Imagine your inbox and voicemail full of messages from concerned parents, wanting to know how their child is doing in your class. Imagine your room overflowing with parents on the night of parent/teacher conferences. Imagine parents calling you to volunteer for field trips and help in the classroom. Now, imagine that all of this drove you crazy. For many of us teaching in public schools in New York City, this would require a great stretch of the imagination, but for many teachers in suburban school districts this is a somewhat dreaded reality. While teachers appreciate the effort, they can also feel overwhelmed. Joyce L. Epstein of Johns Hopkins University writes, “In affluent areas, parents know they should be more involved, but absent good guidance and a plan, they try to do too much” (as cited in Keller, 2008). The solution to their problem is simple: they must set boundaries and establish protocol for communication. But what is the solution to the opposite problem we face as NYC teachers?
At my school in the Bronx, I’ve often heard teachers and administrators lament the lack of parental concern for and involvement with their child’s education. I’ve felt similarly: why are the parents of my best students the ones who come to parent/teacher conferences? This sad fact only reinforces in my mind that supportive, involved parents lead to successful students. But is it fair to place the blame on parents while concluding that they don’t care? Certainly not. We must acknowledge the circumstances affecting parents. Seitsinger et al identified several factors that influence “parental motivation” for involvement such as, “their belief that they should be involved and that such involvement will positively effect their child's learning, life contexts allow for involvement, and responses to outreach efforts from teachers and schools” (Seitsinger et al, p.477, 2007). As educators, we may not have power over parents’ “life contexts”, but we certainly have power over our own efforts. Through our effort we can try to shape the first factor of parents’ belief, letting parents know how important we believe their commitment to their child’s education is.
A high percentage of our population of students comes from immigrant families. Therefore, New York City educators have additional challenges to overcome in communication with parents, including different languages as well as different cultural expectations. Birman et al points out that instead of assuming immigrant parents are disinterested, educators must recognize that parents may simply be unaware how much they are expected to be involved: “many immigrant parents come from societies where decisions are made solely by schools and they may stay away from contact with schools out of respect and deference for school authorities […] or due to lack of knowledge about how and when it is appropriate to contact the school (Birman et al, 2007). In this way, our problem aligns with affluent school districts’ problem; parents need to be informed of the parameters of parental involvement. Therefore, before we hold parents to a high standard of involvement, we must first explicitly let them know what our expectations are.
One important consideration in communicating with immigrant parents is to not let the burden of translator fall to the child (Birman et al, 2007). Birman et al discuss how the role of the child as “cultural broker” can not only be stressful for the child, but also take away from the parents’ authority (Birman et al, 2007). While this awkward arrangement can be prevented through translators, this resource is not always a reality at our schools. Administrators need to recognize that in emphasizing parent/teacher communication, they must provide the resources for the process to be done effectively with all parties’ needs met.
It is not fair to complain about parental involvement without a school doing as much as it can to inform and involve parents. In particular, teachers need to make the effort of communicating with parents in order to get the results they desire. Seitsinger et al say, “the data suggests that the declines in parental engagement often seen as students move up through the grades is neither inevitable nor fully a function of developmental issues or parental declining interests” (Seitsinger et al, p.504, 2008). Perhaps, then, the problem is that parents are contacted less frequently as their children get older. Seitsinger’s study found that the more often teachers reached out to parents in the later grades the greater academic improvement resulted in students (Seitsinger et al, 2008). It is clear that middle and secondary teachers need to make more of an effort to get parents involved. Of course, it is easier for the elementary teacher, perhaps responsible for 30 students the whole year, to have extensive contact with parents. For high school teachers the number is upward of 150 students. Seitsinger’s solution of “teams of teachers and students, usually about 100–120 students or less shared by 4–5 teachers” would help to alleviate the burden placed on one teacher, but it relies on administrators and scheduling to work—in other words circumstances outside of the teacher’s control (Seitsinger et al, p. 504, 2008).
How can teachers effectively increase their communication with parents without feeling overwhelmed? Technology is one probable answer. By setting up a class blog, teachers can share news, assignment schedules, and announcements with parents and students. A blog or website allows you to “speak” with many parents at once, while also giving families a forum to communicate. The blog could share suggestions for at-home complements to in-school learning. Even for personal, student-specific messages, an email instead of the standard phone call home may be a better option. This format allows both parties more freedom to carefully phrase their communication, and reply in their own time frame. This also allows for more translation options where language differences are a problem. In addition, a teacher’s effective use of an online gradebook, to which parents and students have access, would show parents clearly and immediately when their child’s grades are slipping.
I recognize that there are challenges to involving parents, but it is unfair and unproductive to place the burden and blame on parents alone. We should hold parents to high expectations of involvement, the same way that we hold our students to high academic expectations. But just as we can’t hold students to high expectations without working hard to support their effort, we can’t hold parents to high expectations without working hard to reach them. Just as we can’t test students on material we haven’t taught, we can’t have expectations for parents that we haven’t communicated.
References
Birman, D., Weinstein, T., Chan, W. Y., & Beehler, S. (2007) Immigrant youth in U.S. schools: Opportunities for prevention. The Prevention Researcher, 14(4), 14-17.
Keller, B. (2008). Schools seek to channel parental involvement. Education Week, 27(31), 1-17.
Seitsinger, A. M., Feiner, R. D., Brand, S., & Burns, R. (2008). A large-scale examination of the nature and efficacy of teachers’ practices to engage students: Assessment, parental contact, and student-level impact. Journal of School Psychology, 46(4), 477-505.
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Legacy of Brown v. Board of Education
The historic case of Brown v. Board of Education is radical in the sense that its legal basis is slim; the conditions surrounding the Fourteenth Amendment made it such that it was limited in scope, and therefore, the amendment had to be—interpreted differently—to accommodate a growing intolerance for discrimination. Chief Justice Warren did not have the means to construct a strictly legal argument, but created an argument nonetheless because he, too, saw the violent consequences of injustice (Schultz, 2001, p. 235). If only Justice Antonin Scalia and other strict “originalists” would come to recognize the necessity of altering the constitution in response to social progress, for it is clear that the original intention of the 14th Amendment certainly did not have the freedom of African-Americans in mind.
During the time of the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment, African-Americans were treated as second-class citizens and education for both black and white children looked nothing like it does today—white children were not mandated to attend school and, in many states, black children were barred from education. If Warren judged the case in light of the history and the likely limited intention of the Fourteenth Amendment, Brown v. Board of Education would not stand today. The fact that “Brown v. Board of Education was justified in part on psychological and sociological grounds” highlights the inherent inequality of the law, and provides a needed reminder that America was founded and shaped for the sole advancement of the white race (Schultz, 2001, p. 235).
Brown v. Board of Education was only the beginning of an arduous attempt to develop a desegregated America. Although The Civil Rights Act of 1964 allowed the federal government to remove funding for schools and sue school districts that did not comply with Brown, by 1992, when the Topeka district was reassessed, “the court concluded that the district had done little to fulfill the duty to desegregate that was first imposed on it in 1954” (Johnson et al., 2008, p.196). If the landmark case represented a negligent school district, what can be expected of other, less scrutinized school districts? Decades later, after much legislation and protest, many black children still do not receive an equal education.
The legacy of “Separate but equal” continues to segregate children by race and class, and it does more work to maintain the status quo than the Bush administration has done to “help liberate poor children trapped in failing public schools” (Bush in Bazelon, 2008). According to the No Child Left Behind Act, the Bush Administration’s poor attempt to close the achievement gap, students may transfer to schools of their choice, schools that may be less segregated, but only if space is available. Most schools are overwhelmed with a growing student body, and therefore NCLB does little to affect change of this capacity (Bazelon, 2008).
Another equally pervasive obstacle to desegregation is the current trend of tracking students by ability. Often it is minority students who are placed in low tracks. These students may be perceived as less able than their white counterparts as a result of test scores, grades, or behavior. Sometimes it is a single test score that dictates a student’s track. If minority students have been denied equal education—a rigorous and comprehensive curriculum, qualified and caring teachers, a familiarity with state exams—then it makes sense that these students would score poorly on high stakes tests. Without time to catch up and without an inclusive model in which students of all backgrounds learn together, minority students will continue to face the legacy of separate and unequal education in America.
Futrell and Gomez (2008) argue that students are well aware of the differences in instruction and access to college preparatory curriculum for students who are placed in a low track. Students of color from a high school in Virginia, who were placed in this track, reported that they were not allowed to take Advanced Placement exams. Many students confirmed the fact that tracking also resulted in the separation of students along racial lines. Students’ awareness of this indirect form of discrimination may contribute to low-self esteem and a sense of inferiority—the very fear Warren had voiced in his Brown v. Board of Education opinion (Warren in Schultz, 2008). It is clear that there is much work to be done in order to legitimately quell this fear, and much more much work to be done to provide all children a diverse and challenging learning environment.
Affirmative action, a hotly debated policy, seeks to provide greater opportunity for minority students. Some claim that affirmative action results in “reverse discrimination” against majority students, creating a climate that values race over merit. Minorities, too, rally against it, asserting that they do not need assistance or a quota to ensure their academic success. In 1996, California citizens voted for Proposition 209 in 1996, which prohibits the use of racial and gender “preferences” to determine workforce or college eligibility (Johnson et. al., 2008, p. 198) It is interesting to note that while the issue of affirmative action is yet to be settled in all states, the Supreme Court has weighed in on the use of race to assign students to K-12 schools—it is now considered unconstitutional to consider the race of individual students as the sole factor (Bazelon, 2008). It seems that race should be one of many factors used to determine higher education admissions and K-12 assignments.
For primary and secondary students, socioeconomic standing has been proven to be a critical variable, even more so than race, in the desegregation of schools and the creation of equitable learning environments. It was Justice Anthony Kennedy’s language that allowed for school-district lawyers to consider race, not of individual students but of zoning areas, among other factors such as socioeconomic standing and parental education. If current research is indeed correct, the use of a “class-plus-race formula” may one day fulfill the promise of Brown v. Board of Education (Bazelon, 2008).
But it seems unlikely that minority students who come from underprivileged areas and attend ‘desegregated’ schools, in which they are tracked on the lowest level, will see an increase in their test scores, or more importantly, will feel as equals in an academic environment. According to my colleagues at Fordham University, many high school students prefer to take vocational classes and enjoy the success they experience within this environment. In our attempt to ‘assign’ our students to a school or a classroom that is inherently equal, have we stopped listening to their needs and their experiences? Perhaps we have interpreted equality as always a measure of sameness. All students deserve to learn within a community that values difference, because a community that blinds itself to difference is blind to the most subtle and unintentional forms of discrimination.
References
Bazelon, E. (2008). The next kind of integration. The New York Times. Retrieved July 29,
2008, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/20/magazine/20integration-t.html?
Futrell, M. & Gomez, J. (2008). How tracking creates a poverty of learning. Educational
leadership, 65 (8), 74-80.
Johnson, J. Musial, D. Hall, G., Golnick, D., and Dupuis, V. (2008). Foundations of
American education: Perspectives on education in a changing world. Boston: Pearson.
Schultz, Fred. (Ed.) (2001). Notable selections in education (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Dushkin.
During the time of the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment, African-Americans were treated as second-class citizens and education for both black and white children looked nothing like it does today—white children were not mandated to attend school and, in many states, black children were barred from education. If Warren judged the case in light of the history and the likely limited intention of the Fourteenth Amendment, Brown v. Board of Education would not stand today. The fact that “Brown v. Board of Education was justified in part on psychological and sociological grounds” highlights the inherent inequality of the law, and provides a needed reminder that America was founded and shaped for the sole advancement of the white race (Schultz, 2001, p. 235).
Brown v. Board of Education was only the beginning of an arduous attempt to develop a desegregated America. Although The Civil Rights Act of 1964 allowed the federal government to remove funding for schools and sue school districts that did not comply with Brown, by 1992, when the Topeka district was reassessed, “the court concluded that the district had done little to fulfill the duty to desegregate that was first imposed on it in 1954” (Johnson et al., 2008, p.196). If the landmark case represented a negligent school district, what can be expected of other, less scrutinized school districts? Decades later, after much legislation and protest, many black children still do not receive an equal education.
The legacy of “Separate but equal” continues to segregate children by race and class, and it does more work to maintain the status quo than the Bush administration has done to “help liberate poor children trapped in failing public schools” (Bush in Bazelon, 2008). According to the No Child Left Behind Act, the Bush Administration’s poor attempt to close the achievement gap, students may transfer to schools of their choice, schools that may be less segregated, but only if space is available. Most schools are overwhelmed with a growing student body, and therefore NCLB does little to affect change of this capacity (Bazelon, 2008).
Another equally pervasive obstacle to desegregation is the current trend of tracking students by ability. Often it is minority students who are placed in low tracks. These students may be perceived as less able than their white counterparts as a result of test scores, grades, or behavior. Sometimes it is a single test score that dictates a student’s track. If minority students have been denied equal education—a rigorous and comprehensive curriculum, qualified and caring teachers, a familiarity with state exams—then it makes sense that these students would score poorly on high stakes tests. Without time to catch up and without an inclusive model in which students of all backgrounds learn together, minority students will continue to face the legacy of separate and unequal education in America.
Futrell and Gomez (2008) argue that students are well aware of the differences in instruction and access to college preparatory curriculum for students who are placed in a low track. Students of color from a high school in Virginia, who were placed in this track, reported that they were not allowed to take Advanced Placement exams. Many students confirmed the fact that tracking also resulted in the separation of students along racial lines. Students’ awareness of this indirect form of discrimination may contribute to low-self esteem and a sense of inferiority—the very fear Warren had voiced in his Brown v. Board of Education opinion (Warren in Schultz, 2008). It is clear that there is much work to be done in order to legitimately quell this fear, and much more much work to be done to provide all children a diverse and challenging learning environment.
Affirmative action, a hotly debated policy, seeks to provide greater opportunity for minority students. Some claim that affirmative action results in “reverse discrimination” against majority students, creating a climate that values race over merit. Minorities, too, rally against it, asserting that they do not need assistance or a quota to ensure their academic success. In 1996, California citizens voted for Proposition 209 in 1996, which prohibits the use of racial and gender “preferences” to determine workforce or college eligibility (Johnson et. al., 2008, p. 198) It is interesting to note that while the issue of affirmative action is yet to be settled in all states, the Supreme Court has weighed in on the use of race to assign students to K-12 schools—it is now considered unconstitutional to consider the race of individual students as the sole factor (Bazelon, 2008). It seems that race should be one of many factors used to determine higher education admissions and K-12 assignments.
For primary and secondary students, socioeconomic standing has been proven to be a critical variable, even more so than race, in the desegregation of schools and the creation of equitable learning environments. It was Justice Anthony Kennedy’s language that allowed for school-district lawyers to consider race, not of individual students but of zoning areas, among other factors such as socioeconomic standing and parental education. If current research is indeed correct, the use of a “class-plus-race formula” may one day fulfill the promise of Brown v. Board of Education (Bazelon, 2008).
