Archives for the month of: September, 2013
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Robert Shepherd: How Corporate Monopolies Control What Students Learn

By dianeravitch
September 7, 2013 //
56

Robert Shepherd posted this explanation of how the
publishing industry has changed and how a small number of corporate
giants control what students learn:

I think it important
to distinguish between entrepreneurs
attempting to bring new products to market that will succeed or
fail in the market based on the merits of those products
and monopolistic corporate giants
attempting to rig the market for educational materials so as to
shut out new competitors. A little
history:

When I started working in educational
publishing back in the early 1980s, a basal literature program
consisted of a student text and a softbound teacher’s guide
containing lesson plans and answers to questions in the text.
That’s it—a student edition and a softbound teacher’s
guide. Then, over the course of many years,
the big educational publishers competed with one another by adding
new components and features, including many “give-aways,” to their
product lines.

So, for example, many years ago, one publisher of a
K-12 basal composition program added to its product a “free”
Teacher’s Resource Binder (a 3-ring binder containing lesson plans,
answer keys, tests, correlation charts, planning guides, and the
like). The other big ed book publishers rushed to follow suit, to
create their own “free” Teacher’s Resource Binders. And then, of
course, all the publishers upped the prices of their student
editions and teacher’s editions to cover the cost of the “free”
binder.

Over time, the big ed book publishers
added many, many more components to their basal programs—annotated
teacher’s editions, test banks, multimedia CDs, materials in
various languages, transparency sets, blackline masters, diagnostic
test booklets, test prep booklets, manipulatives, handheld student
response devices, leveled readers, cross-curricular readers,
various web-based components, etc. —and whenever one publisher
innovated, the others followed suit, and the costs of the student
and teacher editions went up and up and up to cover all these
“free” materials. In parallel, state
departments of education in adoption states like California, Texas,
and Florida started issuing lists of adoption criteria that
REQUIRED programs submitted for adoption to contain these various
“supplemental” materials.

Where, in the past, when a school ordered
a literature text, it would receive student editions and softbound
teacher’s guides, it would, after all this change in the textbook
publishing racket, receive, with each classroom set, several very
large boxes containing supplemental products—boxes that came to be
known as Teacher’s Resource Kits. In addition, the sizes of the
student and teacher texts also increased enormously as the big
publishers competed with one another by adding features and
components to those.

To summarize: thirty
years ago, a Grade 10 basal literature program consisted of a
340-page student text and a 150-page, softbound teacher’s guide.
Now it consists a 1,200-page student text, a 1,400-page annotated
teacher’s edition, and about a hundred crappy ancillary products
shipped out in big, colorful boxes. In the
past few years, every teacher I’ve talked to about this has told me
the same thing—he or she uses ALMOST NONE of the great mountain of
supplemental material that comes with the basal text and skips
ALMOST ALL of the junk in the annotated teacher’s edition.

At the
same time, the school districts pay HANDSOMELY for all these “free”
supplementals because the cost of developing them, plus a pretty
profit, is rolled into the cost of the student and teacher editions
and because, when one publisher starts charging for a key
supplemental component, the others quickly follow suit.
The upshot of all this is that textbook production has
gotten much, much more expensive than it was in the past.

Where a
couple decades ago a publisher might develop a new literature
program at a cost of, say, 6 million dollars, it will now cost 100
million or more to do this. And those state adoption requirements,
along with the customer expectation that programs will have all
these “free” supplemental components, effectively lock would-be
competitors out of the business. Only a few large companies with
deep pockets can play. And so, where in the
past we had lots of small educational publishers with sizable
market share, now we have, basically, four big players in the U.S.

And what that means is that teachers and schools have fewer
products to choose from, and those products have a terrible
sameness to them because publishers with monopolistic positions
have no incentive to innovate. To the extent possible, they now
“repurpose” old material, change the headings and correlations to
accord with the latest educational fads, do some new design work,
and call that a new edition.

But they don’t innovate, really, when
it comes to what matters—in the areas of pedagogical approach and
curricular design. The last thirty years have
seen an enormous amount of consolidation of the educational
publishing industry—a few large publishers buying up all the
smaller ones, and that consolidation also works against real
pedagogical and curricular innovation.

