PLAGIARISM TODAY

[Epigonos]

Please do not interrupt what I am about to say as a justification for plagiarism – IT IS NOT. I taught high school in Southern California for 36 years retiring in 2000. During approximately the last ten years of my teaching career one of the most frequent heard complaints of teachers regarded the issue of plagiarism. The advent of the internet seemed to precipitate a major change in the attitudes of many people regarding this issue. Numerous parents and students began to differentiate between traditional printed material and material on the internet. For some unknown reason they saw nothing wrong in copying internet material without reference to the original author. Teachers assigning papers found it necessary to make major changes in the way these assignments were handled. They began to insist that students turn in individual note cards with references sited on each card. If these cards were not turn in students were not allowed to proceed to writing a rough draft. Teachers were forced to keep the note cards so they could compare them to the rough draft submitted. If the rough draft was not submitted students were not permitted to submit their final draft. Again teachers were forced to keep both the note cards and rough draft so they could compare them to the rough draft. Grading these papers became much more time consuming and in many cases teachers found that they had to limit the number of papers assigned. Parent and student reaction, to these changes, often included outrage, indignation, and complaints to school and district administrators. Many parents and students expressed the feeling that teachers were totally unreasonable in expecting students to turn in note cards and rough drafts. Some even went so far and to express bitter resentment that teachers would appear to be questioning the honesty and integrity of the sons and daughters by requiring these additional materials. What is equally interesting is that though the school and the district administrators supported the teacher publicly they privately questioned the need for such draconian changes and dismissed the teachers concerns as exaggerated. Thus far the teachers have ignored these administrative complaints and have continued using the new method of handling papers. Some teachers even informed administrators that if they were pressured to change the assignment requirements they would go to the local newspaper -- that threat ended, at least temporarly, ALL administrative interference.

[+ deej]

Interesting, and I can see the reason for the "change".

 

But when I was in high school (yes, THAT many years ago) we were also required to turn in note cards and rough drafts for critique. The teacher then used the material to coach us through the process of transforming raw research into a meaningful paper.

 

When, along the way, did the teaching process stop and the "cop" process take over?

[Epigonos]

deej,

 

The answer to you question is rather long and complicated. About twenty years ago the makeup of high school teachers began to change dramatically. When I stated teaching school in the late 60's about 70% of the teachers were males, about 15% were unmarried females, and aobut 15% were married females returning to teaching after their children were grown. Currently I would estimate that the make up is about 60% young married females with small children, about 20% young unmarried females and about 20% male. This change has brought some major changed in teaching methods. Young married women with children are unable or unwilling to spend time at home grading papers and preparing lesson plans. Thus many of the old assignment that you and I did went the way of the saber-tooth tiger. With the recent institution of standardized testing some of these old methods have been brought back into use. One of those old methods is the written paper. Once teachers realized that plagiarism was rampant they began to use note card and rough draft but for very different reasons than their predecessor did in the past.

[+ Charlie]

I started teaching college students how to write research papers in the 1960s, and I had to use the methods you describe right from the start. Inappropriate use of sources certainly didn't originate with the Internet, but the attitude towards it did. In the old days, students knew when they were cheating, but students nowadays don't seem to believe they are doing anything wrong by simply reproducing whatever they find online and presenting it as their "research". Some believe that all they have to do is change a few words here and there, as BN did, and the paper becomes their own work. And some high school teachers just accept this. Interestingly, this has led to the development of websites for the more demanding teachers, where they can automatically check the sources of the student papers, to see whether they have used them properly or simply plagiarized, instead of spending hours in the library checking sources as I used to have to do.

[+ deej]

>this has led to the development of websites for the more demanding

>teachers, where they can automatically check the sources of the

>student papers

 

Interesting. So the students aren't doing original work, and neither are the teachers? :+

 

(Sorry. I don't mean that as a swipe.)

 

A friend of mine teaches a freshman/sophomore level writing course for engineering students at an eastern university. The subject is communicating clearly.

 

She requires that the third and fourth (not the first two) essays of the course be completely hand-written. No typewriter or computer is allowed. She tells me that the word-processed results on later essays end up showing more thought, better preparation, and less reliance on plagiarized sources.

 

Perhaps it's time to pull the plug on our youth and make them think on their own. Some of them have never had to do that.

[Guest EWC]

The interesting side to this discussion is that this is about education. The sad fact is that when a person is plagiarizing the work that they turn in they aren't learning how to write. They may get the grade if they put one past the instructor, but who is being harmed? They themselves, as they are not learning how to write.

