by Rebecca Thomas
A blog post asking if PB4L is the right approach for our young people is going to attract two kinds of readers. Some will be looking for reassurance that their hard work—logging positive behaviours, printing silver and gold certificates, cutting out school values tokens—is worth the extra time. Others, working in PB4L schools, will be searching for validation that the framework isn’t fully embraced, that leadership is inconsistent, and that behaviour challenges persist despite best efforts.
My intention isn’t to affirm either camp. I’m simply posing a provocation.
And for those schools just beginning this journey, or wondering whether to try an alternative approach to de-escalate, re-direct, and re-engage young people, these words might help you reflect and make sense of the questions you’re already asking.
The fact is, over half of New Zealand schools use the PB4L framework. Whether it’s working or not depends on many things: school culture; leadership; staff turnover; consistency; buy-in from staff. What follows aren’t just random thoughts but reflections based on conversations with people in schools where PB4L is thriving, as well as those where the efforts have lost momentum and new principals are trying to figure out what’s going on.
Some schools swear by PB4L; others struggle to make it work.
Some classrooms are filled with sticker charts and token economies; others embed PB4L without a single reward system in sight.
The programme promises a more positive learning environment, but if it only ‘works’ in some places, is it really working at all?
The Sticker Chart Dilema
Tuesday morning. Two grinning Year 3 girls wait patiently outside the principal’s office, their arms full of rubbish. Curious, I ask what they’re doing and where the rubbish came from. They explain they’re waiting for a special token to add to their chart—a reward for promoting the school values. They proudly tell me they did a great job picking up rubbish (and there was plenty of it).
I glance at their arms and can’t help but wonder—were they just holding the contents of their own lunch boxes? I smile. If that were the case, they had clearly found a loophole in the system and were working it to their advantage. Still, they waited eagerly for that coveted token, ready to embellish their sticker chart.
On the way home, I found myself mulling over our conversation. At first, I chuckled at their creativity. But then, I started reflecting more deeply on PB4L. If the litter they collected was genuinely from the playground, are we really promoting shared responsibility by rewarding only those who pick up rubbish? If caring for our school was truly valued, would there even be rubbish on the ground? And is it fair to reward these two girls when most of the of students already put their rubbish in the right place?
I sat with these questions.
PB4L facilitators might respond to this by saying, “If most students are already doing the right thing, how do we acknowledge that in a meaningful way? PB4L encourages schools to move beyond individual rewards and instead foster a collective sense of pride in the environment. But are we seeing that happen?”
The Compliance Question
At another school, a senior teacher was deep in classroom observations. She was concentrating, listening intently, and I could tell she was gathering something important. I didn’t distract her. Later, at lunchtime, I asked what she was focusing on.
She explained that she was trying to determine if the whole school was responding to PB4L consistently. Were the school values truly embedded? She wanted to see how the initiative was being applied across different classrooms—but also, how it was impacting students. Were those with challenging behaviours responding to the new approach? And what about the students who always followed the school values—was the new sticker and stamp system doing anything for them?
It was a great inquiry. Our conversation grew into a robust discussion, eventually spiralling into a more philosophical debate about the history of social contracts and whose values are upheld in these frameworks - are values something real and fixed, or are they just ideas we all agree to believe in? Do they truly shape behaviour, or do we shape them to fit the systems we create?
Once again, I left the school thinking hard.
Once again, I considered how a facilitator might respond.
PB4L facilitators would likely say that consistency is key. If different classrooms implement PB4L in different ways, students struggle to understand and internalise the school values. Observing how PB4L is embedded across a school is an essential step in identifying gaps.
Even in schools where PB4L is implemented consistently, a bigger tension remains.
Motivation: Intrinsic or Extrinsic?
So many questions.
I did what I usually do.
I read.
I revisited Dr. Helen Street’s work on Contextual Wellbeing. She challenges us to look beyond surface-level solutions. A system built on competition, control, and compliance, she argues, will never truly foster collaboration, autonomy, and belonging.
And yet, in some ways, PB4L asks us to do just that.
We introduce reinforcement strategies to encourage expected behaviours. But what about the child who does the right thing and doesn’t get the sticker? Are they less kind? Less worthy? Do we want students to behave well because they believe in these values—or because there’s a reward at stake?
PB4L facilitators would likely argue that the system is not about compliance but about explicitly teaching positive behaviours until they become part of school culture. The goal is to shift from extrinsic to intrinsic motivation. Stickers and tokens are tools to shape behaviour, but they’re not the end goal.
And yet, implementation varies.
If a school feels like PB4L is leaning too much on compliance, it might be worth asking, are students given opportunities to co-construct expectations? Are relational and restorative practices woven into the approach? Are school values lived authentically beyond reward systems?
PB4L does show positive results in some schools, but I found myself searching for more recent national data. The latest comprehensive report I could track down was from 2015, A Positive Culture of Support: Final Report from the Evaluation of PB4L School-Wide
Like any data set, the findings were complex. The effectiveness of PB4L depended on a the variability and fidelity of implementation. The conclusions pointed to some improvements, but also significant limitations.
Findings included:
PB4L fostered more positive, respectful school cultures—but inconsistently across schools.
Schools that implemented PB4L with high fidelity saw reductions in behaviour incidents.
Secondary schools struggled more to sustain PB4L than primary schools.
PB4L was difficult to maintain without ongoing external support.
The programme was more effective in schools where leadership was strongly committed to it.
And then there are still questions I have.
What about our most challenging students? The ones for whom sticker charts, house points, and “caught being good” slips do nothing? The ones already disengaged, already pushed to the margins? A behaviour modification approach relies on compliance—but what happens when compliance isn’t even on the table?
PB4L assumes behaviour can be shaped within an existing system. But what if the system itself needs to change?
PB4L is often layered onto existing structures. How do we ensure it isn’t just another programme?
Helen Street reminds us that many interventions are designed as psychological therapies for individuals without addressing the wider school context. She challenges us to pause and think—just because everyone is doing something doesn’t mean it’s effective.
We roll out initiative after initiative—Pause, Breathe, Smile; literacy and numeracy interventions; PB4L. All well-intentioned. All designed to help students cope within a system that might not be working for them in the first place.
So my provocation is this:
Are our students moving toward authentic, intrinsic motivation—or just learning to work the system?
Are teachers truly embedding PB4L with fidelity, or are they too overwhelmed by the daily realities of managing behaviour?
Are new leaders stepping in with a clear-eyed view of what is working, what isn’t, and whether this is even the right approach?
PB4L may have a place in our schools, but we need to question it, not just implement it.
If it works, why does it only work sometimes?
And if it’s not reaching our most vulnerable students, is it really working at all?
Commenti