The legendary Dr. Heather Coffey pointed out to a group of NWP teachers that there is something problematic about “allowing” our students to do something (when we design our objectives or class procedures). I want to allow students to express their thoughts. This definitely establishes the teacher as the institutional authority who allows or disallows behaviors.

I would contend that, instead of using a different word, we really need to think about what we are allowing and not allowing in our classrooms. We can say that we are “encouraging,” but if we are grading and assessing certain kinds of work and behaviors, then we are actually still allowing.

We can teach content that is appropriate to our curriculum. We can teach diverse authors that represent people of all races, ethnicities, genders. We can teach social justice.

If our teaching itself does not inhabit representation and social justice, then our content is meaningless. If our teaching continues to be authoritarian, directive, and competitive, those values are being inculcated more effectively than the surface values of diversity or inclusion.

Bear with me for a quick detour. The thing that has frustrated me the most as the parent of a middle school boy is the abstinence-only sex education he has received. That the school refuses to teach basic birth control and disease prevention is one thing. That the concept of consent is not taught is a significant problem. The more I considered this problem, the more I came to realize that there is no consent throughout K-12 curriculum. In fact, K-12 schooling is founded on utter lack of consent of children; K-12 education is compulsive.

What would a curriculum look like if it were founded on principles of consent? What would our classroom contracts and permission forms look like if students could actually say no?