Category: Exercise 4 Avoiding Plagiarism

0: Climbing past desegregation to integration takes more than a court judgment. It takes open hearts, open minds, and open attitudes – qualities the best adults struggle to gain and most five-year-olds have in abundance.

 

1: It is apparent that we must do more than simply desegregate our schools in Connecticut. Climbing past desegregation to integration takes more than a court judgment.

 

2: It is apparent that we must do more than simply desegregate our schools in Connecticut. Putting desegregation behind us, and moving towards integration takes more than a court decision. We must open our hearts, minds and attitudes; something adults struggle with, yet something that comes so easily to children.

 

3: It is apparent that we must do more than simply desegregate our schools in Connecticut. Putting desegregation behind us, and moving towards integration takes more than a court decision; we must open our hearts, minds and attitudes – something adults struggle with, yet something that comes so easily to children. [1]

 

4: It is clear that change must occur in Connecticut for us to move past desegregation to integration. A simple court decision fails to bring about this profound difference; maybe adults should take a page out of the book of children and come to the realization that opening our minds make all the difference when it comes to truly providing educational equality for all.[2]

 

5: Perhaps one of the most important things to understand about the Sheff case is that it is simply a stepping-stone to achieving educational equality. It is not an easy task to make the change from simple desegregation to true integration. As stated by Eaton, “It takes open hearts, open minds, and open attitudes – qualities the best adults struggle to gain and most five-year-olds have in abundance.”[3]

Original text:

By 1974, Brown would be unable to stop the segregation that was ever more extreme up north. The argument at Sheff’s core is that such de facto segregation, born not from explicit laws but from a variety of causes, is devastating too.

 

Example 1: Plagiarize the original text by copying portions of it word-for-word.

By 1974, Brown would be unable to stop the segregation that was ever more extreme up north. The argument at Sheff’s core is that such de facto segregation, born not from explicit laws but from a variety of causes, is devastating too.

 

Example 2: Plagiarize the original text by paraphrasing its structure too closely, without copying it word-for-word.

The segregation that was extreme up North by 1974 was unstoppable by Brown. There were a variety of causes that led to the core argument presented by Sheff, and although they were devastating, they were not born from explicit laws.

 

Example 3: Plagiarize the original text by paraphrasing its structure too closely, and include a citation. Even though you cited it, paraphrasing too closely is still plagiarism.

The segregation that was extreme up North by 1974 was unstoppable by Brown. There were a variety of causes that led to the core argument presented by Sheff, and although they were devastating, they were not born from explicit laws. (Eaton, xiii)

 

Example 4: Properly paraphrase from the original text by restating the author’s ideas in different words and phrases, and include a citation to the original source.

Susan Eaton, Research Director at the Charles Hamilton Houston Institute for Race and Justice at Harvard Law School implies that there are numerous factors that have led to segregation and ultimately lawsuits like that of Sheff v. O’Neill in her book, The Children in Room E4. (Eaton, xiii)

 

Example 5: Properly paraphrase from the original text by restating the author’s ideas in different words and phrases, add a direct quote, and include a citation to the original source.

Susan Eaton, Research Director at the Charles Hamilton Houston Institute for Race and Justice at Harvard Law School implies that there are numerous factors that have led to segregation and ultimately lawsuits like that of Sheff v. O’Neill in her book, The Children in Room E4. According to Eaton, “The argument at Sheff’s core is that such de facto segregation, born not from explicit laws but from a variety of causes, is devastating too.” (Eaton, xiii)

 Works Cited

Eaton, Susan E. The Children in Room E4: American Education on Trial. Chapel Hill, NC: Algonquin of Chapel Hill, 2007. Print. (Introduction xiii-xiv)

 

 

Step 1:

Oral Reading skills?  The same.  Imaginative capabilities?  The same.  Ability to stay focused?…the same.  The ability to work cooperatively?  The same.  Willingness to take risks?  The same.  Ease at fitting in?…they’re the same too.  Well, not exactly the same.  The Waverly students lacked the subtleties that, fairly or not, cue mainstream folks about a persons education level and sophistication.

Step 2:

Reading levels?  Equal.  Imagination?  Equal.  Attention span?  Equal.  Cooperation skills?  Equal.  Adventurousness?  Equal.  Confidence?  Equal.  Well, almost equal.  The Waverly students lacked certain skills that set them apart as less educated or less sophisticated.

Step 3:

Reading levels?  Equal.  Imagination?  Equal.  Attention span?  Equal.  Cooperation skills?  Equal.  Adventurousness?  Equal.  Confidence?  Equal.  Well, almost equal.  The Waverly students lacked certain skills that set them apart as less educated or less sophisticated. (Eaton 283)

Eaton, Susan E. The Children in Room E4: American Education on Trial. Chapel Hill, NC: Algonquin of Chapel Hill, 2007. Print.

Step 4:

Even though the differences between the students of Waverly and the Students of Marlborough were very slim, a there was a clear distinction that set the Waverly students apart.  Their lack of knowledge of even simple subjects such as proper vocabulary put them at a disadvantage, and it was not the fault of the individual students.  (Eaton 283)

Step 5:

Even though the differences between the students of Waverly and the Students of Marlborough were very slim, a there was a clear distinction that set the Waverly students apart.  Their lack of knowledge of even simple subjects such as proper vocabulary put them at a disadvantage, and it was not the fault of the individual students, “The Waverly students lacked the subtleties that, fairly or not, cue mainstream folks about a persons education level and sophistication” (Eaton 283).  The inequalities between schooling in the suburbs and in Hartford is reflected through the differences in the schools’ respective students.

Eaton, Susan E. The Children in Room E4: American Education on Trial. Chapel Hill, NC: Algonquin of Chapel Hill, 2007. Print.

 

Passage: “I think that children can overcome the stigma of poverty… But, what they cannot overcome is the stigma of separation. That is like a damned spot on their being… a spot that, no matter what success you have, you can’t wipe it out. And that’s what segregation does to children; they see themselves as apart and separate because of the language they speak, because of the color of their skin.” (Eaton 124)

Part 1: Minority children attending Hartford schools can overcome the stigma of poverty… But, what they cannot overcome is the stigma of separation.

Part 2: No matter the success Hartford schoolchildren may have, they will never be able to overcome the stigma of separation.

Part 3: Although Hartford schoolchildren are able to get over the stigma of poverty.. they cannot get over the stigma of separation (Eaton 124).

Part 4: Gladys Hernandez, a veteran schoolteacher, argues that the powerful and degrading effects of racial separation stay with a child forever (Eaton 124).

Part 5: Gladys Hernandez, veteran schoolteacher, believes in school desegregation because racial isolation causes students to “see themselves as apart and separate because of the language they speak, because of the color of their skin” (Eaton 124).

Work Cited:

Eaton, Susan E.. The Children in Room E4: American Education on Trial. Chapel Hill, N.C.: Algonquin Books of Chapel Hill, 2007. Print.