But it seems unlikely that minority students who come from underprivileged areas and attend ‘desegregated’ schools, in which they are tracked on the lowest level, will see an increase in their test scores, or more importantly, will feel as equals in an academic environment. According to my colleagues at Fordham University, many high school students prefer to take vocational classes and enjoy the success they experience within this environment. In our attempt to ‘assign’ our students to a school or a classroom that is inherently equal, have we stopped listening to their needs and their experiences? Perhaps we have interpreted equality as always a measure of sameness. All students deserve to learn within a community that values difference, because a community that blinds itself to difference is blind to the most subtle and unintentional forms of discrimination.
References
Bazelon, E. (2008). The next kind of integration. The New York Times. Retrieved July 29,
2008, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/20/magazine/20integration-t.html?
r=1&ref=education&oref=slogin
Futrell, M. & Gomez, J. (2008). How tracking creates a poverty of learning. Educational
leadership, 65 (8), 74-80.
Johnson, J. Musial, D. Hall, G., Golnick, D., and Dupuis, V. (2008). Foundations of
American education: Perspectives on education in a changing world. Boston: Pearson.
Schultz, Fred. (Ed.) (2001). Notable selections in education (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Dushkin.
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Ethics and Law- Teacher-student relationships – how to make right decisions
“The quality of teacher–student relationships is the keystone for all other aspects of classroom management (Marzano & Marzano, 2008).” The boundaries of New York State Teacher-student relationships are guided by the six principles defined by the New State Broad of Education. These are:
· “Educators nurture the intellectual, physical, emotional, social, and civic potential of each student.”
· “Educators create, support, and maintain challenging learning environments for all.”
· “Educators commit to their own learning in order to develop their practice.”
· “Educators collaborate with colleagues and other professionals in the interest of student learning.”
· “Educators collaborate with parents and community, building trust and respecting confidentiality.”
· “Educators advance the intellectual and ethical foundation of the learning community.” (New York State Education Department, 2007)
Learner-Centered largely on a good teacher-student relationships and is essential to the success of our students and ultimately the growth of America; Learner-Centered theory has been repeatedly argued and often encouraged as an effective method of teaching.
However, increasing concerns about teachers' ethics and teachers’ relationships with students have become more of an issue today than ever in the past. With today’s media, a seemingly inappropriate act that would have been overlooked or dealt with by the local community, will quickly become a global issue thanks to the internet, especially via utube. Our profession is held under a discerning microscope both nationally and internationally. The manner in which we teachers conduct ourselves not only reflects on us as individuals, but any negative behavior on our part will tarnish the respect that the profession naturally deserves.
Robbie McClintock, an intellectual historian, claims that teachers have now become mere casual agents in implementing the education production goal. Teachers now have little influence in the process, and in the decision making on behalf of their students. This continues to become the preference of the state and federal government as teachers continue to blur the lines between themselves and students. How do we, as newcomers, change this perception? After all, it is a contradiction to our whole being as a profession. Teachers have historically been perceived as a great positive influence on society’s growth. Without us teachers, the circle of progress will simply collapse. So, how can we, in such a vital link, be perceived as mere agents?
Numerous legislation continues to be passed in support of student-teacher relationships. For example, in 2007, the Louisiana House of Representatives approved a bill that would bar teachers, coaches and other educators from having sexual contact with any students (Forrest, 2007). A 2003 Texas law declared that teachers who have sex with their students would be charged with a felony, and stipulated that a conviction might lead to a prison term for up to 20 years (NBC, 2006). Now that states have stepped in to define student-teacher boundaries, to stop this downward spiral, we need to communicate with and to emulate older and successful teachers. We need to continue to educate ourselves on the ethical expectations held by society, as well as to simply follow the rules and guidelines of our principals and our school districts.
Having sexual relationships with our students violates the law and societal moral codes. The respect that the teaching profession desires and deserves requires us to respect this boundary. Regardless of a teacher’s age, if this moral boundary cannot be understood and upheld, then that individual should not be in the classroom, leading tomorrow’s leaders. Statistics are clear that sex abuse is a “Shadow over U.S. Schools” (Irvine & Tanner, 2007). Sexual misconduct between teachers and students is at an all-time high.
We must hold ourselves to the highest moral and ethical standards, so that we are above and beyond reproach. Ethics are created for us to foster a unique student-teacher relationship while respecting each other’s space. Unfortunately circumstances, events and transgressions have occurred that have led to legislation stepping in, making it a criminal offence for teachers or professional youth workers to have a sexual relationship with their students. It is extremely disturbing that teachers, as the leaders of tomorrow’s brightest, need to be taught or reminded what should be seen as common sense. Teaching should be a highly respected profession as it depends on a broad range of reasoning skills and intellectual abilities which should obviously cover morality.
Reference
Iowa State University. (1996, September). Expert on sexual harassment policies to speak at Oct. 5 meeting of Iowa AAUP. Retrieved July 30, 2008, from ISU Chapter Newsletter : http://www.public.iastate.edu/~aaup/newslisu/sept96.htm
Forrest, B. (2007, Jone 12). Pro-Creationist Bill Approved by Louisiana House . Retrieved July 12, 2008, from The Ethical Atheist: http://www.ethicalatheist.net/2008/06/pro-creationist-bill-approved-by.html
(NBC, 2006)Marzano, R. J., & Marzano, J. S. (2003). The key to classroom management. Educational Leadership,61(1),6-13.
Robert O. McClintock, “Introduction: Marking the Second Frontier,” in Computing and Education: The Second Frontier, ed. Robert O. McClintock (New York: Teachers College Press, 1988), xiii.
Irvine, M., & Tanner, R. (2007). Sex Abuse a Shadow over U.S. Schools. Education Week , v27, n9 p1.
New York State Education Department. (2007, Jan 25). Code of Ethics. Retrieved July 30, 2008, from New York State Education Department: Office of higher Education: http://www.highered.nysed.gov/tcert/resteachers/codeofethics.htm
Lewis J. Perelman, School’s Out: Hyperlearning, the New Technology, and the End of Education (New York: William Morrow, 1992), 25, 20.
· “Educators nurture the intellectual, physical, emotional, social, and civic potential of each student.”
· “Educators create, support, and maintain challenging learning environments for all.”
· “Educators commit to their own learning in order to develop their practice.”
· “Educators collaborate with colleagues and other professionals in the interest of student learning.”
· “Educators collaborate with parents and community, building trust and respecting confidentiality.”
· “Educators advance the intellectual and ethical foundation of the learning community.” (New York State Education Department, 2007)
Learner-Centered largely on a good teacher-student relationships and is essential to the success of our students and ultimately the growth of America; Learner-Centered theory has been repeatedly argued and often encouraged as an effective method of teaching.
However, increasing concerns about teachers' ethics and teachers’ relationships with students have become more of an issue today than ever in the past. With today’s media, a seemingly inappropriate act that would have been overlooked or dealt with by the local community, will quickly become a global issue thanks to the internet, especially via utube. Our profession is held under a discerning microscope both nationally and internationally. The manner in which we teachers conduct ourselves not only reflects on us as individuals, but any negative behavior on our part will tarnish the respect that the profession naturally deserves.
Robbie McClintock, an intellectual historian, claims that teachers have now become mere casual agents in implementing the education production goal. Teachers now have little influence in the process, and in the decision making on behalf of their students. This continues to become the preference of the state and federal government as teachers continue to blur the lines between themselves and students. How do we, as newcomers, change this perception? After all, it is a contradiction to our whole being as a profession. Teachers have historically been perceived as a great positive influence on society’s growth. Without us teachers, the circle of progress will simply collapse. So, how can we, in such a vital link, be perceived as mere agents?
Numerous legislation continues to be passed in support of student-teacher relationships. For example, in 2007, the Louisiana House of Representatives approved a bill that would bar teachers, coaches and other educators from having sexual contact with any students (Forrest, 2007). A 2003 Texas law declared that teachers who have sex with their students would be charged with a felony, and stipulated that a conviction might lead to a prison term for up to 20 years (NBC, 2006). Now that states have stepped in to define student-teacher boundaries, to stop this downward spiral, we need to communicate with and to emulate older and successful teachers. We need to continue to educate ourselves on the ethical expectations held by society, as well as to simply follow the rules and guidelines of our principals and our school districts.
Having sexual relationships with our students violates the law and societal moral codes. The respect that the teaching profession desires and deserves requires us to respect this boundary. Regardless of a teacher’s age, if this moral boundary cannot be understood and upheld, then that individual should not be in the classroom, leading tomorrow’s leaders. Statistics are clear that sex abuse is a “Shadow over U.S. Schools” (Irvine & Tanner, 2007). Sexual misconduct between teachers and students is at an all-time high.
We must hold ourselves to the highest moral and ethical standards, so that we are above and beyond reproach. Ethics are created for us to foster a unique student-teacher relationship while respecting each other’s space. Unfortunately circumstances, events and transgressions have occurred that have led to legislation stepping in, making it a criminal offence for teachers or professional youth workers to have a sexual relationship with their students. It is extremely disturbing that teachers, as the leaders of tomorrow’s brightest, need to be taught or reminded what should be seen as common sense. Teaching should be a highly respected profession as it depends on a broad range of reasoning skills and intellectual abilities which should obviously cover morality.
Reference
Iowa State University. (1996, September). Expert on sexual harassment policies to speak at Oct. 5 meeting of Iowa AAUP. Retrieved July 30, 2008, from ISU Chapter Newsletter : http://www.public.iastate.edu/~aaup/newslisu/sept96.htm
Forrest, B. (2007, Jone 12). Pro-Creationist Bill Approved by Louisiana House . Retrieved July 12, 2008, from The Ethical Atheist: http://www.ethicalatheist.net/2008/06/pro-creationist-bill-approved-by.html
(NBC, 2006)Marzano, R. J., & Marzano, J. S. (2003). The key to classroom management. Educational Leadership,61(1),6-13.
Robert O. McClintock, “Introduction: Marking the Second Frontier,” in Computing and Education: The Second Frontier, ed. Robert O. McClintock (New York: Teachers College Press, 1988), xiii.
Irvine, M., & Tanner, R. (2007). Sex Abuse a Shadow over U.S. Schools. Education Week , v27, n9 p1.
New York State Education Department. (2007, Jan 25). Code of Ethics. Retrieved July 30, 2008, from New York State Education Department: Office of higher Education: http://www.highered.nysed.gov/tcert/resteachers/codeofethics.htm
Lewis J. Perelman, School’s Out: Hyperlearning, the New Technology, and the End of Education (New York: William Morrow, 1992), 25, 20.
2nd Critical Reflection - Lowe
Anti-plagiarism software: Guilty until proven innocent
RATIONALE FOR ANTI-PLAGIARISM SOFTWARE
The influx of “technology-assisted academic dishonesty” has led to the manifestation of a neoplagiarism and, in turn, the rise of a severe anxiety on the part of educators (Bishop, 2006, p. 1). As is the norm with modern social anxieties, “the fear of plagiarism is often connected to the new online technologies that allow ways for creating, editing, and sharing texts that were only dreamed of in the past (Williams, 2008, p. 351). While these technologies do indeed offer students innovative avenues of expression, they simultaneously create the temptation for a student to take the facile road to an easy grade. Such Internet technologies complicit in academic dishonesty may include sites that allow a student to purchase a paper, to copy-and-paste all or sections of an online paper, or to resubmit one’s own work or the work of another student. Even more so than offering up such an apple, and perhaps more disconcerting to educators, is that these technologies bring into question the concepts of authorship, ownership and plagiarism itself.
Some critics such as Williams (2008) question the reality of a rapidly increasing epidemic of academic dishonesty; however, the attention from the mainstream media and the near-resounding fears of educators are immutable. As noted by Robelen (2007), a Josephon Institute of Ethics survey found that in a group of “more than 36,000 high school students,” sixty percent of the students admitted to academic dishonesty. Furthermore one of every three students admitted to using Internet technology to plagiarize an assignment. Similar results were deduced by Donald L. McCabe, professor at Rutgers University, in a survey of 18,000 high school students confessing to some sort of plagiarism (Robelen, 2007). According to Royce (2007), “Almost every week there is a report on the prevalence of plagiarism from Internet Sources.” This prevalence, however, is perhaps attributable to a neglected emotional impact and response to plagiarism. When a student has been dishonest a teacher will understandably feel emotions of betrayal, anger and distrust. According to Williams (2008), “the level of trust we feel in someone has a profound effect on our actions towards that person and our reactions to everything that person does,” (p. 351). Naturally academic dishonesty can affect a teacher’s assumptions regarding the integrity of student writing. It may be nothing more than natural human emotion to assume that the introduction of new technology will only play to students’ darker angels based on previous experience. Nonetheless such alarming numbers and ominous forebodings of a new type of plagiarism epidemic have necessitated, some feel, an appropriate, technological response.
Indeed all of this attention towards new-age academic dishonesty as well as its offspring of fear, anxiety and distrust has spurred a technological retaliation—a built up of arms of sorts—as educators have begun to arm themselves with anti-plagiarism software. Any discussion of anti-plagiarism software inevitably leads to a discussion of Turnitin.com. As other technologies have come and gone, Turnitin has been an impressive business endeavor. Founder John M. Barrie has even crowned Turnitin as “the next generation’s spell checker” (Royce, 2003, p. 27). Turnitin’s success is likely due to the fact that that it does not detect plagiarism, nigh impossible on the internet, but rather finds “sequences of words in submitted documents which match sequences of words in documents in its database, or sequences of words in documents on the Internet.” Despite its strengths over competitors, however, Turnitin still cannot overcome all of the challenges posed by the vast terrain of the Internet. Technology such as Turnitin, more than anything else, is supposed to be meant as a deterrent, a preventive strike on plagiarism. According to Barrie, the technology has the same function as a test proctor, “students are less likely to cheat when faced with an increased likelihood of being caught” (Robelen, 2007). Similarly Royce (2003) conjectures that just a subscription to Turnitin will suffice for a drop in a school’s “suspected plagiarism” (p. 26). Turnitin boasts to uncover around 3,000 cases of sever plagiarism from an investigation of 10,000 papers a day.
But is such software the panacea to neoplagiarism? Can plagiarist technology be combated with anti-plagiarist technology? Can plagiarism in general be stamped out? Despite the anxiety of educators and the promotions of the creators of such software, anti-plagiarism software is nothing more than a “placebo” (Carbone, 2001). It does not address the significance of teaching about and solving academic, merely catching it. An examination of the use of such software in schools will divulge the following drawbacks: anti-plagiarism software is only a continuation of the attrition building up between an increasingly strained teacher/student relationship; it leads to conflicting ideas of student authorship and plagiarism; it negates the opportunity to teach students increasingly complex literary practices; the software itself is limited and thus impractical. Even under the consideration of modifying the use of such software to a less prominent or last resort tool, the lingering issues of the legality, ethicality, and hypocrisy of such software will determine that Turnitin and similar technologies will eventually surfaces and perhaps exacerbate the issue of plagiarism. Ultimately educators must renovate their approaches to plagiarism, authorship and ownership, necessitating more effective teaching rather than punishing practices.
