September 2011 Archives

The school reform movement is obsessed with quantifying outcomes. Whether through standardized test scores, dropout rates or college acceptance rates, the coin of the realm is measurement.

Yet there is another side of the story that is largely overlooked. It was highlighted in a cover piece in The New York Times Magazine on Sept. 18. In "What if the Secret to Success Is Failure?," Paul Tough focuses on the importance of developing character. He quite correctly recognizes that without it, students are shortchanged.

Because the term means different things to different people, Tough explains which traits qualify based on research by Martin Seligman, Christopher Peterson and Angela Duckworth. The final list: zest, grit, self-control, social intelligence, gratitude, optimism and curiosity.

I've written before about the importance of non-cognitive outcomes in education. But it's been like talking to a tree. How successful are schools if they teach only subject matter? Recognizing the failure of schools in this area, David Levin, co-founder of KIPP, urged the development of a C.P.A. (character-point average) to accompany a G.P.A. (grade-point average).

As a practical matter, however, there are several considerations. To begin with, I believe for the most part that the values comprising a C.P.A. are caught, rather than taught. The process begins at home with parents, whose behavior becomes a model that is absorbed by osmosis. Neighborhood figures reinforce the model for better or worse. Teachers are next in line. But their influence is relatively small because they have students in class for only a small portion of the day.

For another, if a C.P.A. is to be valid, it has to rely on what are known as unobtrusive measures. What this means is the subject of Unobtrusive Measures: Nonreactive Research in the Social Sciences (Rand McNally & Company, 1969). In simplest terms: "If people feel that they are 'guinea pigs' being experimented with, or if they feel that they are being 'tested' and must make a good impression, or if the method of data collection suggests responses or stimulates an interest the subject did not previously feel, the measuring process may distort the experimental results."

Despite these difficulties, it's high time we look beyond strictly cognitive outcomes to judge schools. Readers who doubt this warning need consider the actions of corporate executives who graduated from elite prep schools and marquee-name colleges with the highest grades and yet engaged in egregious acts that plunged the country into the Great Recession.

Posted by Walt Gardner at 7:14 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

It's become a mantra of reformers that the quality of teachers is the single most important in-school factor in student performance. If so, is the quality of doctors the single most important in-office factor in patient health? This question passed my mind after I read a letter to the editor written by Richard Amerling, M.D., director of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, that was published in The Wall Street Journal ("Better Use of Medical Records Is Good as Far as It Goes," Sept. 26).

Although Amerling's remarks were about the practice of medicine in this country, they could just as easily have been about classroom teaching: "Assuming health outcomes can be accurately assessed (and this is a huge assumption), the greatest factor affecting them is the underlying health status of the patient. Outcome reporting, and ultimately 'payment for performance,' will inevitably lead to cherry-picking of healthier patients by doctors, hospitals and all the new Accountable Care Organizations created by the administration."

At last, a magisterial voice outside of teaching unwittingly weighs in on the inherent flaw in the educational accountability movement. To wit: Why is there a double standard in judging doctors and teachers? If even the best doctors are not expected to overcome the "underlying health status" of their patients, then why are teachers expected to overcome the underlying conditions in the lives of their students? To put the matter differently, doctors are not seen as miracle workers, but teachers somehow are. Why is that so?

Amerling also correctly predicts that paying doctors on the basis of the outcomes with their patients will inescapably lead to cherry-picking of healthier patients. If schools are privatized and allowed to compete, as reformers want, why won't they engage in the same selective admission of students? This is particularly likely to happen if teachers are paid on the basis of their performance. The only reason it is not happening now is that public schools by law must admit virtually all students who show up at their doors.

The good doctor urges restoration of the physician-patient relationship, which he rightly recognizes as the "cornerstone of high quality, affordable care." By the same token, I urge reformers to place far greater weight on the teacher-student relationship, which I maintain is the sine qua non of a quality education.

Posted by Walt Gardner at 7:18 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

The abrupt request for a leave of absence by a ten-year veteran high school art teacher only two weeks after the start of the fall semester serves as a reminder that accountability is still a one-way street. According to a column in the Los Angeles Times, Jeremy Davidson was done in by a combination of factors all too familiar in these troubled times to public school teachers ("At Manual Arts High, a caring teacher is at the end of his rope," Sept. 24).

