Abstract
A wave of panic washed over Ms. Montrose as she realized her student Don was gone. She could not find him anywhere on the playground. Don had run away from supervised areas before; however, he ran away from the classroom or the group only when walking through the hallway. In these situations, school personnel typically found him rifling through the candy jar in the main office, taking snacks from the cafeteria snack bar, or helping himself to a treat from the treasure box in Mr. Todd’s classroom. Ms. Montrose sent her two classroom paraprofessionals to check those locations while she quickly ran the perimeter of the fenced-in playground area. When she reached the far end of the playground, she spotted Don. He had scaled the playground fence, crossed a busy street, and was walking into a nearby convenience store. Although finding Don relieved Ms. Montrose’s immediate distress, she remained extremely concerned about her ability to safely supervise him during his school day. She brought this concern to the school administration and was warned that if she could not predict or control his running off, there would be no choice but to recommend a more restrictive placement. Ms. Montrose was determined to get a handle on Don’s elopement; she did not want to risk losing all the progress he had made in the classroom. However, Ms. Montrose did not know where to begin. If only she understood why Don eloped, maybe she could develop a plan that would decrease his dangerous behavior.
Elopement occurs when an individual runs away from or leaves a supervised area (Boyle & Adamson, 2017). Approximately 34% of individuals diagnosed with intellectual and developmental disabilities and about 49% of individuals diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder have eloped (Anderson et al., 2012; Kiely, Migdal, Vettam, & Adesman, 2016). When individuals elope from a supervised area, they are more likely to be involved in traffic-related injuries or drowning incidents, or have parents and teachers unable to locate them (Piazza et al., 1997; Shavelle, Strauss, & Pickett, 2001). Elopement can be separated into two forms: wandering or goal-directed elopement. Wandering is moving away from a supervised area at a slow pace without clear direction, whereas goal-directed elopement, also called bolting, fleeing, or running away, is running or darting either away from a nonpreferred setting or toward a preferred setting. Due to the inherent risks related in the latter, we specifically address goal-directed elopement, using the general term elopement hereafter.
When individuals elope from a supervised area, they are more likely to be involved in traffic-related injuries or drowning incidents, or have parents and teachers unable to locate them.
Short-Term Preventive Methods
The intervention process for elopement may take several days or weeks to complete. In the interim, teachers can use preventive measures, such as security devices, notification devices, or location-signaling devices, to prevent elopement from occurring. It is best to coordinate with parents and school administrators to implement these short-term responses.
One common method of preventing elopement is to secure exits with locks that the student cannot reach or cannot easily manipulate (Fisher, Rodriguez, Luczynski, & Kelley, 2013). Teachers may close classroom doors, position their desk near the door, or place the desk of the student who elopes across the classroom from the door. Teachers may also assign a classroom paraprofessional to be within a few feet of the student or the door at all times. It may be prudent for teachers to place alarms, bells, or other notification devices on their classroom door or other points of exit to notify them when a student has eloped. In some cases it may be appropriate for children at risk for elopement to wear a location-signaling device that can facilitate the quick and safe retrieval of the student should elopement occur (for examples, see Autism Speaks, 2012). It is important for teachers to work closely with parents and with school administrators when considering these and other methods for preventing elopement. Although each of the aforementioned strategies can help prevent elopement, fire code, practical concerns, and parental concerns may render some of these methods impractical for some classrooms. In addition, preventive strategies may not reduce how often a student will try to elope (Fisher et al., 2013).
Why Elopement Occurs
In order to develop an effective treatment for a student’s elopement, it is necessary to understand the reason for its occurrence. In order to do so, the teacher must identify the reinforcer(s) maintaining this problematic behavior, which will allow for better prediction of when elopement is and is not likely to occur. Decades of research in the field of applied behavior analysis have demonstrated the effectiveness of functional behavior assessments (FBAs; including functional analyses [FAs]). FBAs consist of collecting descriptive data about the concerning problem behavior. For example, when using antecedent-behavior-consequence (ABC) data collection, a teacher observes and records what occurs immediately before (antecedent) and immediately following (consequence) each instance of elopement in a given period of time. As a subcategory of FBAs, FAs directly manipulate the antecedent and consequence surrounding each instance of behavior. By manipulating these variables, FAs can help teachers identify the functional relation responsible for maintaining problematic behavior, thus increasing the likelihood of developing an effective, function-based intervention (see Lewis, Hatton, Jorgenson, & Maynard, 2017, for an overview of FBAs).
Elopement typically occurs for one or more of the following reasons: (a) gaining access to preferred items or activities (e.g., a student eloping to a playground), (b) gaining access to preferred types of attention (e.g., a student eloping in order to be chased by a teacher), (c) escaping or avoiding nonpreferred activities or instructions (e.g., a student eloping from desk to get away from work), or (d) for sensory stimulation (e.g., student eloping produces tactile and visual stimuli; see Table 1 for a summary of the reasons why a student might elope). Recently, Boyle and Adamson (2017) conducted a systematic review of the assessment and treatment of elopement literature and identified 12 studies. The authors found that over half of the cases of elopement proved sensitive to social reinforcement in the form of either access to tangible items (60%) or access to attention (55%). In the remainder of the cases, elopement was reinforced either by negative reinforcement in the form of escape (25%) or by automatic reinforcement (10%). One interesting finding of the review was that in 45% of the cases, more than one source of reinforcement maintained elopement (i.e., the individuals engaged in multiply-maintained elopement). For example, if a student’s elopement proved to be maintained by reinforcement in the form of access to attention and access to tangible items, it would be multiply maintained elopement. Teachers are important contributors to the social environment, and given that the majority of elopement cases are sensitive to social reinforcement, teachers are in a unique position to alter this environment in ways that decrease the occurrence of elopement and other forms of problematic behavior.
Teachers are important contributers to the social environment, and. . . are in a unique position to alter this environment in ways that decrease the occurrence of elopement.
Potential Functions of Elopement With Examples
Keys to Assessing Elopement
Functional-assessment procedures have evolved over the years as research continues to improve the efficiency of accurately identifying the reinforcers responsible for maintaining elopement (Lang et al., 2009; Neidert, Iwata, Dempsey, & Thomason-Sassi, 2013). Developing, conducting, and reviewing the results of an assessment of elopement require a step-by-step process.
Step 1: Developing a Data Collection System
In order to assess elopement, it is important to first define it in observable and measurable terms. For example, elopement may be operationalized as exiting the classroom door without permission or stepping two or more feet away from the line during group transitions. Once the educational team identifies a clear definition of elopement, it can begin the FBA. FBAs may include indirect assessments, such as rating scales, parent or teacher interviews, or structured observations (e.g., ABC data collection). The results of these assessments provide some preliminary information regarding the conditions under which elopement might and might not occur. This information is useful in that it can help teachers identify situations or types of reinforcers to include in an FA. Indirect assessments and structured observations can also be useful when treating other, less problematic behaviors (e.g., talking out of turn). Although the poor reliability and poor validity of indirect assessments and structured observations may result in the identification of inaccurate functions of problem behavior (Kelley, LaRue, Roane, & Gadaire, 2011), indirect assessments, such as the Questions About Behavioral Function scale (QABF; Matson & Vollmer, 1995) can be helpful when used to determine conditions to include in an FA. For example, the QABF is a 25-item questionnaire designed to identify the variables that serve to maintain problem behavior. These variables could be social attention, escape, tangible reinforcement, physical discomfort, or nonsocial reinforcement. Professionals who work with the student most often should complete the QABF by scoring how often each statement applies to their student (i.e., never [0], rarely [1], some [2], or often [3]; see Matson & Vollmer, 1995, for a full-page version of the QABF). Once completed, the teacher then transfers the scores from each statement to the subscale columns and sums the scores to calculate the five subscale scores. A score of 6 or higher on any subscale indicates that the subscale should be included in the student’s FA. If the “physical discomfort” or “nonsocial reinforcement” categories of the QABF receive similar scores in item endorsement or a total severity score of 6 or higher, consulting with a Board Certified Behavior Analyst™ (BCBA) may be necessary.
After reading through the 25 questions on the QABF and scoring each question, Ms. Montrose totaled the items endorsed for Don’s elopement and summed each of the subscales. She identified that attention had been endorsed for four of five questions with a subscale score of 8, escape had been endorsed for one of five questions with a subscale score of 1, tangible had been endorsed for five of five questions with a subscale score of 12, and nonsocial and physical pain were not endorsed at all. Therefore, Ms. Montrose decided that she would include FA trials for attention and tangible items because those were the only subscales that had a score of at least 6 or higher. Next, Ms. Montrose needed to figure out how these trials would be arranged, where they would be conducted, and when she would have time to implement them.
Step 2: Conducting a Trial-Based FA
Recent research on FA methodology has demonstrated that trial-based FAs are ideal for school settings because they are efficient and allow for flexibility (Kodak, Grow, & Northup, 2004; Lambert, Finley, & Caruthers, 2017; Neidert et al., 2013). Each trial in a trial-based FA lasts between 30 seconds and 4 minutes and can be embedded within naturally occurring activities. These features make it manageable for teachers to conduct the assessment without requiring much assistance. When elopement occurs, the trial-based format of a trial-based FA eliminates the requirement to retrieve and reset the student multiple times, reducing the likelihood of attention confounding the assessment results (Piazza et al., 1997).
To start a trial-based FA, the teacher sets up different types of trials based on the results of the QABF. Each trial starts with the control period, wherein the teacher will arrange the environment to minimize motivation for elopement, which is not expected to occur. Following a prespecified amount of time (i.e., 2 minutes), the teacher initiates the test period by arranging the environment to maximize motivation for elopement, which should trigger elopement if the QABF has accurately identified the reinforcing consequence(s). The teacher will complete each trial type identified in the QABF at least three times but will continue with a given trial type until the student does not elope in the control period of the trial for three consecutive trials.
Tangible trial
For the tangible trial, the teacher provides the student with free access to preferred items or activities for 2 minutes during the control period and restricts these items by placing them away from the child during the test period. If the student attempts to elope to the area with the preferred items or activities, the teacher allows the student to do so and will score this as an occurrence of elopement (+) on the data sheet (see Figure 1 for a sample data sheet). If the student does not attempt to elope, the teacher continues with the transition and scores this as a non-occurrence of elopement (–).
Sample trial-based functional analysis data sheet
Attention trial
For the attention trial, the teacher provides the student with free access to high-quality attention for 2 minutes during the control period and removes the high-quality attention during the test period. If the student attempts to elope from the teacher, the teacher allows the student to do so; however, the teacher playfully chases the child while providing high-quality attention and scores this as an occurrence of elopement (+) on the data sheet. If the student does not attempt to elope, the teacher continues with the transition and scores this as a non-occurrence of elopement (–).
Escape trial
For the escape trial, the teacher provides the student with free access to a break from an instructional context for 2 minutes during the control period and requests that the student transition back to the instructional context to work during the test period. If the student attempts to elope from the teacher, the teacher allows the student to do so and scores this as an occurrence of elopement (+) on the data sheet. If the student does not attempt to elope, the teacher continues with the transition back to the instructional context, delivers instructions for 2 minutes, and scores this as a non-occurrence of elopement (–).
When assessing elopement, it is paramount that the variables the teacher arranges during the test and control periods are available only at the specified times. When assessing whether elopement is sensitive to the conditions that the teacher sets up in the test condition, elopement should produce the programmed reinforcer in the test period of the corresponding trial, and only the programmed reinforcer. For example, when assessing whether attention reinforces elopement, it is important to ensure the individual does not contact preferred tangible items during the test trials. In addition, when assessing whether access to preferred tangible items reinforces elopement, it is important to ensure the individual does not contact preferred forms of attention. Finally, when assessing whether escape from instructions reinforces elopement, it is important to ensure the individual does not contact either preferred tangible items or attention.
Ensuring adequate control over these variables can be difficult in a naturalistic setting, like the classroom. Therefore, consider some additional approaches when assessing and treating elopement in a school setting. First, safety should always be of the utmost concern. Strategically arranging the environment to prevent elopement into unsafe areas can be accomplished by restricting access to unnecessary pathways, placing individuals at designated exits, or using two-way radios to facilitate communication. Second, teachers must prevent access to temporarily restricted and perhaps highly preferred areas of the school and materials. When elopement is reinforced by escape from nonpreferred instructions, we suggest using instructional materials that can be easily transported (e.g., worksheets on a clipboard).
Ms. Montrose decided that a great time to conduct one of the tangible trials would be during snack time in the cafeteria. Therefore, she brought Don to the cafeteria, let him pick out a small snack, and gave him time to consume it (i.e., control period). Following 2 minutes of consuming the snack, Ms. Montrose recorded that Don did not attempt to elope and scored this as a non-occurrence during the control period (–). Next, Ms. Montrose walked over to Don, removed his snack, placed it on the table, took his hand, and said, “It’s time to leave; walk with me” to initiate the tangible-trial test period. Ms. Montrose and Don started to walk from the snack bar to her classroom (from Location 1 to Location 2 on the diagram in Figure 2). During this test period, Don eloped back to his unfinished snack in the cafeteria (Location 1), and Ms. Montrose allowed him to finish his snack and scored an occurrence of elopement during the test period (+). Ms. Montrose conducted two more trials, transitioning from the candy jar in main office (Location 3) to the hallway (Location 4) and from the treasure box in Mr. Todd’s classroom (Location 5) to the hallway (Location 6) and observed occurrences of elopement during each test period and zero occurrences during the control period (see data and graph presented in Figure 3).
Sample diagram for how to set up and conduct functional analyses in a school
Hypothetical functional-analysis data and graph for Don
When conducting the attention trials, Ms. Montrose arranged the attention control period by providing Don with access to her undivided attention for 2 minutes while walking from one end of the hallway to the midpoint of the hallway (from Location 6 to Location 4). Once they arrived at the midpoint (Location 4), Ms. Montrose continued walking to the other end of the hallway (Location 7); however, she stopped interacting with Don, pretended to be “busy” with work on a clipboard. For the attention-trial test period, she said, “I need to do a little work. Keep walking with me” (Location 4 to Location 7). During the first attention trial, Don actually engaged in an occurrence of elopement during the control period and did not engage in any elopement during the subsequent test period. When this occurred, Ms. Montrose did not comment or run after him but scored this as an occurrence of elopement during the control (+) and scored a non-occurrence during the test (–). Ms. Montrose conducted three more trials, transitioning from the front entrance of the school (Location 7) to Ms. Garcia’s classroom (Location 8) and twice from the gymnasium (Location 9) to the other end of the hallway (Location 7). During the second test period in the hallway (from Location 9 to Location 7), Don engaged in an occurrence of elopement, and Ms. Montrose immediately chased after him and said, “That’s not safe, Don! You need to walk with me.” She provided him with high-quality attention for the remainder of the test period. However, when Ms. Montrose conducted this trial again in an attempt to replicate the previous effect, Don did not engage in elopement. After Ms. Montrose finished conducting the attention trials and recording Don’s responses on the data sheet (see Figure 3), she needed to review the data she collected to determine why Don was engaging in elopement.
Step 3: Analyzing the Trial-Based FA Data
To analyze the results of the FA trials, the teacher graphs the total number of trials with problem behavior from the control and test periods. These data are typically displayed in a bar graph to allow for easy visual inspection. Specifically, the trial types for which the frequency of elopement is higher during the test as compared with the control will indicate a function of elopement. In order to compare frequency, it is important to ensure that the teacher conducts an equal number of control and test trials for each trial type (e.g., three tangible-trial control and test conditions; four attention-trial control and test conditions).
After Ms. Montrose calculated the total frequency of the data that she collected, she put these results into a bar graph. Overall, Don eloped during three of the three tangible test periods as compared with zero of the three tangible control periods and one of the four attention test periods as compared with one of the four attention control periods. These data suggest that Don engages in elopement to access preferred tangible items. Ms. Montrose will now use these results to inform her intervention selection.
Assessment-Informed Intervention
It is important that the intervention for students’ elopement matches the reason they are engaging in elopement, which is called a function-based treatment. If teachers use a treatment that does not match the reason the student engages in elopement, they not only waste time on an ineffective treatment but also risk the possibility of making elopement worse. Therefore, teachers should use the results from the trial-based FA to inform the student’s intervention.
Step 1: Identifying an Appropriate Intervention
Once the reason for elopement is known, the teacher will teach the student a more appropriate alternative response for accessing the functional reinforcer in order to prevent future instances of elopement from contacting reinforcement (i.e., extinction). If the assessment produces unclear results or the teacher did not conduct the assessment because the QABF suggested that elopement was maintained by nonsocial reinforcement or physical discomfort (i.e., automatic reinforcement), developing an intervention will likely be time-consuming and challenging to complete in a classroom setting. Under these circumstances, we recommend seeking assistance from a BCBA who has experience in conducting FAs and developing interventions for problematic behavior maintained by automatic reinforcement.
Once the reason for elopement is known, the teacher will teach the student a more appropriate alternative response for accessing the functional reinforcer.
