Jonathan Lovell: How I Learned to Teach Writing Without Teaching

32 Comments Post your own or leave a trackback: Trackback URL

1. Susan Lee Schwartz says:

   January 24, 2016 at 12:10 pm

   I ‘taught’ writing to 13 year olds in nYC for 8 years, using essentially the same technique, which had a component where the children themselves evaluated their writing…but then, despite the fame of this practice which was studied by the Pew research out of Harvard, it disappeared so that Gates could impliment CC crap.

   I would be happy to explain how real writing teachers “teach’ children to find their own voices.

   Reply
   • jonathanlovell says:

     January 24, 2016 at 7:28 pm

     Thanks Susan. We need more teachers like you!

     Reply
     • Susan Lee Schwartz says:

       January 24, 2016 at 7:48 pm

       I am hoping to put together a presentation to demonstrate (at the NPE) the Performance Standards that the Pew research created to help all teachers use the most effective PRINCIPLES OF LEARNING in their rooms. I HAVE A TREASURE in my possession, as the I was the cohort for that research… which disappeared as the NCLB , the CC and VAM–that poisoned alphabet soup which ended the voice of the professional in the classroom.

       It is time for the REAL Standards to show up!

   • Tim says:

     January 24, 2016 at 8:08 pm

     Susan, didn’t you teach at a highly selective middle school? Or did the school only become selective after your departure?

     Reply
     • Susan Lee Schwartz says:

       January 25, 2016 at 2:03 am

       I have heard such commentary before, and the implications clear.

       . We were a PUBLIC school and our children came from across the city in all flavors. Many of the students came with poor skills and test scores, but with a great desire to learn. Yes, we interviewed kids,! But, also, I saw many kids with high percentiles on city tests, but little interest in ongoing instruction, lose a seat to a child whose past performance in schools was troubling, but who was so excited in class to LEARN, that we accepted them, and worked hard to bring up their levels.

       It was a very small school, perched on the top floor of a big elementary school.
       We had almost no budget, and thus few services, and that limited what was possible.

       Eventually, the school moved to its own big, building, and I imagine that this made it possible to open the experiment to a larger population. Hopefully they retained what worked, small class size, and teams of teachers that worked together to present children with an interesting education experience, and a philosophy of effort-based learning, not unlike what Lauren Resnick proposed.
       

       But the point I make, is that the national standards seminars and workshops which were provided to ALL teachers and all schools in this huge NYC district, were about learning– for ALL children.

       Third level research in medicine means it has to work everywhere.
       THIS was a huge Harvard led 3rd level research project and the principles were based on indicators of learning for ALL children. It worked in Beaumont Texas, San Diego and Rochester NY

       Pew went into hundreds of schools and thousands of school in 12 districts. They observed diverse populations and students functioning at all levels, and what they discovered was that there were 4 things (principles) that were observed in all classrooms where children learned successfully. They also saw that there were 4 things that were always there when kids learned in a school…
       1- a safe. healthy plant
       2- Organization -programs and staff that supported learning.
       3- Materials and technology that was needed to support classroom learning
       4- The hiring of highly educated teacher-practitioners who possessed the content knowledge and the pedagogical methods that allow them to meet objectives and produce the age-appropriate outcomes.

       Yes. We had at least 50% of our students coming from local elementary schools in District 2, and yes that included the upper East Side , Chelsea and Tribeca where many parents were professionals. The rest came from the ENTIRE city. They took the train from Harlem and Brooklyn!

       But one characteristic that most kids had, was a DESIRE to participate and do the work.
       I say most, because we accepted a fair amount of children with behavioral problems in other schools. WE WERE NOT AN ELITIST SCHOOL!

       We had problematic children, too. But he odd thing that happened, when so many kids loved learning, even though the work was hard, — the children who were less motivated eventually put in an effort.

       Hey these kids came in at barely 12 years of age, and left at age 14.
       Growing up in an atmosphere where mindfulness was the rule, and rewards were the methodology WORKED. (did I mention that the second principle of learning was REWARDS FOR ACHIEVEMENT? A grade on a test, as Mr Gates has discovered does not compare with the intrinsic reward that comes when a child discovers that effort offers genuine achievement that can be SEEN!

       The products of their work was extraordinary to behold, because they trusted us to know what learning looks like, and to know what an emergent mind needed in order to think, to do work.

