When Children Break Rules

Principles and Strategies

If you have done a good job of establishing a foundation, clear, simple agreements that everybody has agreed upon and that are supported by many things in the environment, there’s not going to be a lot of breaking of those rules. But there are going to be examples and times when children do break rules. The first question to ask yourself is why? Are the children hungry, tired, or sick? Are there needs lower down on Maslow’s pyramid that are not being met? They’re not going to make choices as good as they can when they’re fed, rested, and well.

This idea is strongly supported by research in child development and neuroscience. When children are under stress or have unmet basic needs, the brain’s capacity for self-regulation and thoughtful decision-making is significantly reduced (Shonkoff & Phillips, 2000). In these moments, behavior is less a matter of “choice” and more a reflection of developmental capacity and current conditions. Understanding this helps us respond not with frustration, but with curiosity and intention.

The following are twelve principles and strategies you can use as tools to help you manage problem behavior and strengthen a mutually respectful relationship at the same time.

Be Kind and Firm

The first principle is to be kind and firm. Being kind and firm is really the felt experience of mutual respect. Both, not either. Don’t be kind and just give them everything they want. Don’t be firm and not give them anything they want. It’s respecting your needs or the needs of the group, and at the same time, the individual’s needs and desires. This balance closely aligns with what developmental researchers describe as an authoritative approach, high in both warmth and structure. Research consistently shows that this combination leads to the most positive outcomes for children, including better self-regulation, social competence, and responsibility (Baumrind, 1991; Maccoby & Martin, 1983).

As we have already talked about, the skill required for being “kind” is deep listening and empathy. The skill needed for being “firm” is the ability to assertively set a limit or enforce a rule, which requires I-Messages. It is possible to do both. There are two specific words that are often useful to think about that can help you achieve this.

Those words are “nevertheless” and “regardless”. You can do active listening and then impose a limit at the same time. “I know you would really love to have all of those cookies. They look delicious. Nevertheless, I’m only going to allow you to have one. Which one would you like?” The word regardless can be used in the same way.  “I know you’d like to stay out and keep playing, but regardless of what either of us might want, it’s time to go in and get ready for lunch.

You can acknowledge another’s desire, at the same time that you have to say no to it,  just by thinking of or using those kinds of words. Another fun way to do both is to engage a little fantasy and humor. “Wouldn’t it be fun if we could just stop time for as long as we wanted to stay out here, and we could still have time to clean up for lunch?” Or for a child frustrated that there isn’t another tricycle to use, “I wish I had a magic wand, I would wave it and let you have one right now, but I left my wand at home, so I guess you’ll just have to wait until one of the other children is finished with their turn.”

Use Choices

Using choices is such a simple but powerful thing to do. Autocratic directives really invite rebellion from anybody. And in reality, each child is in control of what they actually decide to do. Choices are an acknowledgement of their sovereignty, that it’s really they who are going to decide their behavior. It’s a way of respecting the child while respecting your needs or the needs of the group.

This aligns closely with self-determination theory, which identifies autonomy as one of the three basic psychological needs essential for motivation and well-being (Deci & Ryan, 2000). When children are given meaningful choices, they are more likely to engage cooperatively because they experience a sense of ownership over their actions. Even small choices can significantly reduce power struggles and increase cooperation.

Choices can be very small, limited, and confined, especially with younger children or around certain issues. I was talking about a child wanting all of the cookies, but limited their choice to one, whichever one they would like. Just allowing them that small amount of control helps because it allows them a choice. If they came back and said, “I’m really hungry, I’d really like another cookie,” you might say, “I know you’d really like another cookie, but I don’t want you to have more sugar. There is some string cheese, an apple, and an orange that you could have. Which one would you like?”

The choices don’t have to be limited. At certain ages and for certain matters, it might make sense for the child not to have restrictions on their choices. The important thing would be that they are capable of and would be held responsible for the consequences of whatever they chose.

Think about a teenager and a bedtime requirement. Teenagers’ or adolescents’ sleep habits are very different from those of adults, and we don’t tend to get that. But think about the choice of bedtime. The choices don’t have to be limited. The parent could just say, “You know, you’re old enough to decide when you go to bed. I require that you must be able to get up in the morning without prodding and reminding by me, and I don’t want to see a grumpy, worn-out, tired, sour, reactive person at breakfast. As long as you can be cheerful, ready for school, get up in time, and be able to function in school, you’ll decide when you go to bed. And of course, if teenagers do decide to stay up till 4 or 5 and then are really struggling the next day, what are they going to do? They’re going to go to bed earlier.

Allow Experience of Consequences

Understanding the connection between our choices and the consequences of those choices is what all learning is about. In the very beginning, young children need protection from certain consequences. An infant who’s crawling shouldn’t be allowed to learn that it’s dangerous to crawl in the street by just experiencing the consequences of that. We are responsible for protecting them from that kind of harm.

But as children grow, we too often impose those kinds of protections beyond what is really needed or appropriate, and we don’t allow children to experience the consequences of their choices. Sometimes it’s because the consequences will feel bad, and we want to save them from that pain. But in doing that, we rob them of the opportunity to have that learning and to gain that wisdom.

Developmental research strongly supports the idea that children learn best through experience and reflection, rather than through imposed control. Experiential learning allows children to make meaningful connections between their actions and outcomes, which strengthens both understanding and long-term behavior change (Kolb, 1984). At the same time, children’s ability to learn from consequences develops gradually. Young children, in particular, need support in making these connections. They benefit from adults helping them reflect: “What happened?” “What did you notice?” (Kostelnik et al., 2015).

Another friend who was a counselor had a little poster in his office that said, “I’d rather my child experience a broken arm and have climbed trees than to never have climbed a tree.” Nobody wants a child to break a bone. There’s a risk that needs to be weighed, but that risk needs to be carefully weighed. Children need the freedom to experience consequences as much as possible.

