Avoiding Plagiarism

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

The value-added scores also vary between years. A teacher who obtains a particular ranking in year one is likely to get a different ranking the following year. There will continuously be instability in these rankings, some of which will reflect “real” performance changes.

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

No measure is faultless, but the approximations of value-added and other “growth models,” which try to separate the “true effect” of a particular teacher via his or her students’ test scores, are disturbingly prone to error in any given year. Economist at New York University, Sean Corcoran, examined the teacher assessment systems in Houston and New York City.

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.

He discovered that the mean “margin of error” of a teacher from New York City was plus or minus 28 points. Thus, a teacher who has tiered at the 43rd percentile contrasted to his or her contemporaries may perhaps be anywhere between the 15th percentile and the 71st percentile (Ravitch 271).

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.

Although there is no way to properly evaluate a teacher, the value-added and other variations of “growth models” are especially detrimental and prone to error—regardless of the year (Ravitch 271). For example, Sean Corcoran, an esteemed economist at New York University, carefully assessed the systems used to evaluate teachers in a number of public schools consisted within both New York City and Houston, Texas districts (Ravitch 271).

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.

Because of how the system essentially functions, there is a strong likelihood that there will be no stability in teachers’ rankings (Ravitch 271). Fundamentally this means that although a teacher may receive one particular ranking in his or her first year, the teacher is most likely not going to receive the same ranking the ensuing year (Ravitch 271). Due to this sort of instability, only some of the rankings will truly “reflect ‘real’ performance changes” (Ravitch 271). Consequently, the system is incredibly faulty and it is no longer a system evaluating teachers’ performances—rather, a system that evaluates the teachers’ luck (Ravitch 271).

 

Works Cited:

Diane Ravitch, The Death and Life of the Great American School System. New York: Basic Books, 2011, pp. 270-71.

#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }