At vero eos et accusamus et iusto odio dignissimos ducimus qui blanditiis praesentium voluptatum deleniti atque corrupti quos dolores et quas molestias excepturi sint occaecati cupiditate non provident, similique sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollitia animi, id est laborum et dolorum fuga. Et harum quidem rerum facilis est et expedita distinctio. Nam libero tempore, cum soluta nobis est eligendi optio cumque nihil impedit quo minus id quod maxime placeat facere possimus, omnis voluptas assumenda est, omnis dolor repellendus. Itaque earum rerum hic tenetur a sapiente delectus, ut aut reiciendis voluptatibus maiores alias consequatur aut perferendis doloribus asperiores repellat.
I meant to say "changing the facts would not be beneficial."
Attach the three pages.
Sorry to hear that though.
Thank you, here are the 3 pages in question. (Texas Educaion Agency 1996-2009) 1996 Class of 1996 is the first class for which a longitudinal chart is calculated using the current formula. 1998 In 1997-98, districts were required to provide information on all students who left the district, not just students who graduated or dropped out. As a result, TEA now has complete information on aall students who left school for other reasons, such as transferring to another district, enrolling in a private school other educational setting, or entering a General Educational Development (GED) certificate program. 2003 The 2004 state accountability ratings take into account the 2003 longitudinal graduation rates when evaluating campuses and districts. 2005 The class of 2005 is the first class required to pass exit-level TAKS in order to graduate. 2006 TAKS passing standard for graduation becomes more rigorous in the second year of its phase-in. Texas adopts the NCES dropout definition, and the longitudinal graduation rate is no longer comparable with previous years. The NCES dropout definition was phased in over a four-year period. Students who left school in 2002-03, 2003-04, and 2004-05 were subject to a different dropout definition than students who left in 2005-06. This means that a student who left in 2004-05 and was not considered a dropout might have been considered a dropout if he or she left in 2005-06 for the same reason. For example, a student who left in 2004-05 after completing all coursework requirements but failing the exit-level examination was not counted as a dropout. If a student left in 2005-06 for the same reason, the student was counted as a dropout. 2007 TAKS passing standard for graduation becomes more rigorous in the third year of phase-in and reaches the recommended standard. The NCES dropout definition applies to two years of the graduation rate calculation 2008 NCES dropout definition is not fully phased-in. 2009 NCES dropout definition is fully incorporated, to all four years of the graduation rate *As evidenced by the above timeline composed by the Texas Education Agency, some changes made negative impacts on graduation rates. With the adoption of TAKS performance test, graduation rates decreased between 2005 and 2007 but increased in 2007-2010. 2005 was the first year requiring students to pass the TAKS to graduate and in 2007 TAKS passing standards reached the recommended standard (Texas Education Agency, 2010). For more information please see Appendix A
The citation at the beginning was unnecessary. Citations go at the end of the passage. It looks to be cited properly, BUT did you have a reference page entry for it?
Yes, it is included in my references, also more info is included in the appendix. The paper, which was 50% of my grade, was the sole reason I was suspended from the graduate program (F grade) with only 1 semester of field experience to perform before attaining my master degree. This situation is particulalry frustrating because this professor was absent most of the semester, giving no feedback or answering any questions pertaining to the paper. My other grades were 100's.
You have good grounds.
I mean the only thing that I can possibly think is that it is a very large section of text which is usually a no no. I would have left the dates and paraphrased the text. However, I think if you explain the reasoning behind it you might have a fighting chance.
I rthank you for your input and your sensitivity. I appealed but the program director is also the instructor and I find tose that occupy high places most often stick together. I admit I couldhave cited better, but when reading you know where the info (timeline) came from which negates plagiarism.
It's just that 3 pages of pasted material is 10% of your paper which is what I think they are frowning on. That is borderline too high a percentage for a whole paper let alone one citation. Too bad they didn't have the timeline in like a graph type form or something that you could have used.
I feel for your situation. So are you not going to bother going through an appellate process? What are you going to do? I assume that you will have to take the course again.
What school do you attend by the way?
I attend Our Lady ofthe Lake online Graduate College of Social Work and have appealed and been given permission to reapply. I have not heard anything as of yet, but I have a problem with the charge of plagiarism on my academic record which up to now has been very good.
I am waiting to hear their decision for readmittance and taking this class in the summer then my practicum in the fall and then through...yeah!!!
I can totally understand that. I'm the same way. People make mistakes sometimes, and it really sucks when you get nailed for plagiarism over an honest mistake. It was not like you were trying to pass the material off as your own, it's just that your SI was too high. That's frustrating.
Thank you for understanding. Bye for now.
And good luck.