The Point Card That Isn't Working

Function: escape. The behavior occurs almost exclusively during independent writing, follows a demand, and reliably terminates the demand-Darius leaves the room and completes no work. That is negative reinforcement. A secondary payoff is likely adult attention in the counselor's office, which is quiet and exclusive compared with a class of 29.

Why the BIP fails-four reasons, all fixable:

1. It is not function-based. Staying seated is reinforced, but the plan never teaches a way to obtain a break or help, and never addresses the aversive task itself. Darius's only efficient escape route remains the one the plan ignores.
2. The schedule is misaligned with the behavior. Points accrue every 10 minutes, but the crisis occurs in the first minutes of writing, so he rarely reaches a point at all. With 8 of 25 points a day, reinforcement is essentially unavailable.
3. The reinforcer is age-inappropriate and remote. A school-store token economy at 25 points is a weak contingency for a seventh grader who finds the card stigmatizing.
4. Escaping still works. Leaving produces exactly the outcome he wants, so the reinforcement for the problem behavior vastly outweighs the reinforcement for staying.

A plan that does not compete with a fast, reliable escape will lose every time.

Replacement behavior. Request a break or help using a card or a quiet hand signal, taught and rehearsed during low-demand times (homeroom, a preferred class) before it is expected during writing. It must be at least as efficient as walking out: honored within seconds, every time, in the first weeks.

Antecedent changes that reduce the demand's aversiveness:

• Break writing tasks into chunks with a visible checklist and a defined stopping point.
• Provide a pre-writing organizer and a model before independent work begins.
• Offer choice of topic, pen or keyboard, and seat.
• Give a brief 'start-up' check-in from the teacher within the first two minutes.

Consequence changes:

• Honor the requested break immediately, for a set time, with a required return to finish a reduced portion. Escape becomes available-through an appropriate route-but never results in zero work.
• When he leaves without asking, the counselor returns him within a few minutes to complete the reduced task, so leaving no longer pays.
• Reinforce with something a seventh grader values (preferred activity, music, time in a chosen setting) earned for work completion and for using the break card.

None of this requires the teacher to leave the room; the crisis plan replaces hallway pursuit with a call to the counselor.

Measure the behavior and its replacement, not impressions. The teacher already has a natural data point-she writes down the task anyway. The minimal system is two marks per language arts period: whether Darius used the break card, and whether he completed the reduced task. Total time on task is recorded only for the periods when an incident occurs.

Comparison data:

• Rate of elopements per week in language arts, against the six-week baseline of five referrals.
• Percentage of independent writing assignments completed.
• Break-card use per week-an increase is a success signal early on, not a failure.

Fidelity check. A special education teacher or behavior specialist should observe two or three language arts periods to confirm the card is honored promptly and the task is actually chunked. Most BIP failures at this stage are implementation failures, not design failures.

Decision rule set in advance. If elopements fall and completed work rises, continue and begin thinning the reinforcement. If either is unchanged and fidelity was high, the hypothesis is wrong-return to the FBA, since the behavior may be maintained by attention rather than escape, and revise. Review at four weeks, not at the end of the semester.