       And the parents were on board, no matter where the child came from… THAT was a key ingredient. With a smaller population and an organization that worked, we teachers had time to ensure that parents always knew what we were doing, and how their child was faring.

       Nothing is perfect TIM, but NYC kids who want to learn deserve schools that know what learning looks like, not places where mandates about teaching make learning impossible, and classes that are so huge that classroom teachers can hardly get to know each learner.

       Class size matters, and we not only knew every kid who sat in our room, we teachers knew EVERY KID IN THE SCHOOL. No one roamed the halls without some teacher saying, “hey Mike, wuz up?” I remember Mike.. but THAT is a story for another time.

       I LOVED TEACHING THERE, showing young children what I KNEW HOW TO DO ( which was to think to read and to write well) and the kids knew this, and loved learning, too!

   • Michael Fiorillo says:

     January 25, 2016 at 6:06 am

     Fear not, Susan, there’s no public school teacher or parent that Tim won’t try to smear with implications of racism. it’s his job here.

     He’s just outraged that you and others don’t measure up to that paragon of educational and racial justice, Eva Moskowitz

     Reply
   • Tim says:

     January 25, 2016 at 2:23 pm

     Thanks for the response, Susan, and my apologies if I’ve asked you that before. Forgive me my skepticism, but I suspect it is a lot easier to take “hands-off” self-reflective Calkins-style approaches to writing when you are teaching children who are the sons and daughters of graduate-degreed professional parents, and that is very much the type of student body that ESMS has in 2016. It is effectively off-limits to kids who live outside of District 2 and it is largely white and affluent (12% of the enrollment is black or Hispanic, 11% are FRPL-eligible, and 0% are English language learners).

     Michael, still waiting for your thoughts on making schools less segregated.

     Reply
     • dianeravitch says:

       January 25, 2016 at 8:01 pm

       Tim, I don’t understand why you express such great concern about segregation at the same time that you staunchly defend segregated charter schools. What am I missing?

     • Susan Lee Schwartz says:

       January 25, 2016 at 10:10 pm

       How sad.
       I suspected that anything that works gets abandoned.
       It is, after all the east side, and the folks have a strong voice in their neighborhood schools, and they should! One size does not fit all, but….

       That wonderful team was already gone by the time they came after me to destroy the curricula that I wrote and which lifted all children.

       ROBERT ROTHMAN EXPLAINS in his “ORGANIZING SO ALL STUDENTS CAN LEARN: “all students but the most severely disabled must achieve at high levels and that this involves not merely teacher practice, but also redesigning the schools to enable all students to reach high standards of performance is possible.”

       I am searching for a video that I made when I was the cohort for the standards. It was a Fishbowl, where there were two rings of students. The inside ring had the floor, and the outside ring, was charged with listening to one of the ‘fishes’ in the inner circle. Then they switched, and they could argue, “you said… but I… think”

       They were encourage d to provide references to the text, which we were all reading, at the time– “The Yearling”, by Marjorie Rawlings.

       There was one girl in that class, who we accepted despite poor academic scores. She came from a poverty stricken inner city and and I do not think there were many books in her young life. She came with outstanding teacher recommendations and showed a keen interest in learning when she sat in our classes for a week.

       The day I am looking for, was when she disagreed with a comment that someone made, and when it was her turn in the inner ‘bowl’ — out came her copy of The Yearling… and there were dozens of post-its sticking out from it. She searched until she found the reference she wanted… and she read it to us. WOW!

       I remember her, because her family moved to South Carolina, and in tearful goodbye, she said to me, “I am going to be a writer!”
       “But, you are already,” I said. Often, even in September, I had her read her writing to us, because I could not always follow it on the page, (until she was with us for several months, and began to use conventions like punctuation and spelling). Her stories of her home life were very moving. Writing is not spelling…it just helps the reader.
       She must be in her twenties now, and I am sure that she is still writing.

2. Ruth Dolan says:

   January 24, 2016 at 12:13 pm

   Look into the history of the National Writing Projece and I am sure you will find more inspiring stories.

   Reply
   • jonathanlovell says:

     January 24, 2016 at 7:27 pm

     Thanks Ruth. I agree. The Writing Project is not only the one professional organization for K-college teachers devoted exclusively to the teaching of writing. It’s one of the best professional programs for K-college teachers period. Not that that distinction gives it any leverage at all with the USDOE, but that’s another story.

