYSE Program over the last four years, with 21 eventually being moved out of district to get education­al and mental health serv­ices. Further, the data states that the RYSE School has been deemed a high performing school and a Regents Commended School by the Rhode Island Department of Education, and that only five of the 69 students who were enrolled dropped out prior to gradu­ation.

Also, Ricci said that “ a majority” of the parents he speaks with are “ very pleased” with the program.

 “ We have no more com­plaints from this school than we have for any other,” he said.

Felkner said Ricci’s state­ment that the school must stay flexible “may be right.” He added that he is “ not an expert” on the matter.   “ That’s why I’m asking for this opinion,” he said.

Felkner also questioned why a parent of a RYSE student wasn’t allowed to speak at Tuesday night’s Chariho School Committee meeting. During the meet­ing, school committee mem­bers approved a contract for the clinical services provid­ed at the RYSE Program by M i d d l e t o w n – b a s e d Psychological Centers. Ricci said the company has provided clinical services at RYSE for the four years it has been operating and that he is “ very pleased” with the services.

The woman, Felkner said, had a child who was receiving day services at Bradley Hospital and was also receiving mental health services from South Shore Mental Health Center. He said the parent told him her child was “ forced” to move to the RYSE Program to receive clinical and day services. A short time later, the woman’s child had a “ breakdown,” Felkner said.

“ My main concern is just that she wasn’t allowed to speak,” he said.

Ricci, however, said the woman was stopped from speaking because what she was saying didn’t pertain to the agenda item.

“ The conversation was about an agenda item that was related to a renewal of a contract,” Ricci said. “ The conversation with the par­ent was not about that and the chair stopped her from speaking.”


 In other posts, I had reported that the parent was not allowed to speak because Kathy Perry disagreed with her.  What Supt. Ricci says is true (that the parent was stopped because her testimony was not relevant to the agenda item), but when Day said that her testimony would not be allowed, I pointed out that we are voting to sign a contract that will purchase services for the RYSE program, and this parent was going to speak about the quality of those services.  So it seems to me that her testimony is relevant.

So then Day said that Perry did not agree with the parents, so their was a “discrepancy” and she would not be allowed to contiue.  Then I pointed out that if speaking against the services was not allowed, then speaking fondly of the services should not be allowed either (since the same discrepancy exists). 

Many of you have seen the tape, please tell me what you saw.  It is entirely possible that I am remembering it wrong.


questions answered

Filed under: RYSE paperwork — Editor @ 7:32 pm

Here are some questions that were posted from commenters.  Supt. Ricci answered and I’ve put in what I know in bold.

What is the assistant superintendent’s role/job description?

The Assistant Superintendent is mainly responsible for curriculum, professional development, and grant development.  Additional responsibilities include home instruction, 504 plans, summer school, etc.

Why do we not empower the teachers to decide on the curriculum?

Teachers are part of every curriculum decision.  They are invited to assist in the writing of curriculum and in the selection of materials.

The teaching of math has clearly changed over the years.  Those of us old enough to remember how the old math was taught (repetitive and rote) do not understand the, to us, cart before the horse abstract ways of today’s math. 

As Supt. Ricci said, the decision to use this new math was made by the Asst. Supt. and teachers.  They must feel this new way is most effective. 

I do know of some teachers in another district (I think they use everyday math) and they just ignore the guidelines and teach math the old way.   This is good an bad.  It, at least according to the teacher, is better for the students, but when we look at the school and see good performance, we credit the “everyday math” curriculum, when it really is the “old math.”  What we need are speak out if they really thought the new math was insufficient. 

Where are we with the Math curriculum?

Phil has conducted two days of “reviews” of curriculum options.  He has one additional day scheduled.  He is also reviewing our written curriculum to be sure that it aligns with high-performing states.

What involvement did the teachers have in TERC’s inception?

Ricci can’t speak to this as it occurred before his arrival in Chariho.  Mine too, unfortunately.

What kind of grants have we gotten in the last 3 years?  Listed by year.

I’m still putting this together

What were the amounts of these grants?  


