Rethinking One-on-One Support: Moving From Blanket Minutes to Intentional Independence

One-on-one support is often seen as the most protective and supportive service we can offer students with extensive support needs. In my work, however, I have found that when support is provided without clear intention, it can sometimes limit the very independence we are trying to build. In this post, I share how I use schedule analysis and data to take a closer look at when one-on-one support is truly necessary, when it can be shared, and how we can intentionally plan for fading support over time. This approach is not about taking services away. It is about being thoughtful, precise, and accountable in how we design support so students can grow safely, meaningfully, and with dignity.

Recently, I took on a new type of assessment within my district that we refer to as intensive individual services. This is the process used to determine when a student, through their IEP, qualifies for one-on-one adult support. As a BCBA, I naturally approach this work with a high level of analysis. The core question is not simply does a student need support, but rather when, where, and why does a student need one-on-one

support throughout their day.

After reviewing multiple frameworks, it became clear that there are three primary pathways through which a student qualifies for one-on-one assistance. The first is instructional engagement. What level of support does the student need to access and participate in instruction? The second is behavioral. Are there behaviors of concern that require a staff member to implement a behavior support plan with a specific level of prompting, redirection, and reinforcement? The third is medical. Does the student have complex medical needs such as positioning, feeding, transfers, or medical equipment that require consistent adult assistance?

For the purpose of this discussion, I am not focusing on the medical model. When a student requires medical support, the need for one-on-one assistance is typically clear and non-negotiable. Instructional and behavioral needs, however, are far more nuanced and require careful analysis.

As with many assessments, this process includes interviews, rating scales, rubrics, and direct observations. One component that has become central to my practice is the schedule analysis. This has proven to be one of the most meaningful and informative parts of the assessment.

In special education settings, especially in social-emotional programs and extensive support needs programs, additional adult support often feels like the safest and most helpful option. Within my district, we still operate across a full continuum of services, including special day classrooms. We also hold the belief that a one-on-one adult in a general education setting can actually be more restrictive than a smaller, structured special day classroom with lower staff-to-student ratios but fewer one-on-one assignments.

Historically, our district, like many others, relied on a blanket model: if a student qualified for one-on-one support, it was written as full-day support, often 360 minutes per day.

While this model feels straightforward, it creates significant challenges. It rarely specifies why the support is needed, it often leads to prompt dependency, and most importantly, it offers no clear pathway for fading support over time.

When a one-on-one is assigned all day, every day, across all settings, how do we ever move toward independence?

My approach has shifted toward analyzing the entire school day in detail. During arrival, does the student need someone directly next to them for safety or mobility? During unpacking, how many prompts are required? In whole group instruction, does the student need constant proximity, or would periodic check-ins suffice? During small group rotations, is one-on-one truly necessary, or can instruction be delivered effectively in a one-to-two or one-to-three ratio?

In special day classrooms, small group instruction is where learning thrives. Yet small group does not automatically mean one-on-one. Many students can learn alongside peers with shared staff support. Throughout the day, there are also natural opportunities for independence during breaks, toileting routines, and structured play.

The same analysis applies to recess, lunch, and transitions. A student who elopes or lacks safety awareness may require one-on-one support outdoors, but that need should be paired with IEP goals that teach safe transitions and outline how support will fade over time.

This level of analysis allows us to be precise. We are no longer asking whether a student needs support, but identifying the exact contexts in which that support is essential versus when it may actually hinder independence.

In theory, this approach made perfect sense. In practice, one challenge caught me completely off guard: parent response.

When I presented schedule analyses and proposed ratios instead of full-day one-on-one minutes, many parents struggled with the idea. Even after observing their child successfully rotate in one-to-two or one-to-three settings, the fear remained. Reducing minutes felt like reducing safety, reducing support, or taking something away that their child might need.

And that fear is understandable.

What became critical was reframing the conversation. This is not about removing support. It is about prescribing support with intention. All students, at any point in the day, may need redirection, reminders, clarification, or one-on-one check-ins. In an extensive support needs program, however, the long-term goal is for students to learn to cue into their environment, follow classroom routines, respond to natural cues, and require fewer prompts over time.

Independence does not happen by accident. It must be explicitly taught.

To support this, I began writing IEP goals directly tied to independence and fading adult support. These goals addressed proximity, prompting levels, engagement duration, and safe transitions. I created data sheets and phased fading plans so decisions were always data-informed. Support was never reduced arbitrarily or for cost-saving purposes. The goal was, and always is, to avoid both over-servicing and under-servicing students.

Another important shift was ensuring that IEPs included clear criteria for when support should temporarily increase again. If safety concerns re-emerged or data showed regression, support could be immediately adjusted. This helped families understand that fading support was not a one-way door.

Interestingly, this framework has received strong positive feedback from staff. Clear expectations, defined roles, and data-based decisions reduce burnout and confusion. Everyone knows when to step in, when to step back, and what progress actually looks like.

Most importantly, this assessment process allows parents to see growth, even when that growth looks different or occurs at a slower pace than in typically developing peers. Independence might mean fewer prompts, increased engagement time, or the ability to participate in a small group without constant adult proximity. These are meaningful gains.

If you find yourself struggling with intensive individual service assessments or additional personal support frameworks, I encourage you to consider schedule analysis as a core component. Modify it, adapt it, and make it work for your setting. When done intentionally, it allows for a deeper level of analysis and more ethical, effective decision-making.

One-on-one support should be a tool, not a destination. When we align services with data, context, and long-term outcomes, we give students something far more valuable than constant adult presence. We give them the skills they need to navigate their world with confidence, autonomy, and purpose.