There are better ways to work with behaviorally challenging children The “solution” recommended for schools and school systems where there are issues with student disruption and out of control behaviors is consistently “positive behavior intervention and supports.” In this document I will provide the history of positive behavior intervention and supports, the approach chosen by
The evidence of long-term effectiveness is not available. On the contrary, after 22 years, our country’s schools continue to struggle with restraints, seclusion, suspensions and expulsions. In some cases, these statistics are increasing, even in schools where PBIS is in place. (The PBIS.org website cites the effectiveness of the PBIS framework and lists many references. However, a look at the references reveals that most are not recent, are limited in scope, and do not reflect research about long term outcomes of implementation of PBIS).
Behaviorism is harmful for vulnerable children, including those with developmental delays, neurodivergence (ADHD, Autism, etc.), mental health concerns (anxiety, depression, etc.).
The answer to misbehavior is teaching a replacement behavior or adjusting the environment, instructions and tasks. This brings up two important points. First, there is no mention here about the importance of relationship. It is through relationships that children find safety, and through safety, children are able to calm, co-regulate (and learn to self-regulate) and be available for learning those instructions.
The research from the 1990’s and ongoing continues to affirm the key importance of relationships for children to feel safe and learn.
The relationship with a caring, trusted adult is primary. It must come first.
The second concern about teaching replacement behaviors goes back to the lack of distinction between willful behaviors and stress behaviors. Teaching replacement behaviors is not possible for stress responses since they are automatic responses that occur beneath the level of conscious thought.
The documents on PBIS.org imply that all behavior is willful. There is no acknowledgement in the PBIS.org literature that behaviors can be stress responses (fight-flight-freeze responses). This is a profound omission that does great harm to children whose brains and bodies have highly sensitive neuroception of danger. To be punished for a stress response is harmful and traumatic.
There is no mention of dysregulation which is a major issue with trauma, ADHD, and other conditions. It is an underlying feature of disruptive behavior. Children must learn how to regulate their emotions and their bodies, something that is first learned through co-regulation with a trusted adult.
First of all, the training of all school staff must be updated so that everyone who comes in contact with students understands brain development, fight-flight-freeze behaviors, is able to recognize signs of stress by noticing students’ facial expressions and body language and by talking with students; and knows how to respond in a situation where a student begins to escalate or is escalated, so that the student is supported rather than further escalated.
There is no question that behavior is a form of communication. It does serve a function. However, the range of possible functions is much wider than simply trying to get out of something or trying to get something. This reduction of the function to a simple either/or option negates all the other equally possible explanations, including nonvolitional behavior and behaviors that were beyond the child’s skill level, trauma flashbacks, and more.
There are several problems with this approach. It does not include the child’s perspective. It does not consider that many factors that are unseen, including sensitivity to light, sound, movement; or internal pain; or trauma flashbacks, worry about a grandparent who had a stroke last night, fear because he doesn’t know how to do the assignment he was just given, or a myriad of other potential factors not visible to the evaluators.
The FBA and indeed the entire positive behavior intervention and supports framework focuses on behavior, not on root causes. Without addressing root causes, true growth cannot be expected.
The last concern is the use of rewards and consequences to achieve the desired goals. This is a top—down, power over, authoritarian approach that is not in alignment with the rest of the goals of the educational system that is designed to teach children to think and learn. The PBIS system expects students to comply. When they do, they are rewarded. When they do not, they are punished. (They may be taught first, though not necessarily in a way that they are able to learn), but they will be punished if they do not or are not able to comply.
Armstrong also suggests that policies such as ranking schools encourages schools to exclude children with disabilities who will negatively impact their school’s performance.
Specifically, the repeated assertion that students use their behavior to get something or to get out of something, along with the lack of information about autonomic reactions (stress responses) is incorrect and results in children being misunderstood and punished for behaviors that are not within their volitional control.
Another major concern is the heavy reliance on rewards and punishment. Though the name, Positive Behavior Intervention and Supports, sounds nice, the children with or without IEPs who need support to help with their behavioral struggles are not getting those supports, and instead are being blamed for their behavior. Children are being punished (and shamed) through dojos and color charts, and by being left out of class celebrations and school activities, by being secluded and restrained, by being moved to more restrictive schools, or by being suspended, expelled, or referred to juvenile justice. Some are being handcuffed at school by police.
Based on countless reports from families on social media groups, newspaper reports, government accounts and personal accounts, many of the disciplinary actions directed toward students with disabilities are for behaviors that are flight-fight-freeze behaviors. Teachers, paraprofessionals, school resource officers, and other school personnel do not recognize the difference between willful and involuntary stress responses – and it is HURTING our children. And the leaders of the national technical assistance center are contributing to this.
The focus on surface behavior, without seeming to understand or be concerned about the complexity, or even the simple dichotomy of volitional versus autonomic (stress response) and the use of outdated, compliance based, animal based behaviorism (which has no record of long term benefits) continues to fail our country’s students.
