Treatment Hierarchy

In grad school, they asked students to write down the treatment  hierarchy /sequence for every objective.This hierarchy would go from simple to complex.

Ex.
Task Mode
1.Imitation
2. Cues/Prompts
3. Spontaneous

Response Level
1. Isolation
2. Word
etc..all the way to conversation.

It seems to me that once you are in the real world, SLPs may write a hierarchy for articutlations objective (in isolation to conversation), but with language objectives, I don't think there is a written treatment sequence/heirarchy (or as methodical compared to artic goals).

Why is that? or is my conclusion wrong? Am I just complicating things? Do SLPs just need to be aware to make sure that the therapy  progress in that direction from simple to complex? or make sure that the activity for the child is at the right degree of difficulty/complexity ?

If I am making it too complicated, what suggestions can you give me to keep things simple.

I will be in school placement soon, and I know that the objectives will be on an IEP and the format will be different from what I am used to at the school clinic. I just need to know what to expect when it comes to treatment planning. Should I write a treatment sequence/heirarchy for my client's language or is it too cumbersome since I am dealing with more than one client.

Hope you can shed some light on these questions.
I'm in my CF, and I haven't written a hierarchy since clinic. It's definitely an essential thing to learn, but I think now it's just something I'm doing naturally without writing it out, especially for artic kids, who follow the same sequence.
I'm in my CF year in the schools. I don't typically write a hierarchy of artic goals. For artic, I will often just write a goal that the student can master by the end of the year. For example:

The student will correctly produce /f/ in all positions of words in sentences with 90% accuracy.

And then, I start at the bottom of the hierarchy and work my way up. That said, I don't use a traditional Van Riper approach, but a maximal pairs approach. Each session I document if the student is at Initial, Medial, or Final; Syllable, Word, Phrase, Sentence; Min, Mod, Max cues. I usually target the sound in one position and often it will come in in the other positions on it's own using this approach.

For language, I rarely write a hierarchy. I could, if I wanted to and occasionally, I give students goals that build on one another.

An example would be: Sequencing 4 pictures, stating one sentence about a four picture sequence, and using transtion words to tell a story about a four picture sequence.

At the time the goal was written and accepted by the ARD/IEP committee, the student may only be able to sequence 2 pictures, but you'll slowly work up to where they should be.

Often, I'll just write it as one big goal if I want them to do multiple, related things. Other times, I may give a severely impaired child a hierarchy of PECs goals or attention to task goals (3 minutes, 6 minutes... etc).

It all depends on the childs needs and what he or she is capable of mastering.

In our district, it's commonplace to write a goal that will last until their next IEP meeting (one years time). If a student masters all of his or her goals, we have to come back to ARD/IEP Meeting to present new goals... and being very busy, this can be a pain at times.

So, in conclusion, you -can- write some related language goals in a hierarchy, but it's more beneficial as an SLP in the school to just write a higher level goal that the student can likely master in one years time and you work on the skills building up to that.