There has been increasing research recognition that appropriate risk-taking is essential for healthy development. When children are given opportunities to test limits in safe ways, they develop judgment, confidence, and resilience (Sandseter, 2011).

When we overprotect children from all discomfort or difficulty, we unintentionally limit these important learning opportunities. As difficult as it can be, allowing children to experience manageable consequences, while providing emotional support, helps them develop responsibility and wisdom over time. The key is balance: protecting children from harm while not protecting them from learning.

In terms of consequences, a useful distinction to make is between natural and logical consequences. Natural Consequences just occur. They are just the direct results of the choices made. We’re not directly involved. As I pointed out, too often we get in the way of children being able to learn from those natural consequences. Logical consequences, on the other hand, are social. They are things that we often have complete control over. They can also be a very useful way for children to learn, but because we often control them, they can be turned into punishments by us without our even being aware of it.

Logical Consequences

Logical consequences can be very helpful for children in learning about the social consequences of their behavior and how they can be skillfully used by us to not only manage behavior but to help children learn important lessons.While logical consequences can be useful, unfortunately, they can be misused, just like time-outs. When ‘Time Out’ was first proposed, it was a way of allowing children to regroup emotionally before being expected to be responsible for their behavior. But time-outs have been so often applied as punishment that most preschools now ban their use. We’ve talked about how difficult it is to move beyond the paradigm of external control, of rewards and punishments, of adults controlling behavior fro m the outside.

Some people who wrote whole books about how to impose logical consequences instead of punishment are now kind of rethinking that because it is so often implemented as a punishment in the guise of something on the surface that can look like just a logical consequence. We have also talked about how easy it is to pervert an I-message into an offensive attack on the other person. When logical consequences are wielded as punishments, the adults, who are still so trapped by the paradigm of vertical or power-over control, aren’t even aware that they’re misusing it. Hopefully, you’ll be prepared to use them as a helpful tool after reading this section.

Defining Logical Consequences

The concept of logical consequences was most clearly developed through the work of Alfred Adler and Rudolf Dreikurs. Dreikurs (1964) proposed logical consequences as an alternative to punishment, one that maintains dignity while helping children understand the relationship between their behavior and its impact. Logical consequences are outcomes that are directly connected to a child’s behavior, are respectfully applied, and are intended to help the child learn rather than suffer. Unlike punishment, which is often arbitrary and imposed, logical consequences are designed to make sense within the context of the situation.

Dreikurs emphasized that the effectiveness of logical consequences depends not just on what is done, but how it is done. When delivered with respect and calmness, they support learning and cooperation. When delivered with anger or control, they quickly become punishment in disguise (Dreikurs, 1964; Nelsen et al., 2013). This distinction is subtle but critical, and it requires ongoing self-awareness on the part of the adult.

The Difference Between Logical Consequences and Punishment

Three factors distinguish punishment from a logical consequence. They all start with the letter R. A real logical consequence, as opposed to a punishment, will always be Related, Reasonable, and Respectful. I will use an example of a problem to help demonstrate these factors and how they can help you keep away from using them as punishments.

Would you consider this to be a reasonable consequence? It’s related. If he’s not taking care of his bike in the way he has promised and is responsible for doing, losing the opportunity to ride his bike for one day is a reasonable consequence. The problem with the way that was delivered, of course, is that it’s not respectful. It demeaned and insulted Aaron. A respectful way of doing the same thing would be to go in and say, “I know it’s just hard to remember, probably, but your bike again was in the driveway, so I just put my bike lock around it and tied it to mine in the garage. Tomorrow, when I get home, I won’t have to get out of the car and put the bike in because it’ll still be in there. But tomorrow I will unlock it for you when I get home.”

That consequence allows Aaron to take responsibility for his choice. It called for a consequence that was reasonable and respectfully imposed. I would like to finish this thing about logical consequences by pointing out six different realities or facts about the difference between punishment and a logical consequence.

• Punishments express a personal power over, rather than power with. Logical consequences acknowledge mutual rights and mutual respect. It’s power with, it’s not allowing somebody to overuse their power with, but it’s certainly not imposed as a power over kind of thing.
• Punishments are very arbitrary. They’re usually not related, or barely related, to the situation.
• Punishment is personal and implies a moral judgment. It implies that somebody was a sinner. They did wrong. They did badly.
• Punishment is focused on past behavior. You did this in the past; you’re going to get this. Logical consequences are concerned with what’s happening right now as well as future behavior. It helps the person see the connection between their choice and what will happen in the future, so that they can make choices with the consequences they want in the future.
• Punishment threatens the offender with disrespect or loss of love. It’s a negative judgment of them. Logical consequences imply goodwill. It communicates, “I love and accept you. And this is going to happen because of this choice.”
• Finally, punishment is a demand for obedience. Logical consequences really acknowledge that ultimately the person, the child, controls the choices they make. It permits choice, and it acknowledges that.

These three criteria, Related, Reasonable, and Respectful, have become widely accepted guidelines for distinguishing logical consequences from punishment (Nelsen et al., 2013). When all three are present, children are far more likely to perceive the consequence as fair and to learn from it, rather than resist it.

Enforcing Limits

I want to discuss some things that will be useful for you when you have to be firm, when an agreement or limit is being challenged by someone. Even when there has been buy-in and input from everybody in establishing an agreement or limit, as adults, it’s our responsibility to ensure that those boundaries or limits will be honored by everyone.

Once limits are established, enforcing them is all about action, not words. The strength needed to enforce a limit comes from nonverbal things. Not only direct action, but body language and other non-verbal messages that communicate that you are in control of yourself, that they haven’t been able to “push your buttons,” that you are committed to enforcing this limit.

Research on communication consistently shows that a large portion of meaning in human interaction is conveyed nonverbally, through tone, posture, facial expression, and physical presence (Mehrabian, 1972). Children, in particular, are highly attuned to these cues. They are often more responsive to what we do and how we are than to what we say.

Think about someone you’ve known who modeled this kind of assertive strength, how they set and enforced limits. It’s important to be both calm and resolute. Conveying, “I mean this. I’m not backing down,” is done with calm, control, and persistence.

This approach reflects what is often described in the research as an authoritative stance, high in both warmth and firmness, which has been consistently associated with positive behavioral and social outcomes in children (Baumrind, 1991; Maccoby & Martin, 1983).

Jane Nelson, who’s written all kinds of books about positive discipline, once shared a story with me at a conference we were both attending.  She was a widow and had married a widower. Both of them had a number of children, so their blended family had something like seven children altogether. They used family meetings to create plans for how they were going to all live together harmoniously. One of the issues everyone identified was getting everybody out to school and work on time in the mornings. The whole family had decided that breakfast often interfered because when people ate too late, it didn’t give them time to do what they needed to meet everyone’s schedules.

They came up with an agreement that all breakfast would be eaten and finished by 7 am and that nobody would eat after that. There was one child whom she suspected might push that limit. Sure enough, after a few days, at about 10 minutes after 7, this child came into the kitchen and climbed up onto the counter to get cereal. She came in and, seeing him there, said, “Actually, I need you to get down.” He didn’t move, so she gently took him and set him down on the floor. He got back up on the counter. She calmly put him down from the counter. He again climbed up. She again calmly put him down.

She was prepared for this. She had thought through this, was willing to make the sacrifice of the time to do it, and was prepared to do it. She didn’t say anything else, and she controlled the amount of force she used to repeatedly do that. You can imagine that that would be frustrating to do. After 4 or 5 times, a lot of us would start grabbing the kid and yanking him down. That defeats the whole purpose. She used just the physical force needed to remove him and set him down gently, without saying anything more.

Finally, he said, “Well, I’m not hungry anyway,” and stormed off. About a week later, the same child tried the same kind of thing. This time it took two times of having to gently enforce the rule that breakfast would not be eaten after 7 am. It never happened again.

That limit was finally accepted. Children are not dumb. They will only push through limits when they know there is a chance of changing the outcome in some way. When there’s a consistent outcome, they get it. We know this from behavioral learning theory. When responses to behavior are inconsistent, children are more likely to continue testing limits because the outcome is unpredictable. In contrast, consistent responses help children quickly learn what to expect and adjust their behavior accordingly (Skinner, 1953; Alberto & Troutman, 2013).

If somebody has the TV on past the time at night when everybody’s agreed to turn the TV off, instead of giving a huge lecture which starts with something like, “How many times do I have to tell you? You know, it’s already 10 minutes after 10, and the TV is supposed to be off at 10.” Just going and standing in front, or just turning it off gently, and then if they turn it back on, just turning it off again, and repeating for as long as it takes. It’s critically important to stay calm while enforcing any limit. If they can sense your emotions escalating, they will hang in longer in the hope that you’ll eventually give up. When we are emotionally activated, we don’t communicate the same level of strength.

In addition, neuroscience research suggests that children rely on adults for co-regulation, the process by which an adult’s calm and regulated state helps a child return to regulation (Siegel & Bryson, 2011). When we remain calm and grounded, we are not only enforcing a limit, but we are also modeling and supporting emotional regulation.

How to Establish and Enforce Limits

Be prepared

Think about potential times where you’ll need to enforce a limit. Plan ahead for that.

Anticipating challenges is a key component of proactive classroom management. Teachers who plan for predictable difficulties are more effective in preventing escalation and maintaining a calm environment (Emmer & Sabornie, 2015).

Be consistent

Establishing limits requires consistency. Learning theory tells us that consistency of response to behavior is needed to most efficiently establish that behavior.

Consistency is one of the most well-established principles in behavior research. When expectations and responses are predictable, children are more likely to internalize rules and develop self-regulation (Alberto & Troutman, 2013). Inconsistent responses, on the other hand, can unintentionally reinforce persistence in challenging behavior.

Take the time to train

It may take more time initially to establish a limit by consistently enforcing it, but when that is accomplished, you don’t need to do it any longer, and much time is saved.

This reflects the concept that investing time in teaching and reinforcing expectations early leads to more efficient classroom functioning over time—a principle widely supported in both classroom management and prevention research (Evertson & Weinstein, 2006).

Action, not words

Enforcing limits is all about non-verbal action. Over-reliance on verbal correction can reduce effectiveness, especially with young children. Clear, calm action paired with minimal language is often more effective because it reduces power struggles and keeps the focus on the behavior rather than the adult’s authority (Kostelnik et al., 2015).

Describe What You See

This technique is very simple. Often, children can just forget or not be aware of something that needs to be done. All that is needed is a reminder or something simple that brings their attention to the matter. It takes time to develop habits, and even when those routines or habits are established, we all forget things at times. From a developmental perspective, young children are still building executive function skills, including working memory, attention, and self-monitoring. These skills are not fully developed, so children frequently need external prompts to notice and act on expectations (Center on the Developing Child, 2011). Statements that simply describe what is happening serve as gentle cues that support these developing abilities without creating resistance.

This technique is like the “when” component of an I-message. It just conveys the simple facts concisely. This approach aligns with research on descriptive feedback, which emphasizes providing objective, observable information rather than evaluative or judgmental statements. Descriptive language helps children focus on what is happening rather than on how they are being judged, which supports both cooperation and self-regulation (Hattie & Timperley, 2007).

It can be very useful in prompting action that needs to happen without controlling, demanding, or ridiculing the person. It doesn’t direct. It just prompts attention to what needs to be done. It doesn’t tell people what to do. It contains no judgment about anything the person has or hasn’t done. It simply reminds.

Obviously, there are times when this wouldn’t be appropriate. For this to be an appropriate tool to use, children have to understand what behavior is needed in response to that information. Some things will also need a much more direct intervention. For example, you wouldn’t say, “I see someone throwing blocks at another of our friends.”

Give Information

We all need adequate information about how things work or the reasons for some things to understand what is needed in different situations. Sometimes, the consequences of certain things are not really known to other people. We need that information in order to make informed choices. Children actively build understanding through experience and new information. Rather than simply complying with rules, children are more likely to act responsibly when they understand the reasons behind expectations (Piaget, 1952; DeVries & Zan, 1994).

At some point, children don’t know why lights should be turned off in a closet when no one is in there and needs to see. They don’t know that money goes to the gas and electric company, and that the more we waste electricity, the more we pay for it. Of course, there are important environmental consequences involved in the need to conserve electricity. Initially, they don’t know why certain things need to be recycled rather than thrown away. The effects of certain behavior on the environment were unknown to all of us at some point. Giving information to children who are just learning about the world and how it works is important. They need to know certain information about these things before they can understand what needs to be done.

Another example is knowing that some food spoils if left outside the refrigerator. Instead of saying, “How many times have I told you to put the milk up?” a young child needs to understand why this is needed. “You know, when milk is not refrigerated, when it’s not in a cold enough place, it actually can spoil. It can get these little bacteria kind of things in it, and then we have to throw it out.” That kind of information is very useful. Providing explanations supports both cognitive development and moral reasoning. As children begin to understand cause-and-effect relationships, they are better able to make thoughtful decisions rather than relying solely on adult direction (Kohlberg, 1984).

How many young children have looked at walls as great mural spaces? When my son was two, we had a large portion of our wall in the hallway decorated for us. He didn’t have any malicious intention. His goal was to use his budding abilities to draw with crayons and give us a gift with his talents. He didn’t know that we preferred the walls to be plain and that drawing on them was not a good thing. At some point in their early art career, they need to know what materials should be used and which shouldn’t.

Helping children receive the information they need in order to make good decisions can be very helpful and is our responsibility. When children understand why something matters, they are more likely to internalize expectations. Research suggests that providing meaningful explanations supports internal motivation and reduces reliance on external control (Deci & Ryan, 2000).

The amount of information given, however, often in the form of long lectures or sermons, is not so useful. Research on attention and cognitive load indicates that children, especially younger ones, can process only limited amounts of information at a time. Long explanations or lectures often exceed their capacity and become ineffective (Sweller, 1988). Children, especially as they get older, just tune us out. Brief, clear, and relevant information is far more impactful. It’s important when using this strategy to be:

• Focused. Share the information that is directly related to the issue at hand. Focused explanations help children make clear connections between behavior and outcomes, which strengthens learning.
• Objective. Information about the issue, like the cost financially and environmentally of leaving lights on unnecessarily, without judgment of their behavior. Objective communication reduces defensiveness and keeps the focus on understanding rather than blame (Ginott, 1972).
• Developmentally appropriate. What you share and how you do it should be developmentally appropriate for the age of that child. Matching explanations to a child’s developmental level ensures that the information is meaningful and usable, which is essential for effective learning (Copple & Bredekamp, 2009).

Find the Unmet Needs that Children are Trying to Meet

Often, behavior that is nonproductive and needs to be managed by us is driven by an attempt, although negative, to meet a primary need. As long as children feel the need for that goal, they are going to try to obtain it by the means that seem to them to be the best shot of getting there. What we see as misbehavior or unproductive often can get that need met in the fastest, most efficient manner for them.

We have explored the four common “mistaken goals” of misbehavior that can help us decode the underlying motivation behind a child’s actions. If the goal for the “misbehavior” can be identified, it changes our emotional response to that behavior, and we can help the child find more productive, acceptable ways to get that goal met. There is nothing wrong with the underlying need or goal, only the means the child is choosing to obtain them.  Recognizing these goals allows us to respond more effectively, shifting from reactive discipline toward empathetic guidance

Specific information about these goals were explored and can be reviewed in the chapter on Positive Guidance.

Quick Recognition Guide

Use Reframing or Redirecting

Reframing and redirecting are closely connected strategies. Reframing is what happens internally; it is how we interpret behavior. Redirecting is what happens externally; it is how we respond. When we shift from seeing behavior as something to stop to something to understand, our responses naturally become more effective and more respectful. Instead of reacting with control, we begin to guide with intention.

One of the most important skills we can develop is the ability to pause and reconsider what we are seeing. In the fast pace of a classroom, it is very easy to assign quick labels to behavior: defiant, disruptive, attention-seeking, careless. These labels can feel accurate in the moment, but they often lead us toward control-based responses that don’t actually address what is happening beneath the surface. Reframing invites us to slow down just enough to ask a different question: What might this behavior be communicating?

As we have discussed, behavior is not random or meaningless. It serves a function. Children use behavior to communicate needs, express emotions, and navigate situations for which they may not yet have the necessary skills (Fox et al., 2003; Sugai & Horner, 2002). When we begin to see behavior in this way, our role shifts. We are no longer simply trying to stop behavior; we are trying to understand and respond to it in a way that supports development.

This shift in perspective does not mean that we abandon limits or expectations. Those remain essential. What changes is how we approach them. A child who grabs materials may not be “rude” so much as struggling with impulse control or waiting. A child who interrupts may not be “disrespectful” but may lack the ability to hold onto a thought or may be seeking connection. A child who refuses may be expressing a need for autonomy or may feel overwhelmed by what is being asked. These interpretations lead us in very different directions from the original labels.

Research on attribution helps explain why this matters. The way we interpret behavior strongly influences how we respond. When behavior is viewed as intentional misbehavior, adults are more likely to respond with punishment or control. When behavior is understood as reflecting developmental needs or skill gaps, responses tend to be more supportive and effective (Weiner, 1985; Bear, 2010). In this sense, reframing is not just a mental exercise; it is the foundation for more constructive action. If we see the child’s goal as legitimate, then instead of trying to “stop” it, we can just redirect it.

Redirection

Redirection is not simply about stopping what is happening. It is about helping children move toward something else, something that works better for them and for the group. Research in behavior and learning consistently shows that telling children what not to do is far less effective than helping them understand and practice what they can do instead (Alberto & Troutman, 2013). Without an alternative, children are often left without a clear path forward.

Redirect to a Different Behavior

Sometimes this means guiding a child toward a different behavior. If a child is throwing blocks, we might acknowledge the limit while offering an alternative: the blocks are not for throwing, but they can be used for building or rolling. If a child is using markers on the wall, we can redirect them to paper and help them continue their exploration in a more appropriate way. In these moments, we are not shutting down the child’s intention; we are shaping it in a more productive, satisfying direction.

Redirect to a Different Space

At other times, the environment itself may be contributing to the behavior. A child who is overwhelmed by noise or activity may benefit from moving to a quieter space. A child who is struggling to regulate may need access to a calm-down area or Peace Place. Thoughtful adjustments to space can often reduce challenges quickly, which reflects what we know about the powerful role of environment in influencing behavior (Copple & Bredekamp, 2009).

Redirect to Meet the Underlying Need

There are also moments when the most helpful redirection is one that addresses the underlying need more directly. A child who is hitting may need a more appropriate outlet for physical energy. A child who is speaking loudly may need a space where that level of expression is acceptable. A child who is interrupting may need reassurance that their voice will be heard. In these situations, redirection becomes a way of helping the child meet a legitimate need in a way that is safe and respectful.

The effectiveness of redirection depends not only on what we say, but also on how and when we say it. It is most helpful when it is immediate, calm, and clear. When delivered without frustration or urgency, redirection avoids escalating the situation and keeps the focus on learning. Over time, children begin to internalize these alternatives. What begins as external guidance gradually becomes internal self-regulation.

It is important to remember that every moment of redirection is also a moment of teaching. We are not just managing behavior in the present; we are helping children develop skills for the future. They are learning how to navigate social situations, how to regulate their emotions, and how to meet their needs in ways that work for themselves and others. This reflects a developmental approach to guidance, in which the goal is not simply compliance, but growth (Kostelnik et al., 2015).

Reframing changes how we see behavior. Redirecting changes what children are able to do next. Together, they allow us to respond to challenges in ways that are both effective and respectful, supporting not only immediate cooperation but long-term development.

Use Assertive I-messages

The structure, the purpose, and the care needed to use I-Messages effectively was extensively discussed. What follows here is a reminder of how they can be used as a practical tool in everyday situations to guide and manage children’s behavior while maintaining mutual respect.

At their core, I-Messages are a way of expressing the impact of behavior without blaming or judging the child. They allow us to communicate clearly and honestly while preserving the relationship. Research on communication and classroom climate consistently shows that when teachers communicate in ways that reduce blame and defensiveness, children are more likely to respond cooperatively and maintain positive relationships with adults (Ginott, 1972; Pianta et al., 2012).

Choosing Between I-Messages and Active Listening

One of the most important considerations in using I-Messages is what we have previously called “problem ownership.” Before speaking, it is helpful to ask: Whose problem is this? If the child is experiencing frustration, sadness, or difficulty, and the primary need is to be understood, then active listening is usually the most appropriate response. In those moments, the goal is not to correct behavior but to support emotional processing.

If, on the other hand, the child’s behavior is creating a problem for others or for the functioning of the group, then an I-Message becomes appropriate. In this case, we are communicating the impact of the behavior and the need for change. This distinction reflects a broader principle in social-emotional learning: effective guidance depends on accurately identifying the nature of the situation and responding accordingly (Elias et al., 1997). When we confuse these two, responding with correction when listening is needed, or listening when a limit must be set, we are less effective.

Situations Where I-Messages Are Most Useful

I-Messages are particularly effective in situations where behavior is:

• Interfering with the needs of others
• Disrupting the group
• Creating safety concerns
• Causing damage to materials or the environment
• Repeated after expectations have already been taught

In these moments, an I-Message allows us to communicate clearly without escalating the situation. In each case, the message communicates three things: what is happening, why it matters, and what is needed, without attacking the child. For example:

• “When blocks are thrown, someone could get hurt. I need the blocks to stay on the floor.”
• “When the room is this loud, it’s hard for people to think. I need voices to be quieter.”
• “When materials are left out, they get lost or broken. I need them put back when you’re finished.”

You will notice that the examples here and those that follow don’t include the full 4 components of an I-message previously suggested, however, it is important to shift from our typical “You-message” forms of communication. I hope you see how they are still complete I-messages in that they communicate assertively what you need without blame or judgment.

Using I-Messages with a Group

I-Messages are not limited to one-on-one interactions. They can be very effective when used with a whole class. When addressing a group, I-Messages help avoid singling out individuals while still addressing the issue clearly. This supports a sense of community and shared responsibility rather than blame. For example:

• “When people are still talking, others can’t hear the directions. I need everyone’s attention.”
• “When materials are left out, it makes it hard for the next group to use them. I need everything put away.”

Using I-Messages in this way reinforces the idea that classroom expectations are about shared needs, not arbitrary rules. This aligns with research on classroom climate showing that students are more cooperative when they perceive expectations as fair and collectively meaningful (Bear, 2010).

When to Use I-Messages Privately

There are also times when it is more appropriate to use an I-Message privately with a child. This is especially important when:

• The behavior is sensitive or potentially embarrassing
• The child is already emotionally activated
• The goal is to preserve dignity and the relationship
• The issue is ongoing or individualized

Addressing a child privately helps avoid public embarrassment, which can trigger defensiveness or shame and reduce the likelihood of positive change. Maintaining a child’s dignity is a key component of effective guidance (Nelsen et al., 2013).

For example, instead of addressing a recurring issue in front of others, quietly saying, “I feel frustrated when I have to remind you several times, because I know you’re capable of doing this independently. I need you to take care of it the first time.”

This approach communicates both expectation and respect.

Using I-Messages as Encouragement

We have talked about how important it is to avoid praise, but encouragement is something that is needed by everyone frequently. I-Messages can be a powerful alternative to praise. Rather than evaluating a child’s behavior as “good” or “bad,” they allow us to express appreciation in a way that highlights the impact and contribution of a child’s behavior. For example, “When you helped clean up, it made the room ready much more quickly. I really appreciate that.” Or “I felt really happy when you included your friend, it helped them feel part of the group.”

This kind of communication supports intrinsic motivation because it focuses on the meaning and effect of the behavior rather than an external evaluation of it. Research on motivation suggests that this kind of feedback, emphasizing contribution and impact, is more likely to support internalization and long-term prosocial behavior (Deci & Ryan, 2000).

Tone and Authenticity

As with all of these strategies, how I-Messages are delivered matters as much as their structure. If they are delivered with sarcasm, frustration, or disguised judgment, they lose their effectiveness and can become just another form of criticism. When used authentically, with calmness, clarity, and respect, they communicate something very powerful: “Your behavior matters, and so does our relationship.”

I-Messages are one of the most practical tools we have for balancing honesty with respect. They allow us to set limits, express needs, and guide behavior without damaging the connection we have with children. Used thoughtfully, they help create an environment where expectations are clear, communication is respectful, and relationships remain strong.

Identifying and Addressing “Primary” Feelings

Irritation, frustration, and anger are often the emotions felt in situations where children’s behavior is inappropriate or interferes with their own or the group’s best interests. Identifying and understanding our deeper emotions that elicited these surface emotions is extremely useful and powerful in helping us respond to their behavior effectively. When children’s behavior demonstrates these surface emotions of anger, frustration, or irritation, it is also extremely useful for us to ascertain their primary feelings that lie underneath what they are expressing.

Anger is often what we see, but it is rarely what is truly driving behavior in children as well as ourselves. Beneath anger, there are often more vulnerable feelings, hurt, disappointment, fear, embarrassment, loneliness, or a sense of powerlessness. These are what we might call primary feelings, while anger is often a secondary or protective emotion. Research suggests that emotions like anger frequently function as a response to more vulnerable underlying states, especially when individuals do not yet have the skills or language to express those deeper feelings directly (Greenberg, 2002). For young children in particular, whose emotional awareness and vocabulary are still developing, anger can become the most accessible way to express distress.

Why This Matters

When we respond only to the surface emotion, anger, we often focus on stopping the behavior. While limits may still be necessary, stopping behavior alone does not address what caused it. As a result, the same behavior is likely to recur. When we are able to recognize and respond to the underlying feeling, something different happens. The child feels understood. Their emotional intensity often decreases. And they are more open to guidance.

This process is closely related to what researchers call emotion coaching, an approach in which adults help children identify, understand, and manage their emotions. Studies have shown that children who experience this kind of support develop stronger emotional regulation, social competence, and fewer behavior problems over time (Gottman, Katz, & Hooven, 1997).

Looking Beneath the Behavior

In practice, this means learning to pause and ask ourselves, “What might this child be feeling underneath what I’m seeing?” For example:

• A child who lashes out when losing a game may be feeling disappointment or embarrassment.
• A child who refuses to participate may be feeling anxiety or fear of failure.
• A child who disrupts may be feeling disconnected or seeking belonging.

We developmentally understand behavior as communication. When children do not yet have the skills to express feelings directly, those feelings often emerge through behavior (Fox et al., 2003).

Responding to Primary Feelings

Once we begin to recognize possible underlying emotions, the next step is to respond in a way that acknowledges them. This does not mean that we ignore the behavior. It means that we address the feeling and the behavior. For example:

• “It looks like you’re really frustrated that the tower fell.”
• “That was disappointing when your turn ended.”
• “It seems like that hurt your feelings.”

These kinds of reflexive responses help children feel seen and understood. Research shows that when emotions are acknowledged and labeled, children are better able to regulate those emotions and move toward more appropriate behavior (Denham et al., 2012).

The Role of Adult Self-Awareness

This process is not only about understanding children, but it is also about understanding ourselves. When we feel irritation or anger in response to children’s behavior, those feelings also have deeper roots. We may be feeling overwhelmed, concerned about losing control of the group, think that we are disrespected, or ineffective. Being aware of our own primary feelings allows us to respond more intentionally rather than react impulsively. This is an important aspect of professional practice. Teachers who are able to regulate their own emotions are better able to support children’s regulation and maintain a positive classroom climate (Jennings & Greenberg, 2009).

Balancing Empathy and Limits

Recognizing primary feelings does not mean that limits disappear. In fact, it allows limits to be more effective. A response might sound like, “I can see that you’re really angry that you didn’t get a turn yet. It’s hard to wait. I’m not going to let you push. Let’s find a way for you to wait.”

In this way, we are communicating two important messages at the same time: Your feelings are valid and understood, and your behavior still has limits. This balance reflects the broader principle of being both kind and firm.

Building Emotional Awareness Over Time

When we look beneath anger to the feelings underneath, we gain access to what is really driving behavior. Responding at that level allows us not only to manage the immediate situation but to support children in developing the emotional skills they will need throughout their lives.

As children experience this kind of response consistently, they begin to develop greater awareness of their own emotions. Over time, they are more likely to say, “I’m mad,” “That’s not fair,” “I feel left out,” rather than expressing those feelings through behavior. This is the long-term goal: helping children move from acting out feelings to expressing and managing them. Emotional literacy, the ability to identify and understand emotions, is strongly linked to later social competence, academic success, and mental health (Denham et al., 2012).

Use a Structured Problem-Solving Process

While many behavioral situations can be addressed quickly using the strategies, there are times when a more intentional and collaborative approach is needed. Some problems are not momentary; they are ongoing, complex, or involve competing needs that cannot be resolved with a simple limit or redirection.

A structured problem-solving process is particularly useful in situations such as:

• Ongoing conflicts between children
• Repeated patterns of behavior that are not changing
• Disagreements about fairness, rules, or participation
• Situations where both sides have legitimate needs that are in conflict
• Group issues that affect the classroom community

In these situations, simply imposing a solution may resolve the issue temporarily, but it does not help children develop the skills they need to navigate similar challenges in the future. A structured process allows us to slow down, involve everyone affected, and work toward solutions that respect all perspectives.

This approach reflects a shift from solving problems for children to solving problems with them. When children are involved in collaborative problem-solving, they develop stronger skills in communication, empathy, and decision-making (Elias et al., 1997; Jones & Bodtker, 2001).

This process can be used in several different ways. It can be used between an adult and a child when there is a disagreement or an ongoing issue. It can be used with a whole group when a classroom concern needs to be addressed collectively. It can also be facilitated by a teacher to help two children, or even small groups of children, work through conflicts with each other. In each case, the goal is the same: to find solutions that meet needs while strengthening relationships.

Define the Problem

Defining the problem objectively is one of the most important steps in the entire process. It requires us to separate the issue from the people involved and to describe it without judgment or blame.

Define the problem objectively and free of judgment. Rather than stating either position or side as positive or negative, just state what it is that you disagree about. “There is a disagreement about how many children can play in this game,” is an objective statement. “We want the game to be fun, and they want too many people to play,” is not objective. If you objectively describe the problem, it isn’t a question of one of you winning and one of you losing. It’s, “Okay, this is the issue. If we solve it, we’ll both get what we need.”

When problems are framed in terms of who is right or wrong, they quickly become win-lose situations. When they are framed objectively, they become shared challenges that can be solved together. This shift reflects principles from conflict resolution research, which emphasize the importance of defining problems in neutral, non-evaluative terms to reduce defensiveness and increase collaboration (Fisher, Ury, & Patton, 2011).

Gather Facts

Gathering facts involves more than identifying what happened; it includes understanding the feelings and needs of everyone involved. This is where many of the skills discussed earlier in this text come together, particularly active listening and the use of I-Messages. Taking the time to fully explore each perspective is essential. When individuals feel heard and understood, they are more open to considering solutions. Research on conflict resolution and emotional development shows that feeling understood reduces emotional intensity and increases willingness to cooperate (Gordon, 1975; Denham et al., 2012).

Talk about the feelings and needs of everyone on both sides of the issue. This is one of the many places where active listening and I-messages are so important. Spend as much time on this until each party feels like their feelings and needs have been expressed and understood.

If you are using it to solve an issue between you and a child, be sure to start with the child. Starting with the child’s perspective is especially important. It communicates respect and helps build trust. When children experience this consistently, they become more willing to engage in problem-solving rather than resisting it. Talk about the child’s feelings and needs. Reflect back what they share, “On one hand, you have this need. You are feeling this about this.” And then talk about your feelings and needs. “On the other hand, when this happens, this is what I am feeling, and these are my needs.”

Generate Options

Generating options is the heart of the problem-solving process. It is where creativity and collaboration come together. The goal at this stage is not to evaluate, but to expand possibilities. When people feel free to suggest ideas without immediate judgment, they are more likely to think creatively and move beyond rigid positions.

You want to really allow and invite everyone to think outside the box. Instead of just saying, “Well, I want you to do this.” And the other saying, “I want you to do this.” It’s more like, “Okay, well, let’s think about this. I want this, and you want this. What are some possibilities that could happen? If we get creative enough, hopefully we’ll find something that can give us both what we need.”

After you have invited that openness, write down each of the ideas while not evaluating them at all. “Okay. You think I should just not care?”  Write that down. “What else?” Keep eliciting suggested solutions, no matter how crazy they are. This reflects what research on collaborative problem-solving describes as moving from positions to interests, from “what I want” to “what I need” (Fisher et al., 2011). Once underlying needs are clear, a wider range of solutions becomes possible.

Inviting all ideas, even unrealistic ones, plays an important role. Often, the most workable solutions emerge only after less workable ideas have been fully expressed. It’s usually necessary to get through all of the possibilities that would end up being a win-lose solution before true win-win possibilities emerge.

Evaluate

Once a range of possibilities has been generated, the process shifts to evaluating those options. After you have an exhaustive list, then you go through the list and cross out anything that one person can’t live with. “You know the suggestion about me not worrying. That would be great, but it’s something I can’t do. I do worry, so I’m going to cross that off.” Everybody has the right to cross off anything that’s not good for them.

Allowing each person to reject options that do not meet their needs reinforces a sense of fairness and autonomy. Research shows that when individuals perceive decision-making processes as fair, they are more likely to accept outcomes and follow through on agreements (Urbanska, Pehrson, & Turner, 2019).

Then, of the ones that are left, decide together on the one you think is going to be the best shot at fully getting both of your needs met. The goal is not to compromise in the sense of both sides giving something up, but rather to collaborate and reach a win-win solution that works as well as possible for everyone involved.

Implement and Evaluate

And then there’s just simply an agreement of how to implement it and a plan to evaluate, to see if it worked at a certain amount of time in the future. “Let’s meet next week and see if we’re both feeling good about doing this thing that we’ve decided to try.”

This step reinforces the idea that problem-solving is an ongoing process rather than a one-time event. Planning to revisit the solution is important. It communicates that adjustments can be made and that the goal is to find what truly works.

This reflects a broader principle of experiential learning: individuals learn not only by making decisions, but by reflecting on the outcomes of those decisions (Kolb, 1984).

When children participate in this full cycle, identifying problems, generating solutions, and evaluating outcomes, they develop confidence in their ability to handle challenges independently.

Conclusion

A structured problem-solving process is more than a way to resolve conflicts; it is a way to teach children how to live and work with others. Each time we engage in this process, we are helping children develop essential life skills: listening, perspective-taking, flexibility, and cooperation.

Over time, children begin to internalize this approach. What starts as a guided process becomes something they can do independently. This is one of the ultimate goals of guidance, not simply to manage behavior in the moment, but to equip children with the skills they need for a lifetime.

Bringing It All Together

These strategies and principles are not meant to be used in isolation. They are parts of a larger whole, a way of thinking about children, relationships, and learning that is grounded in mutual respect. When we step back and look across these strategies, a pattern emerges. Rather than relying on control, punishment, or rewards, each of these approaches is designed to do something deeper. They help children understand themselves, understand others, and learn how to function effectively within a community. They shift the focus from managing behavior in the moment to developing skills that last over time.

At the heart of this work is a fundamental shift in perspective. Behavior is no longer something to control; it is something to understand. Mistakes are no longer problems to eliminate; they are opportunities to teach. Relationships are no longer secondary to instruction; they are the foundation that makes all learning possible.

This does not mean that the work becomes easy. In many ways, it becomes more complex. It requires awareness, reflection, patience, and intentionality. It asks us to consider not only what children are doing, but why they are doing it, and how we can respond in ways that support their growth.

There will always be challenging moments. There will be times when strategies do not work as expected, when emotions run high, and when it would be easier to fall back on control. But each of these moments is also an opportunity to model calmness, to practice respect, and to guide children toward better ways of being with themselves and others.

Over time, as these principles are consistently applied, something important begins to happen. Children become more capable of managing themselves. They begin to solve problems independently. They show greater empathy, responsibility, and resilience. The classroom becomes not just a place where behavior is managed, but a community where people learn how to live and work together.

That is ultimately the goal. Not just well-behaved children, but capable, thoughtful, and connected human beings.

And that begins with how we choose to respond, one moment at a time.

 References

1. Adler, A. (1998). The education of children (2nd ed.). Gateway Press. (Original work published 1930)
2. Alberto, P. A., & Troutman, A. C. (2013). Applied behavior analysis for teachers (9th ed.). Pearson.
3. Baumrind, D. (1991). The influence of parenting style on adolescent competence and substance use. Journal of Early Adolescence, 11(1), 56–95.
4. Bear, G. G. (2010). School discipline and self-discipline: A practical guide to promoting prosocial student behavior. Guilford Press.
5. Center on the Developing Child. (2011). Building the brain’s “air traffic control” system: How early experiences shape the development of executive function. Harvard University.
6. Copple, C., & Bredekamp, S. (2009). Developmentally appropriate practice in early childhood programs (3rd ed.). NAEYC.
7. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268.
8. Denham, S. A., Bassett, H. H., & Wyatt, T. (2012). The socialization of emotional competence. Early Education and Development, 23(5), 647–660.
9. DeVries, R., & Zan, B. (1994). Moral classrooms, moral children. Teachers College Press.
10. Dreikurs, R. (1964). Children: The challenge. Hawthorn Books.
11. Elias, M. J., Zins, J. E., Weissberg, R. P., et al. (1997). Promoting social and emotional learning: Guidelines for educators. ASCD.
12. Emmer, E. T., & Sabornie, E. J. (2015). Handbook of classroom management (2nd ed.). Routledge.
13. Evertson, C. M., & Weinstein, C. S. (2006). Handbook of classroom management. Lawrence Erlbaum.
14. Fox, L., Dunlap, G., Hemmeter, M. L., Joseph, G. E., & Strain, P. S. (2003). The teaching pyramid: A model for supporting social competence and preventing challenging behavior. Young Children, 58(4), 48–52.
15. Ginott, H. G. (1972). Teacher and child. Macmillan.
16. Gottman, J. M., Katz, L. F., & Hooven, C. (1997). Meta-emotion: How families communicate emotionally. Lawrence Erlbaum.
17. Greenberg, L. S. (2002). Emotion-focused therapy. American Psychological Association.
18. Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112.
19. Jennings, P. A., & Greenberg, M. T. (2009). The prosocial classroom. Review of Educational Research, 79(1), 491–525.
20. Jones, T. S., & Bodtker, A. (2001). Mediating with heart in mind: Addressing emotion in mediation practice. Negotiation Journal, 17(3), 217–244. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1571- 9979.2001.tb00238.
21. Kohlberg, L. (1984). The psychology of moral development. Harper & Row.
22. Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning. Prentice Hall.
23. Kostelnik, M. J., Soderman, A. K., Whiren, A. P., & Rupiper, M. L. (2015). Guiding children’s social development and learning (8th ed.). Cengage.
24. Maccoby, E. E., & Martin, J. A. (1983). Socialization in the context of the family. In Handbook of child psychology.
25. Mehrabian, A. (1972). Nonverbal communication. Aldine-Atherton.
26. Nelsen, J., Lott, L., & Glenn, H. S. (2013). Positive discipline in the classroom (3rd ed.). Three Rivers Press.
27. Pianta, R. C., Hamre, B. K., & Allen, J. P. (2012). Teacher-student relationships and engagement. In Handbook of research on student engagement. Springer.
28. Sandseter, E. B. H. (2011). Children’s risky play. Early Childhood Education Journal, 38, 257–264.
29. Sugai, G., & Horner, R. (2002). The evolution of discipline practices: School-wide positive behavior supports. Child & Family Behavior Therapy, 24(1-2), 23–50.
30. Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257–285.
31. Urbanska, K., Pehrson, S., and Turner, R.N., (2019). Authority Fairness for All? Intergroup Status and Expectations of Procedural Justice and Resource Distribution. Journal of Social and Political Psychology, 7(2), 766–789. https://doi.org/10.5964/jspp.v7i2.974.
32. Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion. Psychological Review, 92(4), 548–573.