How much did we have to contribute to receive these grants?

Usually, there is no contribution.  Sometimes, an in-kind or small monetary contribution is necessary.  Each grant that the school committee approves includes a budget.

The difficult question is what is the residual costs.  Like the solar panels, it has maintenance, but it is minimal.  But the light bulbs for overhead projectors (which may or may not have been started with a grant) are $500.

Have any of the grants been for the elementary schools?

I (Ricci) don’t recall any recent grants for elementary schools.

What can be done to make the line items reflect the cost of each school?   (ie…Vo-Tech, HS, MS, RYSE, and the individual elementary schools)

Brian would be better able to answer this.  The account numbers in your budget are coded by school; we have to follow a state accounting system.  The state is in the process of developing a new chart of accounts which will further detail expenditures.

What additional roofing needs to be done to the 1967 building?

Repairs on the 1967 roof have been completed.  Last week, the flashing was repaired.
What’s going on with the 1904 building?

Negotiations with the town council, not public information yet.

Can the curriculum for sex-ed be published for parents to see?

All of our curricula are on our web site.  Sex education is part of the health curriculum.

Tomorrow night I will post the RYSE performance measures, the proposal and 2006 revenues and expenditures sheet.

May 24, 2007

Analysis – RYSE

Filed under: page updates,RYSE paperwork — Editor @ 11:52 pm


I’ve decided to devote a permanent page to the RYSE program, obviously as a reaction to the information  and misinformation presented at the May 22nd meeting.  As Bill Day said, there were a lot of “discrepancies.” 

At this meeting, the board approved a contract for mental health services for the RYSE School.  We did not send this contract out for bid. 

Elaine Morgan, parent of a RYSE student, tried to testify on the services we were voting to purchase.  Bill Day, chair of the school board, ended the conversation after she told us that RYSE “forced” her to drop the clinical service from South Shore (funded by United Health Insurance) and utilize the services at RYSE (funded by the taxpayers). 

The reason she was denied the right to speak, according to Mr. Day, was because the Director of Special Education, Kathy Perry, disagreed with her testimony.  Thus the “discrepancies.”

The purpose of this website has always been to increase transparency and community involvement.  I will provide you with the same information that I have (with scans of related documents) and you can evaluate these discrepancies for yourself.  Hopefully, you will be encouraged to get involved. 

For more details, Chariho has written minutes of the meeting and a video tape.  They are both open to the public.  But please don’t expect them to make copies of the tape (we didn’t budget for this).   Maybe watch it there or obtain a copy from Cox.  Chariho should be able to provide the contact person.

Lets step back and  review how we got to this point.  Here is a brief outline and history of the RYSE program and the no-bid contract the board approved –


In 2003, Chariho developed the RYSE School.  Before RYSE was developed, students who needed professional services were sent to various service providers in the community. 

According to documentation provided, these service providers were Bradley (South Kingstown & East Providence), South Shore Mental Health (Charlestown) and Forwardview (North Kingstown).

Some students were given a variety of services by a collaboration of agencies.  As an example, a student could go to Bradley for “day program” services (funded by school budget, ie. taxpayers) and at the same time receive clinical and/or evaluation services from South Shore Mental Health (insurance funded) and also get diabetes treatment at the local hospital (insurance funded).

RYSE was developed to provide all of the services “in-house.”  We still integrate in the community but the services are provided by RYSE staff.

I would assume there are some services we don’t supply yet but we have recently added the “Autism Spectrum Disorder” program, and the ”Elementary At-Risk” program.  We also now provide diabetes treatments. 

I have been open about my concerns over the RYSE School.  RYSE is advertised as providing “twenty four hour a day/seven day a week mental health services” for students “from other districts” with “serious mental and emotional health issues.”  

My concerns include:
1) I don’t think we should get into the “mental health services” business.
2) If we are in it, are we doing it efficiently and effectively?
3) the treatment model we use (MST) is designed for “serious, violent, and chronic juvenile offenders.”   We are the only school in RI that has a program designed for this population.  If DCYF wanted to relocate a group home, our district and community would be a likely location.  Furthermore, Chariho policy allows “out of districtplacements into RYSE with board approval. 