What happened was that students in Davidson's ninth-grade drawing class at Manual Arts High School turned the classroom into a blackboard jungle. They hit each other with rulers, threw papers around the room, failed to remain in their seats, talked over the teacher and blocked the door from closing. This on a campus designed for 1,000 students but overloaded with 3,200.

Davidson called for security, but help never arrived. When he appealed to the principal for support, he was given a checklist of strategies, including contacting the parents, engaging the students and treating them with respect. After many sleepless nights, Davidson at first wanted to resign. At the eleventh hour, however, he decided instead to take a leave of absence.

Several questions immediately came to mind after I read the account. First, where was United Teachers of Los Angeles? The union is supposed to intervene on behalf of teachers when they are faced with these appalling matters. Did Davidson ask for help from UTLA? If not, why? If so, what was UTLA's response? Second, why are teachers automatically assumed to be the cause of outrageous student behavior? Most appalling was the principal's question if Davidson had treated students with respect? What about students treating teachers with respect? Finally, what is the response by the reform group LA's Promise, which operates Manual Arts? Isn't promoting a climate conducive to learning one of its selling points?

I don't accept the argument that the responsibility for learning rests exclusively on teachers. It is a partnership between teachers, parents and the community. If students in private or religious schools behaved like the students in Davidson's class, they would be given one warning and then promptly expelled if they persisted. But public schools by law have no such latitude. They must accept virtually all students who show up at the school and cannot expel them except for the most egregious acts.

It's little wonder that teacher morale is at an all-time low.

Posted by Walt Gardner at 7:15 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

In the wake of the stock market crash, Congress wisely passed the Glass-Steagall Act in 1933. The landmark legislation successfully separated investment and commercial banking activities until it was repealed in 1999. Many economists today believe the decision to do so played a major role in the country's financial meltdown.

I see a dangerous parallel taking place in education. As columnist Michael Winerip explained in "When Free Trips Overlap With Commercial Purposes" (On Education, The New York Times, Sept. 19), test companies are increasingly involved in the decisions made by state education officials. Winerip detailed how the Pearson Foundation through its commercial side paid to send top state education officials abroad to meet with their international counterparts.

The Pearson Foundation denied that the trips were designed to enable Pearson to win contracts. Instead, they were arranged "in pursuit of educational excellence." I suppose it's purely coincidental that Pearson invited Christopher Koch, Illinois superintendent, to go to Helsinki and Rio de Janeiro in 2009 when Illinois is paying Pearson $138 million to design and administer its tests. The argument that the trips were financed by the foundation itself rather than by Pearson's corporate divisions is also not convincing.

Let's not forget that profits are the reason that companies exist. The fact that companies happen to be in the business of selling standardized tests and curriculums does not negate this truth. As David Sirota wrote: "First and foremost, there's a ton of money to be made in the education 'reforms' that Big Money interests are advocating" ("The bait and switch of school 'reform," salon.com, Sept. 12).

Sirota went on to cite the sweetheart deal between Joel Klein and Rupert Murdoch. When Klein was New York City schools chancellor, he signed a lucrative contract with Wireless Generation, an educational technology company that Murdoch had just bought. Soon thereafter, Klein resigned to become executive vice president of Murdoch's News Corporation. Was this also purely coincidental?

With pressure mounting on states to produce evidence of learning, the money available for products to meet the demand is irresistible to educational companies. That's why a firewall like Glass-Steagall needs to be put in place straightaway. If it isn't, education will suffer in its own inimitable way.

Posted by Walt Gardner at 7:10 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

For the past four years, there has been a steady stream of news and commentary about the disconnect between what employers are looking for and what workers have to offer. The latest entry into this debate was "Looking at Education for Clues on Structural Unemployment" (The Wall Street Journal, Sept. 9).

According to the article, the mismatch is a "classic example of what economists call a 'structural' issue in the labor market. In time, workers will develop the skills the job market needs - or employers will readjust their needs to the skills workers have available - but that process is slow. In the meantime, unemployment will remain high."

