Unpacking the Ableist Underpinnings of PBSS / PBIS and Social Skills Programs

I recently came across an article, “Cultivating a Positive Classroom Environment,” where the author explores the supposed ‘pivotal role of social skills programs and the Positive Behavioral Support System (PBSS) in fostering positive learning environments and promoting student success.’ The author argues that these programs are essential for developing interpersonal skills, conflict resolution abilities, and emotional coping mechanisms across all grade levels, ultimately creating inclusive learning spaces where all students can thrive.

However, as a Special Education Resource Specialist Program (RSP) teacher and a non-verbal autistic individual, I reject the application of PBSS / PBIS in its current form. Whilst the article aims to promote ‘positive classroom environments,’ it inadvertently perpetuates ableist practices by prioritising control and compliance over inclusivity and individualised supports. Today’s article will examine how PBSS / PBIS and similar programs, despite their good intentions, can marginalise students with disabilities and suggest more inclusive alternatives.

Overview of PBSS / PBIS and Social Skills Programs

The Positive Behavioural Support System (PBSS) and Positive Behavioural Interventions and Supports (PBIS) frameworks, as presented in the article, are designed to create ‘structured and positive learning environments.’ Both PBSS and PBIS aim to promote prosocial behaviours and minimise ‘disruptive conduct’ through a tiered approach that includes universal, selective, and intensive interventions. Whilst PBSS is generally used as a broader term encompassing various positive behaviour support strategies, PBIS is a more specific, widely-implemented framework within schools.

Both frameworks focus heavily on behavioural control and compliance, establishing clear rules, routines, and consequences to manage student behaviour. This control-oriented approach aims to create predictable environments where students can thrive academically and socially by adhering to set behavioural standards.

Social skills programs outlined in the article are intended to enhance students’ interpersonal abilities, conflict resolution skills, and emotional coping mechanisms. These programs aim to equip students with the tools necessary to navigate social interactions effectively and manage their emotions in various settings. The implementation of these programs often emphasises structured environments and strict adherence to rules, reinforcing consistent behaviour expectations. However, this approach has been met with almost absolute rejection by the autistic community, which critiques behaviourism and compliance-based methods for not accommodating the diverse needs and experiences of autistic individuals. Instead, the autistic community advocates for approaches that prioritise understanding, acceptance, and individualised support over mere behavioural compliance.

Critique of Ableist Practices

The PBIS framework prioritises controlling student behaviour over understanding individual needs. This top-down compliance model relies on a system of rewards and consequences to manage behaviour (aka, token economies), which can marginalise students with disabilities who may struggle to comply with these expectations. Instead of building inclusive classroom communities that accommodate diverse needs, PBIS enforces a rigid structure where compliance is the primary goal.

For students with disabilities, particularly those who are autistic or gestalt language processors, the focus on compliance can be particularly harmful. Teachers from the neuro-majority often do not realise that their directions can be vague and confusing for these students. As a result, students may react to their confusion and rising anxiety, behaviours that PBIS might misinterpret as oppositional rather than responses to unclear instructions. This misunderstanding leads to inappropriate and unfair consequences, reinforcing an ableist approach to behaviour management.

Moreover, PBIS frameworks do not account for the varying ways in which students understand and process information. Neurodivergent students, including those who are autistic, may need more explicit and concrete directions to understand expectations fully. The lack of accommodation for these needs within PBIS can increase anxiety and behavioural issues, which are then addressed through punitive measures rather than supportive interventions. This approach fails to recognise the root causes of behaviour and instead punishes students for their natural responses to confusing or overwhelming situations.

The reliance on rewards and consequences also overlooks the importance of building a supportive and understanding classroom ecology. Instead of fostering a sense of community and mutual respect, PBIS can create an environment where students feel pressured to conform to arbitrary standards without consideration for their individual experiences and challenges. This compliance-driven model can stifle students’ natural ways of interacting with the world and hinder their ability to develop authentic social and emotional skills.

As such, the control-oriented nature of PBIS, with its emphasis on compliance over understanding, perpetuates ableist practices within the classroom. It fails to accommodate the diverse needs of all students, particularly those who are neurodivergent, and relies on punitive measures that do not address the underlying causes of behaviour. To create truly inclusive learning environments, it is essential to move beyond PBIS and adopt approaches that prioritise understanding, support, and the building of inclusive classroom communities.

Punitive Measures and Impact on Students with Disabilities

As we can see, the PBIS framework and social skills programs often suffer from a one-size-fits-all approach that fails to accommodate the diverse ways students learn and behave. This inflexibility leads to the exclusion of those who do not fit normative expectations, particularly neurodivergent students. For example, PBIS and similar programs typically set uniform behavioural standards and reward systems that do not account for the unique needs of autistic students or those with other disabilities. These students may process information differently or require alternative methods of support, and when these needs are not met, they are unfairly penalised for behaviours that stem from their neurodivergence rather than intentional noncompliance.