 

That this is rampant is obvious by the quality of work out there in the written world, or lack thereof. Grammar in the published and spoken world is gone. Originality in the written word is lost. Consider movie and TV scripts, books, magazines, and the internet. Anything that succeeds even a little bit gets many sequels. (That is merely plagiarizing yourself.)

 

The very odd notion that plagiarism is dishonorable and therefore no lady or gentleman would consider it has been replaced by the occasional restraint that one would be afraid to do so because you could get sued.

 

To kids in school the idea of doing the work because you want to learn the subject seems foreign.

 

The good news in all of this is that it is the plagiarist himself who will be the one that is hurt when he gets caught. It seems that even though we can’t seem to teach people to be honorable as an end in itself, we retain the power to punish them when they are not.

[Epigonos]

deej,

 

Please don't refraim from taking swipes at public school teachers on my account. You won't find anyhone more critical of them than myself. The vast majority of high school teachers that I have encountered recently are lazy mentally, physically, intellectually and methodically. The want to arrive as late in the morning as possible and leave as early in the afternoon as possible. Young mothers look at teaching as a JOB where they can work the least number of hours daily and the least number of days yearly. Teaching is no longer looked upon as a profession but rather as a 7:30 to 3:00 JOB. Most young teachers today refuse to spend their own money to belong to professional subject matter organizations and would never even consider the possibility of spending money out of their own pocket for posters and other materials for their classrooms eventhough all of those items are tax deductable. Now in their defense I must admit that they are no different than the rest of contemporary society.

[Guest zipperzone]

RE: It's about the $$$

 

>Teaching is no longer

>looked upon as a profession but rather as a 7:30 to 3:00 JOB.

>Most young teachers today refuse to spend their own money to

>belong to professional subject matter organizations and would

>never even consider the possibility of spending money out of

>their own pocket for posters and other materials for their

>classrooms eventhough all of those items are tax deductable.

>Now in their defense I must admit that they are no different

>than the rest of contemporary society.

 

I frankly think the reason for all this is that they are not paid a wage that is sufficient to live well on. I have read reports that many teachers can't even qualify for a mortgage on the wages they earn. It seems that choosing teaching as a means of earning a living is like shooting yourself in the foot.

 

Tradespeople - i.e. carpenters, drywallers, plumbers, can earn twice as much with none of the responsibilities, and get paid extra for every hour they work overtime. I'd love to see the reaction if teachers tried to do that.

 

You have to be a very dedicated individual to be a teacher today - and in addition, you have to be able to put up with all the crap the students hurl you way, knowing you are powerless to disicpline them in any meaningful way. My hat goes off to all in the teaching profession today - I wouldn't do it for any price.

[Epigonos]

RE: It's about the $$$

 

Beginning teachers in California start at around $50,000 and senior teachers, in many districts, with masters degrees can easily earn $95,000 to $100,000. Also keep in mind that here is California teachers work only 10 months a year, have 2 or more weeks off for Christmas Break, 1 week off for Spring/Easter Break and eight to ten additional days off during the school year. If teachers work after school, during breaks, or over the summer they earn addition money on an hourly basis calculated on their yearly salary. If teachers are a department chairpersons, coach a sport or sponsor certain other activities like the choir or band the receive additional money. When you add it all up it isn't that bad especially when you realize that the majority of teachers are young women who are married and thus the second wage earner. Also realize that many senior teacher are married to other senior teachers and are thus earning, as a couple, $200,000 a year or more

[Guest zipperzone]

RE: It's about the $$$

 

>Beginning teachers in California start at around $50,000 and

>senior teachers, in many districts, with masters degrees can

>easily earn $95,000 to $100,000. Also keep in mind that here

>is California teachers work only 10 months a year, have 2 or

>more weeks off for Christmas Break, 1 week off for

>Spring/Easter Break and eight to ten additional days off

>during the school year. If teachers work after school, during

>breaks, or over the summer they earn addition money on an

>hourly basis calculated on their yearly salary. If teachers

>are a department chairpersons, coach a sport or sponsor

>certain other activities like the choir or band the receive

>additional money. When you add it all up it isn't that bad

>especially when you realize that the majority of teachers are

>young women who are married and thus the second wage earner.

>Also realize that many senior teacher are married to other

>senior teachers and are thus earning, as a couple, $200,000 a

>year or more

 

I was surprised to hear this. Is it only in California that the remuneration is so good? I have a friend in Portland Oregon that has been teaching for about 10 years now and his salary is nowhere near what you have quoted

[+ Charlie]

I have been asked to mentor and evaluate many educators over the years, from elementary teachers to college professors, in this country and others. I have found them to be as diverse as any other occupational group, such as doctors, tv repairmen or gardeners. Some are concerned about every individual student, others have no interest in their students, and some openly dislike students. Some put in many hours in preparation and professional activities, others do just enough to keep their jobs, and some even seem to court dismissal. Some are fascinated by their subject matter, some have no intellectual curiosity whatsoever, and many are convinced that they already know everything worth knowing. I have seen unmarried male teachers with six figure salaries who do the absolute minimum to earn them; I have also seen young mothers in poor countries earning $100/month, who are devoted to giving their students the best education possible.

 

It would be great if there were a surefire formula for producing good teachers, but it is an illusion. The right circumstances, such as decent pay, small classes and quality materials, can nurture good teaching, but they can't create the talent and personality that make a good teacher.

[Guest n2colour]

RE: It's about the $$$

 

In 2005, the nationwide average elementaty teacher's wage was over $45,000 while secondary school teachers averaged over $47,000. FYI. within the last couple of weeks, I read about a report that said the average for all teachers was $35 per hour worked at school. I don't know who published it (or even if it was accurate).

[+ Charlie]

RE: It's about the $$$

 

I believe that the rate for substitute teachers in the high schools here in the Coachella Valley is $12/hr.

[Epigonos]

RE: It's about the $$$

 

Substitute teachers in the greater Los Angeles area earn anywhere from $125 to $150 a day depending on the district in which they work.

[Guest zipperzone]

RE: It's about the $$$

 

>In 2005, the nationwide average elementaty teacher's wage was

>over $45,000 while secondary school teachers averaged over

>$47,000. FYI. within the last couple of weeks, I read about a

>report that said the average for all teachers was $35 per hour

>worked at school. I don't know who published it (or even if it

>was accurate).

 

45 - 47K is not nearly enough, considering what's required of them.

[Samai139]

Some very insightful comments have been posted on this thread about teaching, learning, writing, and teachers. Thank you to all who took the time to write so thoughtfully and so well. Quite often I skim through a few postings and move on, not so with this thread.

For those who are not involved or have never been involved in teaching, the job/profession/calling may seem less complex than it actually is. Several posters have already commented on some of the difficulties, challenges, etc. The issue of teacher pay has also been raised.

I agree with another poster that increasing pay will not solve the problem of public education, but it certainly wouldn't hurt. A comment about teacher pay: I live in New York State, not New York City, and the pay teachers receive depends on the school district where he or she teaches. There is no state wide pay scale. Obviously teachers who live in New York City and Long Island receive much higher salares than those who live in the Adirondack Mountains, or in the Southern Tier---primarily this reflects the cost of living. BUT, school districts which are located in wealthy suburbs or in wealthy cities pay their teachers more for a variety of reasons--they have the resources, they want to attract the best, and/or the community demands it.

I do not know if there are states where the salaries of teachers are uniform in every district. I would be interested in hearing from people who live in states which tend to be more centrally administered--Florida and Texas come to mind. I know that in Florida, school districts are based on county lines; in Texas there is, I believe, a state board which decides textbooks for every school district.

Diversity is valued in this country and there are those who rebel at being forced to follow state or God forbid, federal, mandates. Many people believe that their children are best educated by those who can make local decisions. I'm not sure where I stand. I think I am re-assured by the observation that "good students will learn and flourish in spite of bad schools and even bad teachers." Perhaps we need to have a national discussion---not just "sound-bites"--on what we as a nation WANT from our public schools. At the moment, we are spending an amazing amount of money on education and perhaps are not getting value for our bucks.

[Guest timgetrum]

RE: It's about the $$$

 

Teaching was once one of the few professions open to women, and many of the brightest and most talented women were teachers. Women teachers were compensated in part by huge respect and gratitude. They may have had to retire to a rooming house, but as townsfolk passed them sitting on their rockers on the front porch they felt the respect and gratitude. As other opportunities for employment arose with higher monetary compensation, fewer of the brightest and most talented women have gone into teaching.

 

I know this is going off on a tangent, but this is a theory I’ve had for a long time. I suspect there is hard data to support.

 

Is the increasing compensation with generous pensions bringing any of the brighter women back?

[Epigonos]

RE: It's about the $$$

 

Both Samai139 and timgetrum make excellent points. Major urban centers and affluent suburbs usually offer excellent salary schedules for teachers. Cities like New York, Philadelphia and Chicago have salary schedules that equal or exceed those of Los Angeles. Some states have powerful State Boards of Education that adopt curriculum standards, adopt textbooks, and impose state wide testing -- I believe this is the case in New York State. I don't know of any state that has a state wide teacher pay scale and this is definitely a problem. In rural areas and less prosperous urban suburbs teacher salaries are awful. Teacher salaries are particularly poor in the rural South and Midwest. Even in some generally forward thinking states like Oregon voters have consistently refused to increase taxes to finance schools.