The basis for this view was a study by the Brookings Institution. The authors Jonathan Rothwell and Alan Berube looked at the "education gap", which is the difference between the "level of education that employers are looking for, on average, and the level of education that potential workers actually have."

This is a troubling charge, but without further elaboration it's hard to know how to evaluate it. For one thing, what specific wherewithal is in short supply? Is it predominantly in STEM, or does it involve other fields as well? Norm Augustine, a former undersecretary of the Army and retired CEO of Lockheed Martin, argued that it includes history ("The Education Our Economy Needs," The Wall Street Journal, Sept. 21). Bloomberg Businessweek on Sept. 14 attempted to clarify the issue in "Can Retraining Give the Unemployed a Second Chance?" It placed the skills mismatch at a quarter of the 9.1 percent unemployment rate, based on an International Monetary Fund paper issued in May.

But the explanation fails to take into account the nuances of the situation. Job losses have been "far more severe in middle-skilled white- and blue-collar jobs than in either high-skill, white-collar jobs or in low-skill service occupations. Indeed, from 2007 through 2009, total employment in professional, managerial, and highly skilled technical positions was essentially unchanged," according to a 2010 white paper by MIT economist David Autor ("Can the Middle Class Be Saved?" The Atlantic, Sept. 2011).

Further, the complaint raises the age-old question about the purpose of education. Business has always wanted schools to train their employees so that it doesn't have to. A survey by Nielsen Co. of 100 top executives at U.S. manufacturing companies found that they expect to spend at least $100 million each over the next five years to fill the gaps left by retiring baby boomer factory workers ("Skills gap looms at U.S. factories as boomers retire," The Globe and Mail, Sept. 8).

Education, however, is more than just about preparing students for the workplace. This is particularly so because as many as 80 percent of the jobs that kindergartners will hold as adults don't yet exist, according to remarks made by futurist Ed Barlow before the Industrial Asset Management Council in Oct. 2007. Of course, neither Barlow nor anyone else knows what the future holds, a point underscored by Christopher L. Doyle in "Let's Stop Forecasting 21st-Century Skills" (Commentary, Education Week, Sept. 14).

Public schools have become a convenient whipping boy for virtually all the ills afflicting the country. I agree that it's important to prepare students to earn a living. But the trouble is that the nature of jobs is rapidly changing. As a result, what is in demand today is passe tomorrow. That's why it's a mistake to put all our eggs in one basket by trying to guess what the future needs of the country will be and then blame schools when they don't deliver what is needed.

Posted by Walt Gardner at 7:24 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

The practice of law in the U.S. is an adversarial system that is widely accepted as being the most effective way of ensuring that justice is done. This is the antithesis of the way educating the young is supposed to be conducted in this country. Nevertheless, the system too often still pits teachers against principals, to the detriment of students.

A case in point was an article in The New York Times on Sept. 16 ("Bronx Science Sees Exodus of Social Studies Teachers"). Eight of the school's 20 social studies teachers chose not to return this year. To put this into context, 26 teachers of about 140 - about 19 percent - did not return. Despite its reputation as one of three elite public high schools in New York City (Brooklyn Tech and Stuyvesant are the other two), teachers were willing to run the risk of finding positions elsewhere in this uncertain economy. They blamed the administration and, in particular, the principal Valerie Reidy.

The departing teachers pointed to administrators who berated teachers in front of their colleagues, nit-picked their instructional styles, and poorly treated three younger social studies teachers - none of whom were given tenure. Reidy minimized the charges, maintaining that "turnover happens and our job is to make sure that when turnover happens, it's a positive thing for students."

I've written several times before about how abusive principals have the power to poison the atmosphere at the most prestigious schools to the point that even teachers with stellar records request transfers. Specifically, I explained how Lee McCaskill did so at Brooklyn Tech. What I still don't understand, however, is where the teachers union was when these abuses took place. It is precisely these incidents that warranted intervention by the union.

On the same day that The New York Times published the story, the Los Angeles Times ran an op-ed with the apt headline "Moving beyond 'blame the teacher.' " The takeaway was that the system of management bears the overwhelming blame for the failures of schools. Teachers and principals are supposed to be partners - not adversaries - in educating students. "In reality, schools are collaborative, not individual, enterprises, so teaching quality and school performance depend above all on whether the institutional systems support teachers' efforts."