Because Ms. Montrose determined that Don elopes to gain access to preferred tangible items, she intended to teach him an appropriate way to request those items. In addition, Ms. Montrose planned to program multiple opportunities throughout each day for Don to request and access these items. If Don attempted to elope to access these items at other times, Ms. Montrose and other school personnel would do their best to prevent these attempts from producing access to Don’s preferred tangible items. In order to make sure all of the school personnel are on the same page and that the procedures are implemented consistently, Ms. Montrose planned on writing a protocol, training relevant school personnel, and preparing materials necessary for successfully implementing the intervention.
Step 2: Implementing the Intervention
Functional communication training (FCT) is a commonly used intervention that focuses on teaching the student to request the reinforcer that is responsible for elopement while no longer allowing elopement to produce its reinforcer. FCT reduces the rates of socially reinforced problem behavior by an average of 96% (Greer, Fisher, Saini, Owen, & Jones, 2016). Results of the trial-based assessment will determine whether to teach the student to request (a) access to preferred items, (b) access to preferred forms of attention, (c) escape from nonpreferred activities, or (d) a combination of these variables. If the student’s elopement is maintained by two or more functions, the teacher can combine the functional reinforcers. (e.g., earning a break with a preferred item, earning a break to talk with peers, or waiting for attention and preferred items).
Prior to conducting a teaching session, teachers can create a communication card that the student can easily exchange and will immediately result in access to the functional reinforcer (refer to Figure 4 for examples of various communication cards). Teachers can use any one of a number of available strategies to create these cards; however, we are going to share our preferred method. First, the teacher takes a picture of the student engaging in or with the functional reinforcer. That is, the communication card includes a picture of the child gaining access to (a) a preferred tangible item, (b) a preferred form of attention, or (c) a break from a nonpreferred activity, depending on which one of these events reinforces their elopement. Second, the teacher prints these photos (preferably in color) and pastes them on a small index card (e.g., 7.6 cm by 12.7 cm). Third, words describing the reinforcer are written on the card (e.g., Snacks, please; Play, please; or Break, please). Fourth, the teacher laminates the card to make it durable. Making multiple copies of the card is recommended in case one is lost, is damaged, or becomes worn. Picture cards are recommended over vocal speech for the initial stages of FCT because the teacher can physically guide the student to communicate, whereas vocal speech cannot be guided and the student may choose to elope instead of requesting what is wanted (DeRosa, Fisher, & Steege, 2015; Fisher et al., 2018). If the student reliably and independently uses vocal speech or another form of alternative and augmentative communication, the teacher may respond to the student’s communication in the same way as a card exchange as long as all members of the student’s educational team do this consistently. The teacher will conduct training under conditions that are similar to the test period for the identified function from the trial-based FA.
Sample functional communication cards
Ms. Montrose began her teaching session by offering Don a small snack. Following 30 seconds of access, she told him, “Snack is all done; it’s time to leave,” took his hand, and stood up. However, at the same time, Ms. Montrose also guided Don’s hand to exchange the communication card and immediately let him access his unfinished snack again while saying, “Great handing me the card. You can finish your snack.” Ms. Montrose continued to implement trials in this fashion; however, because Don seemed to pick up on it quickly and did not engage in elopement, Ms. Montrose began to wait several seconds before she prompted Don to exchange the card. After just a few trials, Don independently and efficiently exchanged the card each time Ms. Montrose indicated it was time to leave. Once Don demonstrated that he could independently exchange the communication card for 20 trials across several days and contexts (e.g., classroom, main office), Ms. Montrose was ready to work on teaching delay tolerance.
