A Critical Examination of State Agency Investigations into ...

weekend, his behavior was so bad, so it wasn't just the school…This carried right over tohome -- the change -- there is no doubt in our mind.”Entries in Jonathan’s personal communication logbook around this time revealedthe confusion that staff had over his casein-free diet. One employee wrote that Jonathanreceived milk for lunch and reminded staff to follow his casein-free diet. Another stafferresponded that Jonathan was drinking lactose-free milk. However, Jonathan should havebeen given soy milk, not lactose-free milk, which contains casein.On September 23, 2004, Anderson School staff launched a new Behavior SupportPlan. This plan reiterated the use of planned ignore and directed staff to ignore all ofJonathan’s bad behaviors, while attempting to redirect his focus to the task or activity athand. It also authorized staff to remove Jonathan from the classroom to a vacant roomwhen he disturbed other children in school. If he displayed maladaptive behaviors in theresidence, staff members were instructed to escort Jonathan to his bedroom. WhenJonathan was in his bedroom, the plan directed staff to remove all of his “reinforcers,”such as toys, books, and cars.Four days later, on September 27, 2004, nine clinical staffers at the AndersonSchool held a Team Problem Solving Meeting to discuss Jonathan’s extreme difficulties.At the meeting, staffers noted that Jonathan’s behaviors were preventing him from doingany work at school, where he was “targeting other students in the classroom” and werecausing problems in the residence and during home visits. The staff attributed some ofJonathan’s negative behaviors to attention-seeking and defiance. That afternoon, forexample, Jonathan required a two-person escort from the school to the residence, where62