What transpired in Brooklyn Tech and Bronx Science is clear evidence that we have a long way to go to achieve that goal. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me at all if further examples surface this year because teachers unions have been weakened at the same time that principals have been given greater power to run "their" schools as they see fit. It's a prescription that will harm students.

Posted by Walt Gardner at 8:00 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

It's not at all surprising that homework is now a front-burner issue in many school districts ("Is Homework Out of Control?" Parade, Aug. 21). Although teachers who assign heavy loads have never been popular, it's only in the last few years that they have moved into the spotlight. After all, when elementary school teachers ask children in second and third grade to complete worksheets every night, I have to wonder if things have not gotten out of hand.

The rationale for homework is that it enhances learning by reinforcing and enriching classroom instruction. But there are several caveats. First, it must be appropriate for the age of the student. Requiring seven- and eight-year olds to spend an hour or more each night will do little except to develop a dislike for the subject. Second, it has to be stimulating. Creating busywork will be counterproductive. Finally, it has to be able to be completed by students without the help of their parents. Increasing numbers of students come from families where parents do not speak English or can't afford the materials needed for creative assignments.

Along this line, researchers have identified several techniques that teachers need to bear in mind when they assign homework ("The Trouble With Homework," The New York Times, Sept. 11). What they all boil down to is that it is the quality - not the quantity -of homework that matters.

But meeting this criterion is only part of the issue. What should teachers do to follow up? More specifically, what weight should be given to the successful completion of homework? With the emphasis now given to standardized testing, what grade should students get on their report cards if they don't turn in homework but still score high on these tests?

Complicating matters is the growth in the number of students from low-income families. Many of these students live in apartments where overcrowding is common. Is it fair to ask them to do homework when they have no quiet space? Why don't they just go to the public library to complete their assignments? They can, of course, if there is a public library in their neighborhood. But that's not always true, particularly today when budget cuts have closed libraries or sharply cut back on their hours of operation.

I know that many critics will point to the number of hours students from other countries put in to their studies outside of school as evidence of our excessive concern about homework. They argue that parents in this country are spoiling their children. But so many students abroad suffer from burnout. That's a stiff price to pay at such an early age.

Posted by Walt Gardner at 7:03 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

As readers of this column know, I've long supported parental choice of schools, even though I acknowledge that not all children have parents who are involved enough in their education to take advantage of the options open to them. But there's another consideration that has been largely overlooked: What happens when there are too many choices available to parents?

Posing this question probably seems more theoretical than practical in the U.S., where choice is still not the norm. But that's not the case in England. According to an article in The Independent on Sept. 10, parents are faced with a "bewildering array of different types of schools" ("Experts: UK has too many types of school"). The result has been utter confusion and a call to improve standards in all state schools. For readers interested in the number and kind of schools available to parents, I recommend reading the story. It's understandable why parents are befuddled.

On the same day that The Independent published its article, The Guardian ran a story that further calls into question the touted benefits of parental choice ("Doubts grow over the success of Sweden's free schools experiment"). When Sweden implemented a competitive system of free schools in the early 1990's, it was supposed to usher in a new era of quality education for all students. (Free schools are publicly-funded but autonomous. They can be created by charities, universities, businesses or teachers.)

What happened in Sweden, however, is reminiscent of what transpired in New Zealand when it instituted Tomorrow's Schools about the same time (When Schools Compete, Brookings Institution Press, 2000). The unintended result was that school segregation increased in both countries. Edward Fiske and Helen Ladd explain in detail how the most sophisticated parents rapidly took advantage of school choice to fill all available seats, forcing the best schools to close their doors to students whose parents didn't know how to game the system.

I continue to support parental choice of schools. But I think the experience of other countries raises several caveats that cannot be ignored if equity is a goal. At present, social Darwinism reigns.

Posted by Walt Gardner at 7:06 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

It had to happen sooner or later. The World Economic Forum recently ranked the U.S. No. 5 in economic competitiveness. Although the Geneva-based organization based its decision specifically on huge deficits and declining faith in government, it won't be long before public schools are implicated.

It has to be that way because frustration and anger can be discharged only by means of a lightning rod, and schools fit the need to a tee. As Clinton E. Boutwell wrote in Shell Game (Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation, 1997), "America's corporate elite charged that their incompetence was not responsible for the loss of America's competitive advantage. The 'real' reason was that the United States did not have a highly educated, world-class workforce. The schools were causing this economic decline, they claimed."

I don't deny that the quality of schools in this country is a factor in a robust economy, but I think their impact is exaggerated. As Lawrence Mishel and Richard Rothstein wrote, "the honesty of our capital markets, the accountability of our corporations, our fiscal-policy and currency management, our national investment in R&D and infrastructure, and the fair-play of the trading system ..." play far greater roles ("Schools as Scapegoats," The American Prospect, Oct. 12, 2007). Readers who disagree with this view need to read a scathing essay about events just unfolding on Wall Street ("Full-Blown Civil War Erupts on Wall Street," OpEd News.com, Sept. 3).

What is likely to come out of all this turmoil is the adoption of the business model to schools. Testing will be increased, with penalties for schools that don't meet their quotas. Teachers unions will be further weakened so that principals can hire and fire at will. Teachers with STEM degrees will be paid a hefty premium. The changes will be fought hammer and tongs, but unfortunately they will ultimately prevail. The beginning of the transformation of public schools in several states is already underway, but it will pick up momentum as fear spreads about the economic future of the country.

Posted by Walt Gardner at 7:19 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

The justification for mayoral takeover of school districts is that it pinpoints accountability. I've always believed, however, that the rationale sounds better on paper than it plays out in reality. The situation in the New York City school system is a case in point.

According to a New York Times/CBS News Poll, voters are "broadly dissatisfied" with the quality of public schools since Mayor Michael Bloomberg took control in June 2002 ("New Yorkers Say Mayor Has Not Improved Schools," The New York Times, Sept. 7). They base their views on a frustrating system of school choice, services for disabled children and focus on standardized tests. But voters were not any more pleased in April 2005 when 46 percent said the quality of public schools had gotten worse under the mayor's tenure ("The Schools Under Bloomberg: Much Tumult, Mixed Progress," The New York Times, Apr. 18, 2005).

The mayor's office responded to the latest poll results by pointing to test scores that have outstripped test scores in other districts in the state and to all-time high graduation rates. But test scores and graduation rates also rose in other large urban districts that have not switched to mayoral control. This calls into question whether mayoral control is the determining factor.

In all fairness, it's important to note that New York City won the Broad Prize as the most improved urban district in 2007, although the award was largely based on higher test scores that were not confirmed at the time.

Beyond New York City, mayors get mixed grades as well. Sometimes their takeover helps, as in Long Beach, Calif. In other cities, such as Detroit, it has failed. The record of mayoral control that began in Boston in 1991, Chicago in 1995, Cleveland in 1998, Detroit in 1999 and New York City in 2002 led the Harvard Educational Review to conclude that the "takeover movement has (not) fully lived up to the optimistic predications of its proponents ... ." ("Mayoral Takeovers in Education: A Recipe for Progress or Peril? Summer 2006).

I remain open to evidence that supports claims that mayoral control of schools is a better policy than traditional school board control. But I think the former view is based on the myth of a hero who can step in to solve the ills afflicting districts with disproportionate numbers of disadvantaged students. Like all myths, they eventually are exposed.

Posted by Walt Gardner at 8:09 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Under increasing pressure to produce evidence of greater student achievement, schools are eager to adopt practices that have a proven track record. This has led the Houston public schools to engage in a novel experiment called Apollo 20 ("A School District Mimics Charters, Hoping Success Will Follow," The New York Times, Sept. 6).

By implementing five key tenets of successful charter schools (such as the Knowledge is Power Program) at nine secondary schools last year, the district hoped to be able to post similar results. One high school reported gains that were enough to move the school to acceptable after many years of being unacceptable. But four remained unacceptable, and the rest saw the percentage of passing test scores drop. Undeterred, Apollo 20 will be extended to include 11 elementary schools this school year.

Now here's where the matter gets interesting. Roland Fryer, an economist and head of Harvard's EdLabs, intends to compare the results of the Apollo 20 schools (the experimental group) with those of other Houston schools with similar demographics (the control group). The problem is that even if the Apollo 20 schools outperform the other schools in the district, it will be impossible to know for certain which factors were responsible. Was it (a) longer day and year (b) more rigorous hiring (c) frequent testing (d) "no excuses" culture (e) all of the above?

I say that because one vital factor is given short shrift: Parents who choose to enroll their children in Apollo 20 schools signal they are involved in their children's education. Time and again, research has demonstrated the key role that this factor alone plays in student achievement. To put the matter another way, if all parents whose children attend traditional public schools in Houston were required to sign a contract spelling out their responsibilities, I believe that this prerequisite would likely outweigh (a) through (e).

This point was underscored by "What Teachers Wish You Knew" by Lisa Collier Cool (msn. Lifestyle, Sept. 6). Nevertheless, the results of the experiment will be picked up by the media as "proof" that charter schools are superior to traditional schools. Only sophisticated taxpayers will know how to correctly interpret the results.

Posted by Walt Gardner at 7:39 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Leave it to Michelle Rhee to pit teacher against teacher just as the new school year begins. In "The Great Brain Game" (Time, Sept. 12), she argues that a policy of last-in first-out in determining layoffs ensures that "thousands of great teachers" will be lost.

I have no doubt that there are many outstanding new teachers who don't deserve to be shown the door when staffs have to be cut. But there are also many outstanding veteran teachers who would be vulnerable if seniority were eliminated. Rhee cites the case of Christine Simo in Las Vegas to make her point. So let me remind Rhee about Lee McCaskill, the former principal of Brooklyn Technical High School in New York City.

In a series of columns, The New York Times documented how he harassed veteran teachers with stellar records at the elite high school, to the point that several of them asked to be transferred ("Principal's War Leads to a Teacher Exodus," Jan. 28, 2004). Had it not been for the existence of seniority, these star teachers might have been forced out and novice teachers whom McCaskill liked for one reason or another would have been hired in their places.

Principals wield enormous clout as a result of the state education code, board of education policies and court rulings. In the hands of a bully, this power can make the lives of teachers miserable. They know exactly how far they can go without triggering a union grievance. Even if they cross the line and the union prevails, the stress created for the teachers involved is often unbearable.

Seniority came into existence for a good reason. Before its time, employees found themselves at the mercy of their supervisors. It was not surprising that favoritism, rather than performance, frequently determined who was let go.

Rhee says that when she was chancellor of schools in the District of Columbia, she negotiated a contract with the local teachers union that eliminated LIFO. She takes pride in pointing out that 80 percent of teachers supported the move. I wonder how they'll feel down the line when a chancellor decides to move them out despite their long record of effectiveness?

Posted by Walt Gardner at 8:03 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Despite the guarantee of a free basic education for all students as stipulated in most state constitutions, the protracted recession has caused at least 23 states to date to slash spending on public education. This has created an uneven pattern of supplemental support by parents, business and residents.

The latest example was in New York City, where in early August Mayor Michael Bloomberg and five other wealthy individuals raised $1.5 million to reinstate the Regents exams given in January that New York State had eliminated because of budget cuts ("When Schools Depend on Handouts," The New York Times, Aug. 26).

I'm glad that the Regents exam was reinstated, but I'm concerned that it took the efforts of billionaires to do so. Whenever money is handed out to schools, it comes with strings attached. These aren't always obvious. But it is naive to believe that a tacit quid pro quo is not established. It's more than mere coincidence that over the past decade during which time some $4.4 billion annually was poured into school reform by the Big Three foundations (Gates, Broad, and Walton), the tools of the boardroom were adopted.

This kind of giving buys influence. The Broad Foundation has already received a nice return on its investment by virtue of two training programs it underwrites. The Broad Superintendents Academy induces top executives in their respective fields to attend a course of six extended weekend sessions by paying all tuition and travel costs. Once they complete the course, the foundation helps place them in superintendent positions. The Broad Residency helps place professional managers with master's degrees and several years of work experience into managerial jobs in school districts, charter schools, and federal and state departments.

The trouble with this intrusion is that public schools are not supposed to be a plutocracy. When schools rely on private sources, the strategy unavoidably creates a conflict of interests.

Posted by Walt Gardner at 7:42 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend