1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32 | (Page 2)
As part of the investigation, LPA Lucero conducted interviews with the RP, five (5) staff members, and three (3) parents.
The Reporting Party (RP) alleged that Child #1 (C1) frequently engaged in aggressive behaviors, including biting, hitting, and scratching other children on multiple occasions. RP expressed concern that the facility was not following appropriate protocols regarding potential termination or disenrollment of C1 due to the frequency of these behaviors and, as a result, was not adequately preventing injuries to other children.
During staff interviews, staff reported they were aware of C1’s recurring behaviors. Staff also stated that these behaviors reportedly began when C1 was enrolled in the infant classroom and continued as C1 progressed to older classrooms. According to staff, the behaviors included biting, scratching, pushing, and pulling other children’s hair. Staff indicated that C1 did not appear to target specific children; rather, any child who crossed paths with C1 could potentially be injured. Staff explained that these incidents often occurred when a child walked in front of C1 or took an item belonging to C1, such as a crayon or marker.
Staff reported that they had observed these incidents; however, because they were also responsible for supervising and caring for the other children in the classroom, they felt it was difficult to intervene before the behaviors occurred. Staff indicated that C1 appeared to require constant or individualized attention, which they believed might have been possible if an additional staff member had been present in the classroom or if C1 had been supported by a personal Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA) therapist.
Staff further disclosed that, after a period of time, C1 was moved to an older classroom due to repeated incidents in which C1 caused injuries to Child #2 (C2). Staff stated that C1’s behaviors continued in the new classroom but appeared to decrease slightly. Staff expressed the opinion that, based on the number of incidents involving C1, the child should have been placed on a behavior intervention plan and, if the behaviors did not improve, should have been disenrolled due to posing a safety risk to other children.
(continue to page 3)
|