We must reconsider our approach to guiding children, students, and employees in their self-regulation.

Everywhere you look—be it in classrooms, workplaces, or online education—there's a tendency to dictate how individuals should conduct themselves.

This has become increasingly excessive.

During the period of remote learning, numerous parents voiced their frustration over teachers requiring students to keep their cameras on during lessons, ostensibly to ensure engagement.

While I understand the intent behind teachers wanting to facilitate learning, it’s essential to recognize that some battles simply aren't worth fighting.

Feedback from students indicated a preference for online education precisely because they could disable their cameras. This allowed them to feel less pressure, experience less visual overstimulation, and concentrate better on the material.

Many found the freedom to fidget, stimulate, or position themselves comfortably without distracting others or being told to “sit properly” beneficial.

Now, with elementary students returning to traditional classrooms, the scrutiny of their physical comportment has intensified.

What drives this fixation on maintaining an ideal posture?

Some educational settings implement behavioral management strategies that reward students for sitting “nicely” during class.

But what does “sitting nicely” truly entail, and why is it so significant? Personally, I’m approaching 40, have run a successful business for over a decade, hold two degrees, and I’ve never adhered to traditional notions of sitting “properly” or “nicely.”

Often, I work outside, at my kitchen table with my feet tucked underneath, or with my legs extended on my sofa. I frequently cross my legs in the home office chair instead of placing my feet flat on the ground.

Sometimes, my feet go numb from sitting on them, but conventional sitting doesn’t suit me; it feels uncomfortable.

This leads me to another concern: the ableist and controlling notion of “whole body listening” taught in many educational settings.

“Whole body listening” is a concept introduced to educators and staff within our Inclusive Education framework, yet it is decidedly exclusive.

It typically emphasizes certain behaviors:

Let me outline why these classroom norms are ableist, controlling, and anything but inclusive.

Eyes on the Speaker

Forcing eye contact can hinder those who feel uncomfortable with it from fully comprehending what’s being communicated.

Many neurodivergent individuals may look around while listening, and they can absorb information auditorily. Mandating eye contact is both disrespectful and controlling.

Calm Feet and Hands in Lap

Must we micromanage how individuals position their feet and hands? Personally, I engage in a calming behavior by rubbing my feet together, which helps me focus. I can read, write, and learn effectively while my feet are in motion, so why is this an issue?

Quiet Hands/Hands Still

Focusing on keeping my hands still would consume all my mental energy, leaving me unable to concentrate. Fidgeting, doodling, and other similar actions are valid methods for self-regulation and maintaining focus. If students are safe and not disruptive, it’s best to let them be.

Criss-Cross Applesauce

I only adopt a criss-cross position when it’s awkward for me, such as in a swiveling office chair. Sitting on the floor, I find it difficult to maintain that posture. We do not have the authority to dictate how others position their bodies as long as they are not causing harm.

Listening Ears

Not everyone is capable of listening with their ears. The needs of Deaf and Hard of Hearing students are overlooked in the creation of ableist “whole body listening” materials, which is far from inclusive.

Bodily Autonomy

Fostering self-awareness in children is crucial, allowing them to understand themselves and advocate for their own needs. Our role is to teach them to make choices regarding their own bodies, not impose control over them—this communicates the wrong message.

Controlled Kids Grow Up to be Controlling Adults

I’ve observed how employers assess candidates during interviews and evaluate employees post-hire. Each organization has unique processes, yet many performance reviews share a commonality: they assess interpersonal and communication skills through a neurotypical lens.

Here’s a simplified example of what that might look like in an interview evaluation:

Unless an employee's primary role involves customer interaction, many of these traits are irrelevant. Expecting individuals to maintain such appearances only leads to burnout and misaligned priorities.

When the Honeymoon's Over

The initial phase of thriving in a new job is often referred to as the honeymoon period. Most can maintain this facade temporarily, but eventually, true behaviors emerge.

For many, this isn't a significant concern; they’ve demonstrated competence in their roles, and coworkers and managers tend to overlook minor errors because of our shared humanity.

For neurodivergent individuals, however, this can be a much larger issue.

Once the novelty fades and imperfections appear, my drive diminishes, and my enthusiasm declines. If the job or work environment isn’t accommodating for neurodivergent needs, my performance may suffer.

Moreover, I can't sustain the persona I presented during interviews and training. While I can project a customer service demeanor temporarily, it’s not sustainable, especially for neurodivergent individuals.

Employers, Take Note

Mandating employees to conform to neurotypical norms is ableist. This practice can unjustly exclude skilled individuals who are neurodivergent or simply don’t fit into these narrow expectations.

These arbitrary social norms exclude at least 20% of the population, which includes individuals with disabilities and those who are neurodivergent. Estimates suggest that 15-20% of people are neurodivergent, encompassing Autism, ADHD, and other conditions, while around 22% of Canadians live with disabilities. Employment rates for those with disabilities are significantly lower than for those without.

Focus on What Matters

We must relinquish our desire for control and welcome a bit of disorder, particularly in educational and workplace settings.

In some classrooms, students are allowed to fidget, move around, and engage in behaviors that support their learning, as long as it isn’t disruptive or harmful. While this may require more effort from educators, it ultimately fosters a more inclusive learning environment for everyone.

Employers who provide flexibility, such as hybrid remote and in-person options, are likely to have happier, more productive employees. This approach may attract creative thinkers and enhance innovation within existing teams.

By adopting a more relaxed management style, we can free up our mental space, allowing our responsibilities to take precedence. When we enable creativity to thrive, we become better mentors, educators, or managers. By stepping back and allowing our students or employees the freedom to work independently, they will appreciate the trust and autonomy afforded to them.

© Jillian Enright, Neurodiversity MB

Related Stories

Most Social Norms Are Arbitrary Social expectations and making room for people to just be themselves

Behaviour Management Programs are Harmful & Ableist Charts, points, and other behavior management programs touted as “positive” are actually harmful and ableist.

Behaviourism Is Not Inclusion PBIS is Just ABA With Different Letters

References Delahooke, M. (2022). Brain-Body Parenting: How to stop managing behaviour and start raising joyful, resilient kids. Harper Collins. Desautels, L. (2020). Connections Over Compliance: Rewiring our perceptions of discipline. Wyatt-MacKenzie Publishing. Greene, R. W. (2014). The explosive child: a new approach for understanding and parenting easily frustrated, chronically inflexible children. Revised and updated. Harper. Kohn, A. (2018). Punished By Rewards: The trouble with gold stars, incentive plans, A’s, praise, and other bribes. Houghton-Mifflin Harcourt Publishing. Kohn, A. (2016). The Myth of the Spoiled Child: Coddled kids, helicopter parents, and other phony crises. Beacon Press. Kohn, A. (2005). Unconditional Parenting: Moving from rewards and punishments to love and reason. Simon & Schuster, Inc. Shanker, S., & Barker, T. (2016). Self-reg: how to help your child (and you) break the stress cycle and successfully engage with life. Penguin Press. Shervin Venet, Alex (2021). Equity-Centred Trauma-Informed Education. W. W. Norton & Co. Statistics Canada. (2018). A demographic, employment and income profile of Canadians with disabilities aged 15 years and over. https://150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/89-654-x/89-654-x2018002-eng.htm Stixrud, W. & Johnson, N. (2019). The Self-Driven Child: The science and sense of giving your kids more control over their lives. Penguin Books. Walker, N. (2021). Neuroqueer Heresies: Notes on the neurodiversity paradigm, Autistic empowerment, and postnormal possibilities. Autonomous Press.