Untangling the Pursuit of Positive Behaviour - A Matter of Morality

School-based approaches to supporting positive behaviours among students have never been more polarising or confusing. We all want students to exhibit desirable social behaviours, but it can be hard to know what advice or guidance to take on board. More pressingly, it can be hard to know which approaches might actually work to support student behaviour, student engagement and overall student wellbeing.

Some schools have recently made a return to the authoritarian approaches of times past, prioritising strict adherence to school rules with a reliance on rewards and punishment. In contrast, others are calling for an increase in compassion, understanding and flexibility within their school communities, believing that relationships are key.

Whereas one primary school is giving a poorly behaved child detention, with a requirement to sit still another is handing out fidget toys and a chair that rocks. As one high school embraces a policy of zero tolerance for bad behaviour, another embraces an increased focus on reconciliation and compassion. Simply put, some schools are choosing to exert a more controlled approach to behaviour; others are choosing to increase student agency through collaboration.

So which approach is better? Moreover, how is it possible for such opposing approaches to student behaviour to sit side by side in modern education, and both still have merit?

Control versus Collaboration
At its extreme, controlled approaches such as the ‘zero-tolerance’ model, suggested by former Australian education minister Simon Birmingham, propose that students are guided by strict, uncompromising rules. Similarly, Positive Behaviour for Learning (PBL) models offer highly controlled approaches embedded in a clearly articulated understanding of ‘right’ versus ‘wrong’. Moreover, PBL models are generally built around an assumption that young people need extensive adult reinforcement to learn positive behaviours at school. Although PBL approaches contain consideration of different levels of need within students, they are often reduced to complicated token economies in practice.

Controlled approaches to student behaviour, such as those mentioned above, are generally built on an underlying belief in the lack of social, emotional and moral competencies of young people. Indeed, a lack of moral development in young people is seen as a basis for ensuring that adults guide, or even dictate student behavioural choices at all times. There is a clear focus on establishing ‘right from wrong’ and poor behavioural choices are viewed as representative of immature moral standing, and in need of correction.

In contrast, more agentic and collaborative approaches generally understand poor student behaviour as a sign a student is experiencing distress, and not necessarily lacking in moral maturity. In this, strategies involve engaging with a child and ‘giving’ attention and support (rather than the removal of attention seen in more controlled approaches). Poor behaviour is essentially seen as an unhelpful form of communication, but not necessarily representative of a lack of moral development. Emphasis is placed on working to understand the ‘message of distress’ behind an undesirable behaviour, and then helping students to develop more effective forms of communication, that remain respectful of others.

A more collaborative approach is also found in schools which have embraced student voice, restorative practice and reparative conversations in their approach to managing behaviour. These schools have embraced an understanding of young people as inherently good, but prone to making poor behavioural choices due to a lack of inherent social and emotional maturity. School staff support students social and emotional learning through a collaborative partnership in which increased awareness and understanding is developed, and emotional regulation is modelled.

These more collaborative approaches are closely aligned with increasingly popular trauma-informed practices that aim to first, reduce student stress with the provision of calm, predictable and consistent educational contexts; and second, increase student social competence within trusting, safe relationships.

Other collaborative approaches suggest that student behaviour requires student agency to develop in a desirable way. For example, Montessori schools place agency at the centre of much of their philosophy and practice. In this, it is believed that a lack of agency in schools is a key contributor to poor behaviour, poor learning and poor mental health.

When it comes to addressing specific behaviours of concern, the differences between controlling and collaborative approaches can be even more marked. For example, consider substance use and abuse. Some high schools are locking their toilets at lunch, or installing vape detectors, in an attempt to curb the vaping epidemic, believing that adults need to take control. In contrast, other schools are asking students to talk collaboratively about why they use vapes and to consider a different, healthier ‘normal’.

Moreover, overall wellbeing is still taught as a stand-alone lesson in many schools with a foundation of understanding children and young people as lacking in knowledge and skills which can be taught by adults. In contrast, many other schools are adopting a ‘contextual wellbeing’ approach, which is both systemic and collaborative (Street, 2018). In this children and young people are seen as capable of self- determined learning, able to develop positive behaviours when given the opportunity to operate with agency, within a healthy school context that acknowledges their capacity for moral reasoning.

The Impact of Early Theories of Moral Development
At a superficial level, schools adopting more collaborative approaches to behaviour management appear more tolerant of unwanted behaviours, than are those taking more controlling approaches. But ultimately, all approaches to positive behaviour aim to build socially acceptable, morally representative behaviours in all areas of student life. The tolerance or lack of tolerance of poor behaviour is more about belief in a particular approach than it is about the behaviour per se. Simply put, if we believe that punishment will lead to the development of a well-rounded young adult, then punishment it is. If we believe that endless patience and conversation will lead to the outcome of adult success, then patience it is.

The differences between approaches to managing student behaviour are not about differences in preferred outcomes, which are fundamentally the same. Nor are they about fundamental tolerance for poor behaviours per se. Rather, I propose that the differences predominantly lie in our beliefs about young people’s capacity for moral reasoning and decision making.

The more controlling, consequence-based approaches to behaviour are generally built on the assumption that children and young people are morally immature. This assumption includes belief that children need to be given a ‘black and white’ understanding of behaviour, judged according to punishment or reward. As such, positive behaviour approaches focus on ensuring that desirable behaviours lead to adult approval and reward; and undesirable behaviours lead to disapproval and punishment.

In his 2015 chapter ‘The Social Construction of Childhood’, Gunter Graf suggests that a general assumption is often made that ‘children are vulnerable beings progressing with adult help through stages needed to turn them into mature and autonomous adults’ (Graf, 2015). In this they are seen as having less knowledge and skills than adults, and consequently are less able to make good decisions. Graf goes on to suggest that this conception of childhood leads to an easy justification that strict adult supervision and guidance are required. These driving beliefs about the moral immaturity of children stem largely from the seminal research of Jean Piaget and Lawrence Kohlberg, still taught in most psychology and teaching degrees in 2025.

As most educators would be aware, Piaget first published his theory of moral judgment over 70 years ago (Piaget, 1932). Piaget's theory proposes that children move from a heteronomous, concrete stage of moral development (following rules based on authority) to an autonomous stage (evaluating actions by internal principles) at around age 11-12.

Kohlberg was a graduate student of Piaget, which makes sense of the close alignment between these two leaders in child development of that time. Kohlberg expanded on Piaget’s work to propose that the development of moral reasoning happens in six stages (Kohlberg, 1958). The stages themselves are structured in three levels: Pre-Conventional, Conventional and Post-Conventional. At a pre-conventional level Kohlberg proposes that children consider behaviour purely in terms of reward or punishment (akin to Piaget’s concrete developmental stage). For example, they may consider a fight between students to be ‘wrong’ purely because the teacher will punish the students involved. Kohlberg suggests that this stage is seen in pre-adolescent children (i.e. children in primary school) suggesting that primary school children need to be presented with consistent behavioural consequences to enable them to differentiate between right and wrong.

In the conventional stage of development, Kohlberg proposed that children start to consider morality in line with the rules of their communities. For example, a student in the conventional stage of development is likely to consider a playground fight in terms of how much the students involved were ‘breaking the rules’, rather than due to the impact of their actions. Kohlberg suggested this second stage occurs from early adolescence to adulthood. Kohlberg’s model supports high schools clearly stating and following rules for expected behaviours, to ensure that students behave well.

It is only in the third post-conventional stage of development that Kohlberg believed people develop a more nuanced and compassionate understanding of morals. In this stage, Kohlberg proposed that people develop an understanding of a specific behaviour with consideration of multiple contextual and personal factors. He proposed that this third stage of moral development is not reached until adulthood, if at all (educators beware!). It is in this final stage of development that a person’s behaviour is considered more empathetically and compassionately, with a solution that is centred on understanding rather than punishment or reward per se.

Understanding these well-established theories of child development makes a lot of sense of many of the controlled approaches to behaviour in schools. It helps to explain the use of punishments and consequences for poor behaviour that are often adhered to irrespective of the context or personal circumstances of those involved. Similarly, it speaks to the creation of token economies and a reliance on adult approval to enforce desired behavioural choices.

But, are these twentieth century theories of moral development still relevant in 2025? If they are not, this challenges the authoritarian programs that build upon them.

Placing Moral Development into Context in 2025
More recent theories of moral development (i.e. post 1960) propose that Piaget and Kohlberg’s theories do indeed still hold merit. They are also clear in stating that they are limited in their consideration of individual differences between children, children’s capacity for moral reasoning, and limited in their understanding of other influences on both moral reasoning and development. In particular, many modern academics have criticised both Piaget and Kohlberg for not considering the influence of psychological factors such as a child’s emotional state, social-biological factors such as gender and upbringing, and broader societal factors such as culture and community. It is important to note that nearly all of Kohlberg’s research was done on white Caucasian middle-class boys, giving no consideration to gender, demographics or cultural differences. In contrast nearly all current research states that moral development is shaped by culture, context, and individual experiences.

For example, emerging research emphasises the impact of creating a shared understanding and consideration of any particular behavioural choice. Explaining why certain behaviours are right or wrong (as opposed to simply stating the rules) significantly supports increased sharing and empathy and decreased aggression in children over time (e.g. Essler & Paulus, 2022).

When we acknowledge a student’s unique social context and take time to consider the richness and complexity of their social experiences, it becomes clear that our assumptions about childhood need to broaden and deepen beyond Piagetian and Kohlberg’s theories. Far from being passive learners awaiting concrete adult instruction, children and adolescents exhibit a remarkable capacity for moral understanding from very early in life. In fact, recent research has found that even infants and toddlers display intuitive sociomoral preferences such as favouring helpful over hindering behaviours. These findings suggest that it is important to consider behaviours contextually and with careful consideration of individual differences (e.g. Limone & Toto, 2022)

In further support of the above, Priscilla Alderson has long argued that pre-adolescent children bring considerable moral competencies to the table such as insight, empathy and a developing sense of justice (Alderson, 2023). It is again proposed that developing morality is best supported with compassion and collaborative consideration of each behavioural incidence, and not simply with the enforcing of rules.

Context, Clarity and Consistency
In sum, current understanding about child development creates compelling support for more collaborative and compassionate approaches to guiding social behaviours in students, while also being aware of the value of maintaining clarity and consistency.

Children and adolescents are active moral agents from a young age, able to think beyond set rules and universal boundaries. They are also prone to focus on the importance of ‘being fair’, being consistent and being clear. Their everyday interactions, social interpretations, and emotional awareness all contribute to rich, context-embedded moral development.

The contributions of Piaget and Kohlberg remain powerful contributors to our understanding of child development in 2025, and, indeed, to our school policy development. They speak to the need for consistency and clarity in setting rules for behavioural expectations in schools, and to the importance of ‘being fair’. Yet, modern research is telling us loudly and clearly that there is also a need to update and deepen our understandings of child development. It is high time we considered the potential of children to develop nuanced and complex moral maturity from a very young age. It is also high time we embraced the power of context and individual differences on all aspects of learning.

As much as social expectations need to be clearly stated in every context, behavioural management approaches need to consider each student’s context and views with compassion and collaboration. Consistent, collaborative school practices have the potential to support positive student behaviours, as well as kindness, compassion and nuanced moral maturity.

Dr Helen Street is an internationally acclaimed author and education consultant, supporting wellbeing and resilience in educational communities around the world. @DrHelenStreet, HelenStreet.com  PositiveSchools.com

References
Alderson, P. (2023). Bodily integrity and autonomy of the youngest children and consent to their healthcare. Children & Society, 37(5), 111–130.

Essler, S., & Paulus, M. (2022). Caregivers’ everyday moral reasoning predicts young children’s aggressive, prosocial, and moral development: Evidence from ambulatory assessment. Infancy, 27(6), 1068–1090

Kohlberg, L. (1958). The development of modes of moral thinking and choice in the years 10 to 16. Doctoral dissertation. University of Chicago.

Limone P and Toto GA (2022) Origin and Development of Moral Sense: A Systematic Review. Front. Psychol. 13:887537

Piaget, J. (1932). The moral judgment of the child. Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Street, H (2018) Contextual Wellbeing – creating positive schools from the inside out. Wise Solutions: Australia