Rejecting Rewards: An IEP-Based Response to Behaviourist Harm

 

Exclusion doesn’t always look like a suspension or being sent home. Sometimes, it’s quieter. A sticker that isn’t handed out. A name not called for the prize. A token that never gets earned.

These are the small, daily messages children receive that say: You don’t belong. You’re not good enough. You didn’t earn it. This is how exclusion starts, and it’s happening in classrooms under the guise of “positive reinforcement.”

Reward systems are often presented as harmless, even helpful. But they are not neutral. They create hierarchies of worth based on compliance. The students who struggle the most—often neurodivergent, disabled, or navigating trauma—are the ones most likely to be left behind by these systems. And it adds up. Day after day. Message after message.

Many educators don’t recognise the harm because they were never taught anything different. Most school behaviour strategies are rooted in behaviourism. Teachers are taught to manage students, not understand them. Not collaborate with them. Not honour their autonomy, identity, or rights.

But students are not problems to be managed. They are human beings with real needs, complex lives, and rich inner worlds.

Teaching “replacement behaviours” often misses the point. If we don’t understand what’s driving the original behaviour, all we’re doing is training children to communicate their distress in a way that makes us more comfortable. Coping strategies that ignore root causes teach students to endure problems rather than solve them.

We need to stop managing behaviour and start managing our own expectations.

When we try to modify behaviour without understanding it, we’re silencing the signal. It’s like mopping up the water without fixing the leak. The goal becomes compliance, not connection. But behaviour is communication, and if we ignore that communication, the struggle doesn’t disappear. It just hides. It gets masked. Repressed.

Instead, we need to solve the problems that are causing the behaviour in the first place.

That’s where Ross Greene’s Collaborative & Proactive Solutions (CPS) offers a truly humanizing alternative. It doesn’t ask “How do we address the behaviour?” It asks,, “Why is this difficult and how can we work together to solve this problem?” CPS assumes that kids do well if they can. If they aren’t doing well, something is getting in the way. And our job is to find out what.

CPS focuses on collaboration and problem-solving. It’s not about rewards or consequences, it’s about relationships. And when used properly, it transforms the dynamic between student and educator from one of control to one of trust and collaboration.

It may be difficult to include in an IEP what you don’t want the school to do in terms of using rewards and punishments. But you can include CPS directly in your child’s IEP.

You can request that student challenges be reframed as “unsolved problems” and documented in the IEP. These can be addressed collaboratively with the student through structured problem-solving discussions.

Proactive problem-solving conversations can be included as a regular support strategy. These conversations help students anticipate challenges and work with adults to find meaningful, supportive solutions.

IEP goals can focus on developing communication skills within the context of safe and supportive relationships. This shifts the focus from compliance to connection.

Accommodations can reflect the CPS model by prioritizing proactive planning instead of reactive responses, anticipating difficulties rather than responding with discipline.

Rather than targeting behaviour for modification, the IEP can identify and support the development of lagging skills such as frustration tolerance, flexibility, and problem-solving.

The IEP can also direct staff to validate the student’s concerns and emotions without requiring them to “earn” emotional safety or belonging.

In addition, you can request that the student be matched with a consistent, trusted adult for regular check-ins and emotional support. This ensures support is grounded in relationship, not control.

If an IEP explicitly includes these strategies and a teacher continues to use rewards or punitive strategies, they are not following the IEP. This is not a matter of teacher autonomy. There are legal grounds when an educator fails to implement the accommodations and supports outlined in an IEP. These steps are more than just educational choices; they are human rights.

Under Article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, every child has the right to express their views on matters affecting them and to have those views taken seriously. Behaviourist systems that rely on adult control and conditional belonging silence children’s voices. They violate this right.

And when a child is repeatedly excluded, punished, or pressured to comply without meaningful support—and that harm is linked to disability—it may constitute discrimination under the Human Rights Code.

This is not just about best practice. This is about dignity. It’s about justice.

When are we going to stop dangling carrots in front of struggling kids and calling it support? If you've been told to “just try a sticker chart,” you're not alone. But you can say no. You don’t have to barter for your child’s dignity. You are allowed to expect and advocate for something better.

Because our kids don’t need to be conditioned. They need to be heard.

And when we truly listen, the path forward doesn’t just shift. It transforms.

Radically. And for the better.