Despite its intentions, PBIS can still be punitive, especially for students with disabilities. The system’s reliance on rewards and consequences means that repeated failures to meet behaviour expectations result in consistent negative outcomes for these students. This punitive aspect can reinforce ableist structures, as neurodivergent students are more likely to struggle with the rigid behavioural expectations set by PBIS. For instance, a student with sensory processing issues might find it difficult to adhere to classroom rules during overstimulating situations, leading to frequent disciplinary actions. These actions not only fail to address the student’s underlying needs but also stigmatise them, perpetuating a cycle of punishment and exclusion.

Additionally, token economies, a common feature of PBIS, can contribute to blame and shame for neurodivergent students. When collective rewards are withheld due to a student’s behaviour, classmates may wrongly see that student as the reason they are missing out on rewards. This dynamic can lead to bullying and further marginalisation, as the affected student is unfairly labeled as a problem. This system shifts the responsibility for behaviour change entirely onto the student, without addressing the environmental and systemic factors that contribute to their behaviour. By focusing on individual compliance, PBIS overlooks the broader context, such as the need for sensory-friendly classrooms or more explicit communication strategies, that could better support all students.

The lack of focus on systemic barriers is a significant oversight in the article. By emphasising student behaviour without addressing the environmental and structural changes needed to support diverse learners, the approach shifts the responsibility for change onto the students themselves. This perspective fails to recognise that behaviours are often a response to the environment. For example, an autistic student might act out in a noisy classroom not out of defiance, but because the sensory overload is unbearable. Addressing systemic barriers would involve creating quieter, less stimulating environments rather than punishing the student for their natural response.

Thus, the one-size-fits-all approach of PBSS / PBIS and social skills programs, their punitive nature, and the lack of attention to systemic barriers perpetuate ableist practices. These frameworks place undue responsibility on neurodivergent students to adapt without providing the necessary supports and accommodations. To foster truly inclusive learning environments, it is crucial to move beyond these systems and adopt more flexible, understanding, and supportive approaches that address both individual and systemic needs.

Alternatives to PBSS / PBIS

As an educator, I have found that alternatives to PBIS, such as restorative practices, Universal Design for Learning (UDL), trauma-informed practices, Collaborative and Proactive Solutions (CPS), and emphasising strengths and abilities, are more effective in creating inclusive and supportive learning environments.

Restorative practices offer a more inclusive approach to behaviour management by focusing on building relationships and addressing conflicts through dialogue. Instead of punitive measures, restorative practices encourage students to understand the impact of their actions and work towards repairing harm. For example, in my classroom, I facilitate discussions where students can express their feelings and collaboratively develop solutions to conflicts, fostering a sense of community and mutual respect.

UDL principles emphasise creating flexible learning environments that accommodate individual learning differences. By tailoring behavioural expectations and supports to meet each student’s needs, UDL promotes inclusivity. In practice, this means providing multiple means of engagement, representation, and expression to ensure all students can participate fully. For instance, I offer various ways for students to demonstrate their understanding, such as through projects, presentations, or written work, allowing them to leverage their strengths.

Trauma-informed practices recognise the impact of trauma on behaviour and prioritise creating safe and supportive learning environments. Understanding that many students may have experienced trauma, I incorporate strategies such as consistent routines, clear communication, and opportunities for self-regulation (SRSD) into my classroom. This approach helps students feel secure and supported, reducing anxiety and promoting positive behavior.

Collaborative and Proactive Solutions (CPS), developed by Dr. Ross Greene, is a collaborative approach to problem-solving that focuses on understanding and addressing the underlying causes of behaviour. By working with students to identify their concerns and collaboratively developing solutions, CPS fosters a more supportive and inclusive environment. In my classroom, I use CPS to engage students in conversations about their challenges and work together to find strategies that meet their needs.

Emphasising strengths and abilities, rather than focusing on deficits, promotes a positive and inclusive classroom environment. By recognising and building on each student’s unique strengths, educators can create a more empowering learning experience. I make it a point to highlight my students’ achievements and provide opportunities for them to showcase their talents, fostering a culture of positivity and growth.

These alternatives to PBIS not only create more inclusive and supportive classrooms but also align with my experience as an autistic and trans educator striving to foster an atmosphere where all students can thrive and grow. By adopting these approaches, we can move beyond compliance-based models and towards a more holistic and empathetic educational practice.

Final thoughts …

To wrap up, the article, “Cultivating a Positive Classroom Environment,” whilst ‘well-intentioned,’ promotes an approach to PBIS and social skills programs that perpetuates ableist practices. By prioritising control and compliance over understanding and individualised support, these programmes marginalise students with disabilities. The one-size-fits-all approach and punitive measures reinforce a system that excludes those of us who do not fit normative expectations, whilst failing to address systemic barriers that contribute to behavioural challenges.

Today’s critique has highlighted the need for more inclusive practices that accommodate the diverse needs of all students. Restorative practices, UDL, trauma-informed practices, CPS, and emphasising strengths and abilities offer more supportive and understanding alternatives to PBIS.

Educators are encouraged to adopt these inclusive approaches to ‘behaviour management,’ moving beyond compliance-based systems. It is crucial to implement systemic changes that support all students effectively, ensuring that every student has the opportunity to thrive and grow in a truly inclusive learning environment.