Part of my response to an educator who causally linked a post on how natural consequences do not teach students after I identified as being a behaviourist in support of Collaborative Problem Solving (Ross Greene). 

Yes, those two things can co-exist. 

And I get it.  You were taught in university or college that behaviourism is dead. Alfie Kohn told you that people like me manipulate and harm children with our behaviourist approach.  Ed reformers tell you consequences and rewards are bad things and should be abolished. 

I am a behaviourist.  At the end of the day I want what you want: our learner to succeed; our learner to acquire the skills necessary to participate in our community and do things that are meaningful to them.  Sometimes, challenging behaviour gets in the way of that and is usually a symptom of underdeveloped adaptive behaviour skills.  I teach and reinforce replacement behaviours without dangling carrots in front of them, if you will.  I model coping skills and problem solving with the intent that next time, they might do the same (and hopefully I am there to catch them doing it so that I can give feedback).  I do this without shaming them or insisting that “bad” behaviour be punished.  And I coach parents and teachers to embody the same approach.

You can call me a behaviourist, but please do not assume what I do is bad, cold or manipulative because I speak of consequences.

Related posts: 

I help people, not control them: http://tmblr.co/Z-t1fx92PjZ5

Consequences are all around us: http://tmblr.co/Z-t1fxETxewE

I hate those behaviour charts anyway: http://tmblr.co/Z-t1fxN76Wxq