Ed book publishing is now a
monopolistic business, and state departments of education, with
their adoption requirements, have inadvertently helped to make that
happen—their well-intentioned pages and pages of adoption
guidelines have served to decrease real innovation in educational
products while dramatically increasing their cost.
So, basically, that’s how ed book publishing became a
monopoly business. However, the Internet
presented a great threat to the emergent monopolies.

Almost all of
the cost of producing a textbook program was, traditionally, in
paper, printing, binding, and sampling of products to potential
customers. The high cost of producing physical basal textbook
programs with large numbers of supplementary/ancillary materials
effectively shut out any new competitors. However, pixels are
cheap, and some college professors even started SELF PUBLISHING
respectable introductory textbooks, in subjects like statistics,
philosophy, logic, history, business, economics, etc.—online for
FREE. Really for free. This presented an
enormous threat to the ed book monopolies. They had to do something
to ensure that they could maintain their monopolistic market share
and continue to lock out new entrants, new competitors.

Well, one
way of making it difficult for new competitors to emerge is to
create national standards that every program must follow slavishly.
That keeps a new competitor from doing a better job than the large
publishers do of following the unique standards for a particular
state AND keeps new entrants from creating alternative curricular
designs that accord, better, with new, alternative, or competing
standards.

Another way to shut out new competitors is to create a
single national database of student scores and responses that
serves as a gateway for delivery of content. Those who can afford
to be connected to that system for content delivery can play, and
those who can’t will be shut out. Teachers,
students, parents, and other stakeholders would be much better
served, of course, if small publishers with innovative ideas could
compete on an even playing field—if there were room, again, in
educational publishing for real entrepreneurship. The Internet can
help to make that possible—for small entrants, again, to have a
chance to compete against the big textbook companies.

Mountains of
federal and state requirements serve not the cause of the small
entrepreneur but of the existing monopolies, making it easier for
them to shut the small entrepreneurs out. And the big companies pay
lots of money to lobbyists at the state and federal levels to
ensure that there are plenty of requirements on educational
products that will make it difficult for new, entrepreneurial
competitors to emerge. Here’s how to fix all
this: Return to site-based management. Allow individual groups of
teachers at individual schools to make their own decisions about
what products they will purchase and what characteristics those
products will have.

Categories Education Reform

Robert Rendo: Why Are We Destroying Education? ForWhat?

By dianeravitch
September 7, 2013 //
24

Now here is a first for this blog. A comment that appeared
on the blog by Robert Rendo was picked up and posted by blogger
Jonathan Pelto. It was indeed a brilliant statement, and somehow I
failed to turn it into a post. So
I am taking the post from Jonathan Pelto’s blog and
posting it here so everyone can read it. Rendo explains how Common
Core and the high-stakes testing mandated by No Child Left Behind
and Race to the Top have degraded schooling and education. Here is
a sample: In fact, we have stepped a long way back into a
new epoch of factory style education, where every student is a
widget, and every widget is hyper-inspected along the conveyor belt
to see if its frame will hold up once sold to the consumer, who is
now the future employer. And if the person hired to do the assembly
messes up just a few times, they are fired and replaced. This
process happens knowing full well the conveyor belt is moving at 45
MPH, up from 10 MPH several years ago. Who can
really produce that many widgets when the belt is rolling by so
quickly? It conjures up the imagery of the classic factory
chocolate making scene from “I Love Lucy”. But
it’s anything but cute or funny. Students are
not widgets. Teachers are not robots. The process of teaching and
learning is a humanistic endeavor. There are bonds to be forged,
even while measuring situations and outcomes with data. The data
used to help contribute indispensably to that human bond.
Presently, the bonding has been devalued, thrown aside, and the
data has become the new humanism.

Categories Common Core, Corporate Reformers, NCLB (No Child Left Behind), Race to the Top, Teachers and Teaching

Rothstein and Carnoy: A Re-analysis of International Tests

By dianeravitch
September 7, 2013 //
5

One of the favorite complaints of the corporate reformers
is that we are “losing” the international test score race. Richard
Rothstein and Martin Carnoy put that canard to rest in a report
released earlier this year.

It did not get the attention it deserved because it challenged the conventional wisdom. Since
the Obama administration’s education policy rests on the
conventional wisdom, and since the privatizers rely on the
conventional wisdom, the report was greeted not with elation but
stony silence.

No, we are not first in the world: by their
calculations, that distinction goes to Canada, Finland, and Korea.

But our average performance is dragged down by the very large
proportion of children living in poverty. When demographics are
factored in, our performance is quite good–not perfect–but not
the disaster claimed by those who have a vested interest in making
American schools and teachers and students look bad. They find:
“Because social class inequality is greater in the United States
than in any of the countries with which we can reasonably be
compared, the relative performance of U.S. adolescents is better
than it appears when countries’ national average performance is
conventionally compared. “Because in every country, students at the
bottom of the social class distribution perform worse than students
higher in that distribution, U.S. average performance appears to be
relatively low partly because we have so many more test takers from
the bottom of the social class distribution. “A sampling error in
the U.S. administration of the most recent international (PISA)
test resulted in students from the most disadvantaged schools being
over-represented in the overall U.S. test-taker sample.

This error further depressed the reported average U.S. test score. “If U.S.
adolescents had a social class distribution that was similar to the
distribution in countries to which the United States is frequently
compared, average reading scores in the United States would be
higher than average reading scores in the similar post-industrial
countries we examined (France, Germany, and the United Kingdom),
and average math scores in the United States would be about the
same as average math scores in similar post-industrial countries.

“A re-estimated U.S. average PISA score that adjusted for a student
population in the United States that is more disadvantaged than
populations in otherwise similar post-industrial countries, and for
the over-sampling of students from the most-disadvantaged schools
in a recent U.S. international assessment sample, finds that the
U.S. average score in both reading and mathematics would be higher
than official reports indicate (in the case of mathematics,
substantially higher). “This re-estimate would also improve the
U.S. place in the international ranking of all OECD countries,
bringing the U.S. average score to sixth in reading and 13th in
math. Conventional ranking reports based on PISA, which make no
adjustments for social class composition or for sampling errors,
and which rank countries irrespective of whether score differences
are large enough to be meaningful, report that the U.S. average
score is 14th in reading and 25th in math. Disadvantaged and
lower-middle-class U.S. students perform better (and in most cases,
substantially better) than comparable students in similar
post-industrial countries in reading. In math, disadvantaged and
lower-middle-class U.S. students perform about the same as
comparable students in similar post-industrial countries. “At all
points in the social class distribution, U.S. students perform
worse, and in many cases substantially worse, than students in a
group of top-scoring countries (Canada, Finland, and Korea).
Although controlling for social class distribution would narrow the
difference in average scores between these countries and the United
States, it would not eliminate it.

“U.S. students from
disadvantaged social class backgrounds perform better relative to
their social class peers in the three similar post-industrial
countries than advantaged U.S. students perform relative to their
social class peers. But U.S. students from advantaged social class
backgrounds perform better relative to their social class peers in
the top-scoring countries of Finland and Canada than disadvantaged
U.S. students perform relative to their social class peers. “On
average, and for almost every social class group, U.S. students do
relatively better in reading than in math, compared to students in
both the top-scoring and the similar post-industrial countries.

Because not only educational effectiveness but also countries’
social class composition changes over time, comparisons of test
score trends over time by social class group provide more useful
information to policymakers than comparisons of total average test
scores at one point in time or even of changes in total average
test scores over time. “The performance of the lowest social class
U.S. students has been improving over time, while the performance
of such students in both top-scoring and similar post-industrial
countries has been falling. “Over time, in some middle and
advantaged social class groups where U.S. performance has not
improved, comparable social class groups in some top-scoring and
similar post-industrial countries have had declines in
performance.”

Categories International, Testing

Jersey Jazzman: How Is Merit Pay Working in Newark?

By dianeravitch
September 7, 2013 //
6

In an impressive
analysis, Jersey Jazzman pulls apart the numbers
associated with the Newark merit pay plan. He is no fan of merit
pay. Neither am I. Merit pay has been tried again and again for
nearly 100 years, and it has never made a significant difference,
nor have merit pay plans lasted. The Newark merit pay plan is
funded by Facebook billionaire Mark Zuckerberg, and we may safely
assume that he will not make Newark’s teachers his lifetime
beneficiaries. He reports that only 20% of teachers with advanced
degrees opted into the merit pay plan. And here is the takeaway,
according to JJ’s analysis of the available data:
Remember: according to the Memorandum
of Agreement between the NTU and the state-run
district, only teachers who were more senior and had earned
advanced degrees were eligible to opt out of the merit pay
system; teachers without
masters/doctorates and who were new to the district had to opt
in. But one group was clearly more likely to earn a
rating of HE than the other.