In 2003 the board approved the development of the RYSE School (note – there is some debate as to whether the development of this program without voter approval was a violation of the Chariho Act).  

But Chariho did it and now they needed to find someone to provide all of these services (all the services previously provided by the above list of community providers) and advertised for these services with this Request for Proposals (RFP). 

We received 2 bids :

South Shore Mental Health Center, Charlestown-RI, bid $276,000 and uses the community based model.   This model utilizes a collaboration of services in the community and is designed for a variety of populations.

Psychological Centers, Inc., (PC does not have a website) bid $420,000 and uses the multisystemic (MST) model.  This model provides “in-house” all  inclusive services and the program was designed for “serious, violent, and chronic juvenile offenders.”  

Here are what I see as the major differences between the two service providers.

Psychological Centers Inc. (PC),
1)     has been in business since 2000,
2)     is located in Middletown (outside of our district)
is an agency that utilizes a system designed for “serious, violent, and chronic juvenile offenders” 
4)      the treatment model has never been used in a public school before. 
5)      this model does everything “in-house” and subsequently completely funded by taxpayers 
6)      the treatment model research supporting its efficacy is cited in the bid, “the strongest and most consistent support (comes from studies) focused on violent and chronic juvenile offenders.”  I should also preface this by saying that MST Group, LLC., was the developer of the MST model and is also the licensing agency.  They are not a government entity and the certification is not a government (federal or state) certification.

South Shore Mental Health Center (SSMH),
1)      has  been in business since 1964,
2)      is located in Charlestown (in our district)
3)      this treatment model was not designed for a specific population.
4)      we had already done business with SSMH for 7 years
5)      utilized a community collaboration (rather than soup-to-nuts “in-house” services) that allowed insurance to pay for some services.
6)      the treatment model is supported by research cited in the bid.  

UPDATE: May 24 

The Chariho school committee voted to accept the $420,000 bid in 2003.

I will explain how we get from there to Tuesday’s $669,000 no-bid contract soon, but the “real world” has been keeping me busy.  In the mean time, here is the 2007 contract the Chariho school committee voted to accept. 

The RYSE School – Psychological Centers Inc., “No-Bid Contract, 2007

more to come…. 

 PS.  There were 8 other board members present at the meeting (Giancarlo Cicchetti and Holly Eaves were not present).  5 voted for the no-bid contract.  I know you visit the website.  Please post your comments or questions below in the “comments” section.

Please post comments on the permanent “page” here.  Not on this “post.”

RYSE – PC Inc., 2007 “No-Bid” Contract

Filed under: RYSE,RYSE paperwork — Editor @ 11:45 pm

The contract outlines 3 programs that PC will support and covers the years 2007 to 2010. 
1) “The RYSE Program” – 21-29 students – $467,000 to %505,000
2) “Elementary At-Risk Program” – up to 9 students – $68,000 to $74,000
3) “ASD (autism) Program” – no enrolment numbers provided – $68,000 to $74,000

“Assuming 21-29 students enrolled in RYSE” – $669,000 to $724,000






Psychological Centers, Inc., 2003 RFP bid

Filed under: RYSE,RYSE paperwork — Editor @ 12:45 am







Click on the image to enlarge

Service Providers

Filed under: RYSE — Editor @ 12:24 am

This list of service providers was supplied by Chariho. 


Click on the image to enlarge

RYSE postings

Filed under: RYSE — Editor @ 12:06 am

I will be posting a few documents as “posts” and then tie them together in a “Page.”  The Page is on the right side column, titles “Analysis – RYSE.”

May 23, 2007

South Shore Mental Health Center, 2003 RFP bid

Filed under: RYSE,RYSE paperwork — Editor @ 11:56 pm

Click on the image to enlarge.