 

When I first started teaching in the mid 1960's the profession provided an excellent opportunity for upwardly motivated women to find challenging employment. I definitely agree that as other businesses and professions have become available to women many of the most talented have abandoned education for more lucrative employment in other fields. As I stated in an earlier post most women currently entering teaching are young married mothers who are looking to add to the family income yet want to spend a minimum amount of time on teaching so they can spend a maximum amount of time at home with their children. This is perfectly understandable BUT it does NOT lead to outstanding teaching. Even offering these women more money isn’t going to change their attitude, after all they are mothers first and teachers second. Frankly I don’t know what the answer is.

 

As a long time public school teacher I have, for years, hated and fought the idea of vouchers but it just may be the wave of the future. My major concern is that in less affluent and educated areas parents may be manipulated, through false advertising, into sending their children to school operated by scam artists. I realize that many of the public schools in poorer areas and not very good but they may still be better than some of the private vouchers school that will spring up.

[Greathands]

Not quite on the subject but somewhat related ...

 

A good friend of mine is (was) a high school chemistry teacher. Many of his students would return from college and thank him because they felt he gave them a good education/foundation and prepared them well for college.

 

Although he still had several years before retirement, he recently chose to leave the teaching profession. This came as a result of "guidelines" he was required to live by, as imposed by his superiors. What helped him make his decision was when he was told he could no longer give low grades to (or even flunk)a student because it would "hurt their self esteem".

 

How sad! Makes me wonder what the future of education in our country will hold.

[+ Charlie]

Their self-esteem suffers a much greater blow when they get to college and are informed that they are not prepared to take basic introductory credit courses in many subjects. I had to deal with many shocked young freshmen who told me, "But I got all A's in my high school classes!" right after I had informed them that they needed to take remedial English or math before they would be allowed to take our standard college-level courses.

[Epigonos]

The whole "self-esteem" bullshit was more of a big deal here in California in the late 90's than currently is the case. As I and many other educators see it the demise of the "self-esteem" syndrome is one of the few positive results of standardized testing. A teacher can no longer be pressured to pass all students regardless of their progress in order to "protect" their "self-esteem". In order to graduate from high school, in California, students must pass an exit exam in both math and English. Schools with poor student passing rates are scorned by the public and the state. Initially schools with poor passing rates are offered financial assistance in order to provide remedial class for students needing assistance. Most student have the greatest difficult with the English portion of the exam because English is not their native language -- usually Spanish is. If the the poor passing rates continues schools face the possibility of state take over.

 

Many educators came to the conclusion, years ago, that "self-esteem", something every student had a birth-right to had little value because students had to do NOTHING to earn it or maintain it. Many educators have felt that "self respect" something one earns through ones own work is what is to be valued.

[+ deej]

Bill Gates makes the argument that the entire public school system needs an overhaul. It was designed for the agriculture/manufacturing era, not the information age.

 

http://www.gatesfoundation.org/MediaCenter/Speeches/Co-ChairSpeeches/BillgSpeeches/BGSpeechesHELP-070307.htm

[Epigonos]

Bill Gates would probably die to hear what I'm about to say. His education philosophy and that of George W. Bush both deny the existance of individual student I.Q. Bush's "No Student Left Behind" assumes that all students are capable of learning all things. I assume that in both cases they have reached this conclusion more for political and socal reasons than for scientific ones. The one thing that ALL teachers know is that students learning is based on a bell shaped curve. About an equal number of students will excell and fail at mastering task and the vast majorty will be somewhere in the middle. Here in California there is a major drive to make high school gratuation requirements match University of California entrance requirements. That means to graduate from high school in California a students would have to be successful in Algebra I, Geometry, Algebra II, Biology or Botany, Chemistry, three years of a foreign language and numerous other history and English classes. This is totally absurd. There are some students incapable of learning some of these subjects and we do these kids no service by forcing them to fail these classes over and over again in an attempt to graduate. All students are not capable of being successful in a four year academic college or university. Try to hire a good carpenter or plumber today and see what your chances are. Go to a Wal-Mart and try and get help from some of their employees. These are the kids whose needs we are failing and in failing them we are failing our society.

[+ Charlie]

AMEN!

[Epigonos]

Sorry if I sound like I am preaching but I have spent more than half of my life teaching in a California high school. I sincerely loved every moment of it and damnit to hell I hate seeing kids getting fucked over by a bunch of dumb shit politicians.