THE DRAWBACKS
CATALYST FOR UNHEALTHY TEACHER/STUDENT RELATIONSHIPS
The issue of plagiarism is ultimately an issue of trust. Anti-plagiarism software begins a relationship of distrust between the teacher and student and creates a dysfunctional classroom environment. The opposition to building such a relationship and environment is resounding. As Williams (2008) points out, by even informing students that their writing will undergo a review of authenticity even before a teacher reads them, with or without threat of punishment, the underlying hint is that a teacher does “not trust them to act honorably” (p. 352). Similarly Carbone (2001) contends that such software “assumes the worst about students” who apparently have “no honor” and must be constantly eyed over with “a big brother welcome to academic traditions.” Such software is a clear message from the teacher to students that they are already presumed guilty until proven innocent. Barrie even admits that Turnitin’s main function is to act as a deterrent, almost analogous to a panopticon, a prison system, that serves to detect and punish students. It assumes guilt. Even McCabe, whose survey “exposed” the ominous cloud of a plagiarism epidemic, is opposed to the widespread use of such software: “To me that says to students, I can’t trust any of you” (Robelen, 2007). Whether a teacher assumes student’s efforts as honest or duplicitous can have significant effects upon the relationship, and moreover can influence how students perceive authority figures in general. Anti-plagiarism software, though perhaps well intentioned, shows distrust and positions teachers and students as enemies. This dynamic of adversaries rather than collaborators detracts from good pedagogy. Bishop contends that “A much more effective way of achieving the same goal might be to an atmosphere of respect, honesty and academic integrity” (p. 10). By a teacher displaying trust in students’ abilities, their self-esteem and ultimately their “sense of well-being” are stimulated and maintained.
CONFLICTING IDEAS OF AUTHORSHIP AND PLAGIARISM
Along with creating a dysfunctional dynamic, anti-plagiarism software can add to student confusion over the concepts of authorial identity and plagiarism. Students are subjected to a thin rope of social nuances. As Williams (2008) explains, “we want students to draw on their creativity and create original work, yet we want them to become readers and writers who draw from ideas of others” (p. 351). If a student fails to walk this line they are considered “intellectually or morally deficient.” The concepts of authorship, ownership, and plagiarism are constantly in flux; however, exponentially now perhaps because of the possibilities of new technology. This evolution of technology has sparked an evolution of literacy practices, “creating texts as collages and hybrids of other texts” (p. 352). It is arguably intellectually or morally deficient of educators rather then to focus on punishing students (as anti-plagiarism seems intent on doing) for transgressing against evolving literary practices instead of teaching how to cope with their evolution.
LOSS OF TEACHING MOMENTS
Williams (2008) adds, because the issue of plagiarism so often “turns all to quickly to detection and punishment,” an opportunity is lost to “engage students in increasingly sophisticate literacy practices” (p. 352) Anti-plagiarism puts detection and punishment over instruction. Correctly using ideas from others in an original piece of writing according to cultural customs is a skill that must be taught. It is the responsibility of the teacher to instruct proper usage before punishment should even be considered. Carbone (2001) adds that “teaching students how to wisely use other ideas—how to distinguish when to cite a source, how to introduce them into conventions for doing so—is hard enough with adding in the threat of constant surveillance.” Still most teachers approach plagiarism as something that should be scrutinized closely and punished accordingly. This antagonistic approach goes back to the idea of a lack of trust. Important opportunities for teaching evolving literacy practices are lost because students feel the teacher is working against instead of with them. Moreover students never develop their own identities as writers without the nurturing of the teacher. Students constantly view the teacher as a source of punishment rather than guidance.
Regardless of whether a student intentionally or unintentionally plagiarizes, however, “such moments offer important chances to teach students about writing and life” (353). In regards to intentional plagiarism, a teacher should make an effort to discover why a student is academically dishonest, often due to the pressure to succeed or to just not to fail. Obviously the student does not comprehend his or her own strengths as a writer. In a collaborative relationship, a teacher can teach students to discover their own identities as writers. In regards to unintentional plagiarism, it is ignorant for a teacher to assume that this is anything other than a natural teaching opportunity. As Carbone (2001) explains, “Mistakes in using and citing sources -- which can be technical, mechanical, rhetorical, and evaluative -- are in fact a necessary part of learning how to write with and from sources.” When a teacher equates mistakes that are necessary for a student to make to acquire good writing skills with fraud, that teacher is negating the very purpose of learning. Intentional or unintentional plagiarism must both be viewed as opportunities for a teacher to teach good writing. These opportunities are lost when all students are worried about is a software system that denies their authorial worth.
There are sound alternatives that will reanimate such teaching moments, however. Masur (2008) recommends that teachers can “respond pedagogically by offering writing workshops or assigning essays in stages.” Williams (2008) espouses similar tactics, “working with some papers as drafts and approaching each assignment as a process that builds on ideas” will help improve students writing practices (p. 353). In this manner teachers and students develop more a relationship of trust, moving both parties away from “the paranoia of potential plagiarism punishment.”
LIMITATIONS OF SOFTWARE
Regardless of the academic drawbacks of anti-plagiarism software, its physical limitations further negate its use. Both Royce (2003) and Bishop (2006) chronicle a vast and growing set of limitations just on the part of Turnitin alone (supposedly the most effective anti-plagiarism software) to fully detect plagiarism. Turnitin alone has been defunct as it cannot “detect cleverly paraphrased passages,” identify work done by a “ghost-writer,” differentiate between properly and improperly cited text, and nor can it account for the many loopholes that students are still discovering (Bishop, 2006, p. 7). Royce (2003) points out other limitations for the software, such as not taking into account text that has been translated from another language or the plagiarism of diagrams, pictures or graphs (p. 28) Moreover for teachers to just use Turnitin’s “originality report” alone, though many do, is an improper use of the software’s service. The software only points out similarities between texts, it does not detect plagiarism. The burden of proof in a case of plagiarism is on the teacher, and with the grand scope of that the new technology poses, an “originality report” is a superficial indicator of original work at best. In fact, both Carbone (2001) and Royce (2003) contend that a skilled teacher with a search engine is more effective than any anti-plagiarism software developed so far.
MODIFYING THE ROLE OF SUCH SOFTWARE
Despite its academic and physical limitations to becoming the plagiarism panacea, could anti-plagiarism software still play some modified role in the classroom? According to Royce (2003), software is still only “a tool, a weapon, a deterrent” (p. 30). As a deterrent, Turnitin founder Barrie still argues, “Our uses have validated us with their use” (Robelen, 2007). According to Barrie, the renewal rate is above 95 percent with an expanding clientele. In this regard, anti-plagiarism software has begun to set up a panopticon status with its proposed omniscient view. Even with its limitations it can still “scare” plagiarists. There is no substantial research that shows this deterrent effect however. Keith D. Klein, an English teacher at Washington Lee High School in Arlington, Virginia, hopes to use the software to create “teachable moments”: "That in itself is a platform for me to talk about plagiarism, and a pretty good disincentive” (Robelen 2007). Turnitin’s role in Mr. Klein’s class has actually evolved from just as a platform for discussion and disincentive, as he typically likes to use the peer review features of the software. Robelen (2007) describes alternative uses of the software by another teacher, Ms. Christel, who limits the use of Turnitin to major papers only, and only when there are suspect citation issues. Ms. Christel uses other tools to supplement this software, however, and stresses that “teachers need to work hard to ensure students under-stand what plagiarism is and how to avoid it.” From this perspective, could then anti-plagiarism software therefore be utilized in a reduced role in the classroom, more as a supplemental device to teaching about plagiarism?
LINGERING ISSUES OF LEGALITY, ETHICALITY, & HYPOCRISY
Despite a near acquiescence by Carbone (2001) to using anti-plagiarism software “as a last ditch attempt to find the smoking gun,” there are still serious issues that negate its use. Most damning for Turnitin are legality issues. Bishop (2006) explains, “By storing the uploaded papers in order to expand its database for comparison to new submissions, Turnitin is potentially violating the students’ copyrights and right to privacy” (p. 7). The nature of Turnitin requires a database, and a database necessitates a copy of a student’s work to be archived. Because a student has no real say in the matter of submitting their paper to the software, they are stripped of their rights as authors of their own work. Turnitin essentially does to the student what proposes to keep the student from doing. Despite the software companies contention that Turnitin loopholes certain legalities, Bishop (2006) contends that ultimately the software violates students’ rights granted by the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (FERPA).
On top of the legality issues of anti-plagiarism software, Carbone (2001) sees any use of such tools as unethical, because it “co-opts students’ intellectual property to sell its service.” Turnitin has indeed been a remarkable financial success, one that banks on the authorial disenfranchisement of students. It is a business plan that has played off the pedagogical misunderstandings and distrust of educators; no wonder Blaire calls it “the next generations’ spell checker” (Royce, 2003, p. 27). It has monopolized the theft of student’s intellectual properties.
Pedagogically speaking, teaching students about plagiarism through such software is counterproductive and grossly hypocritical. First of all, anti-plagiarism software frees teachers from making challenging, plagiarism-proof assignments that teach students responsible and socially acceptable good writing. Furthermore Bishop (2006) believes that software assumes students are cheating, so it teaches students that they are “guilty until proven innocent” (p. 9). This idea is contradictory to the democratic values that American education is supposed to instill in its students. Bishop (2006) admits using such software contradicts his philosophies as a teacher and only creates the aforementioned distrust so crippling to teacher/student relationships. Moreover such software teaches students a double standard. Carbone (2001) eloquently explains the message sent to students by using anti-plagiarism software like Turnitin:
Plagiarism is wrong because it's the theft of another person's intellectual property. Yet we don't trust you to follow that ethos, so we're going to violate it ourselves to save you from your own perfidy. We're going to take your property--your writing--and check it here, in this place that will keep a copy of your work whether you give permission for this or not. Sorry, it won't be just your property any more, it will also belong to Turnitin.com's database.
(Carbone, 2001)
Students are basically told that in order to save them from committing plagiarism they must be plagiarized. It is no wonder that cheating occurs out of desperation to succeed or not to fail, because a student is taught not to value his or her own writing by such hypocrisy.
It is Bishop (2006) that points out the greatest hypocrisy of such software. When music companies are allowed to sue individuals for illegally using their intellectual property, it is duplicitous for a student to “relinquish their intellectual properties for others use, in this case for profit” (p. 9). In other words a student is expected to accept that their originality is secondary to the innovations of big business. Obviously, the inherit issues of legality, ethicality, and hypocrisy indicate that educators must abstain from anti-plagiarism software if they want to instruct students properly about academic dishonesty.
ALTERNATIVES TO ANTI-PLAGIARISM SOFTWARE
In order to combat plagiarism, there must be a paradigm shift in how educators view it. Simple escalation with software that purports to stamp out plagiarism will only continue the attrition, as evidenced by the loopholes already discovered in software such as Turnitin. Bad blood will continue to fester between teachers and students, students will still be ambivalent to the evolving concepts of authorial ownership and plagiarism, teaching moments that could be beneficial to this ambivalence would disappear, and the software will always be limited. As Royce (2003) concludes, “we are not going to beat the cheats,” and such software is impractical (p. 29). Moreover because anti-plagiarism software such as Turnitin creates such legal and ethical faux pas, the only person that it would be ethically reasonable for using such software would be the student as self-check device (Bishop, 2006, p. 10). This use of technology would foster a positive learning environment for students rather than feeling isolated by some panopticon of plagiarism. Royce (2003) espouses this type of environment, and sets guidelines for its manifestation:
We can attempt to set plagiarism-proof assignments; we can make it so that students do not want or need to copy; we can devise alternative presentation methods which minimize the opportunity for plagiarism; we can stress process as well as content; we can ask students to provide originals or copies of the sources used; we can make it so hard for the plagiarist to plagiarize that it is easier to do the real work; we can try to promote honorable and ethical attitudes towards work.
(p.30)
None of these requirements for a more effective approach to plagiarism necessitate a threat of punishment. In fact these requirements seek to circumvent plagiarism by making it obsolete: students becoming autonomous and conscientious writers. Likewise Williams (2008) feels that teachers should “create assignments that engage their lives, interests, and individual intellectual questions” (p. 353). These assignments are certainly the most plagiarism proof. Most importantly teachers need to adopt approaches that work to build a positive relationship, as Bishop (2006) state, one of “respect, honesty and academic integrity” (p. 10). Even Mr. McCabe, with his disconcerting survey of plagiarism, endorses the promotion of academic integrity to students as the solution to academic dishonesty. Anything else is just a placebo.
Finally, all of the issues of anti-plagiarism software are all consequence of how teachers have come to distrust students. The success of anti-plagiarism software has been to the manipulation of educators’ fears and anxieties and perhaps a gross exaggeration of a plagiarism epidemic. Teachers must overcome the disillusioning emotions of betrayal and distrust. They must come to see their students as, though obviously flawed human individuals, capable of extraordinary creative and original work. Teachers cannot give into their fear of this neoplagiarism either. The influx of new technology creates unknown dangers but also creates unknown possibilities for students to explore ever-fluctuating literacy practices. No, teachers cannot give into the fear of the unknown because this type of fear manifests prejudice. And when it is students who come to believe these prejudices, then a far greater injustice than plagiarism has occurred.
REFERENCES
Bishop, Jack (2006) Using Turnitin at UCLA. Retrieved July 29th, 2007, from www.oid.ucla.edu/training/trainingarticles/ turnitin/index.html
Carbone, N. (2001). Turnit.com, a pedagogic placebo for plagiarism. Retrieved June 30, 2007, from bedforstmartins.com/technotes/techtiparchive/ttip060501.html
Robelen, E.W. (2007). Online anti-plagiarism service sets off court fight. Education Week, 26 (36) 16-17).
Royce, John (2003). Has Turnitin.com got it all wrapped up? Teacher Librarian, 30 (4), 26-30.
Williams. Bronwyn T. (2008). Trust, betrayal, and authorship: Plagiarism and how we perceive students. Journal of adolescent and adult literacy, 51 (4), 350-354.
RATIONALE FOR ANTI-PLAGIARISM SOFTWARE
The influx of “technology-assisted academic dishonesty” has led to the manifestation of a neoplagiarism and, in turn, the rise of a severe anxiety on the part of educators (Bishop, 2006, p. 1). As is the norm with modern social anxieties, “the fear of plagiarism is often connected to the new online technologies that allow ways for creating, editing, and sharing texts that were only dreamed of in the past (Williams, 2008, p. 351). While these technologies do indeed offer students innovative avenues of expression, they simultaneously create the temptation for a student to take the facile road to an easy grade. Such Internet technologies complicit in academic dishonesty may include sites that allow a student to purchase a paper, to copy-and-paste all or sections of an online paper, or to resubmit one’s own work or the work of another student. Even more so than offering up such an apple, and perhaps more disconcerting to educators, is that these technologies bring into question the concepts of authorship, ownership and plagiarism itself.
Some critics such as Williams (2008) question the reality of a rapidly increasing epidemic of academic dishonesty; however, the attention from the mainstream media and the near-resounding fears of educators are immutable. As noted by Robelen (2007), a Josephon Institute of Ethics survey found that in a group of “more than 36,000 high school students,” sixty percent of the students admitted to academic dishonesty. Furthermore one of every three students admitted to using Internet technology to plagiarize an assignment. Similar results were deduced by Donald L. McCabe, professor at Rutgers University, in a survey of 18,000 high school students confessing to some sort of plagiarism (Robelen, 2007). According to Royce (2007), “Almost every week there is a report on the prevalence of plagiarism from Internet Sources.” This prevalence, however, is perhaps attributable to a neglected emotional impact and response to plagiarism. When a student has been dishonest a teacher will understandably feel emotions of betrayal, anger and distrust. According to Williams (2008), “the level of trust we feel in someone has a profound effect on our actions towards that person and our reactions to everything that person does,” (p. 351). Naturally academic dishonesty can affect a teacher’s assumptions regarding the integrity of student writing. It may be nothing more than natural human emotion to assume that the introduction of new technology will only play to students’ darker angels based on previous experience. Nonetheless such alarming numbers and ominous forebodings of a new type of plagiarism epidemic have necessitated, some feel, an appropriate, technological response.
