Category: xAvoid plagiarism 2014

Step 1: Plagiarize any portion of the original text by copying portions of it word-for-word.
He found that the average “margin of error” of a New York City teacher was plus or minus 28 points. So, a teacher who has ranked at the 43rd percentile compared to his or her peers might actually be anywhere between the 15th percentile and the 71st percentile.

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

A teacher who receives a specific ranking during one year of work is likely to get a different ranking during the next year. There will always be uncertainty in these rankings.

Step 3: Plagiarize any portion of the original text by paraphrasing its structure too closely, with a citation the original source (using any academic citation style). Remember, even if you include a citation, paraphrasing too closely is still plagiarism.

But it is hard to trust any performance rating if the chances of receiving the same rating during the next year are no better than the flip of a coin (Ravitch, 270-271).

Step 4: Properly paraphrase any portion of the original text by restating the author’s ideas in your own diction and style, and include a citation to the original source.

The rankings of the teachers in New York City have a large margin of error. It has grown as large as 28 points. This margin of error also oscillates every year therefore it is very unpredictable (Ravitch, 270-271).

Step 5: Properly paraphrase any portion of the original text by restating the author’s ideas in your own diction and style, supplemented with a direct quotation of a key phrase, and include a citation to the original source.

The margin of error amongst the teachers in New York City is very large and unpredictable. Corcoran supports this claim with, “the average “margin of error” of a New York City teacher was plus or minus 28 points. So, a teacher who has ranked at the 43rd percentile compared to his or her peers might actually be anywhere between the 15th percentile and the 71st percentile. The value-added scores also fluctuate between years (Ravitch, 270-271).”

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

Step 1. There will always be instability in these rankings, some of which will reflect “real” performance changes. But it is difficult to trust any performance rating if the odds of getting the same rating next year are no better than a coin toss.
Step 2. If the odds of getting the same rating next year are no better than a coin toss, then it is difficult to trust any performance rating.
Step 3. Thus, a teacher who has comparatively ranked at the 43rd percentile may very well be anywhere between the 15th percentile and the 71st percentile (Ravitch, 270-271).
Step 4. The inherently unpredictable framework of existing ranking systems does not invoke confidence in raw performance rating data (Ravitch, 270-271).
Step 5. According to Ravitch, using students’ test scores as the definitive indicator of a teacher’s skill is highly unsatisfactory as, “…the estimates of value-added and other “growth models,” which attempt to isolate the “true effect” of an individual teacher through his or her students’ test scores, are alarmingly error-prone in any given year (Ravitch, 270-271).”
Original source: Diane Ravitch, The Death and Life of the Great American School System (New York: Basic Books, 2011), pp. 270-71.

Step 1: Plagiarize any portion of the original text by copying portions of it word-for-word.

Attempts to isolate the individual effects of a teacher through their students’ test scores are alarmingly error prone. The value-added scores also fluctuate between years. A teacher who gets a particular ranking in year one is likely to get a different ranking the next year. There will always be instability in these rankings, some of which will reflect “real” performance changes.

Step 2: Plagiarize any portion of the original text by paraphrasing its structure too closely.

Economist Sean Corcoran who studied the teacher evaluation systems in New York City and Houston found that the average “margin of error” was plus or minus 28 points for a New York City teacher.

Step 3: Plagiarize any portion of the original text by paraphrasing its structure too closely, with a citation the original source (using any academic citation style).

Economist Sean Corcoran who studied the teacher evaluation systems in New York City and Houston found that the average “margin of error” was plus or minus 28 points for a New York City teacher, which means that “a teacher who has ranked at the 43rd percentile compared to his or her peers might actually be anywhere between the 15th percentile and the 71st percentile” (Ravitch, 2011).

Step 4: Properly paraphrase any portion of the original text by restating the author’s ideas in your own diction and style, and include a citation to the original source.

As value-added assessments of teacher evaluation are prone to having large margins of error, it is not a reliable method of identifying the impact of individual teachers from year to year (Ravitch, 2011).

Step 5: Properly paraphrase any portion of the original text by restating the author’s ideas in your own diction and style, supplemented with a direct quotation of a key phrase, and include a citation to the original source.

As value-added assessments of teacher evaluation are prone to having large margins of error, it is not a reliable method of identifying the impact of individual teachers from year to year. An economist at the New York University, Sean Corcoran found when using such teacher evaluation systems that “the average ‘margin of error’ of a New York City teacher was plus or minus 28 points” (Ravitch, 2011) and leads to teachers being ranked inaccurately.

