A Critical Examination of State Agency Investigations into ...

directions to dress, the Executive Director replied, “The expectations regardingparticipation in dressing and mealtime routines contained in the BSP [Behavior SupportPlan] were based on Jonathan’s identified progress in these areas during the prior year.”Anderson School maintained that when Jonathan began to demonstrate instability, they“requested a meeting of the family and CSE [Committee for Special Education],” whichtook place on October 14, 2004. “Additional collaboration and discussion betweenAnderson School, the family and the CSE was scheduled to continue until a revisedprogram plan for Jonathan could be jointly agreed upon.” However, the ExecutiveDirector added, this did not occur due to Jonathan’s “abrupt discharge” from theAnderson School by the Careys.The Executive Director also disputed the Taconic regional office’s finding thatJonathan’s Behavior Support Plan did not incorporate positive reinforcement toencourage desirable behaviors. He cited the September 27, 2004, Behavior Support Plan,which stated that, “Jonathan will be reinforced on a continuous reinforcement schedule(CRS) where he should receive an enormous amount of attention for using functionalcommunication properly and for the absence of maladaptive behaviors,” and the October20, 2004 proposed Behavior Support Plan which read, “Jonathan is on a [ continuousreinforcement schedule] where he should be given edible reinforcement every twentyseconds coupled with a tremendous amount of exuberant praise.”The Anderson School rebutted the Taconic regional office’s conclusion that theAnderson School intended to suspend the Careys’ contact with Jonathan and designate asingle contact person, without their consent, by stating that, “Anderson School neversuspended contact between Jonathan and his family.” The Executive Director111