Indeed all of this attention towards new-age academic dishonesty as well as its offspring of fear, anxiety and distrust has spurred a technological retaliation—a built up of arms of sorts—as educators have begun to arm themselves with anti-plagiarism software. Any discussion of anti-plagiarism software inevitably leads to a discussion of Turnitin.com. As other technologies have come and gone, Turnitin has been an impressive business endeavor. Founder John M. Barrie has even crowned Turnitin as “the next generation’s spell checker” (Royce, 2003, p. 27). Turnitin’s success is likely due to the fact that that it does not detect plagiarism, nigh impossible on the internet, but rather finds “sequences of words in submitted documents which match sequences of words in documents in its database, or sequences of words in documents on the Internet.” Despite its strengths over competitors, however, Turnitin still cannot overcome all of the challenges posed by the vast terrain of the Internet. Technology such as Turnitin, more than anything else, is supposed to be meant as a deterrent, a preventive strike on plagiarism. According to Barrie, the technology has the same function as a test proctor, “students are less likely to cheat when faced with an increased likelihood of being caught” (Robelen, 2007). Similarly Royce (2003) conjectures that just a subscription to Turnitin will suffice for a drop in a school’s “suspected plagiarism” (p. 26). Turnitin boasts to uncover around 3,000 cases of sever plagiarism from an investigation of 10,000 papers a day.
But is such software the panacea to neoplagiarism? Can plagiarist technology be combated with anti-plagiarist technology? Can plagiarism in general be stamped out? Despite the anxiety of educators and the promotions of the creators of such software, anti-plagiarism software is nothing more than a “placebo” (Carbone, 2001). It does not address the significance of teaching about and solving academic, merely catching it. An examination of the use of such software in schools will divulge the following drawbacks: anti-plagiarism software is only a continuation of the attrition building up between an increasingly strained teacher/student relationship; it leads to conflicting ideas of student authorship and plagiarism; it negates the opportunity to teach students increasingly complex literary practices; the software itself is limited and thus impractical. Even under the consideration of modifying the use of such software to a less prominent or last resort tool, the lingering issues of the legality, ethicality, and hypocrisy of such software will determine that Turnitin and similar technologies will eventually surfaces and perhaps exacerbate the issue of plagiarism. Ultimately educators must renovate their approaches to plagiarism, authorship and ownership, necessitating more effective teaching rather than punishing practices.
THE DRAWBACKS
CATALYST FOR UNHEALTHY TEACHER/STUDENT RELATIONSHIPS
The issue of plagiarism is ultimately an issue of trust. Anti-plagiarism software begins a relationship of distrust between the teacher and student and creates a dysfunctional classroom environment. The opposition to building such a relationship and environment is resounding. As Williams (2008) points out, by even informing students that their writing will undergo a review of authenticity even before a teacher reads them, with or without threat of punishment, the underlying hint is that a teacher does “not trust them to act honorably” (p. 352). Similarly Carbone (2001) contends that such software “assumes the worst about students” who apparently have “no honor” and must be constantly eyed over with “a big brother welcome to academic traditions.” Such software is a clear message from the teacher to students that they are already presumed guilty until proven innocent. Barrie even admits that Turnitin’s main function is to act as a deterrent, almost analogous to a panopticon, a prison system, that serves to detect and punish students. It assumes guilt. Even McCabe, whose survey “exposed” the ominous cloud of a plagiarism epidemic, is opposed to the widespread use of such software: “To me that says to students, I can’t trust any of you” (Robelen, 2007). Whether a teacher assumes student’s efforts as honest or duplicitous can have significant effects upon the relationship, and moreover can influence how students perceive authority figures in general. Anti-plagiarism software, though perhaps well intentioned, shows distrust and positions teachers and students as enemies. This dynamic of adversaries rather than collaborators detracts from good pedagogy. Bishop contends that “A much more effective way of achieving the same goal might be to an atmosphere of respect, honesty and academic integrity” (p. 10). By a teacher displaying trust in students’ abilities, their self-esteem and ultimately their “sense of well-being” are stimulated and maintained.
CONFLICTING IDEAS OF AUTHORSHIP AND PLAGIARISM
Along with creating a dysfunctional dynamic, anti-plagiarism software can add to student confusion over the concepts of authorial identity and plagiarism. Students are subjected to a thin rope of social nuances. As Williams (2008) explains, “we want students to draw on their creativity and create original work, yet we want them to become readers and writers who draw from ideas of others” (p. 351). If a student fails to walk this line they are considered “intellectually or morally deficient.” The concepts of authorship, ownership, and plagiarism are constantly in flux; however, exponentially now perhaps because of the possibilities of new technology. This evolution of technology has sparked an evolution of literacy practices, “creating texts as collages and hybrids of other texts” (p. 352). It is arguably intellectually or morally deficient of educators rather then to focus on punishing students (as anti-plagiarism seems intent on doing) for transgressing against evolving literary practices instead of teaching how to cope with their evolution.
LOSS OF TEACHING MOMENTS
Williams (2008) adds, because the issue of plagiarism so often “turns all to quickly to detection and punishment,” an opportunity is lost to “engage students in increasingly sophisticate literacy practices” (p. 352) Anti-plagiarism puts detection and punishment over instruction. Correctly using ideas from others in an original piece of writing according to cultural customs is a skill that must be taught. It is the responsibility of the teacher to instruct proper usage before punishment should even be considered. Carbone (2001) adds that “teaching students how to wisely use other ideas—how to distinguish when to cite a source, how to introduce them into conventions for doing so—is hard enough with adding in the threat of constant surveillance.” Still most teachers approach plagiarism as something that should be scrutinized closely and punished accordingly. This antagonistic approach goes back to the idea of a lack of trust. Important opportunities for teaching evolving literacy practices are lost because students feel the teacher is working against instead of with them. Moreover students never develop their own identities as writers without the nurturing of the teacher. Students constantly view the teacher as a source of punishment rather than guidance.
Regardless of whether a student intentionally or unintentionally plagiarizes, however, “such moments offer important chances to teach students about writing and life” (353). In regards to intentional plagiarism, a teacher should make an effort to discover why a student is academically dishonest, often due to the pressure to succeed or to just not to fail. Obviously the student does not comprehend his or her own strengths as a writer. In a collaborative relationship, a teacher can teach students to discover their own identities as writers. In regards to unintentional plagiarism, it is ignorant for a teacher to assume that this is anything other than a natural teaching opportunity. As Carbone (2001) explains, “Mistakes in using and citing sources -- which can be technical, mechanical, rhetorical, and evaluative -- are in fact a necessary part of learning how to write with and from sources.” When a teacher equates mistakes that are necessary for a student to make to acquire good writing skills with fraud, that teacher is negating the very purpose of learning. Intentional or unintentional plagiarism must both be viewed as opportunities for a teacher to teach good writing. These opportunities are lost when all students are worried about is a software system that denies their authorial worth.
There are sound alternatives that will reanimate such teaching moments, however. Masur (2008) recommends that teachers can “respond pedagogically by offering writing workshops or assigning essays in stages.” Williams (2008) espouses similar tactics, “working with some papers as drafts and approaching each assignment as a process that builds on ideas” will help improve students writing practices (p. 353). In this manner teachers and students develop more a relationship of trust, moving both parties away from “the paranoia of potential plagiarism punishment.”
LIMITATIONS OF SOFTWARE
Regardless of the academic drawbacks of anti-plagiarism software, its physical limitations further negate its use. Both Royce (2003) and Bishop (2006) chronicle a vast and growing set of limitations just on the part of Turnitin alone (supposedly the most effective anti-plagiarism software) to fully detect plagiarism. Turnitin alone has been defunct as it cannot “detect cleverly paraphrased passages,” identify work done by a “ghost-writer,” differentiate between properly and improperly cited text, and nor can it account for the many loopholes that students are still discovering (Bishop, 2006, p. 7). Royce (2003) points out other limitations for the software, such as not taking into account text that has been translated from another language or the plagiarism of diagrams, pictures or graphs (p. 28) Moreover for teachers to just use Turnitin’s “originality report” alone, though many do, is an improper use of the software’s service. The software only points out similarities between texts, it does not detect plagiarism. The burden of proof in a case of plagiarism is on the teacher, and with the grand scope of that the new technology poses, an “originality report” is a superficial indicator of original work at best. In fact, both Carbone (2001) and Royce (2003) contend that a skilled teacher with a search engine is more effective than any anti-plagiarism software developed so far.
MODIFYING THE ROLE OF SUCH SOFTWARE
Despite its academic and physical limitations to becoming the plagiarism panacea, could anti-plagiarism software still play some modified role in the classroom? According to Royce (2003), software is still only “a tool, a weapon, a deterrent” (p. 30). As a deterrent, Turnitin founder Barrie still argues, “Our uses have validated us with their use” (Robelen, 2007). According to Barrie, the renewal rate is above 95 percent with an expanding clientele. In this regard, anti-plagiarism software has begun to set up a panopticon status with its proposed omniscient view. Even with its limitations it can still “scare” plagiarists. There is no substantial research that shows this deterrent effect however. Keith D. Klein, an English teacher at Washington Lee High School in Arlington, Virginia, hopes to use the software to create “teachable moments”: "That in itself is a platform for me to talk about plagiarism, and a pretty good disincentive” (Robelen 2007). Turnitin’s role in Mr. Klein’s class has actually evolved from just as a platform for discussion and disincentive, as he typically likes to use the peer review features of the software. Robelen (2007) describes alternative uses of the software by another teacher, Ms. Christel, who limits the use of Turnitin to major papers only, and only when there are suspect citation issues. Ms. Christel uses other tools to supplement this software, however, and stresses that “teachers need to work hard to ensure students under-stand what plagiarism is and how to avoid it.” From this perspective, could then anti-plagiarism software therefore be utilized in a reduced role in the classroom, more as a supplemental device to teaching about plagiarism?
LINGERING ISSUES OF LEGALITY, ETHICALITY, & HYPOCRISY
Despite a near acquiescence by Carbone (2001) to using anti-plagiarism software “as a last ditch attempt to find the smoking gun,” there are still serious issues that negate its use. Most damning for Turnitin are legality issues. Bishop (2006) explains, “By storing the uploaded papers in order to expand its database for comparison to new submissions, Turnitin is potentially violating the students’ copyrights and right to privacy” (p. 7). The nature of Turnitin requires a database, and a database necessitates a copy of a student’s work to be archived. Because a student has no real say in the matter of submitting their paper to the software, they are stripped of their rights as authors of their own work. Turnitin essentially does to the student what proposes to keep the student from doing. Despite the software companies contention that Turnitin loopholes certain legalities, Bishop (2006) contends that ultimately the software violates students’ rights granted by the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (FERPA).
On top of the legality issues of anti-plagiarism software, Carbone (2001) sees any use of such tools as unethical, because it “co-opts students’ intellectual property to sell its service.” Turnitin has indeed been a remarkable financial success, one that banks on the authorial disenfranchisement of students. It is a business plan that has played off the pedagogical misunderstandings and distrust of educators; no wonder Blaire calls it “the next generations’ spell checker” (Royce, 2003, p. 27). It has monopolized the theft of student’s intellectual properties.
Pedagogically speaking, teaching students about plagiarism through such software is counterproductive and grossly hypocritical. First of all, anti-plagiarism software frees teachers from making challenging, plagiarism-proof assignments that teach students responsible and socially acceptable good writing. Furthermore Bishop (2006) believes that software assumes students are cheating, so it teaches students that they are “guilty until proven innocent” (p. 9). This idea is contradictory to the democratic values that American education is supposed to instill in its students. Bishop (2006) admits using such software contradicts his philosophies as a teacher and only creates the aforementioned distrust so crippling to teacher/student relationships. Moreover such software teaches students a double standard. Carbone (2001) eloquently explains the message sent to students by using anti-plagiarism software like Turnitin:
Plagiarism is wrong because it's the theft of another person's intellectual property. Yet we don't trust you to follow that ethos, so we're going to violate it ourselves to save you from your own perfidy. We're going to take your property--your writing--and check it here, in this place that will keep a copy of your work whether you give permission for this or not. Sorry, it won't be just your property any more, it will also belong to Turnitin.com's database.
(Carbone, 2001)
Students are basically told that in order to save them from committing plagiarism they must be plagiarized. It is no wonder that cheating occurs out of desperation to succeed or not to fail, because a student is taught not to value his or her own writing by such hypocrisy.
It is Bishop (2006) that points out the greatest hypocrisy of such software. When music companies are allowed to sue individuals for illegally using their intellectual property, it is duplicitous for a student to “relinquish their intellectual properties for others use, in this case for profit” (p. 9). In other words a student is expected to accept that their originality is secondary to the innovations of big business. Obviously, the inherit issues of legality, ethicality, and hypocrisy indicate that educators must abstain from anti-plagiarism software if they want to instruct students properly about academic dishonesty.
ALTERNATIVES TO ANTI-PLAGIARISM SOFTWARE
In order to combat plagiarism, there must be a paradigm shift in how educators view it. Simple escalation with software that purports to stamp out plagiarism will only continue the attrition, as evidenced by the loopholes already discovered in software such as Turnitin. Bad blood will continue to fester between teachers and students, students will still be ambivalent to the evolving concepts of authorial ownership and plagiarism, teaching moments that could be beneficial to this ambivalence would disappear, and the software will always be limited. As Royce (2003) concludes, “we are not going to beat the cheats,” and such software is impractical (p. 29). Moreover because anti-plagiarism software such as Turnitin creates such legal and ethical faux pas, the only person that it would be ethically reasonable for using such software would be the student as self-check device (Bishop, 2006, p. 10). This use of technology would foster a positive learning environment for students rather than feeling isolated by some panopticon of plagiarism. Royce (2003) espouses this type of environment, and sets guidelines for its manifestation:
We can attempt to set plagiarism-proof assignments; we can make it so that students do not want or need to copy; we can devise alternative presentation methods which minimize the opportunity for plagiarism; we can stress process as well as content; we can ask students to provide originals or copies of the sources used; we can make it so hard for the plagiarist to plagiarize that it is easier to do the real work; we can try to promote honorable and ethical attitudes towards work.
(p.30)
None of these requirements for a more effective approach to plagiarism necessitate a threat of punishment. In fact these requirements seek to circumvent plagiarism by making it obsolete: students becoming autonomous and conscientious writers. Likewise Williams (2008) feels that teachers should “create assignments that engage their lives, interests, and individual intellectual questions” (p. 353). These assignments are certainly the most plagiarism proof. Most importantly teachers need to adopt approaches that work to build a positive relationship, as Bishop (2006) state, one of “respect, honesty and academic integrity” (p. 10). Even Mr. McCabe, with his disconcerting survey of plagiarism, endorses the promotion of academic integrity to students as the solution to academic dishonesty. Anything else is just a placebo.
Finally, all of the issues of anti-plagiarism software are all consequence of how teachers have come to distrust students. The success of anti-plagiarism software has been to the manipulation of educators’ fears and anxieties and perhaps a gross exaggeration of a plagiarism epidemic. Teachers must overcome the disillusioning emotions of betrayal and distrust. They must come to see their students as, though obviously flawed human individuals, capable of extraordinary creative and original work. Teachers cannot give into their fear of this neoplagiarism either. The influx of new technology creates unknown dangers but also creates unknown possibilities for students to explore ever-fluctuating literacy practices. No, teachers cannot give into the fear of the unknown because this type of fear manifests prejudice. And when it is students who come to believe these prejudices, then a far greater injustice than plagiarism has occurred.
REFERENCES
Bishop, Jack (2006) Using Turnitin at UCLA. Retrieved July 29th, 2007, from www.oid.ucla.edu/training/trainingarticles/ turnitin/index.html
Carbone, N. (2001). Turnit.com, a pedagogic placebo for plagiarism. Retrieved June 30, 2007, from bedforstmartins.com/technotes/techtiparchive/ttip060501.html
Robelen, E.W. (2007). Online anti-plagiarism service sets off court fight. Education Week, 26 (36) 16-17).
Royce, John (2003). Has Turnitin.com got it all wrapped up? Teacher Librarian, 30 (4), 26-30.
Williams. Bronwyn T. (2008). Trust, betrayal, and authorship: Plagiarism and how we perceive students. Journal of adolescent and adult literacy, 51 (4), 350-354.
Parental Involvement in Education
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, approximately 67 percent of the nation’s 73.7 million children younger than 18 lived with two parents in 2006. Perhaps the more revealing statistic is that there were about 12.9 million one-parent families in 2006. This is an alarming figure when you consider its impact on education. Not to get off track with an extended preamble about tangential issues, but it is fitting to point out that Barrack Obama raised this issue of single parents, particularly on the topic of black fathers, in a recent Father’s Day speech in front of the NAACP. In weighing in on this issue, to the chagrin of several African Americans, Obama stated that “more than half of all black children live in single-parent households,” calling for more responsibility from black fathers. Certainly this topic is not exclusive to African Americans, but this population takes up a large part of the dialogue. While I will not offer any scathing remarks on the absence of a father figure in the lives of many children, it is evident that the family structure has changed substantially over the past 50 years, when it was customary to have two parents (Johnson et al., 2008, p. 77). To say that the lack of parental involvement in school is entirely responsible for the decline in educated children is unwarranted and inadequate. There are a variety of factors ranging from funding to class size to curriculum planning that complicate the matter. Parental involvement is only one such contributing factor, but a very important one nevertheless. As we look towards raising the level of education in this country, the overriding concern is whether parental involvement will improve in order to ensure the well being of our children and this country.
I can say, almost unreservedly, from my experience in this profession as a first-year teacher that the vast majority of educators are committed to helping students achieve success on a variety of levels, whether it involves academics, athletics, arts, among others. The pervasive and highly disparaging belief that teachers are putting in sub par effort in the classroom is somewhat unfounded. The incessant finger pointing in playing the blame game to isolate who is responsible for poor student achievement must stop. It is not only unavailing, but it fails to solve pressing matters that demand our attention. At any rate, most people can agree that communication is the best means to affecting change. Through a synergistic effort of combining educators and parents, I believe that we can redirect struggling students.
Having grown up with two supportive parents who always attended my concerts and sporting events and did not miss a beat when it came to asking about the school day to check up on me, I am inclined to believe that parental involvement is integral to the academic, personal, and emotional growth of a child. Some might misconstrue my parents’ nurturing as sheltering me from the many dangers of the outside world, but they kept me in line and helped me sharpen my reading and writing skills. The myriad issues that confront teens only seem to be growing, but the major problems linked to drugs and unsafe sex persist. I do not wish to suggest that there have not been nor will there be naturally self-sufficient children, but we desperately need to make sure that education takes place both inside and outside the classroom. Educators only see teens for a limited amount of time, which means that they need reinforcement from parents or guardians so that they do not give into peer pressure and resort to such things as violence or skipping school. Positive roles models can help students stay disciplined. Parents can help in reinforcing essential strategies acquired in school by having their children apply what they have learned in completing homework assignments or studying for tests (Lenz et al., 2004, p. 272-273).
Without the help of the family, getting students to genuinely buy into their education is an ongoing struggle and one that continues to become progressively difficult over time. Students need the solid support structure of the family to make intelligent decisions about their futures. Some might argue that many parents of students in high-need schools are uneducated and thus will be ineffectual when it comes to taking part in school-related work. While those in favor of this argument would not be entirely wrong, it is essential to note that parents can provide moral support and help with the ever-important personal growth of adolescents. If parents are left out of the equation, teachers along with guidance counselors end up being overburdened by taking on the role of therapists in addressing student needs that require parental support. Much more of the onus has been placed on teachers in delving into personal issues for students. Dealing with the sheer number of student concerns takes a toll on educators mentally. I cannot tell you how many times I have called the home of a student only to get the wrong number or to leave messages that never get through to parents. It is quite frustrating and students who are struggling or have missed several school days often do not receive the help that they need to get back on track. Parent-teacher conferences do not constitute a great deal of parental involvement. Aside from the meager amount of parents that show up, the brief five-minute conversations are ostensibly helpful in reversing poor student performance, but in fact they do little to ensure student success for the long run.
I am not convinced that teens fare better without parental support and neither is the National Coalition for Parent Involvement in Education, an organization that spearheads a national initiative to foster strong relationships between families and schools. The NCPIE insists that by building the relationship between families and schools, the quality of student life improves on an academic and personal level, teachers develop more confidence, parents become empowered, schools ultimately improve, and communities become stronger. Project Appleseed is one other organization that is currently at the forefront of strengthening the relationship between families and schools. Project Appleseed strives for the similar goals in revitalizing schools and communities by “mobilizing parent, family, and community volunteers inside and outside schools” to increase student achievement. One additional organization that works toward enhancing the relationship between families and schools is the National Network of Partnership Schools at Johns Hopkins University, which has implemented a process called Teachers Involve Parents in Schoolwork (TIPS) to get families more involved in their children’s education. The very fact that these taskforces exist solely for this cause is not only impressive, but it indeed speaks to the significance of this issue right now.
There are innumerable advantages of cultivating meaningful relationships amongst educators and families. The National Conference of State Legislators contends that “parent participation in education is positively and significantly related to student achievement.” A publication sponsored by the U.S. Department of Education entitled Family Involvement in Children’s Education: Successful Local Approaches Idea Book concurs that active parental involvement leads to long-term academic achievement, better attendance, more completed homework assignments, and more positive behavior for students as compared with students that have less invested parents. Most of my students do not maintain consistency when it comes to completing homework assignments. By simply having an adult keep their child disciplined with school tasks, more work can be accomplished during the school day rather than squandering precious time trying to bring these students up to speed with the work. Perhaps even more valuable, if parents and educators work collaboratively, parents will be able to improve their own knowledge. Given the number of immigrant families that struggle with the English language, it would be beneficial to get parents invested in their child’s learning so that they can learn the language. The educational process could conceivably act as a kind of trickledown system in teaching parents the idiosyncrasies of the English language as well as the basics regarding emergent technology.
The imminent future of public education, and more importantly the vitality and moral fabric of this nation, hinges on our capacity to establish outreach programs that bring parents and educators together. I firmly believe that such an enterprise is pivotal in the ongoing effort to reform public education. This begs the question as to how such a tremendous undertaking will be successfully implemented across the country. With a society that consists of 12.9 million one-parent families with single parents who are taking care of multiple kids and working numerous jobs to make ends meet, it is easier said than done in trying to help these individuals find the time to take an active role in the educational process.
References
Johnson, J.A., Musial, D., Hall, G.E., Gollnick, D.M., & Dupuis, V.L. (2008). Foundations of
American education: Perspectives on education in a changing world. 14th ed. Boston:
Pearson Education.
Lenz, B.K., Deshler, D.D. (2004). Teaching content to all: Evidence-based inclusive practices in middle and secondary schools. Boston: Pearson Education.
National Coalition for Parent Involvement in Education (2008). Retrieved July 27, 2008, from
http://www.ncpie.org/
National Conference of State Legislators: The Forum for America’s Ideas (2008). Retrieved July 27, 2008, from
http://www.ncsl.org/programs/educ/PInvolve.htm
National Network of Partnership Schools (2006). Retrieved July 27, 2008, from Johns Hopkins University
http://www.csos.jhu.edu/p2000/tips/index.htm
Project Appleseed (2008). Retrieved July 27, 2008, from
http://www.projectappleseed.org/index.html
Single-Parent Households Showed Little Variation (2007). Retrieved July 27, 2008, from U.S. Census Bureau News http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/families_households/009842.html
I can say, almost unreservedly, from my experience in this profession as a first-year teacher that the vast majority of educators are committed to helping students achieve success on a variety of levels, whether it involves academics, athletics, arts, among others. The pervasive and highly disparaging belief that teachers are putting in sub par effort in the classroom is somewhat unfounded. The incessant finger pointing in playing the blame game to isolate who is responsible for poor student achievement must stop. It is not only unavailing, but it fails to solve pressing matters that demand our attention. At any rate, most people can agree that communication is the best means to affecting change. Through a synergistic effort of combining educators and parents, I believe that we can redirect struggling students.
Having grown up with two supportive parents who always attended my concerts and sporting events and did not miss a beat when it came to asking about the school day to check up on me, I am inclined to believe that parental involvement is integral to the academic, personal, and emotional growth of a child. Some might misconstrue my parents’ nurturing as sheltering me from the many dangers of the outside world, but they kept me in line and helped me sharpen my reading and writing skills. The myriad issues that confront teens only seem to be growing, but the major problems linked to drugs and unsafe sex persist. I do not wish to suggest that there have not been nor will there be naturally self-sufficient children, but we desperately need to make sure that education takes place both inside and outside the classroom. Educators only see teens for a limited amount of time, which means that they need reinforcement from parents or guardians so that they do not give into peer pressure and resort to such things as violence or skipping school. Positive roles models can help students stay disciplined. Parents can help in reinforcing essential strategies acquired in school by having their children apply what they have learned in completing homework assignments or studying for tests (Lenz et al., 2004, p. 272-273).
Without the help of the family, getting students to genuinely buy into their education is an ongoing struggle and one that continues to become progressively difficult over time. Students need the solid support structure of the family to make intelligent decisions about their futures. Some might argue that many parents of students in high-need schools are uneducated and thus will be ineffectual when it comes to taking part in school-related work. While those in favor of this argument would not be entirely wrong, it is essential to note that parents can provide moral support and help with the ever-important personal growth of adolescents. If parents are left out of the equation, teachers along with guidance counselors end up being overburdened by taking on the role of therapists in addressing student needs that require parental support. Much more of the onus has been placed on teachers in delving into personal issues for students. Dealing with the sheer number of student concerns takes a toll on educators mentally. I cannot tell you how many times I have called the home of a student only to get the wrong number or to leave messages that never get through to parents. It is quite frustrating and students who are struggling or have missed several school days often do not receive the help that they need to get back on track. Parent-teacher conferences do not constitute a great deal of parental involvement. Aside from the meager amount of parents that show up, the brief five-minute conversations are ostensibly helpful in reversing poor student performance, but in fact they do little to ensure student success for the long run.
I am not convinced that teens fare better without parental support and neither is the National Coalition for Parent Involvement in Education, an organization that spearheads a national initiative to foster strong relationships between families and schools. The NCPIE insists that by building the relationship between families and schools, the quality of student life improves on an academic and personal level, teachers develop more confidence, parents become empowered, schools ultimately improve, and communities become stronger. Project Appleseed is one other organization that is currently at the forefront of strengthening the relationship between families and schools. Project Appleseed strives for the similar goals in revitalizing schools and communities by “mobilizing parent, family, and community volunteers inside and outside schools” to increase student achievement. One additional organization that works toward enhancing the relationship between families and schools is the National Network of Partnership Schools at Johns Hopkins University, which has implemented a process called Teachers Involve Parents in Schoolwork (TIPS) to get families more involved in their children’s education. The very fact that these taskforces exist solely for this cause is not only impressive, but it indeed speaks to the significance of this issue right now.
There are innumerable advantages of cultivating meaningful relationships amongst educators and families. The National Conference of State Legislators contends that “parent participation in education is positively and significantly related to student achievement.” A publication sponsored by the U.S. Department of Education entitled Family Involvement in Children’s Education: Successful Local Approaches Idea Book concurs that active parental involvement leads to long-term academic achievement, better attendance, more completed homework assignments, and more positive behavior for students as compared with students that have less invested parents. Most of my students do not maintain consistency when it comes to completing homework assignments. By simply having an adult keep their child disciplined with school tasks, more work can be accomplished during the school day rather than squandering precious time trying to bring these students up to speed with the work. Perhaps even more valuable, if parents and educators work collaboratively, parents will be able to improve their own knowledge. Given the number of immigrant families that struggle with the English language, it would be beneficial to get parents invested in their child’s learning so that they can learn the language. The educational process could conceivably act as a kind of trickledown system in teaching parents the idiosyncrasies of the English language as well as the basics regarding emergent technology.
The imminent future of public education, and more importantly the vitality and moral fabric of this nation, hinges on our capacity to establish outreach programs that bring parents and educators together. I firmly believe that such an enterprise is pivotal in the ongoing effort to reform public education. This begs the question as to how such a tremendous undertaking will be successfully implemented across the country. With a society that consists of 12.9 million one-parent families with single parents who are taking care of multiple kids and working numerous jobs to make ends meet, it is easier said than done in trying to help these individuals find the time to take an active role in the educational process.
References
Johnson, J.A., Musial, D., Hall, G.E., Gollnick, D.M., & Dupuis, V.L. (2008). Foundations of
American education: Perspectives on education in a changing world. 14th ed. Boston:
Pearson Education.
Lenz, B.K., Deshler, D.D. (2004). Teaching content to all: Evidence-based inclusive practices in middle and secondary schools. Boston: Pearson Education.
National Coalition for Parent Involvement in Education (2008). Retrieved July 27, 2008, from
http://www.ncpie.org/
National Conference of State Legislators: The Forum for America’s Ideas (2008). Retrieved July 27, 2008, from
http://www.ncsl.org/programs/educ/PInvolve.htm
National Network of Partnership Schools (2006). Retrieved July 27, 2008, from Johns Hopkins University
http://www.csos.jhu.edu/p2000/tips/index.htm
Project Appleseed (2008). Retrieved July 27, 2008, from
http://www.projectappleseed.org/index.html
Single-Parent Households Showed Little Variation (2007). Retrieved July 27, 2008, from U.S. Census Bureau News http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/families_households/009842.html
The Rise of 21st Century Learning Skills: The Brainchild of the Partnership for 21st Century Skills
In an age in which the purposes and effects of school are incessantly measured, weighed, evaluated, and reevaluated by various individuals and organizations, the skills that students acquire in schools are also constantly observed and assessed through educational and societal lenses. One rather obvious reason why these key educational issues are continuously explored in the United States is that society is questing for more real-world, educational experiences that can stay abreast with the advancing world technologies while simultaneously producing more conscientious, productive, effective, global citizens. This idea is, of course, not a new one as John Dewey stated several decades ago in “Education and Social Change” that “we are all familiar with the pleas that are urged to bring education in the schools into closer relation with the forces that are producing social change and with the needs that arise from these changes” (Schultz, 2001, p. 334). Despite one’s inclination or opposition to the idea of aligning schools more closely with the forces and needs of society, the rise of 21st century learning skills is beneficial for a spectrum of educational philosophies and importantly recognizes the student as an individual and as a member of society.