     Reply
   • jonathanlovell says:

     January 24, 2016 at 7:52 pm

     Sounds terrific Susan. I’ll not be at NPE due to last minute conflicts, sad to say, but would love to hear more what you will be presenting. It seems an opportune time for the REAL standards to make a much needed return.

     Reply
     • Susan Lee Schwartz says:

       January 26, 2016 at 12:11 am

       I am working on it, and I agree… the time is now.
       If you want to know more, message me at Oped news, with your email address. I already have correspondence with many people this wonderful teacher’s room, and share stuff

       Thanks Johnathan. I am going to look at your blog.

       I just read this. It makes me very sad because I know that the is right. We can only do what we can do, but in the end, the oligarchs are going to win.

       http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/25/opinion/michigans-great-stink.html?_r=0

3. retired teacher says:

   January 24, 2016 at 12:31 pm

   As someone that attended the Saturday Writers’ Workshops from Teachers College for many years, I enjoyed this post. Having had the opportunity to hear some wonderful educators such as Lucy Calkins or Donald Graves, we teachers were motivated to encourage students to write freely with peer feedback. Those were the days of inspiring divergent thinking; I don’t know if we will ever get them back now that education has become monetized.

   Reply
   • Laura H. Chapman says:

     January 24, 2016 at 1:46 pm

     …and monitized goes with standardized. Favorite unit of measure: An increment in scores on standardized tests.

     Teacher education is the next casualty of thinking that hyper-prescriptive training and repeated practice of a limited array of “high-leverage” skills is the secret to success. Forget the blather about informed professional judgment (especially historically informed). Programs are to be rated as “fit for survival” (or not) based on the scores produced by graduates of each program in their first year of teaching and for the next three to five years of employment.

     “The Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (ESE) believes that educator preparation can and should produce teachers who are ready to be effective on day one. We are working toward an ambitious goal that by 2022, candidates prepared in Massachusetts will enter classrooms and demonstrate results on par with peers in their third year of teaching.”

     This statement came from a November, 2015 press release accepting a 33 month grant for $3,928,656 from the Gates Foundation to help standardize 71 teacher education programs and student teaching arrangements. Program title “Elevate Preparation: Impact Children (EPIC) center.” Program leader Mitchell D. Chester, Commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education.

     This is the face of early 21st century teacher education and education for students–not really education at all but training, practice, automatic responses, hyper-prescriptive teaching and drills to achieve “mastery.

     Reply
   • jonathanlovell says:

     January 24, 2016 at 7:38 pm

     Thanks for the feedback. The program that has grown up at Teachers College since my years there is now called the Teachers College Reading and Writing Project, directed by Lucy Calkins. This program routinely draws 4500 K-8 teachers to its fall and spring Saturday Reunions (the next one is coming up on March 19) and offers some of the best professional development, nationwide, currently available in the teaching of reading and writing to elementary and middle school students. I would highly recommend taking a look at the TCRWP’s “units of study” in the teaching of reading and writing for an inspiring look at best practices at work for these grade levels.

     Reply
4. Laura says:

   January 24, 2016 at 6:32 pm

   But… where are the ipads??? (please read with sarcasm)

   So nice to see a shout-out for Peter Elbow’s techniques! I was very fortunate to have taken both of my “how to teach writing” courses in graduate school with a professor who was a strong devotee of Peter Elbow. These classes were so engaging and writing felt so effortless and rewarding that students loved these classes. I use many of the strategies that I learned in those classes in my own classes to this day.

   What I love most about Peter Elbow’s work is the focus on writing as a playful and exploratory process and the emphasis on the interchange between writers about writing. Writers in MFA programs spend much of their class time in workshop formats. Sure, there are writing hermits who hole up in a cabin in the woods and write, but for many people, the experience of sharing writing with peers is (if done with appropriate care and support) a delightful and motivating experience.

   In addition, there are important “soft skills” that are learned when students participate in the exchange of writing. They not only learn how to articulate their criticisms in constructive and accurate terms, but they learn to appreciate the differences in each unique person. Through writing, they have access to ideas and conversations that might be hard to bring up in the normal routine of life. Students also learn to be patient and to allow time for ideas to develop through revising and rewriting – the gratification of having written a piece of writing that they are satisfied with is something to worked towards with time and effort, not something that is achieved or bought instantly. Most importantly, students learn how to interact with each other in a way that requires both critical thinking and compassion, and that’s something that can’t be learned through any app or software program.

