Pine-Richland board approves alternative education
The Pine-Richland School Board approved agreements with two alternative education services at the July 15 combined school board meeting.
Adelphoi Education's alternative education services and Your Educational Success program both were approved at a per diem cost of $72.75 for a regular education student and $80.10 for a special education student on an as-needed basis.
Mars Home for Youth Longmore Academy alternative education services were approved at a per diem rate of $80 for a regular education student and $85 for a special education student on an as-needed basis.
Both agreements are annual.
Last year, 24 students at Pine-Richland High School were placed in alternative education programs, including Longmore Academy and nine other programs, said Rachel Hathhorn, director of communications at Pine-Richland.
Six students were placed at Longmore Academy last year, Hathhorn said. Pine-Richland has had a relationship with Longmore since 2006.
No students attended Adelphoi last year or the previous year, but Hathhorn said the district has been ready to work with Adelphoi for the past three to four years.
If the district cannot provide services for a student, school officials will seek outside placement, Hathhorn said.
Some students have an individualized education plan, or IEP, that spells out the type of instruction the student needs and directs the district to the services they need.
Rachel Farkas is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. She can be reached at 724-779-6902 or firstname.lastname@example.org.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.