According to a national survey of 800 registered voters in the United States from September 10-12, 2007, which was conducted for the Partnership for 21st Century Skills, “an overwhelming 80 percent of voters say that the kind of skills students need to learn to be prepared for the jobs of the 21st century is different from what they needed 20 years ago” while “a virtually unanimous 99 percent of voters say that teaching students a wide range of 21st century skills” is “important to our country’s future economic success” (Partnership for 21st Century Skills, 2007). Moreover, “an overwhelming 88 percent of voters say they believe that schools can and should incorporate 21st century skills into their curriculum” (Partnership for 21st Century Skills, 2007). Although these statistics are seemingly compelling, especially in light of the fact that the voters surveyed represented a variety of socioeconomic classes, age groups, and political affiliations, the understandable question that surfaces, at least for those that are not yet familiar with the ideas of 21st century education, is: What exactly are the “21st century learning skills”?
As outlined in The Intellectual and Policy Foundations of the 21st Century Skills Framework by the Partnership for 21st Century Skills, which is “the leading advocacy organization focused on infusing 21st century skills into education,” the 21st century skill sets are: 1) learning and innovation skills, which include critical thinking, problem solving, creativity, communication, and collaboration; 2) information, media, and technology skills, which enable students to access, evaluate, and make sense of data in a variety of modes; and 3) life and career skills, which involve flexibility and adaptability, initiative and self-direction, social and cross-cultural skills, productivity and accountability, and leadership and social responsibility (Partnership for 21st Century Skills, 2007). Perhaps interestingly, these skills are not positioned in a uniquely different content curriculum from the one that already exists in public schools. Rather, they are integrated into and to be taught from the very same content areas that were identified by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Hence, the core subjects of English, reading or language arts, world languages, arts, mathematics, economics, science, geography, history, government and civics along with the themes of global awareness, financial, economic, business and entrepreneurial literacy, civic literacy, and health literacy are the framework within which the 21st century skills are taught, learned, and utilized.
Although heavy emphasis is placed on the themes of global awareness, financial, economic, business and entrepreneurial literacy, civic literacy, and health literacy, it is clear that the 21st century skills have not been developed and emphasized simply to declare that the function of a school should be to prepare students for the workforce. Instead, these skill sets can serve many functions, which include focusing on the personal growth of students as well as students’ interaction and engagement with society. In my opinion, the 21st century learning skills are easily adaptable to a variety of educational philosophies because they work to develop students’ creative, critical, and independent thinking capacities, connect content areas with real world experiences, provide students with meaningful opportunities to observe and value the connections that exist between their learning and world experiences, and enable students to strengthen and enhance their awareness of society.
Regardless of one’s position on the function of school and whether or not education should be aligned to America’s future economic success and global competitiveness, the emergence of 21st century learning skills suggests, in a deliberate manner, that 20th century learning skills no longer meet the needs of students and American society. This is not to say that traditional, basic skills such as reading comprehension are no longer valued, but the Partnership for 21st Century Skills has stated that a broader range of skills, beyond the basic skills of reading, writing, math, and science must be incorporated into core academic content so that all students can have “the skills needed to be effective citizens, workers, and leaders in the 21st century” (Partnership for 21st Century Skills, 2007).
In reflecting on the 21st century skills, I am convinced that schools in the United States should be focusing on these competencies because they are comprehensive and enable students to see the inextricable connection that exists between education and society. In truth, what can serve as preparation for society other than education? In my opinion, there seems to be no realistic alternative and adopting an education system which fosters the acquisition and application of 21st century learning skills is ideal because the skills are firmly rooted in core content areas, stress the personal growth of students, and remind students that they are citizens of the world who are constantly building an awareness of society. Although the Partnership for 21st Century Skills states that American schools “must align classroom environments with real world environments by infusing 21st century skills” in order to provide students with the means to “successfully face rigorous higher education coursework, career challenges and a globally competitive workforce,” the skills sets, at the very least, help ensure that all children are prepared for life in the 21st century (Partnership for 21st Century Skills, 2007).
In my single year of experience as an English teacher at a large New York City public school, I have noticed that students constantly question how the skills they learn in school can be applied to real-world situations. I have also noticed that many students often feel lost in the applicability of the basic skills of reading, writing, math, and science and wish that their academic experiences could offer more direct preparation for the world experiences that await them. With the 21st century learning skills, the majority of students would likely be more engaged with the education process because they would have more opportunities to apply their skills to real-world experiences. For example, small learning communities such as the Business Enterprise exist in my high school, but at the moment this community is simply like any other small learning community in the school and does not focus on business literacy and teaching students how to make appropriate economic choices. With the embedded theme of financial, economic, business, and entrepreneurial literacy, I feel that students would be more motivated to learn and to develop their own thinking while preparing for their futures. Many students would be inspired to learn because they could have opportunities to focus on their personal growth while building an awareness of the business world. While some of the obstacles to 21st century learning include the availability and effective use of technology and also the reality that “educators and staff members must themselves master 21st century skills to be effective in their roles,” as noted in “21st Century Learning: ‘We’re Not Even Close’” (Nagel, 2007), the skills sets, perhaps more than anything else, should be in place to develop global citizens that can work collaboratively and think critically to improve society.
References
Nagel, D. (November 5, 2007). "21st century learning: 'We're not even close.’" T.H.E. Journal.
Retrieved July 28, 2008, from
http://www.thejournal.com/articles/21543_1
Schultz, F. (2000). SOURCES: Notable selections in education. New York: McGraw-Hill Dushkin.
Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2007). Beyond the three Rs: Voter attitudes toward 21st
century skills. Retrieved July 28, 2008, from
http://www.21stcenturyskills.org/documents/P21_pollreport_singlepg.pdf
Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2007). The intellectual and policy foundations of the
21st century framework. Retrieved July 28, 2008, from
http://www.21stcenturyskills.org/route21/images/stories/epapers/skills_foundations_final.pdf
According to a national survey of 800 registered voters in the United States from September 10-12, 2007, which was conducted for the Partnership for 21st Century Skills, “an overwhelming 80 percent of voters say that the kind of skills students need to learn to be prepared for the jobs of the 21st century is different from what they needed 20 years ago” while “a virtually unanimous 99 percent of voters say that teaching students a wide range of 21st century skills” is “important to our country’s future economic success” (Partnership for 21st Century Skills, 2007). Moreover, “an overwhelming 88 percent of voters say they believe that schools can and should incorporate 21st century skills into their curriculum” (Partnership for 21st Century Skills, 2007). Although these statistics are seemingly compelling, especially in light of the fact that the voters surveyed represented a variety of socioeconomic classes, age groups, and political affiliations, the understandable question that surfaces, at least for those that are not yet familiar with the ideas of 21st century education, is: What exactly are the “21st century learning skills”?
As outlined in The Intellectual and Policy Foundations of the 21st Century Skills Framework by the Partnership for 21st Century Skills, which is “the leading advocacy organization focused on infusing 21st century skills into education,” the 21st century skill sets are: 1) learning and innovation skills, which include critical thinking, problem solving, creativity, communication, and collaboration; 2) information, media, and technology skills, which enable students to access, evaluate, and make sense of data in a variety of modes; and 3) life and career skills, which involve flexibility and adaptability, initiative and self-direction, social and cross-cultural skills, productivity and accountability, and leadership and social responsibility (Partnership for 21st Century Skills, 2007). Perhaps interestingly, these skills are not positioned in a uniquely different content curriculum from the one that already exists in public schools. Rather, they are integrated into and to be taught from the very same content areas that were identified by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Hence, the core subjects of English, reading or language arts, world languages, arts, mathematics, economics, science, geography, history, government and civics along with the themes of global awareness, financial, economic, business and entrepreneurial literacy, civic literacy, and health literacy are the framework within which the 21st century skills are taught, learned, and utilized.
Although heavy emphasis is placed on the themes of global awareness, financial, economic, business and entrepreneurial literacy, civic literacy, and health literacy, it is clear that the 21st century skills have not been developed and emphasized simply to declare that the function of a school should be to prepare students for the workforce. Instead, these skill sets can serve many functions, which include focusing on the personal growth of students as well as students’ interaction and engagement with society. In my opinion, the 21st century learning skills are easily adaptable to a variety of educational philosophies because they work to develop students’ creative, critical, and independent thinking capacities, connect content areas with real world experiences, provide students with meaningful opportunities to observe and value the connections that exist between their learning and world experiences, and enable students to strengthen and enhance their awareness of society.
Regardless of one’s position on the function of school and whether or not education should be aligned to America’s future economic success and global competitiveness, the emergence of 21st century learning skills suggests, in a deliberate manner, that 20th century learning skills no longer meet the needs of students and American society. This is not to say that traditional, basic skills such as reading comprehension are no longer valued, but the Partnership for 21st Century Skills has stated that a broader range of skills, beyond the basic skills of reading, writing, math, and science must be incorporated into core academic content so that all students can have “the skills needed to be effective citizens, workers, and leaders in the 21st century” (Partnership for 21st Century Skills, 2007).
In reflecting on the 21st century skills, I am convinced that schools in the United States should be focusing on these competencies because they are comprehensive and enable students to see the inextricable connection that exists between education and society. In truth, what can serve as preparation for society other than education? In my opinion, there seems to be no realistic alternative and adopting an education system which fosters the acquisition and application of 21st century learning skills is ideal because the skills are firmly rooted in core content areas, stress the personal growth of students, and remind students that they are citizens of the world who are constantly building an awareness of society. Although the Partnership for 21st Century Skills states that American schools “must align classroom environments with real world environments by infusing 21st century skills” in order to provide students with the means to “successfully face rigorous higher education coursework, career challenges and a globally competitive workforce,” the skills sets, at the very least, help ensure that all children are prepared for life in the 21st century (Partnership for 21st Century Skills, 2007).
In my single year of experience as an English teacher at a large New York City public school, I have noticed that students constantly question how the skills they learn in school can be applied to real-world situations. I have also noticed that many students often feel lost in the applicability of the basic skills of reading, writing, math, and science and wish that their academic experiences could offer more direct preparation for the world experiences that await them. With the 21st century learning skills, the majority of students would likely be more engaged with the education process because they would have more opportunities to apply their skills to real-world experiences. For example, small learning communities such as the Business Enterprise exist in my high school, but at the moment this community is simply like any other small learning community in the school and does not focus on business literacy and teaching students how to make appropriate economic choices. With the embedded theme of financial, economic, business, and entrepreneurial literacy, I feel that students would be more motivated to learn and to develop their own thinking while preparing for their futures. Many students would be inspired to learn because they could have opportunities to focus on their personal growth while building an awareness of the business world. While some of the obstacles to 21st century learning include the availability and effective use of technology and also the reality that “educators and staff members must themselves master 21st century skills to be effective in their roles,” as noted in “21st Century Learning: ‘We’re Not Even Close’” (Nagel, 2007), the skills sets, perhaps more than anything else, should be in place to develop global citizens that can work collaboratively and think critically to improve society.
References
Nagel, D. (November 5, 2007). "21st century learning: 'We're not even close.’" T.H.E. Journal.
Retrieved July 28, 2008, from
http://www.thejournal.com/articles/21543_1
Schultz, F. (2000). SOURCES: Notable selections in education. New York: McGraw-Hill Dushkin.
Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2007). Beyond the three Rs: Voter attitudes toward 21st
century skills. Retrieved July 28, 2008, from
http://www.21stcenturyskills.org/documents/P21_pollreport_singlepg.pdf
Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2007). The intellectual and policy foundations of the
21st century framework. Retrieved July 28, 2008, from
http://www.21stcenturyskills.org/route21/images/stories/epapers/skills_foundations_final.pdf
American schools promise to educate every child in the nation. The population of students entering American public schools is as diverse as the country which creates unique challenges for educators. In an urban classroom students have varying levels of skills, language fluency, motivation and a range of experiences that influence their behavior and learning. A child in a Bronx classroom may have widely different needs than a student sitting beside him. Schools in New York City subscribe to a process of inclusion, meaning that students are placed in heterogeneous classrooms despite level of ability. Inclusion is a “ philosophy that brings diverse students, families, educators, and community members together to create schools and other institutions based on acceptance, belonging, and community. Inclusion recognizes that all students are learners who benefit from a meaningful, challenging, and appropriate curriculum delivered within the general education classroom and from differentiated instruction techniques that address their unique strengths and challenges” (Salend 2007) This practice was instituted to end the process of tracking in which students were grouped by ability from a very young age and given different educational opportunities on the basis of that grouping. For example, a student who has performed poorly in the fifth grade will be placed in remedial classes and only given the opportunity to receive a vocational diploma (LeTendre, Hofer, & Shimizu 2003).
The catchall solution for the challenges of a diverse inclusive classroom is differentiation. The one room schoolhouse is frequently cited as the model for successful differentiation in which classrooms are structured around students learning at their ability. The reality of differentiation is that the needs of the students are so varied that even the most proficient teacher must struggle to keep up. In a New York City classroom students who are at or above grade level sit next to students who are just beginning to learn English. Who is really served by this arrangement? The students? Or the school board and administrators who supply no additional resources. With inclusion as it now exists the onus for educating falls solely on the teacher’s shoulders.
In theory inclusion allows students greater freedom, while in reality the implementation of inclusion is tested at every turn. Inclusion requires that each student learn to the best of his or her ability, but students are then given a standardized test at the end of the year that measures their ability against their classmates, their state and the country. Standardized testing stands in opposition to full inclusion (Mastropieri & Scruggs 2001). Because teachers and administrators are held accountable for test scores students are force fed test material.
The unfortunate truth is that schools and teachers do not necessarily receive what is necessary to educate every student. The education that every American child should receive in the philosophy of equality and as defined by legislation such as the No Child Left Behind Act should allow each child to perform to the best of her ability and to acquire the skills that will allow her to be successful in her future endeavors. Unfortunately our system is frequently unable to provide children that which we have defined as the standards for public education. The responsibility for finding and implementing methods that enable these children to achieve is both in the school administration and in the individual classrooms of both special education and general education teachers. Sometimes it seems that we are not educating anyone. Heterogeneous classrooms are the way to proceed in theory. In reality, however, we must acknowledge that the education system is flawed and does not promote academic success, especially in the inner-city. No matter how students are grouped students will have a range of needs and abilities, but the range as it currently exists is too large. In schools with small budgets inclusion is manifested as a series of mediocre classrooms, with students not having the opportunity to go farther by taking honors classes or to be in the company of peers who will challenge their thinking. While the dangers of tracking are real, so are the possibilities of stifling students who can go far.