   Reply
   • Susan Lee Schwartz says:

     January 24, 2016 at 7:44 pm

     Loved Elbow. Learned from Caulkins and Graves, and a shout out to NANCY ATWELL whose IN THE MIDDLE was the inspiration of my own curricula and the Reader’s Letters that brought the real New Standards research teams to my classroom practice.

     Reply
   • jonathanlovell says:

     January 24, 2016 at 7:45 pm

     Thanks Laura. This is a great summary of the practical and emotional appeal of the Elbow techniques. I’m glad to hear that you are still using them, as the number of us who learned directly from Peter is, understandably, getting smaller and smaller.

     Peter is now retired and living with his wife Cami in a retirement community (a quite progressive one, you’ll not be surprised to learn) in Seattle. He can be reached at elbowpeter@gmail.com. I’m sure he be quite interested in hearing how you’ve used his techniques.

     Reply
5. ponderosa says:

   January 24, 2016 at 7:43 pm

   The teaching of writing and reading has reigned supreme in schools ever since I started teaching in the mid-90’s. When something has unquestioned dominance, it’s called a hegemony. Writing and reading (and math) are the hegemonic disciplines. It’s common to abandon teaching content in elementary schools in order to devote more time to writing and reading instruction. I think we’re making a fundamental mistake to put writing and reading front and center. Education should mainly be about dispelling ignorance. In the process, one acquires the knowledge one needs to be a good reader and writer. By privileging reading and writing, and soft pedaling or abandoning the task of dispelling ignorance, we end up with graduates who are ignorant of too much. This might be OK if they had acquired awesome writing and reading skills to compensate for their patchy understanding of the world. But the tragic thing is that they do not: for all the effort put into teaching reading and writing, we still graduate mediocre readers and writers. Why? Because you can’t be a good writer or reader unless you have knowledge of what you are writing or reading about. Since all writing or reading deals with the world we live in, the best writing and reading education is one that imparts knowledge of the world we live in. It’s time to reassess the current hegemonic position of writing and reading in the curriculum.

   Reply
   • ponderosa says:

     January 24, 2016 at 7:56 pm

     It seems to me that what Lovell and other writing teachers are doing is fine tuning. The heavy lifting of becoming a writer is acquiring knowledge –general knowledge (which imparts vocabulary knowledge and a sense of the world context), knowledge of language conventions, as well as the specific knowledge that pertains to the topic you’re writing about. Once the knowledge is in place, the writing can flow, at least roughly. Without the knowledge, no amount of compositional advice will yield a competent piece of writing. Thus we fixate and pour infinite resources into the fine tuning and ignore the heavy lifting part of making good writers.

     Reply
     • jonathanlovell says:

       January 24, 2016 at 8:03 pm

       Point taken, ponderosa. It would be fruitless to teach writing without also teaching something worth writing about. Same with reading.

     • Susan Lee Schwartz says:

       January 25, 2016 at 12:43 am

       I listen to all your arguments about what must be in place. So many opiniions among educators. NO wonder the poor parent is unable to figure out what learning looks like.

       Over a career that began in 1963, I taught writing in second grade, and in seventh grade, and many grades in between!

       OF course READING came first… ALONG WITH lots of speaking and listening!
       Oh my… listening, speaking, reading and THEN writing… where have I heard that.?

       All I did was put it all together for 13 year old kids, in a way they enjoyed, and if you ever read what they wrote for me, they got it! They figured out that the ideas came first, and the words came next, and later the spelling, and syntax, when they got it ready for a reader.

       It is no mystery!

       And by the way, when they graduated high school with honors, so many to them named me as the ONE who was the most influential, which is why I was included in Who’s Who Among Americna Teachers many times!

       And when my kids, went into the world, many wrote to me and said something like this: (from a letter from a former student now a writer and editor at a magazine):

       “This is almost unreal! I am so gad that I have this opportunity to share with you what an inspiration you have been and to apologize if we ever gave you a hard time (sometimes it takes time to realize how good something is).