Cover letter Cover letter







RYSE Request for Proposal – 2003

Filed under: RYSE,RYSE paperwork — Editor @ 11:35 pm

RFP for RYSE clinical services, 2003


Click on image to enlarge

RYSE contract discussion

Filed under: 5th & 6th grade,grade spans,RYSE — Editor @ 4:21 pm

The first post on RYSE and the no-bid contract has brought up several question and points.  I would like to post them here for those that don’t normally read the comments section.  I have edited for length and content – the original post and comments are located here.  If you are unfamiliar with the incident I would suggest you read the first post and then come back here for the comment discussion. 


1.      Unbelievable to say the least! If I’m reading this correctly, South Shore Mental Health Center offered a program tailored to meet the individual needs of each student? Psychological Centers, Inc. offers a one-size fits all approach, and that one size has historically been suited for “serious juvenile offenders”?

Behind this decision is some kinds of quid pro quo…I can’t think of any other reason why the decision would be made to go with the more expensive service with the less flexible approach? Follow the connections and I’m betting you’ll discover why PC Inc. was chosen.Do I see a pattern?

Yes, the pattern is that government rolls over everyone in its insatiable thirst to grow. With growth comes jobs for families and friends, e.g. Mr. Day’s family (wife and son).  

Of course, to accomplish continuing growth, everyone must play along, so back-scratching is the order of the day as everyone involved turns a blind eye. Comment by Curious Resident — May 23, 2007 @ 10:01 am | Edit This


In 2003, PC Inc outlined some “performance measures” such as customer satisfaction reports and tracking how many kids are reintegrated back into the regular school.

But after 3-4 years of operation, they say that 95% of the satisfaction interviews were positive so they don’t use them anymore (but he didn’t keep records so is unable to send them to me).

They also no longer (or never did) track reintegration. 

Kathy Perry has said this is not a performance measurement and the students at RYSE “will need these services for life.” However, in another email she admitted that only 2 of 12 students last year needed to continue mental health services after graduation.

And the reintegration logic is also ludicrous. They (PC Inc) have determined that the students need their services indefinitely and should not be pushed to go back to the regular classrooms. But some of the students go on to college.  So they can handle college but they can’t handle a High School classroom?

Plus there is the fact that in 2006 Chariho has 6 times more complaints filed at RI Dept of Education than Coventry or Exeter and 4 times more than Westerly.

In 2006, Chariho had 12 complaints, hearings and/or mediation.   Westerly had 4, Coventry and Exeter/West Greenwich each had 2. 

In 2005 the numbers were 9 Chariho, E/WG 1, Coventry and Westerly 3.Kathy Perry said these are not RYSE kids but kids in the regular ed that have IEP’s.

But who is in charge of ALL special ed? Kathy Perry

At this point in the meeting, Andrew McQuade called me out of order because now we were discussing Kathy’s job performance, not the RYSE contract.  He was right – I’ll give him credit for quick thinking.  Now I’ll ask you to do some quick thinking.  What was his motivation? 

Comment by Bill Felkner — May 23, 2007 @ 10:16 am | Edit This

3.      It just keeps coming.

Also, the claim has been made that RYSE exists in violation of the Chariho Act. This seems pretty clear to me (but what do I know?). Rather than wasting time looking at all the nonsense that has gone on and continues to go on, maybe the best approach is to get RYSE before the voters and eliminate the problem that way? I have no clue what would be involved, but it seems to me that something needs to be done, or at least clarified, about RYSE being in violation of the Act.

Comment by Curious Resident — May 23, 2007 @ 10:40 am | Edit This

I have asked the Hopkintown solicitor and the Chariho solicitor to give opinion on the RYSE/Chariho Act issue. I have already asked a contract lawyer friend and it is his opinion a violation occurred, but we will see what the town and school say.

Comment by Bill Felkner — May 23, 2007 @ 11:18 am | Edit This

5.      I’m glad to hear that someone is looking into the issue of the Chariho Act violation.

Do you know if the Chariho Act is a legally binding instrument, or is it a guide for process, which is not legally binding?

I’m going to assume that the Chariho solicitor will take a pass on the question or find that RYSE is compliant. I assume this because I have to believe that RYSE was originally implemented with the knowledge, and maybe approval, of the Chariho solicitor?