Step 3: Teaching Delay Tolerance
Once the appropriate alternative response is taught and occurs regularly, the goal is to maintain low levels of elopement while making the intervention more manageable by decreasing how often the reinforcer is delivered for the communication response. Specifically, the teacher will begin to program situations in which the student must wait a predetermined and signaled amount of time before the student can request the functional reinforcer (Hagopian, Boelter, & Jarmolowicz, 2011; Hanley, Iwata, & Thompson, 2001). Once the student can tolerate the initial delay (i.e., 2 seconds), the teacher will systematically increase the delays (see Table 2 for a list of progressively increasing delay intervals). The teacher will ensure that increases to the delays follow at least two trials without elopement but with independent communication when the functional reinforcer is available and is signaled as such. In order to teach delay tolerance, the teacher will continue to establish motivation for the reinforcer, as was done in the test period of the relevant trial type in the trial-based FA. However, the teacher will promote appropriate communication by having the communication card present and will teach delay tolerance with the use of a colored signal card to let the student know when a request can be made and when waiting needs to occur. A laminated two-sided card (e.g., one side red [wait signal], the other side green [request signal]) at least the size of an index card can be used (note: the teacher should select signals based on individual student needs). The teacher must prevent the student from eloping during the wait period and ensure that the student does not contact the functional reinforcer for elopement. When extinction entails preventing the student from accessing preferred tangible items or from accessing preferred types of attention, it is essential to ensure those preferred stimuli are withheld. Alternatively, when extinction entails preventing the student from eloping during instructional activities, it is essential to ensure the student never contacts a break from instruction following elopement (e.g., immediately retrieve the student, return the student to the instructional area, and simultaneously deliver instructions that can be completed while retrieving the student [e.g., “Touch your head,” “Spell cat,” “What is 1 plus 3?”]). If the student exchanges the card during the wait period, the teacher will not honor the request; rather, the teacher will reset the card and continue to prevent the student from eloping as well as prevent the student from accessing the functional reinforcer for elopement or for any other response. The teacher will add 3 seconds to the required wait time for each instance in which the student attempts to elope. The teacher will repeat this schedule until the student has been successful for three trials at the current wait time (i.e., student does not attempt to elope during the wait time and requests his preferred item or activity, attention, or break once the wait time elapses). Once these criteria are met, the teacher will increase the scheduled wait period according to the schedule of delays indicated in Table 2.
Schedule for Increasing Delays
Note. The wait-to-reinforcement interval progression described above is based on best-practice recommendations used by our clinical team, which are informed by the behavioral economic concept of unit price (Roane, Falcomata, & Fisher, 2007).
Ms. Montrose started the trial on green while Don had access to his snacks. After providing 30 seconds of access to the snacks, she flipped the card to red and simultaneously removed his snacks. Ms. Montrose said, “You’re on red. You need to wait,” while holding the red card in front of Don’s eyes so he could clearly see the signal. Don sometimes attempted to hand Ms. Montrose his snack card when his signal was on red. When this happened, Ms. Montrose did not say anything while setting the card down and again presenting the red card to Don. Sometimes Don attempted to elope to other areas with snacks when the signal was on red. However, Ms. Montrose did not allow Don to elope, did not comment on his elopement, and guided him back to the spot he eloped from using as little physical guidance as possible. Ms. Montrose discretely added 3 seconds to the amount of time Don had to wait each time he tried to elope, but she did not tell Don. After Don successfully waited for the desired wait time, Ms. Montrose said, “Nice waiting,” immediately flipped the signal to green, and prominently showed it to him. This time, when Don exchanged the communication card, Ms. Montrose immediately gave him access to his snack. This continued until Don successfully waited three consecutive times with the red signal displayed for 2 seconds at a time without attempting to elope and without attempting to hand Ms. Montrose his communication card during the wait period. When he met this goal, Ms. Montrose increased his wait time with the red signal to 4 seconds. After a few weeks of practicing many times each day, Ms. Montrose taught Don to wait for up to 10 minutes (and work while he was waiting) before earning a small snack.
Conclusion
Elopement is a dangerous behavior that requires diligence from school personnel in order to effectively reduce its occurrence. Using a step-by-step process to identify the reasons goal-directed elopement occurs and then implementing an intervention to effectively teach more appropriate ways to access those reinforcers can accomplish this. Teachers should always consult with school administration, parents, and other school personnel when dealing with dangerous behaviors, such as elopement. If teachers experience challenges or have questions during the process, a BCBA, who is proficient in conducting assessments of and developing treatments for elopement, can be consulted (select “Find a Certificant” at www.bacb.com), or feel free to contact the corresponding author of this article.
Teachers should always consult with school administration, parents, and other school personnel when dealing with dangerous behaviors, such as elopement.
Ms. Montrose quickly scanned the playground and could not locate Don. “Not again!” she thought. Just then, she felt a tug on the back of her jacket. It was Don, and he had been standing behind her waiting patiently with his communication card in hand. Ms. Montrose was wearing the red signal; however, the alarm on her watch went off to indicate that it had been 10 minutes. Therefore, she switched from the red signal to the green signal, and Don immediately extended his arm to exchange the communication card. Ms. Montrose accepted the card with a smile, took Don’s hand, and said, “Sure, bud. You can have a snack,” and they headed back into the school together.
