Let There Be Rights

As an aspiring teacher, I find it necessary to consider the assumptions and beliefs that

underlie my and my future colleagues’ practices. What a teacher does in the classroom reflects a

certain theory, whether that theory goes acknowledged by the teacher or not. In attempting to

discover these sorts of assumptions and beliefs that truly make pedagogical practice, many enter

the field as observers, gaining a firsthand experience of one’s teaching style. Such was my task.

Working to come to terms with the theoretical aspect of teaching, I was charged with the

assignment of observing and analyzing a practicing teacher for dispositions and beliefs towards

their students, teaching, and learning. Pondering teachers to observe, my mind went almost

immediately to Dr. Pewterschmidt. Though I’ve never officially had her for class, I’ve talked

pedagogy with her and twice sat in one of her classes. This project gave me the opportunity to

approach her pedagogy more formally while still allowing me some familiarity as an observer.

After discussing the matter, we decided it’d be best for me to see her Rhetoric of Literature class.

I had taken this particular course before with a different professor; observing Dr. Pewterschmidt

offered me an opportunity to reflect on my experience with that course as well.

Rhetoric of Literature is double-listed in both the university’s English and Speech

departments. The student make-up reflects this interdisciplinary aspect of the course, accepting

both Speech Communication and English majors (a rarity in upper-level courses). The class

starts at 3 pm, just as most people are ending their day, and lasts for three hours. When I arrived

for this session, the students had already arranged the rows and columns of desks into a

makeshift circle. Out of the 27 students present, 22 were women. There was one student of color

(also a woman). Dr. Pewterschmidt provided Greek food to match the evening’s topic of

Aristotle and classical rhetoric and encouraged everyone in the room to partake. After everyone
 Crane 2

had settled in and Dr. Pewterschmidt gave an itinerary of the evening’s class, she started

discussing the class’s bill of rights.

First, Dr. Pewterschmidt established the need of the bill of rights to make things

“transparent.” This bill, just as it sounds, would compile a list of rights for everyone in the class

(including Dr. Pewterschmidt). She drew a parallel between this practice and high amount of

future teachers in her class. Students were guided to think of “what’s worked for [them] in the

past.” She also made a point to urge her students to “hold [their] professors accountable.” Before

she let students propose the rights they were to consider, she asked a student with a laptop to

record the conversation while Dr. Pewterschmidt wrote the rights on the board in the front of the

room. The class and professor agreed that discussion should follow based on volunteers, with no

one being forced to propose a right, leaving Dr. Pewterschmidt to call on students by name.

From there, she called on students who raised their hands.

Lois put forth the idea that everyone should “respect each other’s ideas and opinions.”

Another, Connie, followed up, “Don’t be afraid to voice your opinion.” Dr. Pewterschmidt

agreed with both of these suggestions and wrote them on the board, stressing that fear should not

be part of the classroom environment. Other students chimed in with their own additions: “Right

to a bad day,” “Have an open mind,” “Come prepared.” Dr. Pewterschmidt agreed, writing the

first two down without a problem. When it came to preparation, she went into a short lecture to

cover her expectations on the matter. She asked to include a provision in which all students are

expected to bring handouts and printouts to class. The students agreed. She then asked

permission to quiz the class if she felt that students are unprepared to discuss assigned readings.

Here the class disagreed, showing a strong opposition to the prospect of quizzes. “Well,” offered

Meg (who had not contributed to the discussion up to this point), “what if we all promise to

participate?” Others in the room expressed disagreement to that as well. Dr. Pewterschmidt
 Crane 3

brought up the idea of asking those who were unprepared to leave. In the end, the class agreed to

foster “peer pressure to participate”: those who failed to contribute to a class discussion would be

expected to contribute early in the next week’s class.

After the debate on class preparedness, one student asked for “the right to bring in food

or drinks.” Dr. Pewterschmidt accepted this right as a means of making sure students came to

class happy. Brian brought up the “right to open the windows” to keep the room comfortable. Dr.

Pewterschmidt followed it with an addendum, “and to go outside if possible.” Meg, who had had

multiple classes with Dr. Pewterschmidt, brought up the matter of “dissensus.” For those

unfamiliar with the term, Dr. Pewterschmidt defined it in opposition to consensus, as the ability

“disagree in an atmosphere of total respect,” and actually advocated for its inclusion in the bill.

The class accepted this addition after the explanation.

One of the few males in the class, Stewie, asked about the “right to revise” completed

papers for a better grade. Dr. Pewterschmidt declined at first, but opened it up to discussion after

she saw a few hands raised at her rejection. Upon some deliberation, she was open to the

possibility of revisions and extra credit. She told the class that she believed they each should “be

able to earn the grade you’re willing to work for.” More discussion ensued and most students

agreed that they should be allowed to work on papers for a better grade. In addition to post-

grading revisions, the discussion permitted students the opportunity to create their own outside

assignments for extra credit. On the topic of cell phones, Dr. Pewterschmidt said she was fine if

students needed to step out during class, but asked for the courtesy of a heads-up if anyone was

expecting a call. Loretta tried bring up the “right to end class early” and explained her concern

that she wouldn’t be able to leave campus on time to stay on schedule. Dr. Pewterschmidt framed

this as a matter of time flexibility, pledging to “never keep you after.” Diane asked if the list

could include the line “Don’t be afraid to ask questions” to which Dr. Pewterschmidt responded
 Crane 4

with a line from her philosophy that she doesn’t believe in calling on people.