That said, hopefully Hopkinton’s solicitor will agree it is a violation. If that should happen, what would be the next steps? Would someone have to file “charges”? Would an outside lawyer need to be brought in? I would be willing to make a small donation to fight the violation should it come to that.

Comment by Curious Resident — May 23, 2007 @ 11:41 am | Edit This

THe Chariho Act is law. You may be right about the school’s solicitor. But if he is unique in his opinion, that is grounds for other problems and he may not want to jeopardize his reputation for this. I already have one legal opinion but I want some from involved solicitors.Legal action would be necessary to rectify the situation unless Chariho acquiesces without such prompting.

Comment by Bill Felkner — May 23, 2007 @ 12:19 pm | Edit This 

7.      The other factor, that might motivate the School Committee and the administration to move in a positive direction towards a vote, is the possible liability of individuals who implemented the RYSE program in violation of the Chariho Act.

If the Act is the law, then I would guess that those responsible for ignoring the Act would be lawbreakers. It would be interesting to find out if the administration or committee members asked the solicitor for an opinion during the time frame when RYSE was being discussed?

Of course, I’m assuming RYSE was discussed, but with this group, anything is possible!If any committee members currently serving were also on the committee when RYSE was implemented, I would be wary, if I were them, to continue to ignore the Chariho Act. While Mr. Ricci was not superintendent when RYSE was brought to Chariho, he was in the administration that violated the Chariho Act, and I would hate to see him further involve himself in actions contrary to the law.

My desire is for the School Committee and the administration to do the right thing and comply with the Chariho Act. While I think the violation of the law was willful for some people (especially smirkers), I would be happy to have the vote we should have had 4 years ago and start fresh from there.

Comment by Curious Resident — May 23, 2007 @ 12:41 pm | Edit This ************** 

Good point and I will stick it in my memory bank.

Yes, PC Inc. is the only provider of MST services in RI, and RYSE insists on MST services (thus the claimed logic for the no-bid contract – no one else meets our newly defined program criteria). 

However, MST certification is not a government certification.  MST is certified by MST Group, LLC., the for-profit company that developed the program.

That being said, the program has been altered for school application because it has never been used in a school before. 

So we have RYSE, the ONLY “24 hour a day/7 days a week” facility providing “mental health services” at a school in RI. 

Now we have the ONLY program that utilizes MST services. Aren’t we trendsetters?   

As a matter of fact, we are now developing an autism program and a program for Elementary aged kids (yes, we have 6 kids enrolled at RYSE as young as 6).   

In Supt. Ricci’s defense, I have found him to be competent and “like minded” with fiscal, union and management issues.  That being said, he still only operates at the direction of the board.   

That is why I was/am so disappointed in his letter in the Sun a while back.   It is not his place to have an opinion.  Only through the direction of the board may he advocate a position on policy. 

His letter appeared to be promoting the choice of NOT bringing back the 5th and 6th graders because the research was “inconclusive.”   

But I had already commented to them and here that;  
1)      there is a lot of research suggesting it’s best,
2)      the country is moving in that direction, and
3)      the PARENTS WANT THEIR KIDS BACK (71% voter approval). 

As for “inconclusive,” I noted that Mary Anne Raywid, Hofstra University Professor Emerita and Past president of the Society of Professors of Education, whose name is used for an award that recognizes individuals who have made outstanding contributions to the study of education, has said-  “The value of small schools has been confirmed with clarity and a level of confidence rare in the annals of education research.”   

But then Chariho said that moving the 5th and 6th grades back to the elementary was not making small schools, at least not the Elementary Schools (moving from K-4 to K-6). 

“Small School” does in one way imply that the total population is low, and in this light the Elementary would get larger, but then again, the main campus would get smaller. 

But in most research, “small school” means a small number in each grade.  So the 5th and 6th grade levels would (in round numbers) drop from the current level of 280 to 95.    

Either way you look at it, 5th and 6th graders are better served.  They are either moving from a 3800 student campus to a 450 student campus – or they are moving from a 280 class size to a 95 class size. 

If anyone can show me how ANY child is damaged by this arrangement, I’m willing to talk.   

A local parent (Lois Buck) had to point out the Duke study published in Feb 2007 – very current and very large sample – also not what I would call “inconclusive.” 

So the long and short of it is, and I apologize for the overly detailed rant, Supt. Ricci’s letter was
1)      operating at the direction of the board to influence citizen’s towards “not moving the kids” (which they deny) 
2)      Supt Ricci advocated on his own volition, (denied)
3)      Supt. Ricci simply reported on Dr. Thornton’s report as he was given it.   

Do you think that Dr. Thornton’s report was –
1)      accurate and the research is not conclusive enough to move the kids (regardless of what the parents want),
2)      inaccurate due to incompetence or
3)      inaccurate due to the direction of ? 

I presented to Supt Ricci that perhaps Dr. Thornton had a preset expectation of what was expected and reported accordingly.  Dr. Thornton maintains that the research is “inconclusive.”  I don’t think Dr. T. is incompetent. \

So this gets us back to the start of this conversation –  nothing happens without board approval. 

Last night we witnessed (tonight on Cox Ch. 18 @ 8 PM) the approval of a no-bid contract for the service provider of RYSE (PC Inc.).  A student’s parent who used the program was denied the right to speak on the “quality of the services.” 

Who denied this testimony?  Bill Day, chair of the board. 

Why you ask?  Because the Director of Special Ed, Kathy Perry, said the client was wrong. 

But then again, nothing can happen unless the board approves it.  So we signed a no-bid contract,
1)      with an agency that utilizes a system designed for “serious juvenile offenders,”
2)      that has never been used in a school before. 
3)      And does everything “in-house” and subsequently completely funded by taxpayers 

Oh yea, when we did send it out for bid in 2003, the loosing bid was a company that
1)      was in business for 52 years longer than PC Inc.,
2)      located in our community
3)      we had already done business with for 7 years
4)      utilized a community collaboration (rather than soup-to-nuts “in-house” services) that allowed insurance to pay for some services  

But Kathy Perry said that the research supporting the loosing bid wasn’t as good as the research supporting MST (which we have had to alter because our population are not “serious juvenile offenders”).

 Funny, how subjective analysis of research comes up again. 

 Ooops, I almost forgot, the loosing bid was also much less expensive ($276,000 versus $420,000) than this new start up program that is watching our kids. 

The no-bid contract we approved last night (2 opposed, 5 yea, 1 abstention) was for $669,000. 

I know board members read this site.  Please defend your actions.  The only thing I heard in defense was that RYSE has a graduation rate of 92%. 

Is this good?  Who knows, nobody else in RI runs a mental health facility school where you put 5-6 kids in a classroom with a teacher, an assistant, and floating “professionals” and tailor the lessons to the individual.   

This 92% represents 11 of 12 students.  Of course, this 12 does not include the 6 that the court or DCYF took away from us. 

Of those 12, three have enrolled in college (no word yet on how well they will transition from this “unique” school to the cookie cutter world of college).   

Plus we spend $52,000 – $57,000 per student, per year.   

Now let’s look at the bid from 2003 that we rejected. 

That company claims that 56% of the student’s they service end up reintegrating back to the regular classroom. So we know the loosing bid was 35% less than the winning bid (potential savings of $145,000 per year).  And if they reduced the RYSE enrolment by 56%, that would have saved us $1,976,000 since the inception of RYSE. 

Of course, Kathy Perry said, “South Shore never reintegrated any students when they provided services for us.”   

And she said, “RYSE is a special education placement.  The student’s disabilities indicate that they require this type of placement and programming.  For students with these diagnoses, services and treatments will be needed throughout their lives.” 

But according to the reports, only 2 of these 12 are eligible for adult-services after graduation.  So when they were at RYSE they needed $52,000 of taxpayer money for services but once they graduated the services were not needed.  Amazing! 

Did I mention that the staff at RYSE writes the education plan that specifies what services the child will be provided?  And that the staff at RYSE will provide those services? 

You, the voters, are the customer.  Are you happy with your purchase? 

more to come…  

Next Page »