Newark teachers who are more senior,
have advanced degrees, and who opted not to
compete for merit pay were more likely to get a rating of “Highly
Effective” than newer teachers without advanced degrees who were
competing for a merit pay bonus.

Unfortunately, not all the data are available. JJ ends with an
urgent plea to Chris Christie, Chris Cerf, and Cami Anderson:
Release all the data.

Categories Education Reform

Rothstein: A Critique of Duncan’s View on Racial Integration

By dianeravitch
September 6, 2013 //
23

Richard Rothstein of the Economic Policy Institute was part
of a radio program that began with an interview of Secretary of
Education Duncan. Rothstein, who has written extensively about how
government policies created and preserved segregated neighborhoods,
was taken aback
by what Duncan said. He called it “backsliding.”

Rothstein says that Duncan doesn’t understand why government must act
forcefully to promote integration.

He writes: “Integration is necessary for the success of black students, even if they never
have the opportunity to command white soldiers or hold jobs in
predominantly white enterprises. When African-American students
from impoverished families are concentrated together in racially
isolated schools, in racially isolated neighborhoods, exposed only
to other students who also come from low-income, crime-ridden
neighborhoods and from homes where parents have low educational
levels themselves, the obstacles to these students’ success are
most often overwhelming. In racially isolated schools with
concentrations of children from low-income families, students have
no models of higher academic achievement, teachers must pitch
instruction to a lower academic average, more time is spent on
discipline and less on instruction, and the curriculum is disrupted
by continual movement in and out of classrooms by children whose
housing is unstable.

“Social science research for a half century
has documented the benefits of racial integration for black student
achievement, with no corresponding harm to whites. When low income
black students attend integrated schools that are mostly populated
by middle class white students, achievement improves and the test
score gap narrows. By offering only a “diversity” rationale for
racial integration, Secretary Duncan indicated that he is either
unfamiliar with this research or chooses to ignore it.”

Categories Duncan, Arne, Poverty, Segregation , Racial Isolation and Integration

A Great New Tool in Fight Against Corporate Reform

By dianeravitch
September 6, 2013 //
6

Progressive Magazine has created a wonderful new website
called Public
School Shakedown to cover the news about the
privatization movement. Please subscribe to stay informed about the
shams, scams, frauds, boondoggles, and assorted scandals connected
to today’s faux-reform movement. And to keep Public School
Shakedown alive, subscribe to the reborn Progressive Magazine,
which understands what is happening and is helping us to inform the
public.

Categories Corporate Reformers, Education Industry, Education Reform, Privatization

Seattle Blogger: Connection Between Education and War in Syria?

By dianeravitch
September 6, 2013 //
96

Dora Taylor, a teacher and blogger in Seattle, was teaching a class about the the history of architecture from Egypt to the Roman Empire when a light went on in her head.

She asked herself: Is there a connection between education and the war in Syria?

Why do we always have billions to go to war but when it comes to reducing child poverty, there is no money, we are flat broke?

Categories Corporate Reformers, Poverty

Rothstein on Duncan: Test-Based Accountability Has Failed

By dianeravitch
September 6, 2013 //
23

Here is the transcript from the Diane Rehm show and its interview with Arne Duncan. This is the interview where Duncan said he was “not familiar’ with the Justice Department lawsuit seeking to block vouchers in Louisiana because they will undermine court-ordered desegregation.

Two others were interviewed about Duncan’s policies: Mike Petrilli of the conservative Thomas B. Fordham Institute and Richard Rothstein of the liberal Economic Policy Institute.

Rothstein was asked whether Duncan was the most powerful and influential education secretary ever:

“Oh, yes, he certainly has because he’s had enormous flexibility without congressional authorization as a result of the stimulus bill and the Raise to the Top funds. The problem is that he’s got an entirely incoherent approach to education policy which, as I said, is doing enormous harm. He ended his comments before with promoting the importance of early childhood education. I fully agree with that.

“Everybody who studies student achievement knows that the one most important factors affecting student achievements is whether children come to school in the first place prepared to learn, whether they’ve had good literacy experiences in early childhood where they’ve had high-quality care. He promotes that. It’s very important. It’s wonderful that he promotes it.

“But then he turns around and advocates and implements an aggressive accountability policy which holds schools accountable for the same results whether or not their children have had high quality early childhood instruction. If early childhood is really as important as he says it is, and I think it is, how can you hold schools accountable for high standards and high accomplishment if children haven’t had those early childhood experiences?

“So, on the one hand, he advocates all the right things, early childhood. He advocates health clinics in schools. He advocates after-school programs and has promised neighborhoods program.

“But when it comes to actually implementing an accountability system, it makes no difference. It has no effect whatsoever.

“His Race to the Top program, for example, gave states no points for whether they had early childhood programs or health clinics in schools or after-school programs. And so he talks a good game when it comes to all of these important influences in education, but when it comes down to the actual accountability policies that he’s promoting, they have no effect whatsoever.”

Rothstein said earlier in the exchange:

“Well, the key point he made, which I think has been lost in the debate, is there’s a big difference between having higher standards and the consequences of those standards. Nobody objects to having higher standards, the common core or if they are higher and to the extent they are higher. The real issue is that what Secretary Duncan has been advocating is tying accountability to the tests that are based on those standards. We’ve had 10 years now of accountability tied to tests based on so-called lower standards, and they’ve completely corrupted our education system.

“They’ve made the system much worse. Teachers have had incentives to narrow the curriculum to the things that are tested. Students have been trained to take tests rather than to learn the underlying curriculum. The same thing is going to happen if we tie tests to these higher standards. Teachers will learn what kinds of things are going to be on the test. There’ll be a lot of test preparation going on. The tests will not reflect what children really know but rather how skilled they are at taking tests.

“And it won’t account for all of the other things besides classroom instruction that affect how high student achievement is. So the common core standards are one thing, but the real issue is the attempt — the misguided attempt to have very high stakes attached to tests to measure those standards. Those will corrupt education just as much as now as they have in the past, and it’s unfortunate Secretary Duncan and his colleagues haven’t learned the lessons from No Child Left Behind and are preparing now to implement the same kinds of mistakes that were done in the last 10 years.”

Categories Childhood, Pre-K, K, Duncan, Arne, NCLB (No Child Left Behind), Race to the Top

Scott Kuffel: I’m No Hero

By dianeravitch
September 6, 2013 //
20

A few days ago, I named Scott Kuffel to the honor roll for
his courage in speaking out against the state’s arbitrary decision to
raise the cut scores on state tests, thus lowering student grades,
in preparation for Common Core testing. Anytime a superintendent is
willing to stand up for what is right and to defend students and
teachers from misguided policies, they are heroic. We need many
more of them to stop the train wreck that is mistakenly called
“reform.” After I saluted him, Superintendent Kuffel responded with
this comment:

“To those above who state that I am not a hero, you are absolutely correct. I’ve neither made that claim nor asked to be on this honor roll. There is always more that can be done. I’m not going to bore you with the context of the consequences for pulling funding by not taking state mandated tests in Illinois, but trust me, I have explored as many options as possible to direct our district to be non-compliant without jeopardizing essential programs for our students.

“And yes, I do need to make mortgage payments and buy groceries for my family, and perhaps it would be more heroic to disregard personal, professional and programmatic damages and “opt out” of state tests… and it may come to that, but for now, we in Illinois still work under guidelines and laws that would require more than just my decision to authorize said “civil disobedience”. There are many in Illinois who join me in trying to return us to a time of more common sense (and yes, it may reference Thomas Paine), creativity, and constructivism. And believe me, we have refused to take part in several “reform” structures and resource draining initiatives that we believe do not improve our mission.

“So, you’re correct, I am no hero. I’m a superintendent of a public, PK-12 school district in rural Illinois. The hero is the principal who comes in early on a Sunday morning to replace sod on the football field where vandals damaged the turf before graduation. The hero is the school nurses who makes the difficult call home to parents and tends to a scarcely seen scratch on a kindergartner’s arm. The hero is the AP US History teacher who holds study sessions, at 8 pm at night after kids are finished with their practices. The hero is the art teacher who spends her own money for supplies and materials because she knows the budget is dwindling, but the need for the arts is more important than ever. The heroes are the parents who sacrifice time for fundraising and make meals for another parent who just tragically lost a child. The heroes are school board members who take the criticism and complaints for hiring, for spending, for firing, for taking “hard lines” in difficult times.

