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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)