Positive Behaviour Support: discovery, reflection and radical rethinking

In this blog, NdC’s Development Lead, Kay Louise Aldred, shares her journey of learning about PBS and ABA and explores how her developing knowledge has led to deep reflection and radical rethinking.

For many years, both as a parent and an education professional, I strongly believed in the effectiveness of behaviourist approaches and, when necessary, Positive Behaviour Support (PBS) Plans. Teacher training emphasised the importance of structured interventions and positive reinforcement for managing behaviour, a notion supported by many parenting books and experts. Supernanny, for example, was a global phenomenon when my children were born. I observed these strategies successfully ‘working’ in practice both in my classroom and at home

As the Development Lead at NdC, I recently researched Applied Behaviour Analysis (ABA) and Positive Behaviour Support (PBS). I prepared resources and materials for our campaign and explored the origins and history of these approaches. In doing so, I reflected on my understanding of how the nervous system functions and considered my firsthand experiences. This led me to reevaluate the effectiveness of behaviourist interventions and the implementation of PBS plans, questioning what was actually ‘working,’ resulting in a significant shift in my perspective. 

Applied Behaviour Analysis (ABA), originally developed by Ivar Lovaas, is often hailed as the ‘gold standard’ for behaviour intervention, particularly in Autistic support. However, it’s history is far more sinister than most people realise. Lovaas’ work was connected to gay conversion therapy, employing the same behavioural conditioning techniques to suppress non-normative expressions of identity. In the 1980s, PBS emerged from ABA in response to growing concerns about ABA's ethical implications. This evolution raised fundamental questions regarding the human rights issues associated with both ABA and PBS, particularly their focus on social validity, normalisation and conformity rather than providing genuine support tailored to the individual. 

“PBS embeds the fawn response, which is a trauma response in which individuals comply, appease, and people-please to avoid conflict or punishment.”

Behaviourist approaches such as ABA and PBS are founded on the principle of reinforcement. These methods aim to shape an individual’s external behaviour to align with what is considered “acceptable” according to external standards. In the classroom, desirable behaviours can include not calling out, remaining still, and asking for permission to remove blazers or use the toilet. At home, acceptable behaviours might involve going to bed at a designated time, eating vegetables, and saying goodbye with a hug to relatives. 

However, this raises important questions: Who establishes these standards, and why? More importantly, what is happening internally for the individual that leads to their objection behaviours, externally perceived as problematic? Through my research and reflection, it has become increasingly clear that these approaches often cater more to society’s need for order and compliance—benefiting those in authority who hold the power (in the past myself as a teacher and parent)—rather than addressing the needs, preferences, and autonomy of the individuals subjected to them. 

One of the most troubling realisations was how these interventions reinforce masking—the suppression of natural Autistic behaviours and expression to fit societal norms. Autistic individuals are often taught to suppress stimming, eye avoidance, or other self-regulatory behaviours in favour of socially acceptable alternatives. This isn’t self-determination; it’s conditioning that prioritises external expectation over personal well-being. 

Furthermore, PBS embeds the fawn response, which is a trauma response in which individuals comply, appease, and people-please to avoid conflict or punishment. This behaviour can lead to a lifelong pattern of compliance and makes individuals more vulnerable to coercive control, with serious consequences for both mental and physical health. When an external stressor or threat to our nervous system overrides our natural fight-or-flight responses, we may feel compelled to appease authority and "perform" for those in power. This can trap us in a state of functional freeze—a survival mode in which we disconnect from our authentic selves. 

The long-term effects of these interventions go beyond personal distress; they serve a larger societal function. By producing individuals who comply without question, who do not challenge authority, and who prioritise external validation over internal autonomy, PBS ensures a workforce that neatly fits within capitalist structures. This is not about empowerment or self-actualisation—it’s about creating sanitised, obedient individuals who do the bidding of those in power. 

“This is not about empowerment or self-actualisation—it’s about creating sanitised, obedient individuals who do the bidding of those in power. ”

The most devastating realisation for me was that in implementing these approaches, encouraged by ‘experts’ and in which I had been trained, I had cut young adults off from joy, authenticity, self-determination and the essence of who they truly are. When we are conditioned to suppress our instincts and survival responses, we lose access to both the power of our anger, our lifeforce, and our ability to set boundaries, as well as the connection to the goodness within us, the spark that makes life worth living. 

Understanding this and how the human nervous system and bodymind work, especially the sensory, social and information differences of neurodivergent people, has shifted my entire perspective. We must move away from behaviourist approaches that prioritise societal ‘ease’ and norms over individual well-being. Instead, we should embrace approaches that honour autonomy, self-determination, difference and regulation. Rather than coercing individuals into compliance, we must create environments that support authentic self-expression and nervous system health. 

The question we must ask as teachers, professionals, parents, and carers is: Who truly benefits from these approaches? If the answer is not the individuals subjected to them, then we must radically rethink everything. The path forward must centre on dignity, autonomy, and a deep respect for the innate worth of every human being.