Works Cited:

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

Step 1

The average “margin of error” of a New York City teacher was plus or minus 28 points.

Step 2

The value-added scores can often change between years.

Step 3

The value-added scores can often change between years (Ravitch, 270).

Step 4

According to Ravitch, performance ratings are hard to trust (Ravitch, 270).

Step 5

According to Ravitch, value added scores “fluctuate between years” (Ravitch, 270).

Step 1: Sean Corcoran, an economist at New York University, studied the teacher evaluation systems in New York City and Houston.

Step 2: Sean Corcoran found that the mean “margin of error” of a teacher in New York City was 28 points give or take.

Step 3: The value-added scores fluctuate throughout the years because teachers receive different rankings yearly, (Ravitch 270-271).

Step 4: Because of the fluctuating rates between years, predicting the rating one will receive is nearly impossible because it is unlikely they will get the same rank ( Ravitch 270-271).

Step 5: The technique used to measure an individual teacher based on “growth models” has proven to be inefficient because there is too much room for error (Ravitch 270-271).

Work Cited

Diane Ravitch, The Death and Life of the Great American School System (New York: Basic Books, 2011), pp.270-271.

Alexandra Clark 

Step 1: Plagiarize any portion of the original text by copying portions of it word-for-word.

The New York University economist Sean Corcoran studied the teacher evaluation systems in New York City and Houston.

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

A teacher who gets a certain ranking the first year is likely to get a different ranking the following year. These rankings will always have instability.

Step 3: Plagiarize any portion of the original text by paraphrasing its structure too closely, with a citation the original source (using any academic citation style). Remember, even if you include a citation, paraphrasing too closely is still plagiarism.

The is no perfect measure, but the estimates of value-added and other models that try to isolate the effect a teacher has on his or her students’ test scores is prone to error every year. Sean Corcoran (a New York University economist) studied the teacher evaluation systems in New York City and Houston (Ravitch, 270).

Step 4: Properly paraphrase any portion of the original text by restating the author’s ideas in your own diction and style, and include a citation to the original source.

As explained by Ravitch, the margin of error and instability that is present in performance rating models makes them unreliable (271).

Step 5: Properly paraphrase any portion of the original text by restating the author’s ideas in your own diction and style, supplemented with a direct quotation of a key phrase, and include a citation to the original source.

As referenced by Ravitch, Sean Corcoron (a New York University economist) conducted a study of Houston and New York City’s teacher evaluation systems (270). His results astonishingly revealed that on average, “the ‘margin of error’ of a New York City teacher was plus or minus 28 points” (Ravitch, 270).

Works Cited

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

Step 1: Plagiarize any portion of the original text by copying portions of it word-for-word.

But it is difficult to trust any performance rating if the odds of getting the same rating next year are not better than a coin toss.

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

I personally find it difficult to believe any performance rating if the chance of getting the same rating in the future are virtually random.

Step 3: Plagiarize any portion of the original text by paraphrasing its structure too closely, with a citation the original source (using any academic citation style). Remember, even if you include a citation, paraphrasing too closely is still plagiarism.

It’s hard to trust any rating of teacher performance when the odds of getting the same rating next year seem 50/50 at best (Ravitch 271).

Step 4: Properly paraphrase any portion of the original text by restating the author’s ideas in your own diction and style, and include a citation to the original source.

According to Ravitch, these performance ratings lose their credibility when the sharp year to year fluctuations in teacher standards are taken into account (Ravitch 271).

Step 5: Properly paraphrase any portion of the original text by restating the author’s ideas in your own diction and style, supplemented with a direct quotation of a key phrase, and include a citation to the original source.

Ravitch claims the performance rating system to be highly unreliable, noting that it is, “difficult to trust any performance rating if the odds of getting the same rating next year are not better than a coin toss.

Works Cited

Ravitch, Diane. The Death and Life of the Great American School System. Revised and        Expanded ed. New York: Basic, 2010. Print.

Step 1: Plagiarize any portion of the original text by copying portions of it word-for-word.

No measure is perfect, but the estimates of value-added and other “growth models,” which attempt to isolate the “true effect” of an individual teacher through his or her students’ test scores, are alarmingly error-prone in any given year.

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

However, it is hard to believe any score if the chances of having the same score next time are low.

Step 3: Plagiarize any portion of the original text by paraphrasing its structure too closely, with a citation the original source (using any academic citation style). Remember, even if you include a citation, paraphrasing too closely is still plagiarism.

Diane Ravitch states that a teacher who has a score in a year may not have the same score the next year (270-71).

Step 4: Properly paraphrase any portion of the original text by restating the author’s ideas in your own diction and style, and include a citation to the original source.

Diane Ravitch says it is possible that a teacher get different rankings every year (270-71).

Step 5: Properly paraphrase any portion of the original text by restating the author’s ideas in your own diction and style, supplemented with a direct quotation of a key phrase, and include a citation to the original source.

Diane Ravitch states that any evaluation system is not reliable “if the odds of getting the same rating next year are no better than a coin toss” (270-71).

 Works Cited

Ravitch, Diane. The Death and Life of the Great American School System: How Testing      

dddddand Choice Are Undermining Education. Rev. and expanded ed. New York: Basic

dddddBooks, 2011. Print.

Avoiding Plagiarism Exercise

Step 1: Plagiarize: any portion of the original text by copying portions of it word-for-word.

No measure is perfect, but the estimates of value-added and other “growth models,” which attempt to isolate the “true effect” of an individual teacher through his or her students’ test scores, are alarmingly error-prone in any given year. Sean Corcoran, an economist at New York University, studied the teacher evaluation systems in New York City and Houston. He found that the average “margin of error” of a New York City teacher was plus or minus 28 points.

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

Sean Corcoran, an economist from N.Y.U., discovered that teacher evaluation systems had a “margin of error” of more or less 28 points on average after examining teachers in New York City. Therefore, no measure is entirely accurate because estimates of value-added and other “growth models,” that try to segregate the actual effect of an individual teacher through their students’ test scores are startlingly prone to error every year.

Step 3: Plagiarize: any portion of the original text by paraphrasing its structure too closely, with a citation of the original source (using any academic citation style). Remember, even if you include a citation, paraphrasing too closely is still plagiarism.

Teaching measures are not perfect, but the approximations of value-added and alternative “growth models,” in attempt to isolate the “true effect” of a particular teacher through their students’ test performance are shockingly prone to error, regardless of the year. According to Sean Corcoran, the average “margin of error” of a teacher in New York City was about 28 points (Ravitch, 270).

Step 4: Properly paraphrase: any portion of the original text by restating the author’s ideas in your own diction and style, and include a citation to the original source.

Diane Ravitch emphasizes the imperfections in teaching measurements through inaccurate correlations between the verifiable effects of a teacher and their students’ standardized test performance. Ravitch supports her claim with evidence from Sean Corcoran, who identified these significant discrepancies among teachers in New York City (Ravitch, 270).

Step 5: Properly paraphrase: any portion of the original text by restating the author’s ideas in your own diction and style, supplemented with a direct quotation of a key phrase, and include a citation to the original source.

Diane Ravitch draws evidence from Sean Corcoran to explain how teaching measurements are consistently inaccurate; and do not verifiably evaluate a teacher through their students’ standardized test performance because: “The average ‘margin of error’ of a New York City teacher was plus or minus 28 points” (Ravitch, 270).

Work Cited

Ravitch, Diane. The Death and Life of the Great American School System: How Testing and Choice are Undermining Education. New York: Basic Books, 2011. 270.

Step One: The value-added scores also fluctuate between years. A teacher who gets a particular ranking in year one is likely to get a different ranking the next year.

Step Two: The added value of a teacher’s score fluctuates from year to year. This is why a teacher usually receives varying scores from year to year.

Step Three: From year to year, many teachers’ rankings fluctuate greatly (Ravitch, 270-271).

Step Four:  A common trend seems to emerge when comparing teacher standings from year to year. That is, the grave extent to its inconsistency (Ravitch, 270-271).

Step Five:  A common trend seems to emerge when comparing teacher standings from year to year. That is, the grave extent to its inconsistency. Diane Ravitch describes this pattern in her novel The Death and Life of the Great American School System by explaining how the “value-added scores also fluctuate between years. A teacher who gets a particular ranking in year one is likely to get a different ranking the next year” (Ravitch, 270-271).

References:

Ravitch, Diane. The Death and Life of the Great American School System: How Testing and Choice Are Undermining Education. New York: Basic, 2010. Print.

Original Text:

No measure is perfect, but the estimates of value-added and other “growth models,” which attempt to isolate the “true effect” of an individual teacher through his or her students’ test scores, are alarmingly error-prone in any given year. Sean Corcoran, an economist at New York University, studied the teacher evaluation systems in New York City and Houston. He found that the average “margin of error” of a New York City teacher was plus or minus 28 points. So, a teacher who has ranked at the 43rd percentile compared to his or her peers might actually be anywhere between the 15th percentile and the 71st percentile. The value-added scores also fluctuate between years. A teacher who gets a particular ranking in year one is likely to get a different ranking the next year. There will always be instability in these rankings, some of which will reflect “real” performance changes. But it is difficult to trust any performance rating if the odds of getting the same rating next year are no better than a coin toss.

Step 1: Plagiarize any portion of the original text by copying portions of it word-for-word.

• No measure is perfect, but the estimates of value-added and other “growth models,” which attempt to isolate the “true effect” of an individual teacher through his or her students’ test scores, are alarmingly error-prone in any given year. Sean Corcoran, an economist at New York University, studied the teacher evaluation systems in New York City and Houston. He found that the average “margin of error” of a New York City teacher was plus or minus 28 points.

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

• Sean Corcoran did a study on teacher evaluation systems in which he found that the average margin of error was plus or minus 28 points, making a teacher who was ranked at the 43^rd percentile actually between the 15^th and 71^st percentile.

Step 3: Plagiarize any portion of the original text by paraphrasing its structure too closely, with a citation the original source (using any academic citation style). Remember, even if you include a citation, paraphrasing too closely is still plagiarism.

• Sean Corcoran did a study on teacher evaluation systems in which he found that the average margin of error was plus or minus 28 points, making a teacher who was ranked at the 43^rd percentile actually between the 15^th and 71^st percentile. Corcoran also found that, “A teacher who gets a particular ranking in year one is likely to get a different ranking the next year” (Ravitch 270-71).

Step 4: Properly paraphrase any portion of the original text by restating the author’s ideas in your own diction and style, and include a citation to the original source.

• Sean Corcoran studied teachers and their ranks based on their percentiles in comparison to their peers. He found that although a teacher may receive a specific rank in one year, the same teacher may not receive the same rank the next year.

Step 5: Properly paraphrase any portion of the original text by restating the author’s ideas in your own diction and style, supplemented with a direct quotation of a key phrase, and include a citation to the original source.

• In his effort to study teacher ranks based on percentiles, Sean Corcoran researched specific rankings of teachers and found that, “A teacher who gets a particular ranking in year one is likely to get a different ranking the next year” (Ravitch 270-71).

Work Cited:

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

Step 1: A teacher who gets a particular ranking in year one is likely to get a different ranking the next year. There will always be instability in these rankings, some of which will reflect “real” performance changes.

Step 2: A teacher with one ranking could get a different one next year. Instability with always exist in these rankings, although some will reflect “real” performance changes.

Step 3: Even though a teacher may receive one ranking on year, he or she is likely to get a different ranking the next year. Rankings will always have instability as some of these will reflect “real” performance changes (Ravitch 270-271).

Step 4: The ranking received by a teacher may not be consistent over the years. These rankings are inherently unsound as they are adjusted yearly to express changes in performance (Ravitch 270-271).

Step 5: A teacher’s ranking is subject to change yearly. As Ravitch articulates, “There will always be instability in these rankings” as some will exhibit performance changes that skew the rankings (Ravitch 270-271).

Works Cited:
Ravitch, Diane. “Epilogue: School and Society.” The Death and Life of the Great American School System: How Testing and Choice Are Undermining Education. New York: Basic, 2010. 270-71. Print.

Step One:  No measure is perfect, but the estimates of value-added and other “growth models,” which attempt to isolate the “true effect” of an individual teacher through his or her students’ test scores, are alarmingly error-prone in any given year.

Step Two:   Assessments of teachers change from year to year.  A teacher with a high ranking one year may receive a lower ranking the next year.

Step Three:  The scores can change between years.  A teacher’s ranking one year is likely to receive a different ranking the next year.  There will always be changes in these rankings, and sometimes the changes will reflect actual performance changes (Ravitch, 270-271).

Step Four:  It is difficult to hold teachers accountable for their students’ success because there is no easy way to assess a teacher’s progress.  This is because the current models of assessment are unreliable (Ravitch 270-271).

Step Five:   It is difficult to hold teachers accountable for their students’ success because there is no easy way to assess a teacher’s progress.  This is because the current models of assessment are unreliable.  Diane Ravitch says, “No measure is perfect, but the estimates of value-added and other ‘growth models,’ which attempt to isolate the ‘true effect’ of an individual teacher through his or her students’ test scores, are alarmingly error-prone in any given year (Ravitch, 270-271).