A few years ago I gave a talk on simplifying behavior interventions. Afterward, a professor came up to me, frustrated. In his view, I was telling people to write less than a full, textbook behavior plan.
I understood where he was coming from. But I dug my feet in a little harder that day, and I still hold the same position:
A technically perfect plan that sits in a binder in someone's desk is far less useful than a simplified plan that gets followed and makes progress.
Here is why.
We learn to write plans in ideal conditions
In a university course or in supervision, you write the whole plan as carefully as you can. That is exactly right for learning the skill.
What often gets skipped is the next step: now that you know how to write a plan, write one under real conditions.
Schools are far from ideal conditions, and they keep changing. Class sizes have grown. The students in front of us look different than they did five, ten, and fifteen years ago. Research on contextual fit, including Robert Horner's work, makes the point clearly: even technically sound behavior plans are unlikely to be carried out with reasonable fidelity if they are not written in a way someone else can actually do.
The three things that kill implementation
1. Complexity. Too many steps, too many rules, too many exceptions. If a teacher cannot hold the plan in their head, they will not run it in the moment.
2. Resource demands. The plan needs a second adult, a separate space, a special set of materials, or ten minutes that do not exist.
3. Misalignment. The plan does not match the teacher's style, the classroom routines, the culture of the school, or the values of the family.
Notice that none of these are about whether the strategy works. They are about whether it can happen.
The intervention that works is the one that happens
Think of Cinderella and the glass slipper. The slipper was beautiful. It was only the right slipper because it fit one foot.
A behavior plan is the same. It does not matter how lovely it is if it does not fit the person who has to wear it all day.
Same function, very different plans
Two students can engage in the same behavior for the same reason and need very different plans.
Say both students leave their seats to escape hard work. In a self-contained room with a small group and several adults, the plan can include structured break cards, frequent individual reinforcement, and a staff member who can step in right away.
In a general education room with 32 students, one teacher, and a tight schedule, that same plan would not survive the week. There, the plan might be one visible choice, one short break routine, and one quiet check-in.
Same function. Different plan. Both correct, because each one fits its room.
Add one step between the FBA and the BIP
We usually go straight from "here is why the behavior happens" to "here is the plan." I add a step in between:
Ask what this team can actually do.
Four questions I ask before I write anything:
Who will be running this, and what is their day like?
What do they already do that works? Start there.
What is the smallest version of this plan that would still address the function?
What would make this easy to keep doing in March?
The answers shape the plan. Sometimes they cut half of what I would have written. The plan gets better every time.
If you remember one thing: a plan the team can actually do beats a perfect plan the team cannot.
Want a plan that fits your classroom, not a textbook? Learn more about School-Based Consulting or try BIP Architect, a free tool that helps you build a plan to fit a real setting. I offer a free 15-minute consultation if you want to talk it through.
Casey Gressmen, MBA, MEd, BCBA, LBA, is a licensed special education teacher and board certified behavior analyst and the founder of Phoenix Rising Behavior and Academic Consulting.
