When the Plan Becomes the Priority
In schools, we have developed processes intended to ensure that students receive increasingly individualized behavioral support. Multi-tiered systems of support, functional behavior assessments (FBAs), and behavior intervention plans (BIPs) all have an important place.
But I sometimes wonder whether we have allowed the process to become more important than the intervention.
A student exhibits persistent challenging behavior. A teacher is directed to develop a behavior plan, identify a hypothesized function, select strategies, train classroom staff, collect data, and document intervention attempts.
The teacher may have strong classroom management skills and a genuine desire to help the student. However, that does not necessarily mean the teacher has the specialized training required to analyze complex behavior or develop effective, function-based interventions.
The result may be a plan filled with strategies that sound appropriate but have never been demonstrated to work for that student.
We have documentation. We have checked the boxes.
But do we have an effective intervention?
What If We Started With a Trained Eye?
As a behavior analyst and special educator, I have often found that meaningful intervention can begin much sooner than our systems allow.
A trained professional can enter a classroom, observe the student, examine instructional demands and environmental variables, speak with staff, and develop an initial hypothesis about the behavior.
In some cases, the likely function is relatively clear. In others, the most significant issue may not be uncertainty about behavioral function at all.
The student may lack prerequisite learning skills. Instruction may not be appropriately matched to current abilities. Reinforcement may be poorly arranged. Expectations may be unclear or inconsistent. Staff may unintentionally strengthen the very behavior they are attempting to reduce.
These are variables a trained professional can often identify and begin addressing quickly.
When circumstances are appropriate, I can sometimes develop an initial phase of programming within an hour of observing a student and working directly with them.
That does not mean the entire problem is solved in an hour. It means we have identified a reasonable starting point.
We can begin teaching.
We can observe the student's response.
We can adjust.
And, importantly, we can begin building a program around what is actually working.
Phase 1: Start Small, Teach, and Build
I believe we sometimes make behavioral intervention unnecessarily complicated from the beginning.
A formal plan may include numerous antecedent strategies, replacement behaviors, reinforcement systems, response procedures, data requirements, and staff responsibilities.
On paper, the plan appears comprehensive.
In practice, staff may struggle to understand it, remember the procedures, or implement them consistently while managing a classroom full of students.
What if we started with targeted intervention at Phase 1?
Perhaps the initial focus is establishing meaningful reinforcement, teaching a simple communication response, developing instructional cooperation, or creating a predictable routine in which the student can experience success.
We demonstrate the procedures with the student. We observe how the student responds. We refine what is not working.
Then we train classroom staff to implement the procedures that have shown promise.
As the student develops skills, we systematically add additional expectations, instructional targets, reinforcement contingencies, and opportunities for independence.
The program becomes more sophisticated as the student's skills develop and as staff demonstrate competence in implementation.
Rather than writing a complicated plan and hoping it works, we develop an effective intervention and document how to sustain it.
This does not eliminate the need for written procedures or data collection. Those should begin with the intervention. It changes the purpose of the documentation: to guide, evaluate, and replicate effective practice rather than merely demonstrate procedural compliance.
When Is a Formal FBA Necessary?
I strongly support functional behavior assessment. Understanding the variables influencing behavior is essential to responsible intervention.
But I question the assumption that every challenging behavior requires a lengthy formal FBA before meaningful intervention can begin.
There are circumstances in which a brief, skilled observation and assessment-informed intervention may provide enough information to initiate effective support that can begin immediately.
If the student responds positively, the intervention is feasible, and meaningful progress is demonstrated, that may be sufficient at that level of support.
Other situations require a more comprehensive assessment.
When the function is unclear, multiple variables appear to influence behavior, interventions are ineffective, or the behavior is complex, persistent, or dangerous, a formal FBA may be necessary to guide individualized treatment.
A formal FBA may also be required under applicable special education law, district procedures, or an IEP team's decisions, regardless of whether an initial hypothesis seems apparent.
My concern is not with conducting FBAs when they are needed or required.
It is with treating a BIP as the first approach when the BIP is merely a box to check, developed by inadequately trained staff, and expected to implemented before more practical and effective supports are available. A formal assessment as the automatic first response or only after boxes are checked rather than when the immediate need may be skilled consultation, direct teaching, and implementation support.
We should use the level of assessment necessary to make sound decisions, not assume that more paperwork always produces better intervention.
The Cost of Waiting
Time matters.
While a team is completing forms, attempting poorly designed interventions, collecting data that may not meaningfully inform decisions, or waiting for the next procedural step, the behavior continues.
And behavior does not remain static while we wait.
Repeated patterns of reinforcement may strengthen challenging behavior. Students may lose valuable instructional opportunities. Peers may experience disruptions or unsafe situations. Teachers and support staff may become increasingly overwhelmed.
Most importantly, students may continue experiencing frustration, distress, exclusion, or other preventable harm.
This is not an argument for rushing into poorly considered interventions.
It is an argument for getting qualified professionals involved early enough to make informed decisions and begin appropriate support.
For serious safety concerns, immediate protective measures and prompt specialized assessment may need to occur simultaneously.
A system intended to ensure that students receive support should not unintentionally prolong the very difficulties it is designed to address.
Teachers Need Coaching, Not Another Document
Teachers should not be expected to become behavior analysts simply because a student in their classroom exhibits challenging behavior.
Their expertise in instruction, classroom routines, and student relationships is essential. But when specialized behavioral support is needed, they deserve access to that expertise.
Imagine a different model.
A highly trained behavior specialist visits the classroom, observes the student, and collaborates with the teacher to identify an initial intervention.
The specialist demonstrates the procedures directly with the student.
The teacher and support staff observe, practice, and receive feedback.
Together, the team determines what is feasible, what is effective, and what requires adjustment.
A concise written plan captures the procedures, data measures, responsibilities, and criteria for making changes.
The specialist returns to monitor progress and coach staff as the intervention develops.
This is not simply consultation. It is capacity building.
The goal is not for the behavior specialist to become indispensable. It is to develop staff competence so effective interventions can be implemented consistently and sustained over time.
Often, we believe this may be exactly what is happening but in reality it is not. Several gaps exist that give an illusion of systematic intervention and training.
The Plan Should Follow the Learning
Effective behavioral intervention requires the willingness to observe, question assumptions, and adjust our approach.
Sometimes we need a comprehensive assessment before we can confidently determine the path forward.
Sometimes we need to begin with a carefully selected intervention, observe what happens, and use that information to guide the next step.
And sometimes the most important intervention is not changing the student's behavior directly, but changing the environment, instruction, or contingencies that influence it.
We should not confuse the completion of a behavior plan with the delivery of effective behavioral support.
A behavior intervention plan should describe a thoughtful, individualized approach that staff understand, can implement, and can evaluate - not simply document strategies.
Perhaps it is time to reconsider our starting point.Instead of asking, "Has the teacher completed and implemented a behavior plan?"What if we asked:
"Has someone with the appropriate expertise worked with this student, identified a reasonable starting point, and helped the team implement something that is actually working?"
That is where meaningful behavioral intervention begins.
And that is how we move from checking boxes to changing outcomes.