       We speak so often and so highly of you since we graduated East Side Middle, we jumped out of our seats when Catherine told us she had been in touch with your son’s wife. We have stayed good friends (see pictures attached) and look back to the days in your class and know that you had such an enormous impact on or lives till this day. You encouraged us to be creative, patient and yet free, a most valuable lesson. We joke sometimes that your class was better than our sophomore year college literature class, but actually its no funny at all- its true. I still have the assignments you gave us and cherish them, and still remember the books you had us read. I remember feeling so confident in your class, a feeling no other teacher made me feel at that confusing time in a teenagers life. You combined a perfect balance of discipline and a genuine love of teaching young people, a quality which so many teachers lack in the public school systems and therefore deeply saddens me to hear that you are no longer teaching there.”
       Love, Jackie,

       It saddened me too when I came under attack at the end of a successful career, but I did not know in 1998 what was happening, as I do now..

       But, I knew how to teach kids to write, because I knew how to teach them to think, , and that was because they wanted to learn, TO BE WITH ME and thus, to learn.

       It was no accident that I was the cohort for Pew’s research. It was no accident that in the end, I had to be silenced. I have in my possession the National Standards final product…the Performance Standards, and all the evidence that shows exactly what must be in place for children to learn thinking skills, or any skill.

       If I can put it all together in a way that all of you can grasp, I will do so and present it at the NPE.

       But KNOW THIS: along with the Principles of LEARNING, I have a STORY TO TELL!
       I think THAT TOGETHER — the standards materials, the children’s work, and the incredible story of how they came after me – -AT THAT VERY MOMENT THAT MY PRACTICE DEFINED SUCCESSFUL *LEARNING* — demonstrates the enormous, conspiracy, like no other story out there.
       * notice I do not say TEACHING… that is THEIR WORD, THEIR CONVERSATION!

       the work that I did in my practice, and later with Pew and Harvard, is a revelation. It shows beyond a shadow of a doubt the PLAN to foist on the American people the products of the NCLB act, that sham curricula and a system evaluation that assess nothing and literally kills learning. THEY HAD TO SILENCE THE VOICE OF THE EXPERT… THE ONE WHO knows what will work in that classroom… and what will not!

       I hope I can do this. Everything I do, I do alone.
       I wish I had some help in putting together this workshop, because I know in my heart of hearts, that what I have is different, is absolutely fascinating, and is the REAL CORE of how learning occurs, the ingredients that must be present in any classroom , AND IN THE SCHOOL* for learning to happen.

       It is ALL about learning… isn’t it?

       * Did I forget to mention that only 4 of the principles are for teachers.? FOUR OF THEM ARE FOR THE ADMINISTRATION’S SUPPORT OF CLASSROOM PRACTICE, and no where is there a mention of TESTS.

   • Randal Hendee says:

     January 26, 2016 at 10:59 pm

     “The heavy lifting of becoming a writer is acquiring knowledge . . .”

     Very few writers (including biographers of writers) would agree with you. Everything I’ve learned from studying this topic over the years (and from personal experience) tells me that the “heavy lifting of becoming a writer” is the frequent practice of writing. And rewriting. The greatest writers tend to build their own writing on a foundation of deep and extensive reading. Knowing this, I can’t understand why a teacher would want to devalue the idea of literacy learning.

     According to Stephen King in his book On Writing: A Memoir of the Craft . . .

     “If you want to be a writer, you must do two things above all others: read a lot and write a lot. There’s no way around these two things that I’m aware of, no shortcut.”

     Reply
6. jonathanlovell says:

   January 24, 2016 at 7:58 pm

   I rather wish it were true that “the teaching of reading and writing has reigned supreme in schools” since whenever one chooses to name a date, but in fact there is still about a ten to one ratio of federal and state funding devoted to reading instruction as opposed to writing instruction. And while there are programs that divorce these skills from content, that’s not been the approach of either the Teachers College Reading and Writing Project or the National Writing Project.

   Reply
7. Ponderosa says:

   January 24, 2016 at 9:10 pm

   It seems to me that the condiments are being served up as the entree. Do you think this might be the case?

   Reply
   • Ponderosa says:

     January 24, 2016 at 9:30 pm

     Shouldn’t it raise a red flag that, given the massive mobilization to teach reading and writing over the past twenty years, we’ve seen almost no gains? Shouldn’t this prompt a profession-wide self-examination?

     Reply
8. jonathanlovell says:

   January 24, 2016 at 10:17 pm

   I’ve had almost no direct experience with reading or writing programs divorced from content, Ponderosa, so really couldn’t say. Seems to me that programs like California’s Expository Reading and Writing Course are now the norm rather than the exception. On the flat test scores, I tend to side with David Berliner that poverty and inequality matter more than schools and teachers, however “massive” the mobilization (see http://www.tcrecord.org/Content.asp?ContentId=16889 and http://www.schoolsmatter.info/2012/10/david-berliner-on-inequality-poverty.html)

   Reply
9. ponderosa says:

   January 25, 2016 at 1:04 am

   You’re very kind to answer my churlish questions. I hope you won’t feel obliged to answer these further questions.

   Of course all writing must have content. But most curricula I’ve looked at treat the content as mere grist for the writing mill. The aim is to get better at writing, not to embed content knowledge in the brain. When was the last time you heard a principal say, “Our kids need to learn more history!”? It seems every professional development session we get is on teaching writing (if it’s not about technology). Principals love to adopt sprawling writing curricula like Lucy Calkins’ Units of Study –lesson after unproven lesson that fills up the school year with content-indifferent activities, eating up time that could be devoted to, say, teaching geography. Only half of my 13 year old students know what county they live in. Most do not know who their representatives are and the majority do not know that Jerry Brown is our governor. No one is alarmed by this. But there is a perennial urgency to improving writing, reading and critical thinking skills. Common Core ratifies this indifference to content. Any content will do. The main event is skills.

   All of this skills practice probably fine tunes kids’ limited capacities to write, read and think critically. But it does nothing to expand the scope of those abilities. The number of essays written by American students about the advisability of the school dress code is now approaching 100,000,000. Only acquiring knowledge can expand a students’ scope. Upper class kids will acquire some of that missing knowledge from home (though I’ve met a couple Ivy League professors who complains that their students, while sharp, “know nothing”). But poor kids will not, and so they are cheated by schools’ benighted devaluation of knowledge. It seems to me that skills-instruction should be the hand-maiden of knowledge-transmission, not the other way around.

   Reply
10. jonathanlovell says:

    January 25, 2016 at 1:24 am

    Food for thought Ponderosa, food for thought. Let me ponder your concerns a bit more tonight (and good to learn that you teach 7th grade–my own favorite of my ten years years of public schooling in Newton Massachusetts–and in California). I’ll answer you tomorrow. And your questions are not churlish, just provocative.

    Reply
11. m4potw says:

    January 25, 2016 at 4:15 am

    Hi Susan, Ponderosa, and jonathanlovell:

    I love to repeat words of wisdom from Susan:

    [start sentences]

    They figured out that the IDEAS came FIRST, and the WORDS came NEXT and LATER the SPELLING, and SYNTAX, when they got it ready for a reader.

    [end sentence]

    In short, ideas come from experiences (creativity, or good guidance from teachers); words come from reading (= vocabulary); finally, spelling and syntax (=grammar, or theory in writing, or imitate from good book/novel/…)

    To Ponderosa:

    You only express half truth because there are many politicians, political advisers, journalists, political activists whose writings did not carry out their own living-in experiences, but only hears and says from their observation or intentionally manipulated sources or their own intensified imagination of their privileges’ point of view.

    To jonathanlovell:

    That is called the flair in writing to catch readers’ interest = Gaining (…?)

    Academic writing is a theory of technique in writing, whereas experienced writing is truly emotional and intellectual writing. For instance, in music, we can truly appreciate the meaningful and experienced lyric in a song.

    In short, it will take time to teach and to learn, but the ultimate important aspect is the JOY in teaching and learning from humanistic education = NO STRESS, and NO FEAR.
    Back2basic

    Reply
12. jonathanlovell says:

    January 25, 2016 at 2:16 pm

    Thanks David.

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Enter your comment here...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

Email (required) (Address never made public)

Name (required)

Website

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out /  Change )

You are commenting using your Google account. ( Log Out /  Change )

You are commenting using your Twitter account. ( Log Out /  Change )

You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out /  Change )

Cancel

Connecting to %s

Notify me of new comments via email.

Notify me of new posts via email.