She then took a moment to praise the class on their most recent papers. She said she was

skeptical as to how the assignment would be received, but was impressed with the finished

products. Loretta tried to add another item to the list: “Don’t be offended by profanity.” At this,

Dr. Pewterschmidt invited rebuttal from the class at large. A few voices were raised as to when

such language would be appropriate and Loretta was allowed to defend her point of view, asking

only that vulgarities not be off-limits. Dr. Pewterschmidt offered the credo “appropriate

discourse at appropriate times,” which settled the matter. Jillian asked, “Can we approach you

about the syllabus?” Dr. Pewterschmidt quickly responded, “Oh, absolutely.” Likewise, her reply

was quick when it came to setting policies returning graded work. Bonnie only asked to see

completed assignments, but Dr. Pewterschmidt added that she would share the criteria used to

grade student work and would have assignments back within a week. The blackboard long since

filled with rights and the class seeming to tire of the process, the professor praised the class on

their collaboration and negotiating. “This is gonna be a great list,” she thought aloud while

looking at the board. “I like this list a lot.” After erasing the board and commenting on the

negotiating process that just occurred, she ended the bill of rights episode and moved onto a

discussion based on student reading journals.

Looking back on the data, there was a definite structure to these proceedings. A student

would propose an addition to Dr. Pewterschmidt who would either 1) affirm it (accept the rule

and write it on the board) or 2) amend it (suggest her own changes or open it to the class for

further discussion). She made it a point to constantly affirm the merit of student contributions, if

not the contributions themselves, suggesting a respect for the inclusion of student opinion. This

cycle of affirmation and amendment also pointed to a constructivist teaching philosophy. Firstly,

Dr. Pewterschmidt did not have a finished list at the beginning of the class; the list didn’t exist
 Crane 5

until the members of the class created it. Yet, while the students were responsible for co-

constructing the bill of rights, they were also responsible for keeping track of its contents and

respecting the rules. Simply put, they learned the knowledge as they created it.

Most interesting about this (approximately) hour-long episode is that it was entirely based

on procedural knowledge. One could make the case that students and professor used rhetoric at

certain points, especially when arguments arose, but the reason for the episode was based

entirely on classroom management. I’d argue that Dr. Pewterschmidt’s intense focus on

procedural knowledge comes a place of optimism regarding her students. Just from the amount

of time she spent asking for student input makes it clear that she believes students should be

contributing to the classroom atmosphere. From there we can infer that she thinks students are

capable, legitimate sources of knowledge. Her quote early in the process references the students’

past behaviors, asking them to apply that knowledge to this class. She also has to view students

as a legitimate source of authority otherwise she wouldn’t use this bill of rights as a class-binding

document. Maybe it’d be a class activity or some sort of “ice breaker,” but not a serious element

of the class structure, not as rules that students had to follow. Further, the professor viewed

herself as subject to these rules (revision, time flexibility, assignment turnaround, etc.) even

before they were codified. Even more compelling was her willingness to adopt rules she didn’t

totally agree with. In the instance of assignment revision, she was originally opposed to post-

grading changes. However, she allowed herself to be convinced by students who followed her

advice to them. They held their professor accountable to her own philosophy and worked to be

able to earn the grade they were willing to work for. In this case, the bending to student will

saves time in the process, validates student voice, and makes them more agreeable – all possible

motives for the teacher. Dr. Pewterschmidt also believes in “transparent teaching,” as evidenced

in her rationale for the bill. I believe this transparency reflects (what Dr. Pewterschmidt
 Crane 6

perceives to be) an obligation of teacher to students to be clear as to why she teaches in a certain

way.

From this episode, researchers can draw a few conclusions. Firstly, students are willing to

contribute to classroom management (their own management) if they see their suggestions taken

seriously. Secondly, students can be trusted to write the rules of the classroom. Dr.

Pewterschmidt did what many teachers deem unthinkable. She invited students to join her in a

position of authority – and, by and large, they accepted. What arose from the multiplicity of

opinion though was not chaos, but a rather rational, engaged arrangement of rules and policies

that may have arisen in any other class where the teacher did not include such a process. Of

course, this begs the question, “Why do this at all?” Constructivist teaching, as this episode

shows, takes much more time than some traditional approaches. Time spent deliberating

classroom protocol could have been spent summarizing Aristotle, sharing journal entries, or (as

Loretta may have preferred) ending class early. Those prepared to defend Dr. Pewterschmidt’s

teaching must be able to answer for the amounts of time students lose participating in tasks that

the professor can do herself. Such answering is beyond the goal of this research, but what it can

demonstrate is that students possess the potential to be members of a community as opposed to

prisoners in a cell. If a teacher is willing to level with students, it seems the students are willing

to listen to what that teacher has to say. Such mutual respect calls for investigation into the

possibility for more equal teacher-student relations.