References:
LeTendre, G.K., Hofer, B.K., Shimizu, H. (2003). What is tracking? Cultural expectations in the United States, Germany, and Japan. American Educational Research Journal, 40, 43-89.
Linchevski, L. & Kutscher, B. (1998). Tell me with whom you're learning, and I'll tell you how much you've learned: Mixed- Ability versus same-ability grouping in mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 29, 533-554.
Mastropieri, M.A. & Scruggs, T.E. (2001). Promoting inclusion in secondary classrooms. Learning Disability Quarterly, 24, 265-274.
Salend, S. J. (2005). Creating inclusive classrooms: Effective and reflective practices for all students (5th ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
The catchall solution for the challenges of a diverse inclusive classroom is differentiation. The one room schoolhouse is frequently cited as the model for successful differentiation in which classrooms are structured around students learning at their ability. The reality of differentiation is that the needs of the students are so varied that even the most proficient teacher must struggle to keep up. In a New York City classroom students who are at or above grade level sit next to students who are just beginning to learn English. Who is really served by this arrangement? The students? Or the school board and administrators who supply no additional resources. With inclusion as it now exists the onus for educating falls solely on the teacher’s shoulders.
In theory inclusion allows students greater freedom, while in reality the implementation of inclusion is tested at every turn. Inclusion requires that each student learn to the best of his or her ability, but students are then given a standardized test at the end of the year that measures their ability against their classmates, their state and the country. Standardized testing stands in opposition to full inclusion (Mastropieri & Scruggs 2001). Because teachers and administrators are held accountable for test scores students are force fed test material.
The unfortunate truth is that schools and teachers do not necessarily receive what is necessary to educate every student. The education that every American child should receive in the philosophy of equality and as defined by legislation such as the No Child Left Behind Act should allow each child to perform to the best of her ability and to acquire the skills that will allow her to be successful in her future endeavors. Unfortunately our system is frequently unable to provide children that which we have defined as the standards for public education. The responsibility for finding and implementing methods that enable these children to achieve is both in the school administration and in the individual classrooms of both special education and general education teachers. Sometimes it seems that we are not educating anyone. Heterogeneous classrooms are the way to proceed in theory. In reality, however, we must acknowledge that the education system is flawed and does not promote academic success, especially in the inner-city. No matter how students are grouped students will have a range of needs and abilities, but the range as it currently exists is too large. In schools with small budgets inclusion is manifested as a series of mediocre classrooms, with students not having the opportunity to go farther by taking honors classes or to be in the company of peers who will challenge their thinking. While the dangers of tracking are real, so are the possibilities of stifling students who can go far.
References:
LeTendre, G.K., Hofer, B.K., Shimizu, H. (2003). What is tracking? Cultural expectations in the United States, Germany, and Japan. American Educational Research Journal, 40, 43-89.
Linchevski, L. & Kutscher, B. (1998). Tell me with whom you're learning, and I'll tell you how much you've learned: Mixed- Ability versus same-ability grouping in mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 29, 533-554.
Mastropieri, M.A. & Scruggs, T.E. (2001). Promoting inclusion in secondary classrooms. Learning Disability Quarterly, 24, 265-274.
Salend, S. J. (2005). Creating inclusive classrooms: Effective and reflective practices for all students (5th ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
Federal Involvement in Education, by Meghann Rosales
When the Elementary and Secondary Education Act was reauthorized in 2002 and No Child Left Behind came roaring to the forefront of the education debate, it continued the fifty-year trend of increased federal involvement in America’s school system. As a public school teacher in the second-poorest congressional district in the nation, I certainly feel the strain of federal mandates and sanctions.
While the goals of NCLB are laudable—to raise student achievement while closing the achievement gap—it has caused an undeniable strain on teachers, schools, districts, and states. Supporters of the federal government’s role in education note, “when the national government has intervened, it has generally been a force for progress—ending de jure segregation, instituting Head Start, Title I, subsidized school lunches and other programs for children in poverty, the GI bill, the rights of children with disabilities, and so on.” Opponents, however, feel that “the regressive parts of NCLB are the exception rather than the rule.” (Casey, 2004) Now, in addition to state standards and testing methods, schools are required to fulfill federal guidelines, with compliance tied directly to federal funding. State and local agencies would suffer a mighty blow if the millions in federal dollars were taken away, and as a result states have reviewed alternatives to full compliance with NCLB (Schwartzbeck, 2004). By fulfilling only the parts of NCLB that are required to receive federal funding, states are exercising their traditional power in education. Minnesota, Arizona, Virginia, Texas, Connecticut and others have expressed concern about the federal government’s infringement on states’ rights (Association for Supervision, 2005). In 2005, Connecticut announced that it would cost them $41.6 million to align their practices with federal requirements through 2008, and in 2003 Minnesota was fined $113,000 for refusing to comply with NCLB (Association for Supervision, 2005). States argue that they already had rigorous standards and testing methods in place, and NCLB impedes the implementation of effective programming. Increasingly, states have sought alternatives that will give them more control and flexibility without the loss of millions in funding. While states are allowed to choose which particular test will be administered to their students, the requirements for what is tested is mandated by Washington.
High-stakes testing with prescriptive, one-size-fits-all measures for success generates additional pressure for educators and administration. Teachers in urban schools are already working with high student-teacher ratios, too few resources, limited curriculum supplements, sub-par facilities, and large numbers of English language learners. Schwartzbeck (2004) and many of her contemporaries criticize NCLB legislation that “is rooted in a flawed educational strategy that does not address the out-of-school roots of the achievement gap and…fails to look beneath the data and address the reasons a child might be falling behind academically.” While all schools should strive to improve the level of education for all students, regardless of socioeconomic status and other factors, and there should be a measure of accountability, there should also be constructive consequences in place to build schools that exact social change through access to quality education. NCLB, rather, generates fear and uncertainty, and it fails to take into account achievements outside rigidity of AYP and SINOI.
In conjunction with the increased focus on accountability, federal funding has been inseparably intertwined with AYP and test scores. Johnson et al (2008) note that “under NCLB, few rewards exist. Instead, different forms of threats and sanctions hang over states, school districts, and schools that ‘need improvement.’” While city and state leaders declare they know what is best for New York City’s schools, they simultaneously take away badly-needed funding. Massive budget cuts have left our schools to choose between cutting extracurricular activities to supplement classroom curriculum or cutting teachers and other support staff. The incentive for schoolwide success is fear-based.
Federal control of the education system extends into primary, secondary, and teacher training classrooms. When No Child Left Behind was signed into action, it sought to improve the quality of education and the quality of teachers across the country, to make American students internationally competitive, and to make education the common denominator among US citizens. It’s mandates, however, infringe on states’ rights and promote a faulty prescriptive solution for everyone. The effects of NCLB are felt every day in the classroom, from confusing jumbles of state, federal, and local requirements, to tightened budgets, to stigmatic stamps of “needing improvement.” There are a myriad of issues associated with the effects of federalism on American schools, from strings-attached funding to teacher certification, and the inflexible stringency of NCLB is hotly contested by educators, administrators, legislators, and parents.
References
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (2005). States weigh in on education reform. EDPolicy Update 4(2). Retrieved July 29, 2008, from http://www.ascd.org/portal/site/ascd/menuitem.74d518f89df7aafcdeb3ffdb62108a0c/template.article?articleMgmtId=d01e79a96e962010VgnVCM1000003d01a8c0RCRD
Casey, L. (2004). Education and American federalism. 21st Century Schools Project Bulletin, 4(1). Retrieved July 29, 2008, from http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?contentid=252320&knlgAreaID=110&subsecid=900001
Johnson, J.A., Musial, D., Hall, G.E., Gollnick, D.M., & Dupuis, V.L. (2008). Foundations of American education: Perspectives on education in a changing world (14th ed.). Boston: Pearson.
Schwartzbeck, T.D. (2004). The federalism debate. The School Administrator. Retrieved July 29, 2008, from http://www.aasa.org/publications/saarticledetail.cfm?ItemNumber=1178&snItemNumber=&tnItemNumber=
Critical Reflection on Special Education
Some people “define a “good” education as one that helps students maximize their capacity as learners. Because the latter definition encourages continual lifting of ceilings and testing of personal limits, it would seem to make the best sense for all learners.” (Tomlinson, pg. 8) Special education in its true form is the practice of delivering an individualized educational program of instruction to students with varying degrees of behavioral, emotional, physical, and sensory disabilities. (Salend, pg. 5) The intensity and form of instruction varies and is dependent on the individual who needs to be educated. Different methods and forms of instruction can vary from student to student often times using many methods simultaneously. Special education aims to provide students with a fair and complete education in line with their general education counterparts.
Special Education’s Past
In the past, the idea of special education was one that was unheard of. Students with special needs were denied education in a public school setting, and parents were forced to find alternative environments for their children, often settling for institutions and establishments that were ill-managed, and created more for the hording of children with disabilities rather than the education. Special education as we now know it has sprouted from legislation such as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), formerly known as Education of All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, which was the first set in a series of laws that demanded a free and appropriate public education for all children with disabilities. These laws forced a change in the education of children with disabilities, but did not erase the stigma of special education.
Special Education Present
The prejudice that surrounded special education in the past, before IDEA, is still present in current school settings and can often inhibit the progress of children in special education. The effects of having parents and administration that are uncooperative or not understanding can make a difficult task of educating children with special needs an almost impossible task. Often times administrators, general education teachers, and parents are reluctant to get involved with the special education system unsure of the correct approach or the value of a well run special education department. People who are uneducated about the value of special education will more often have a negative connotation with the idea special education. I feel this directly affects the education of many students who are in need of special education.
Over the decades since the first laws regulating special education were passed, our nation has definitely taken the rights steps toward making our special education system something to smile at. However, our battle is not over. Although the
At present I consider myself lucky to have not gone through some of the turmoil my colleagues have. My diagnosed students were all in receipt of the help they needed. Each child who needed resource room had it, my student with a hearing impairment had his voice projector, my legally blind student had her assigned paraprofessional, and my emotionally disturbed students had their counselors and so and so forth. But this is not the way things are in many schools. Many students who are in need of special education are still done a disservice. Often children with special needs are simply placed into a general education setting without heed to their IEP, with the expectation that the child will learn through the teacher’s differentiated instruction. This is unfair and something that has gnawed at my soul. Most of my students this year were forced into a collaborative team teaching model for the purpose of fudging the schools numbers to make it seem as though these students made progress. Next year collaborative team teaching is being phased out so these students, many of whom I feel were not capable of handling a CTT setting, will be forced into a lesser restrictive environment. This will set them up for failure and is an all too common situation. It is unfair to prematurely push students who are not ready into these settings, and it is unlawful. Students are simply seen as playing pieces which need to be moved from one space to another, and until they are looked at as individuals with individual needs, special education will not be what it should be.
Reference:
Grenne, J. (2007). Fixing special education.
pg. 703–723
Johnson, J. A., Musial, D, Hall, G.E., Gollnick, D. M., & Dupuis, V. L. (2005).
Introduction to the foundations of American education. 14th ed.
Salend, J. (2007). Creating inclusive classrooms: Effective and Reflective Practices (6th
ed.).
The Progress of Special Education in the US
The precedent for most special education related litigation was established by Brown v. Topeka Board of Education (1954). The decision in this landmark civil rights case determined that segregating students in schools based on race, even if other educational variables appear to be equal, is unconstitutional. The refutation of “separate but equal” served as the underlying argument in court action by families of students with disabilities that were fighting for suitable public school education (Salend, 2008). Students with disabilities were separated from their peers without disabilities. They were sent to schools which were indeed separate. Two very important decisions for the education of students with disabilities brought changes: Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (1972) and Mills v. Board of Education of the District of Columbia (1972).
As the institutionalization of students with disabilities declined, the number of special education schools and special classes within the public schools for students with disabilities increased. Although this was a vast improvement, advocates for students with disabilities still questioned the segregation of these students within the public school. In 1968, Lloyd Dunn argued that special education classes for students with mild disabilities were unjustifiable because they served as a form of homogeneous grouping and tracking. He cited studies showing that students with mild disabilities “made as much or more progress in the regular grades as they do in special classes”, as well as studies showing that labeling reduces the student’s self-concept and the teacher’s expectations for success in school (Dunn, as cited in Salend, 2008, p.18).
There are several statues that address the education of people with disabilities. Three very important ones are Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act; Public Law 94-142, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA); and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (Johnson et al., 2008). “Three important themes addressed in Section 504 are equal treatment, appropriate education, and handicapped persons”. The Public Law 94-142 that was passed by Congress in 1975 has been amended several times. This law assures a free appropriate public education to all children with disabilities between the ages of three and twenty-one (Johnson, et al., 2008, pp.198-199). Each child with a disability should also have an Individualized Education Plan (IEP) formulated by general and special education teachers, and subject to the parents’ approval. The Individual with Disabilities Education Act (1992) developed stricter specifications for the delivery of educational services to students with disability (Johnson, et al., 2008).
According to National Council on Disability Chairperson John R. Vaughn, “Thanks to NCLB, with its push for improved student outcomes, as well as the IDEA, educators across the United States are reexamining their practices to find ways to close the achievement gaps between groups of students” (Positive Impact of IDEA and NCLB). As we try to close the achievement gap and immerse students with disabilities into general education classrooms we have pay close attention to the different disabilities.While the implementation of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act has made drastic improvement to the education of students with disabilities, I have also seen some problem areas. If students are being placed in general education classes, then they also need a fulltime teacher who is competent and equipped to give them the help they need.
We have definitely made progress in special education in the United States. Rather than segregating students with disabilities, most schools are implementing inclusion programs to unify general and special education. With this progress there is room for improvement. When I consider my classroom of twenty nine students including eleven with mild disabilities, I know we have not reached our goal. These students are in a general education setting with one teacher. How much can be done for their individual needs? This classroom should also have a special education teacher and should be equipped to facilitate the needs of these students. We are fooling ourselves if we are integrating students with disabilities without providing them with the necessary services. Classrooms are also ill-equipped; there is a lack of technology that would enhance the learning of all students, especially those with disabilities. I know this is not a problem in every school, but as an educator who believes in equal opportunities for all students, I am not certain that all students are receiving an equal education.
Students with disabilities appear to be doing better academically, and they also appear to be graduating at higher rates than in prior years. Data suggests, however, that there is still cause for concern about the dropout levels of students with disabilities nationwide. It is imperative that we acquire a better understanding of the new rules and regulations in order to assist these students. Schools definitely need to provide more professional development for teachers who have limited experience in working with students with disabilities. How can we sufficiently serve students with disabilities when we are not trained to meet their needs? I am not against inclusion, but if we are mandated to educate as many students with disabilities as possible in the regular education classroom, the resources must be provided to meet their unique, individual needs.
References
Johnson, J.A., Musical, D., Hall, G.E., Gollnick, D.M., & Dupuis, V.L. (2008). Foundation of American Education: Perspective on education in a changing world. Boston, MA: Pearson Education Inc.
Salend, S.J. (2008). Creating Inclusive Classrooms: Effective and reflective practices (6th ed.). New Jersey: Pearson.
Retrieved July 28, 2008 from
http://www.cpd.usu.edu/asset.php?id=797
As the institutionalization of students with disabilities declined, the number of special education schools and special classes within the public schools for students with disabilities increased. Although this was a vast improvement, advocates for students with disabilities still questioned the segregation of these students within the public school. In 1968, Lloyd Dunn argued that special education classes for students with mild disabilities were unjustifiable because they served as a form of homogeneous grouping and tracking. He cited studies showing that students with mild disabilities “made as much or more progress in the regular grades as they do in special classes”, as well as studies showing that labeling reduces the student’s self-concept and the teacher’s expectations for success in school (Dunn, as cited in Salend, 2008, p.18).
There are several statues that address the education of people with disabilities. Three very important ones are Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act; Public Law 94-142, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA); and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (Johnson et al., 2008). “Three important themes addressed in Section 504 are equal treatment, appropriate education, and handicapped persons”. The Public Law 94-142 that was passed by Congress in 1975 has been amended several times. This law assures a free appropriate public education to all children with disabilities between the ages of three and twenty-one (Johnson, et al., 2008, pp.198-199). Each child with a disability should also have an Individualized Education Plan (IEP) formulated by general and special education teachers, and subject to the parents’ approval. The Individual with Disabilities Education Act (1992) developed stricter specifications for the delivery of educational services to students with disability (Johnson, et al., 2008).
According to National Council on Disability Chairperson John R. Vaughn, “Thanks to NCLB, with its push for improved student outcomes, as well as the IDEA, educators across the United States are reexamining their practices to find ways to close the achievement gaps between groups of students” (Positive Impact of IDEA and NCLB). As we try to close the achievement gap and immerse students with disabilities into general education classrooms we have pay close attention to the different disabilities.While the implementation of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act has made drastic improvement to the education of students with disabilities, I have also seen some problem areas. If students are being placed in general education classes, then they also need a fulltime teacher who is competent and equipped to give them the help they need.
We have definitely made progress in special education in the United States. Rather than segregating students with disabilities, most schools are implementing inclusion programs to unify general and special education. With this progress there is room for improvement. When I consider my classroom of twenty nine students including eleven with mild disabilities, I know we have not reached our goal. These students are in a general education setting with one teacher. How much can be done for their individual needs? This classroom should also have a special education teacher and should be equipped to facilitate the needs of these students. We are fooling ourselves if we are integrating students with disabilities without providing them with the necessary services. Classrooms are also ill-equipped; there is a lack of technology that would enhance the learning of all students, especially those with disabilities. I know this is not a problem in every school, but as an educator who believes in equal opportunities for all students, I am not certain that all students are receiving an equal education.
Students with disabilities appear to be doing better academically, and they also appear to be graduating at higher rates than in prior years. Data suggests, however, that there is still cause for concern about the dropout levels of students with disabilities nationwide. It is imperative that we acquire a better understanding of the new rules and regulations in order to assist these students. Schools definitely need to provide more professional development for teachers who have limited experience in working with students with disabilities. How can we sufficiently serve students with disabilities when we are not trained to meet their needs? I am not against inclusion, but if we are mandated to educate as many students with disabilities as possible in the regular education classroom, the resources must be provided to meet their unique, individual needs.
References
Johnson, J.A., Musical, D., Hall, G.E., Gollnick, D.M., & Dupuis, V.L. (2008). Foundation of American Education: Perspective on education in a changing world. Boston, MA: Pearson Education Inc.
Salend, S.J. (2008). Creating Inclusive Classrooms: Effective and reflective practices (6th ed.). New Jersey: Pearson.
Retrieved July 28, 2008 from
http://www.cpd.usu.edu/asset.php?id=797
Disciplining unruly students by J Green
How are unruly students disciplined in today’s schools? This is a question that seems to stir a lot of interest. Dave Arnold an Educational Support Professional columnist for the National Educational Association writes of how when it comes to disciplining unruly students, school professionals often find themselves being disciplined for alerting school administration to a problem with a student. For example, Arnold writes, if a student is particularly unruly on, say, the school bus on the way to school, when the bus driver escorts that student to the principal’s office, it is not uncommon for the driver to find him or herself under scrutiny from the principal (http://www.nea.org/espcolumns/dv050916.html). Is this really the case? What has happened to discipline of unruly students in school? It is my own personal experience when, in front of the entire sport’s team, a student intentionally stormed off court, during a practice, knocking me with her shoulder, and nearly knocking me down because I had asked her to step off the court. During strategy instruction, she was conversing with friends and was not paying attention thus holding up that particular part of practice. When I reported the incidence to my athletic director at my school, I found myself having to justify why I asked this student to step off the court. I felt as though I had no right to ask a student to step off the court even if the student was not participating and instead was being a distraction. I am not sure if the athletic director was aware, but the message she sent to me and the students was the students may do what they want when they want because they are always right and supported. This includes being unruly on school premises and ultimately threatening a coach or other school professional. Needless to say, the student went undisciplined and I was warned to play that student during an upcoming game regardless of her previous actions.
At what cost is this unruliness affecting the quality of education? Likewise, what is it doing to the pool of personnel? After working as a coach for five years, I eventually left that school. It was incidences like the ones mentioned that reinforced for me the lack of support I was to receive from that school. Too often I felt I was on trial for reporting a student. If a student cursed, threatened me, had a secret rendezvous with a boyfriend while we were out of town, trashed a hotel during an overnight stay, or confided in me about a potential abuse she was experiencing, whenever I reported any incidence I found myself being on trial. I would have to report to the head mistress, the school psychologist, the parent committee, and the athletic director. I always thought I was doing the right thing by alerting my boss, the athletic director, right away; instead, I walked away feeling dejected. Having to sit with the school psychologist because a student reported abuse to me made me feel as though I had done something wrong. I was interrogated about whether or not I had forced the student to confess an abuse. I told them I had not. The student had simply openly spoke about it, but what surprised me was that the school seemed to care less about the alleged abuse and more about a student confiding to a school professional. That same student, by the way, was the student who I had earlier had the confrontation with on the court. Arnold writes in another article how school professionals are being blamed by the public for allowing students to go unruly; however, Arnold writes, it is that same public who will also “cry foul” when school professionals do discipline unruly students (http://www.nea.org/espcolumns/dv030708.html). Arnold says the unruliness has become so overwhelming that the best teachers are resigning.
So the question becomes what are teachers and other school professionals to do when it comes to disciplining unruly students? I must admit that when I switched professions going from coach to general education teacher, the support for unruly students did not change. I had gone through nearly two years of graduate school, at two different universities, learning about teaching English in high school. I learned activities for engaging students (although, I would later realize these activities work well with graduate students but not so well with urban high school students), I visited museums that cater to schools, I read books about how the adolescent mind develops and of how adolescents learn, and I have learned about programs for special education students and the laws protecting the special education students, such as No Child Left Behind. What I did not walk away with is how to discipline unruly students. There is lots of talk about classroom management, and the talk hints at if you cannot manage a class full of students something is wrong with you. I often felt like I had to walk into a classroom and become the bully. I was advised to create a “zero excuses” classroom. A classroom where I am the ruling voice and what I say goes. Well, the school year began and what I discovered was that for the first two marking periods I was in a perpetual tug-o-war with unruly students. I was not knocked over, but I could seldom teach a class since the unruly students insisted upon being the only voices heard and the only presence seen. They talked at the tops of their voices walking around the room speaking with their friends whenever they wanted or simply calling out to their friends from across the room. I resorted to shouting and arguing. It never worked. I was in graduate school learning how to become an English teacher, but, after two marking periods as an actual English teacher, I felt as though what I needed to learn was how to warden a prison. I began to feel as though I were nothing more than a glorified babysitter babysitting kids whose parents, when I gave them a call, often asked me how to handle unruly behavior. It turned out that often the parents experienced the same things at home and themselves struggled with disciplinary problems. I will not digress into the obvious blame game; instead, I will say that by the fourth marking period there was a dramatic change in my classroom. I stopped trying to make the students behave like I wanted them to behave and began thinking about the catalyst behind the behavior. My one on one talks with students turned away from me and my problems with the students to finding out if they needed to talk about their own problems. Mary Ellen Flannery (2005) writes about a new elementary school teacher who found herself having to hold the hand of an unruly student (http://www.nea.org/neatoday/0509/coverstory.html). In essence, I have come to approach unruly students as a metaphorical call for me to hold their hand. To my surprise, even my most threatening students have responded more positively to me when I in essence hold their hand. I do not believe that holding hands is the solution but I do believe that it is closure to what the problem may be. The kids are very young, even if some are nineteen and much bigger that their teachers, and they do not know how to deal with the emotional problems tugging away at them. They have problems at school, with friends, at home, and with a number of other things. Sometimes their problems are too grown up for their developing adolescent mind. As I decided to stop screaming and demanding my way (having my own tantrums) and to listen, what I discovered was a way in to how to work together. Flannery (2005) gives a list of twenty five tips for how to squash unruly behavior (http://www.nea.org/neatoday/0509/coverstory.html), don’t argue with students is one of the items. Arguing was one of the things that sent my classroom into a downward spiral.
I walk away from this past school year realizing that, one, I am still an English teacher. I love literature, and I love writing. I love learning new ways to communicate, and I want to pass this love on to all of my students hoping to generate a love of English language arts in them. I also walk away knowing that I am also an educator of model behavior. I cannot assume students come into my classroom knowing how to model disciplined behavior or even knowing how to respond to discipline. I can often be impatient. I walk away now knowing that it takes a lot of patience, a lot of trial and error, and a lot of time to learn and to grasp ideal behavior.
References
Arnold, D. Don’t Punish the messenger. National Education Association. Retrieved July 29, 2008 from
http://www.nea.org/espcolumns/dv050916.html.
Arnold, D. Unruly students going unpunished: Straying off the learning course too easy for some students. Retrieved July 29, 2008 from http://www.nea.org/espcolumns/dv030708.html.
Flannery, M. E. (2005). The D Word: Discipline problems weigh on educators today more than ever. But don't despair—there's plenty you can do to knock your challenges down to size. National Education Association. Retrieved July 29, 2008 from
http://www.nea.org/neatoday/0509/coverstory.html.
At what cost is this unruliness affecting the quality of education? Likewise, what is it doing to the pool of personnel? After working as a coach for five years, I eventually left that school. It was incidences like the ones mentioned that reinforced for me the lack of support I was to receive from that school. Too often I felt I was on trial for reporting a student. If a student cursed, threatened me, had a secret rendezvous with a boyfriend while we were out of town, trashed a hotel during an overnight stay, or confided in me about a potential abuse she was experiencing, whenever I reported any incidence I found myself being on trial. I would have to report to the head mistress, the school psychologist, the parent committee, and the athletic director. I always thought I was doing the right thing by alerting my boss, the athletic director, right away; instead, I walked away feeling dejected. Having to sit with the school psychologist because a student reported abuse to me made me feel as though I had done something wrong. I was interrogated about whether or not I had forced the student to confess an abuse. I told them I had not. The student had simply openly spoke about it, but what surprised me was that the school seemed to care less about the alleged abuse and more about a student confiding to a school professional. That same student, by the way, was the student who I had earlier had the confrontation with on the court. Arnold writes in another article how school professionals are being blamed by the public for allowing students to go unruly; however, Arnold writes, it is that same public who will also “cry foul” when school professionals do discipline unruly students (http://www.nea.org/espcolumns/dv030708.html). Arnold says the unruliness has become so overwhelming that the best teachers are resigning.
So the question becomes what are teachers and other school professionals to do when it comes to disciplining unruly students? I must admit that when I switched professions going from coach to general education teacher, the support for unruly students did not change. I had gone through nearly two years of graduate school, at two different universities, learning about teaching English in high school. I learned activities for engaging students (although, I would later realize these activities work well with graduate students but not so well with urban high school students), I visited museums that cater to schools, I read books about how the adolescent mind develops and of how adolescents learn, and I have learned about programs for special education students and the laws protecting the special education students, such as No Child Left Behind. What I did not walk away with is how to discipline unruly students. There is lots of talk about classroom management, and the talk hints at if you cannot manage a class full of students something is wrong with you. I often felt like I had to walk into a classroom and become the bully. I was advised to create a “zero excuses” classroom. A classroom where I am the ruling voice and what I say goes. Well, the school year began and what I discovered was that for the first two marking periods I was in a perpetual tug-o-war with unruly students. I was not knocked over, but I could seldom teach a class since the unruly students insisted upon being the only voices heard and the only presence seen. They talked at the tops of their voices walking around the room speaking with their friends whenever they wanted or simply calling out to their friends from across the room. I resorted to shouting and arguing. It never worked. I was in graduate school learning how to become an English teacher, but, after two marking periods as an actual English teacher, I felt as though what I needed to learn was how to warden a prison. I began to feel as though I were nothing more than a glorified babysitter babysitting kids whose parents, when I gave them a call, often asked me how to handle unruly behavior. It turned out that often the parents experienced the same things at home and themselves struggled with disciplinary problems. I will not digress into the obvious blame game; instead, I will say that by the fourth marking period there was a dramatic change in my classroom. I stopped trying to make the students behave like I wanted them to behave and began thinking about the catalyst behind the behavior. My one on one talks with students turned away from me and my problems with the students to finding out if they needed to talk about their own problems. Mary Ellen Flannery (2005) writes about a new elementary school teacher who found herself having to hold the hand of an unruly student (http://www.nea.org/neatoday/0509/coverstory.html). In essence, I have come to approach unruly students as a metaphorical call for me to hold their hand. To my surprise, even my most threatening students have responded more positively to me when I in essence hold their hand. I do not believe that holding hands is the solution but I do believe that it is closure to what the problem may be. The kids are very young, even if some are nineteen and much bigger that their teachers, and they do not know how to deal with the emotional problems tugging away at them. They have problems at school, with friends, at home, and with a number of other things. Sometimes their problems are too grown up for their developing adolescent mind. As I decided to stop screaming and demanding my way (having my own tantrums) and to listen, what I discovered was a way in to how to work together. Flannery (2005) gives a list of twenty five tips for how to squash unruly behavior (http://www.nea.org/neatoday/0509/coverstory.html), don’t argue with students is one of the items. Arguing was one of the things that sent my classroom into a downward spiral.
I walk away from this past school year realizing that, one, I am still an English teacher. I love literature, and I love writing. I love learning new ways to communicate, and I want to pass this love on to all of my students hoping to generate a love of English language arts in them. I also walk away knowing that I am also an educator of model behavior. I cannot assume students come into my classroom knowing how to model disciplined behavior or even knowing how to respond to discipline. I can often be impatient. I walk away now knowing that it takes a lot of patience, a lot of trial and error, and a lot of time to learn and to grasp ideal behavior.
References
Arnold, D. Don’t Punish the messenger. National Education Association. Retrieved July 29, 2008 from
http://www.nea.org/espcolumns/dv050916.html.
Arnold, D. Unruly students going unpunished: Straying off the learning course too easy for some students. Retrieved July 29, 2008 from http://www.nea.org/espcolumns/dv030708.html.
Flannery, M. E. (2005). The D Word: Discipline problems weigh on educators today more than ever. But don't despair—there's plenty you can do to knock your challenges down to size. National Education Association. Retrieved July 29, 2008 from
http://www.nea.org/neatoday/0509/coverstory.html.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)