“The heroes are those who try. They try every day for their “littles” who come with scant learning experiences or understanding of manners. They try for the businesses and realtors in town who pressure for high quality schools because that drives local economies and housing. They try because they believe that what happens today has impacts on tomorrow that we’re never really sure we’ll see.

“And those are the heroes in whom I believe. They are the heroes who keep me coming to work every day. They’ve kept me coming to District 228 for 10 years, and I know they’ll keep me coming for a few more. Thanks for listening, and thanks for the many good suggestions in these previous comments. Scott Kuffel, Geneseo CUSD 228 Superintendent”

Categories Administrators, superintendents, Honor Roll, Illinois

Sharon Higgins on the Gulen Movements and Its Charters

By dianeravitch
September 6, 2013 //
46

Sharon R. Higgins is a parent activist in Oakland,
California, who manages multiple websites as a concerned citizen.
One is “charter school
scandals.” Another is the Broad Report. Third is a
compilation of articles about the Gulen movement.

Sharon has long wondered why so many districts, states, and the federal government
have turned over a basic public responsibility to foreign
nationals, who hire other foreign nationals, and export hundreds of
millions of taxpayer dollars. Her concern is not nationalistic or
xenophobic. It is about the civic and communal nature of public
education.

She writes: “On Saturday I spoke at the “Expose the
Gulen Movement” protest rally held on a farm in the rural, rolling
hills around Saylorsburg, PA. We assembled less than two miles from
the compound where Fethullah Gulen lives. Gulen is considered to be
one of the two most powerful men in Turkey. This is the video of my
speech, starting at 00:45 min.
http://new.livestream.com/…/AbdEylemVakti/videos/28766474 Earlier
that day, Gulenist operatives had driven around to take down the
signs that organizers had posted to help guide protesters to the
rally. The day before, a man from “the camp” (Gulen’s compound)
also attempted to bribe the owners of the farm in an effort to
prevent us from using their place. I also spoke at yesterday’s
“Expose the Gulen Movement” conference in Piscataway, NJ, attended
by 100 people, mostly Turkish Americans. My segment starts at 40:00
min. and lasts 20 min.

I understand the conference was simultaneously broadcast in Turkey.
In both talks I explain how the privatization of public education
has allowed the Gulen movement to establish the largest charter
school network in the US. Their 146 charter schools will enroll
over 60,000 students this year. The schools’ taxpayer-supplied
revenue is up to approximately one-half billion dollars per year.

Preceding me in both videos is Mary Addi, a former Gulen charter
school teacher. She was interviewed in the 60 Minutes piece. The
moderator at the conference is Kaya Boztepe, ex-president of the
Federation of Turkish American Associations. The conference
panelists seated at the table are a retired Turkish admiral and two
Turkish journalists. The journalists, who have been critical of the
government and the Gulen Movement, spent nearly two years in jail
after being arrested under terrorism charges. They were finally
released but I understand their trials are still pending and it is
expected that they will be found guilty and end up with long
sentences. Turkey now leads the world with jailing journalists.

More about those panelists here:
http://perimeterprimate.blogspot.com/2013/08/expose-gulen-movement-protest-and.html
I want to emphasize that the panelists and conference attendees are
incredibly alarmed by Fethullah Gulen’s escalating power and the
manner in which he has acquired it. Gulen has been hiding out at
his compound in the US since 1998, but he periodically delivers
messages through his media organs in Turkey (Zaman newspapers), as
well as weekly sermons (and some even believe fatawa) to his
followers online.

353. Nağme: Allah Rasûlü’nün İzzeti ve Dokunulan Onurumuz


In Pennsylvania I met a local resident who reported personally
seeing guards with “machine guns” at the entry of the compound in
the late 1990s. Locals have also seen helicopters flying over the
compound. I’ve read reports about those things, but never knew if
they were true or not. Over the past two days, I also met a lot of
Turkish Americans with personal stories of their own about the
Gulenists. This group’s stealth strategy is brilliant, and
dangerous. They intimidate and threaten their critics and many,
many people are afraid of speaking out against them. The big
question is why is our government letting this group run so many
charter schools?”

Categories Charter Schools
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »