The second chapter of Medina's book, "Brain Rules," speaks directly to the current debate in education over whether it is more important to emphasize basic skills and knowledge, or the development of higher-order thinking skills.
The answer, of course, is not either/or, it's both. Students have to develop basic skills along with a data-base of essential information - and they have to develop the capacity to use that information in useful and creative ways.
Millions of years of evolution have developed in humans a huge capacity for improvisation – for "thinking on our feet". Our very survival as a species depended on it; in fact, our increased brain capacity, compared with other mammals, has more than compensated for a relative lack of speed and strength (and for the fact that humans have a very extended, vulnerable, childhood during which our brains continue to grow and develop.)
It is also worth noting that for the first time in history, there is more information available than the human brain has the ability to store, so it is becoming increasingly important that we learn how to access the information that is out there.
Any learning environment that develops only the database of basic knowledge, or only our improvisatory instincts, ignores half of human ability and will fail to develop children to their full potential. As the Partnership for 21st Century Skills takes pains to say: we have to figure out how to merge the traditional "three Rs" with the "four Cs" of creativity, communication, collaboration, and critical-thinking.
Another advantage of increased brain size is that it appears to have given humans a unique capacity for symbolic reasoning – which, in turn, has enhanced our ability to communicate with others, and thus to collaborate on common goals.
In evolutionary terms, there are two ways to defeat a potential predator: 1) become bigger, faster or stronger, or 2) develop cooperative arrangements with others to essentially the same effect.
93% of communication is non-verbal – and, it should be noted, not easily tested – but the ability to interpret non-verbal cues is essential to understanding the motivations of others and to the forming of useful partnerships.
Collaboration has been a big part of how we’ve survived so far, and will be a big part of how we survive in the future. We had better make sure that our children learn how to do that.
Subscribe To SchoolBoardBlogger
Posts
All Comments
Friday, October 29, 2010
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Brain Rules
Some time at the beach and airport terminals allowed me to catch up on my reading. In "Brain Rules", John Medina has consolidated the most recent research on how the human brain works, and offered some suggestions/implications for how this might affect education.
Not to state the obvious, but if education is essentially about “learning” then it makes sense to have a good understanding of how the brain processes information – how it learns – and what factors might influence that process, both positively and negatively. Wouldn’t it be something if instructional methodology was designed explicitly according to how our brains work? If future teachers understood the relevant brain science?
Fortunately, most of us have known teachers who instinctively taught according to these brain “rules”. And much of this is not new - many of these ideas will bring to mind your mother’s common sense. What’s new is the research documentation. My suggestion is to read the book for yourself, or visit the website: www.brainrules.net where you can find the research that backs up their conclusions. But allow me to share the ideas that jumped out to me.
The first chapter specifically addresses the value of physical activity. This is particularly relevant because of the recent federal proposal that would mandate thirty minutes of physical activity in each school day.
This has generated some controversy: in the current climate of NCLB and the overriding pressure of test scores, where does one find the time to meet another mandate? But to me, it is – pardon the expression – a no-brainer. And it turns out that there’s good research in support of regular physical activity for students (and other learners, as well).
“In a recent study, children jogged for thirty minutes two or three times a week. After twelve weeks, their cognitive performance had improved significantly… When the exercise program was withdrawn, the scores plummeted back to their pre-experiment levels.” (p. 15)
In other words, if you want to increase your test scores, provide students with opportunities to exercise.
“Kids pay better attention to their subjects when they’ve been active. … they are less likely to be disruptive in terms of classroom behavior... (They) have higher self-esteem, less depression, less anxiety. All of those things can impair academic performance.” (p.18)
As I mentioned during a recent board discussion – and while I’m certainly supportive of structured physical education - the proposed regulation doesn’t mandate how the students get their exercise. Several vigorous walks around the school each day might be one way to do it.
It turns out your mother was right: “exercise gets blood to your brain” (bringing it glucose for energy and oxygen to soak up left-over toxic electrons.) Also: aerobic exercise just twice a week cuts your risk of Alzheimer’s by sixty percent.
Not to state the obvious, but if education is essentially about “learning” then it makes sense to have a good understanding of how the brain processes information – how it learns – and what factors might influence that process, both positively and negatively. Wouldn’t it be something if instructional methodology was designed explicitly according to how our brains work? If future teachers understood the relevant brain science?
