Norms around us: the exercise I could not answer cleanly about my own building
I asked the room to name two or three norms at their workplace that might exclude someone with a different neurocognitive style. Then I had to answer it myself.
Direct eye contact. Timeliness. Speaking up quickly in a meeting. Reading a room. Sitting still. Each of these is treated in my building as professionalism or engagement rather than as a preference of one nervous system made mandatory for all of them.
The equity gaps we mapped are not abstract when placed next to that list: access to rigorous courses, teacher expectations, identification for gifted or special education (both under- and over-identified), literacy programs, discipline referrals, and assumptions about literacy. Krystal Cohen's framing stayed with me — academically, students held to standards that favor white students and misclassified as a result (McBee, 2010); socially, the costs land on self-esteem, sense of self, self-worth, willingness to take risks, and belonging within school and community.
So the closing question of the presentation became my own working question: is there a system to test for equity in a school, and how would any building know it was being equitable rather than merely intending to be? Who is pushing equity in each building? How are students identified, assessed, monitored, evaluated, and released from services — and who watches that pipeline?