Fortunately, most of us have known teachers who instinctively taught according to these brain “rules”. And much of this is not new - many of these ideas will bring to mind your mother’s common sense. What’s new is the research documentation. My suggestion is to read the book for yourself, or visit the website: www.brainrules.net where you can find the research that backs up their conclusions. But allow me to share the ideas that jumped out to me.
The first chapter specifically addresses the value of physical activity. This is particularly relevant because of the recent federal proposal that would mandate thirty minutes of physical activity in each school day.
This has generated some controversy: in the current climate of NCLB and the overriding pressure of test scores, where does one find the time to meet another mandate? But to me, it is – pardon the expression – a no-brainer. And it turns out that there’s good research in support of regular physical activity for students (and other learners, as well).
“In a recent study, children jogged for thirty minutes two or three times a week. After twelve weeks, their cognitive performance had improved significantly… When the exercise program was withdrawn, the scores plummeted back to their pre-experiment levels.” (p. 15)
In other words, if you want to increase your test scores, provide students with opportunities to exercise.
“Kids pay better attention to their subjects when they’ve been active. … they are less likely to be disruptive in terms of classroom behavior... (They) have higher self-esteem, less depression, less anxiety. All of those things can impair academic performance.” (p.18)
As I mentioned during a recent board discussion – and while I’m certainly supportive of structured physical education - the proposed regulation doesn’t mandate how the students get their exercise. Several vigorous walks around the school each day might be one way to do it.
It turns out your mother was right: “exercise gets blood to your brain” (bringing it glucose for energy and oxygen to soak up left-over toxic electrons.) Also: aerobic exercise just twice a week cuts your risk of Alzheimer’s by sixty percent.
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
More on Testing
This may be familiar ground, but an article by Richard Rothstein in American School Board Journal made me think it's worth repeating, particularly in light of Pennsylvania’s ongoing march towards state-wide “Keystone exams”.
An argument you occasionally hear is that schools should be "run more like a business". But as Rothstein pointed out, performance pay in the private sector is seldom based on strictly quantifiable measures of how much is produced.
In fact, he gave a number of examples of how perverse incentives are sometimes built into systems.
For example, if colleges are ranked according to how "selective" they are, they'll work at getting more students to apply, just so they can turn them down.
A classic example: factories in the Soviet Union were rewarded/punished according to how many shoes they produced. But because material was in short supply, they produced a lot of very small shoes - in sizes nobody wanted.
The consequence for education: if schools are measured strictly, and with important consequences, by the percentage of their students who reach a certain threshold (such as "proficient"), they will be tempted to devote a disproportionate share of their resources to the students just below the threshold, at the risk of ignoring everyone else.
Here’s another: in many high schools, "college-prep" English courses are designed to help students do well on the standardized tests (with their emphasis on grammar, which is easily testable) that will help them get into college - but doesn't provide the skills that will make them successful in a freshman-year English course.
What's the moral of the story? In part: not everything that is important can be measured, and not everything that can be measured is important.
When it comes to assessment, the United States is an international outlier. As Stanford University’s Linda Darling-Hammond has shown, many nations with better and more equitable educational outcomes test far less than we do. They typically test just one to three times before high school graduation, and use multiple-choice questions sparingly, if at all. Excessive testing wastes resources and fosters the use of cheap, low-level tests, while adding high stakes and potentially narrowing the curriculum. The results provide little instructional value to students, teachers, schools, or districts.
Arne Duncan is beginning to suggest that he understands this: “Only by moving beyond basic skills and bubble tests can children develop the critical thinking skills that will one day give them the ability to compete successfully in our increasingly global, increasingly competitive international economy." It still remains to be seen whether the policy will match the rhetoric.
So here's the question: Is it possible to assess critical thinking, innovation, and communication skills on standardized tests? If not, why are we going down this road?
An argument you occasionally hear is that schools should be "run more like a business". But as Rothstein pointed out, performance pay in the private sector is seldom based on strictly quantifiable measures of how much is produced.
In fact, he gave a number of examples of how perverse incentives are sometimes built into systems.
For example, if colleges are ranked according to how "selective" they are, they'll work at getting more students to apply, just so they can turn them down.
A classic example: factories in the Soviet Union were rewarded/punished according to how many shoes they produced. But because material was in short supply, they produced a lot of very small shoes - in sizes nobody wanted.
The consequence for education: if schools are measured strictly, and with important consequences, by the percentage of their students who reach a certain threshold (such as "proficient"), they will be tempted to devote a disproportionate share of their resources to the students just below the threshold, at the risk of ignoring everyone else.
Here’s another: in many high schools, "college-prep" English courses are designed to help students do well on the standardized tests (with their emphasis on grammar, which is easily testable) that will help them get into college - but doesn't provide the skills that will make them successful in a freshman-year English course.
What's the moral of the story? In part: not everything that is important can be measured, and not everything that can be measured is important.
When it comes to assessment, the United States is an international outlier. As Stanford University’s Linda Darling-Hammond has shown, many nations with better and more equitable educational outcomes test far less than we do. They typically test just one to three times before high school graduation, and use multiple-choice questions sparingly, if at all. Excessive testing wastes resources and fosters the use of cheap, low-level tests, while adding high stakes and potentially narrowing the curriculum. The results provide little instructional value to students, teachers, schools, or districts.
Arne Duncan is beginning to suggest that he understands this: “Only by moving beyond basic skills and bubble tests can children develop the critical thinking skills that will one day give them the ability to compete successfully in our increasingly global, increasingly competitive international economy." It still remains to be seen whether the policy will match the rhetoric.
So here's the question: Is it possible to assess critical thinking, innovation, and communication skills on standardized tests? If not, why are we going down this road?
Friday, July 2, 2010
What makes a good teacher?
I'd like to bring your attention to two recent articles that reflect on themes I find myself returning to periodically.
The first speaks to the importance of providing teachers with meaningful opportunities for collaboration with their peers: Teaching Commission Pushes Collaborative Learning Teams.
The second article talks about the value of incorporating the arts into daily teaching and learning: Teachers take center stage.
The first brought to mind a conversation I had this week with a seventh-grade teacher from Alabama who was distraught that her district was abandoning the team concept in her middle-school, apparently with little regard for the input of teachers.
Regarding the second, I'm thrilled that the thinking in State College is evolving from STEM to STE(A)M; that is, in the direction of Science, Technology, Engineering (the Arts) and Mathematics. Students need to see creativity and good design as essential components of good engineering.
That article also highlights the idea that effective 21st-century communication is about more than reading and writing, as essential as those skills are.
The first speaks to the importance of providing teachers with meaningful opportunities for collaboration with their peers: Teaching Commission Pushes Collaborative Learning Teams.
The second article talks about the value of incorporating the arts into daily teaching and learning: Teachers take center stage.
The first brought to mind a conversation I had this week with a seventh-grade teacher from Alabama who was distraught that her district was abandoning the team concept in her middle-school, apparently with little regard for the input of teachers.
Regarding the second, I'm thrilled that the thinking in State College is evolving from STEM to STE(A)M; that is, in the direction of Science, Technology, Engineering (the Arts) and Mathematics. Students need to see creativity and good design as essential components of good engineering.
That article also highlights the idea that effective 21st-century communication is about more than reading and writing, as essential as those skills are.
Monday, June 21, 2010
Crisis averted?
It appears that the state legislature is about to take action that will defer the worst of the pain that was about to hit school district budgets as a result of the underfunded state pension system for school employees (PSERS).
Even more remarkably, a compromise was reached – approved in the House by an astonishing vote of 199-0 - that at least begins to address some of the long-term issues. (For new members of the state retirement plan, the “multiplier” will revert to 2% from 2.5%, vesting will occur at 10 years instead of 5, and new members would be prohibited from withdrawing lump-sum contributions at retirement.)
Although I am surprised at the speed with which this deal was struck - in the thick of the annual budget debate - I always considered it politically inevitable. There was never any possibility that the legislature would allow the 29.3% increase in the employer retirement contribution that was projected for fiscal year 2012/13 to go into effect. School boards and taxpayers would have revolted (and blamed the legislature).
More to the point, without legislative action, the Commonwealth – which is responsible for half of the employer cost of PSERS and for all of SERS – would have had a hard time producing balanced state budgets given the projected increases of 10.6%, 29.2% and 32.1%. The corresponding increases are now expected to be 8.7%,12.2%, and 16.7%. (Next year’s rate is still up in the air.)
But before we get too happy, it should be noted that under this proposal, most of the pain will be diverted until sometime after most current legislators have left office. That’s a fair criticism - but it’s not quite as bad as its being made out to be.
(a little math..)
Some of you business/finance majors will recall the concept of “present value”. In short, what that means is that $10 in your pocket today is more valuable than having it 10 years from now. The reason is that you could invest your pocket money at 2% annual interest, and in 10 years you would have about $12.20. So the “present value” of having $12.20 10 years from now is: $10.00. Of course, this calculation depends entirely on what interest rate is used.
In the case of a school district that is likely to borrow hundreds of millions of building construction dollars over the coming decades, the better analogy is this: having 10 dollars in your pocket today is 10 dollars you won’t have to borrow. Assuming a conservative borrowing rate of 4%, $10 today is worth $14.80 ten years from now – and $30.80 thirty years from now.
What are the implications? The proposed changes to the retirement contribution rate would result in districts spending considerably less in the “near years”, but considerably more in the out years. When you add up all the numbers, under this legislation, State College could end up spending an additional $44 million dollars in retirement costs over the next 30 years.
But that doesn’t take into account present value. When you do the math, assuming a conservative 4% borrowing rate, the difference between the savings in the early years and the additional costs in the out years is about $3.3 million in 2041 dollars, or about $1 million in current dollars. (I did this by converting each year’s savings/costs into 2041 dollars, and adding them up.)
It’s not $44 million, but a million dollars is still real money. With a little more “front-loading” we might have broken even.
Even more remarkably, a compromise was reached – approved in the House by an astonishing vote of 199-0 - that at least begins to address some of the long-term issues. (For new members of the state retirement plan, the “multiplier” will revert to 2% from 2.5%, vesting will occur at 10 years instead of 5, and new members would be prohibited from withdrawing lump-sum contributions at retirement.)
Although I am surprised at the speed with which this deal was struck - in the thick of the annual budget debate - I always considered it politically inevitable. There was never any possibility that the legislature would allow the 29.3% increase in the employer retirement contribution that was projected for fiscal year 2012/13 to go into effect. School boards and taxpayers would have revolted (and blamed the legislature).
More to the point, without legislative action, the Commonwealth – which is responsible for half of the employer cost of PSERS and for all of SERS – would have had a hard time producing balanced state budgets given the projected increases of 10.6%, 29.2% and 32.1%. The corresponding increases are now expected to be 8.7%,12.2%, and 16.7%. (Next year’s rate is still up in the air.)
But before we get too happy, it should be noted that under this proposal, most of the pain will be diverted until sometime after most current legislators have left office. That’s a fair criticism - but it’s not quite as bad as its being made out to be.
(a little math..)
Some of you business/finance majors will recall the concept of “present value”. In short, what that means is that $10 in your pocket today is more valuable than having it 10 years from now. The reason is that you could invest your pocket money at 2% annual interest, and in 10 years you would have about $12.20. So the “present value” of having $12.20 10 years from now is: $10.00. Of course, this calculation depends entirely on what interest rate is used.
In the case of a school district that is likely to borrow hundreds of millions of building construction dollars over the coming decades, the better analogy is this: having 10 dollars in your pocket today is 10 dollars you won’t have to borrow. Assuming a conservative borrowing rate of 4%, $10 today is worth $14.80 ten years from now – and $30.80 thirty years from now.
What are the implications? The proposed changes to the retirement contribution rate would result in districts spending considerably less in the “near years”, but considerably more in the out years. When you add up all the numbers, under this legislation, State College could end up spending an additional $44 million dollars in retirement costs over the next 30 years.
But that doesn’t take into account present value. When you do the math, assuming a conservative 4% borrowing rate, the difference between the savings in the early years and the additional costs in the out years is about $3.3 million in 2041 dollars, or about $1 million in current dollars. (I did this by converting each year’s savings/costs into 2041 dollars, and adding them up.)
It’s not $44 million, but a million dollars is still real money. With a little more “front-loading” we might have broken even.
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Alert Citizens ... and the Budget
I appreciate that the Centre Daily Times thought to print a couple of the on-line comments concerning their story on the property tax refunds that were recently awarded to the Village at Penn State.
One writer wondered how it was possible that said property could be assessed for less than it cost to build it.
Another got more to the point: "Why would Penn State ever pay its fair share of taxes?"
I feel compelled to say: it has ever been thus. (Recall SCASD's ill-fated attempt in 1997 to tax the profit-making components of the Penn State empire? A futile effort, to be sure.)
The obvious should be noted, however: the difference comes directly out of your pocket, dear taxpayer.
But it's good to see that someone's paying attention.
About the budget..
For a process that resulted in over $3.4 million in cuts, I thought the development of next year's budget went remarkably smoothly. And considering that my only significant disagreement represents less than 1% of that total, it can't be considered more than a quibble. However...
The $30,000 in question represents the required school supplies that the district will no longer provide to elementary school students.
My first argument against eliminating this from the budget is that there won’t be any actual "savings" - more accurately, this is a cost-shift from district taxpayers to parents. In fact, since the district can buy supplies in bulk, parents will end of spending more, in total, than the district would have. Not to mention the environmental impact of a couple of thousand additional trips to Wal-Mart. (Though I suppose one could argue that this would be a stimulus to the local economy..)
Second, although the amount involved is modest, there will be a few families for whom this will be a hardship. Since it has long been our practice that 'inability to pay' should not be a barrier to students, making sure that doesn’t happen will become an administrative chore for somebody.
Finally, there's the philosophical argument: If the community has a civic obligation to provide an education to its children - which it does, both constitutionally, and, I believe, morally - that ought to include required supplies.
For what it's worth.
One writer wondered how it was possible that said property could be assessed for less than it cost to build it.
Another got more to the point: "Why would Penn State ever pay its fair share of taxes?"
I feel compelled to say: it has ever been thus. (Recall SCASD's ill-fated attempt in 1997 to tax the profit-making components of the Penn State empire? A futile effort, to be sure.)
The obvious should be noted, however: the difference comes directly out of your pocket, dear taxpayer.
But it's good to see that someone's paying attention.
About the budget..
For a process that resulted in over $3.4 million in cuts, I thought the development of next year's budget went remarkably smoothly. And considering that my only significant disagreement represents less than 1% of that total, it can't be considered more than a quibble. However...
The $30,000 in question represents the required school supplies that the district will no longer provide to elementary school students.
My first argument against eliminating this from the budget is that there won’t be any actual "savings" - more accurately, this is a cost-shift from district taxpayers to parents. In fact, since the district can buy supplies in bulk, parents will end of spending more, in total, than the district would have. Not to mention the environmental impact of a couple of thousand additional trips to Wal-Mart. (Though I suppose one could argue that this would be a stimulus to the local economy..)
Second, although the amount involved is modest, there will be a few families for whom this will be a hardship. Since it has long been our practice that 'inability to pay' should not be a barrier to students, making sure that doesn’t happen will become an administrative chore for somebody.
Finally, there's the philosophical argument: If the community has a civic obligation to provide an education to its children - which it does, both constitutionally, and, I believe, morally - that ought to include required supplies.
For what it's worth.
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
A framework for a 21st-century education
So what is the framework for a 21st-century education? As it happens, for the past eight years a group of business leaders and educators known as the Partnership for 21st Century Skills has been working on this very question. (You will note some real heavyweights on this list.) Here’s a synopsis of what they've come up with.
Their work is based on the growing recognition that a mastery of course content (such as is measured by your typical standardized test) is no longer sufficient for success in the 21st century. This is because most of the jobs - including, increasingly, many 'white collar' jobs - that used to be the gateway to a successful middle-class life involve routine work that has, or will soon be, automated, computerized or out-sourced.
So the next generation of graduates will need more than mastery of the ‘3 Rs”. When the Partnership asked employers which skills should receive additional emphasis in school, this is what they heard: Economy
• The ability to communicate effectively, both orally and in writing 89%
• Critical Thinking/Analytical Reasoning Skills 81%
• The ability to apply knowledge and skills to real-world settings 79%
• The ability to analyze and solve complex problems 75%
• The ability to connect actions to ethical decisions 75%
Similarly, another survey, referring specifically to high school graduates, identified these deficiencies:
• Written Communication 81%
• Leadership 73%
• Work Ethic 70%
• Critical Thinking & Problem Solving 70%
• Self-Direction 58%
This lead the Partnership to identify the following framework of essential thinking skills (the “four C’s”)
• Critical thinking and problem solving
• Communication
• Collaboration
• Creativity and innovation
Of course, mastery of core subjects - reading and language arts, world languages, mathematics, economics, science, geography, history, government, civics and the arts – continues to be important. “Critical-thinking” and collaboration don’t occur in a vacuum.
But in addition, students need to develop life and career skills such as: Flexibility, Adaptability, Initiative and Self-Direction, Social and Cross-Cultural Skills, Productivity and Accountability, Leadership and Responsibility. It will also become increasingly important for students to develop literacy in Global Awareness; Finance and Business; Civics; Health; the Environment; and Information and Media
It should be noted that very little of this is currently “tested”.
The good news for State College is that we have long recognized the importance of 21st century skills, as evidenced by the “10 characteristics of a State High grad”:
• a responsible and involved citizen
• a clear and effective communicator
• a competent problem solver who thinks critically and creatively
• a productive individual who works independently and collaboratively
• one who demonstrates respects for self and others in an increasingly diverse society
• a user of evolving technologies
• a knowledgeable practitioner of wellness behaviors
• an informed consumer and effective manager of personal and family resources
• a responsible steward of the environment
• a participant in the arts
The challenge for us continues to be: how do we go about this admirable goal in an intentional and deliberate way?
The key is integration. There isn’t time in the school day to teach a course in critical-thinking, so schools will need to find ways to intentionally embed these skills within the core curriculum.
And here’s the question for school leadership: will we commit ourselves to helping students develop the capacity for critical-thinking, citizenship and creativity - even if these skills are not measured on The Test?
Their work is based on the growing recognition that a mastery of course content (such as is measured by your typical standardized test) is no longer sufficient for success in the 21st century. This is because most of the jobs - including, increasingly, many 'white collar' jobs - that used to be the gateway to a successful middle-class life involve routine work that has, or will soon be, automated, computerized or out-sourced.
So the next generation of graduates will need more than mastery of the ‘3 Rs”. When the Partnership asked employers which skills should receive additional emphasis in school, this is what they heard: Economy
• The ability to communicate effectively, both orally and in writing 89%
• Critical Thinking/Analytical Reasoning Skills 81%
• The ability to apply knowledge and skills to real-world settings 79%
• The ability to analyze and solve complex problems 75%
• The ability to connect actions to ethical decisions 75%
Similarly, another survey, referring specifically to high school graduates, identified these deficiencies:
• Written Communication 81%
• Leadership 73%
• Work Ethic 70%
• Critical Thinking & Problem Solving 70%
• Self-Direction 58%
This lead the Partnership to identify the following framework of essential thinking skills (the “four C’s”)
• Critical thinking and problem solving
• Communication
• Collaboration
• Creativity and innovation
Of course, mastery of core subjects - reading and language arts, world languages, mathematics, economics, science, geography, history, government, civics and the arts – continues to be important. “Critical-thinking” and collaboration don’t occur in a vacuum.
But in addition, students need to develop life and career skills such as: Flexibility, Adaptability, Initiative and Self-Direction, Social and Cross-Cultural Skills, Productivity and Accountability, Leadership and Responsibility. It will also become increasingly important for students to develop literacy in Global Awareness; Finance and Business; Civics; Health; the Environment; and Information and Media
It should be noted that very little of this is currently “tested”.
The good news for State College is that we have long recognized the importance of 21st century skills, as evidenced by the “10 characteristics of a State High grad”:
• a responsible and involved citizen
• a clear and effective communicator
• a competent problem solver who thinks critically and creatively
• a productive individual who works independently and collaboratively
• one who demonstrates respects for self and others in an increasingly diverse society
• a user of evolving technologies
• a knowledgeable practitioner of wellness behaviors
• an informed consumer and effective manager of personal and family resources
• a responsible steward of the environment
• a participant in the arts
The challenge for us continues to be: how do we go about this admirable goal in an intentional and deliberate way?
The key is integration. There isn’t time in the school day to teach a course in critical-thinking, so schools will need to find ways to intentionally embed these skills within the core curriculum.
And here’s the question for school leadership: will we commit ourselves to helping students develop the capacity for critical-thinking, citizenship and creativity - even if these skills are not measured on The Test?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)