BCR Quick Take: The "Reading Street" curriculum issue we addressed here a few weeks ago continues to percolate -- and may reach a hotter temperature at tonight's school board meeting, when parents opposed to the basal reading series plan to make a visible stand against the curriculum. A parents group has organized, and cites a study paid for by the curriculum's publisher as evidence that "Reading Street" doesn't work.
But DPS school board members Kirsten Kainz and Leigh Bordley, self-described initial skeptics on test-heavy centralized educational programs, criticize the parents' study-citation as a "cherry picking" of data (a fear that the study's author also raises) -- and, in fact, the study cited by parents appears to compare Reading Street to basal reading series like it, not to the old status quo style of literacy instruction used at DPS. Kainz and Bordley also argue that more centralized curricula and testing are important tools to address the challenges of a large school district where too many children end up unable to read.
Is centralized curricular planning and intensive testing a path to make sure all Durham's children have equal access to education? Do these programs stifle the best teachers and the best students -- and even if they do, does that outweigh their benefits to less-affluent populations?
~ ~ ~
It may have dropped off of the front pages of the newspaper, but anyone who thinks that the issues surrounding the "Reading Street" basal reading series have disappeared may have another thing coming.
DPS administrators initially characterized the opposition to the program -- which prescribes a much more formal, and fixed, curriculum for literacy instruction that gives teachers and students less autonomy in the early grades -- as being limited to Club Blvd.'s magnet school program.
But a range of parents from throughout the DPS system, inside and well beyond the borders of Club Blvd., have begun to organize around their opposition to the broad adoption of the classroom materials.
Almost 75 parents are now signed up to the "Concerned Parents" list, and the group has started a web site, the DPS Parents Advocacy blog, as a focal point for their worries over the program's selection and implementation.
A number of these parents are planning to make a stand on the issue at the Fuller St. administration building on Thursday for the public comment period, hoping to get traction for their concerns -- some of which have appeared in the form of two letters to DPS superintendent Carl Harris and members of the school board.
The Parents' Issues
In their open letters to school leaders, the parents have picked a range of concerns and alternatives that the group would like to see pursued; these include:
- Worries over the rapid implementation of the program with little opportunity to get buy-in from teachers
- A desire for more support for teachers, including extra training for teachers identified as unsuccessful in literacy instruction
- Bemoaning the loss of "authentic literature," with age-appropriate, teacher-selected materials feared crowded out by standardized reading samples in the curriculum
- Restoring the Reading Recovery program for students having trouble reading
- Lowering the size of K-5 classrooms
- Minimizing paperwork and overhead to allow teachers time to focus on classroom instruction
Another key concern that underlies much of the discussion: the impact of the changes on teachers, both directly through the program's arrival, and indirectly through the controversy that Reading Street has stirred up.
Certainly a key concern of parents seems to lie in their assertions that teachers are being given a curriculum that has little flexibility, mandating specific time blocks (as short as ten minutes) for activities that instructors have complained are by necessity more prescribed than before.
The DPS administration by all accounts has worked to promulgate so-called "flexibility guidelines" after the initial controversy; these guidelines open the door for more supplementary materials to be used in the program, and for the time blocks to be at least a bit less rigid than initially described. Some teachers, and the Durham Association of Educators' president, have seemed satisfied by these changes; others describe them as largely cosmetic.
Some of the other complaints floating out in the community about the program -- and its adoption -- range widely. One parent claims that some teachers were given what she described as a "gag order" not to discuss the program any further with parents. Another noted reports that state-mandated recess time had been (erroneously) cut into by a school, which wasn't sure where else to get needed instructional time.
Another shared that when she inquired about more integration of social sciences into the curriculum, a principal at her elementary school mentioned that teachers could use that material as supplementary reading in Reading Street -- but added the principal "seemed to minimize" the issue, noting that social studies isn't tested at end-of-year and thus can't be part of the curriculum for the grade in question.
Is Reading Street Effective?
The most buzzworthy of the parents group's complaints, however, has been the assertion -- made somewhat boldly at the beginning of their second letter to the school system -- that Reading Street doesn't work. The DPSPA group quotes from an independent efficacy study of the program conducted by a third-party firm (Magnolia Consulting) hired by Scott Foresman.
As the parents note:
The study found that students in Reading Street classrooms performed worse than students in the control group classrooms. According to the report, “whether a student participated in the Reading Street program did not have a significant effect on reading performance measured by the GMRT-4 or DIBELS gain scores. While students in the control classrooms gained more than students in Reading Street programs did, it is important to note that the effect sizes for these analyses were extremely small, -0.003 and -0.06, respectively, and represented less than one- and three-point percentile differences."
It's an assertion that has drawn much of the attention given the issue by parents, given its placement among the group's complaints, and the obvious question it raises about why DPS is pursuing its current path. (Worth noting: the curriculum was actually purchased by DPS several years ago, and implemented in response to a literacy program audit with national experts, who urged the use of a standardized reading program.)
But it's by no means clear that the study cited does, in fact, go as far as one might imply from the arguments made in the parents' letter.
While the study as cited talks about essentially no improvement with Reading Street over a control group, however, the "control group" in question is in fact a series of other basal reader programs from other vendors -- not what one might think of as less-structured, teacher-centric reading and literacy curricula.
Comparing the "control group" here to the status quo in place in DPS in previous years, that is to say, is an apples-to-oranges story.
When looking at the amount of before-and-after growth that students using Reading Street experienced, the Magnolia study notes:
Students in the first, second, and third grades who participated in the Reading Street program demonstrated significant learning gains during the study period. These gains were large, they were documented with different measures, and they were evident by the middle of the year.
Magnolia Consulting's president, Stephanie Baird Wilkerson, replied directly to the DPSPA group's concern as a comment on their blog:
The studies did not find that students in Reading Street performed worse than control students. There were no statistically significant main effects between treatment and comparison groups that would support this claim or the claim that the program was not effective. If you say the Reading Street program is “not effective,” you also would have to say the comparison programs [that is, other basal readers, not less-structured teaching methods --BCR] were equally ineffective. Or, you could say they were equally “effective” at promoting student gains in reading, but it is inaccurate to say that one was more effective or ineffective than the other. Groups performed comparably, even though Reading Street teachers had only used the program for one year. Saying the programs were ineffective would imply that students actually showed decreases in student achievement, which was not the case for either group.
The parents' group response to Wilkersn notes, among other things, their concern that long-range studies of effectiveness of this program are still underway; they also debate whether the sample of schools studied by Magnolia reflected the level of low-performing schools and high ESL schools found in DPS.
In an interview this week, school board member Kirsten Kainz -- a statistician by trade, and a faculty member at UNC's FPG Child Development Institute -- noted that she was "disappointed" by what she felt was a cherry-picking of the Magnolia study's data in a way that best met the DPSPA group's assertions.
"It's not that the report didn't provide information," Kainz said. "These are two findings from a report that cites at least fifty findings on child outcomes."
What's This Really About?
Lest a reader think this debate described above is a policy wonk's war of attrition, dueling over results and outcomes -- well, it's not.
This whole discussion boils down to issues that go far deeper than Reading Street.
Fundamentally, the flashpoint of this one program is really a sign of a much larger debate about what approach DPS takes vis a vis the role of in-classroom teachers, and how to balance empowerment and autonomy for teachers with the central district's mission of ensuring that every child learns.
And to the extent this discussion comes back to the much-debated No Child Left Behind standards rolled out in the last decade, it's because those standards mandate severe consequences for schools and systems that fail to meet standardized test goals -- goals that have DPS at least refocusing on ensuring outcomes that guarantee at least a certain threshold of achievement and success to all students.
Those might be the students who have been in the poorest schools, or have had the least-capable teachers -- and who haven't performed to expectations in the way that higher-SES children at less-challenged schools.
One parent who had a chance to meet with DPS administrators about Reading Street summed up the conversation thusly:
[DPS is] really struggling with the fact that district wide, there are schools with pockets of really successful teachers whose kids are learning, but those same schools have pockets where kids aren't. One thing they talked about toward the end was a new process of data-gathering and reporting to principals about "growth rates"… meant to help direct resources, professional development, etc. to teachers who need the most help. Embedded in this was the sense that sure, there are many good teachers who don't need Reading Street to ensure their kids learn to read. But there are also teachers who need a program and need to stick with it so their kids learn the core stuff. So at present, they're going with this core program in all schools and all classrooms to ensure everyone is teaching the basics, and then building from there.
That's a point which, nuances aside, seems would get little disagreement from some members of the school board.
Empowerment and Equity - Can They Be Reconciled?
Seven years ago, the school board's Kainz says, she would have made "some snarky, righteously indignant statement" about standardized tests and evaluations.
But her views have changed based on her time on the school board, she said. She could check in with her own children to see if they're on track educationally, but "that's next to impossible to do with 32,000 students."
Fellow school board member Leigh Bordley said the battle over Reading Street boils down to a question of "how willing you are to consider test scores as something that we should care about and work to improve."
"I came into the board as someone who was really skeptical about the value of test scores, and talked for years about how bad it was to teach to the test," Bordley told BCR in an interview this week, describing her onetime view of these as a "Republican concept foisted upon the public schools."
"We've got 32,000 kids we have to educate, and we've got to monitor to see if they've mastered the material," she said.
E.K. Powe parent Jen Minnelli, an active member of the DPSPA group, had a different opinion on the subject in an interview.
"As a parent, I don't keep track of scores," Minnelli told BCR. "The way I made my choice about where I was going to send my daughter... is I went into the school, and I looked how the teacher was teaching."
"I don't know really individually how students are performing. But I see kids that are happy, kids that are excited about learning," she continued. "They don't need basal readers. They need literature, and they need critical thinking, and community building, and all those wonderful things we really love" in her school.
To Bordley, however, the tests are a sign of whether students have mastered the NC Dept. of Public Instruction's curriculum -- and if they can't pass the literacy tests, it means they haven't mastered the basic skills expected.
Bordley took issue with frequently-heard concerns over measurement-based education, including crowding-out of extracurriculars and the impact on students' feelings if they don't pass a test.
"You can't love school if you can't read. We have to teach our children how to read well in the early grades, or it doesn't matter how much drama, how much enrichment we have in some subject areas," Bordley said.
"It doesn't matter how many smiley-face stickers we give them. They know if they can't read," she added, in challenging oft-heard concerns over self-esteem impact heard from opponents of standardized testing in general. "It dooms them to failure. And we cannot do that to our kids."
One issue sure to crop up in the discussion: are these programs needed for the children in AIG (advanced/gifted) programs in the district?
Minnelli echoed a theme that's come up in many parental discussions about Reading Street: that these programs don't help children in programs like AIG, and if anything just take time away from their ability to take on more challenging curricula.
"Regardless of whether it was Scott Foresman Reading Street, or whatever the teacher was doing last year, or whether we home schooled -- my daughter would probably do fine. So I just don't think you can rubber-stamp this program on every child in Durham."
Minnelli stressed her concern over the fact that this program was mandated for use across Durham's schools, overriding the plans of the best teachers -- a point that's raised dissatisfaction and impacted morale among teachers, some parents have complained, and which they fear might lead to a flight of Durham's top teachers to other school districts.
But Kainz noted that -- at least as measured by end-of-year testing outcomes -- she wasn't convinced that even students in AIG programs were necessarily performing at the levels of growth she would expect.
Kainz added that DPS, like most districts, is getting "more sophisticated" in its use and analysis of data, including the ability to track student outcomes based both on student characteristics and assigned classroom.
And she pressed the point that the district had to have a way to help the students who were mired in non-performing classrooms.
"People want to talk about diversity, and autonomy, and freedom and
creativity," Kainz said. "But if what they turn into is disparity, then it's
important for a district" to get to the root of that disparity and correct it.
A Silver Lining?
There's little doubt that this issue has galvanized a core group of parents -- even if we at BCR sense some fretting that the parents in question represent largely the most affluent and socially capitalized in the system, a point that brings up the question of whether Reading Street, and the other more-formalized curricula that may follow, will better serve the great majority of DPS students, if not those in extremis.
In fact, the parents' group is reaching out to Durham Congregations, Associations and Neighborhoods (CAN) organizer Ivan Parra for help in focusing their arguments and approach to the matter.
It was an involvement that drew praise from Kainz, who like many of her colleagues was concerned that the community-organizing group focused on facilities and school temperatures in their lobbying of DPS earlier this spring. (Kainz noted in an interview that she had been "heartbroken" that CAN hadn't focused on test scores and performance in schools instead.)
"Despite some of the hard feelings and the difficulties, i think some of these parents that are concerned brought an issue to community awareness, that now means more people are taking about literacy in the Durham Public Schools than ever before," Kainz said.
My greatest concern with this new program is that it appears to be aimed entirely at bringing kids up to grade level, ignoring the needs of kids who are already there. Teachers are not allowed to make accomodations for AIG students, and this is wrong.
I have a child in 1st grade at Easley Elem. His teacher has told me in the past 2 weeks that she knows when she is teaching the class that it is not doing my son any good because he already knows the material. We are left to try to move him along on our own at night and on the weekend, and may have to consider skipping 2nd grade to get him up to more appropriate and challenging material.
Handcuffing teachers like this is not right - they need to have the flexibility to provide challenging materials that are appropriate for students who are ahead or behind the curve. Teaching the test is a poor excuse for education.
Posted by: Todd P | September 24, 2009 at 11:51 AM
"Bordley took issue with frequently-heard concerns over measurement-based education, including crowding-out of extracurriculars and the impact on students' feelings if they don't pass a test."
Crowding-out of extracurriculars? Since when did SCIENCE and SOCIAL STUDIES become extracurricular?? Parents are NOT complaining about loosing drama. We're complaining about the very little time that science, social studies, and EVEN WRITING, yes WRITING has in the school week.
We are NOW in the FIFTH week of school and neither my 1st grader or 4th grader has had writing instruction. Yes, the kids are doing very basic journaling, but in years past there has been at least one writing lesson by now. The district pacing guide NOW lumps writing into a once a quarter activity. So instead of getting writing EVERY day they now are going to get an overload of writing once a quarter for a week or two. Middle & High School students, and most adults write EVERY day. Not once a quarter! Fourth grade is the first year there is a "writing test" that is administered the scores are tracked. I can't wait to compare last year's scores with scores in Spring 2010. I wonder if the district will pay for the tutoring my 4th grader will probably need to catch up in writing next summer.
NC DPI requires that in 4th grade North Carolina Social Studies is taught. The 4th grade teachers at our school (one of the schools w/ a higher SES) are still trying to figure out when and where they can fit in social studies. The district doesn't seemed to be worried that my 4th grader won't learn what the NC DPI requires in social studies BECAUSE it's NOT ON THE TEST!
Science was a special in our school last year. But now has been cut because of budget reasons and with the new schedule there is not enough time in the week to include science. My 1st grader's teacher said that the 2 field trips this year will be science related because with the DPS mandated schedule changes this year there just isn't as much time to fit it in the class.
I realize there is A LOT of snark in my comments. But I think Kainz and Bordley are over looking that the very parents who are involved in this issue ARE concerned about not just about their children but ALL of Durham's students. We VERY MUCH want to see children reading and writing on grade level. But you don't achieve this by alienating teachers, filling Kindergarten & First grade classes with 25 plus kids, and driving middle class families from the district. I volunteer at my children's school working with the kids who don't read at grade level. MANY of the parents who have reached out to the district and voiced our concerns are involved volunteers at schools, helping children who usually are not our own.
It's not just the basal reader from Reading Street. DPS mandates that the literacy block be either 120 minutes or 150 minutes based on the school. While getting a 4th or 5th grader to focus just on literacy for 150 minutes may not seem like a big deal, First Graders are also mandated to have the same length of literacy blocks. My children have told me that they can not get up and go to the bathroom during these blocks, without repercussions. 120 minutes is a VERY long time for a 6 / 7 year old to focus on literacy or anything for that matter. Sometimes a quick 5 min break outside resets the mind and gets it ready for learning again. The teachers do NOT have this flexibility. If a 6 year old is not reading at grade level how is he/she suppose to have magically gotten the gift of being able to focus for 120 minutes. I imagine that even those kids at grade level will be challenged by this.
Posted by: Withheld to protect our school and teachers | September 24, 2009 at 12:34 PM
This one size fits all approach is why my kids are in private school. Although I certainly appreciate that we need to get all students performing at grade level, I think the lack of attention paid to our smartest, highest performing students is really sad. These are our future leaders and we just assume they'll be fine while we focus all our attention on the lowest performers.
Posted by: Laura | September 24, 2009 at 12:52 PM
"She could check in with her own children to see if they're on track educationally, but 'that's next to impossible to do with 32,000 students.'"
I could very easily interpret this [and an earlier statement attributed to both Kainz and Bordley] as a statement that the DPS system is too large to manage effectively. Is that an admission that the Board [and the DPS administration] are poor managers, or should we be exploring splitting the system into managable portions?
Posted by: Steve Nicewarner | September 24, 2009 at 02:05 PM
Drill, Drill, Test, Drill, Test, Measure, Measure and Measure again with real time data coming on a ticker tape into each classroom. It is very sad that with millions on the line with "race to the top" federal money and millions more available from private foundations ALL requiring a data driven approach to education it seems that DPS feels that it does not really need or care about middle class families who want a more balanced education for their children.
Posted by: JAP | September 24, 2009 at 02:28 PM
Great post, Kevin. You are providing a very important service to the community in doing this type of in-depth coverage.
It seems to me that the problem lies not entirely in the Reading Street basal reader program, but to a large extent in how it has been implemented. Wouldn't it have been possible to use Reading Street in a more targeted way, specifically to support teachers who are struggling with teaching kids to read? As a manager, why would you impose a single, standard method across the board, even on your top teaching performers? And if it's a good program, why would it be necessary to squelch criticism of it among the professionals hired to teach our kids?
This is part of the reason my kids are at a public charter school. It's not perfect, but at least has an identifiable educational philosophy, and is able to implement that approach locally.
Posted by: Toby | September 25, 2009 at 12:25 AM
Kevin, thank you again for a thoughtful approach on this issue. One thing you didn't touch on is that DPS has a history of these one-size-fits-all programs. They also have a very top-down approach to decision-making. Often they do not talk to the end-users (Teachers) about how these things will actually work in classrooms and then they are genuinely surprised when they don't get the expected results. I read this blog post yesterday that describes the difference between schools being data-driven and data-informed.
http://larryferlazzo.edublogs.org/2009/08/26/data-driven-versus-data-informed/
At this point it seems DPS is data-driven and data-scared.
Posted by: DKay | September 25, 2009 at 05:56 AM
Thanks for your coverage, Kevin. More thoughtful well-researched responses from concerned parents will be posted soon on www.dpsparentadvocacy.wordpress.com.
Posted by: love2Ckidsplay | September 25, 2009 at 11:51 AM
Can anyone tell me where the concerned parents were two years ago? Am I correct that this program was adopted two years ago after being reviewed by groups of teachers, parents and central offices? Please let me know if I am wrong.
Mike
Posted by: Mike | September 25, 2009 at 01:41 PM
Mike, the Reading Street curriculum wasn't fully implemented two years ago. It was sprung on the schools four days before the school year opened this fall. Teachers were not trained how to use it; they were instead effectively told that all the work they had done all summer to prepare for the year was useless as they would have to use the Reading Street materials exclusively.
The reading materials are super boring. The math materials, on the other hand, move WAY too quickly. New concepts are introduced every single day, and some of the children can't handle it. It's really kind of bizarre.
Teachers have been told that AIG children who are reading far above grade level still have to use the basal readers. Once they've finished reading the boring stories included, they can read authentic literature like the Beverly Cleary books. How is this going to produce great students?
Obviously DPS has a big problem. The Bull City won't really have risen until the schools no longer scare off middle class parents and the children who are currently under performing actually learn to read, write, and do math. Not all teachers are top performers. Some kids do need a highly scripted curriculum, just as some teachers need the structure that such a curriculum provides. But to include no flexibility, to ignore data that the district claims it has on teachers whose students are scoring well on the tests, and to alienate parents is bad policy.
Sadly, if the district sticks to this curriculum, we'll be leaving Durham within a year or two. It's not fair to my kids to stay, and this breaks my heart.
Posted by: A concerned parent | September 25, 2009 at 02:41 PM
Thanks for the input. My sons principal told us that DPS said there is room for flexibility. So who am I to believe? What really upset me during this PTA meeting was a few of the "concerned parents" were chit-chatting most likely making snide comments about the program while my sons principal was speaking. They certainly were not setting a good impression on all the children in attendance.
I'm not happy with the way the curriculum was sprung on the teachers this year right before school started, it should of happened before summer started to give teachers the time to adjust. Still I want to know why was it approved two years ago by parents,teachers and central offices if it was so horrible.
I'm with you on the DPS has HUGE issues! Heck, I knew that the day I moved here twelve years ago.
Posted by: Mike | September 25, 2009 at 03:01 PM
Thanks, all, for the intelligent feedback on this story. A few thoughts -- in which I'm going to wade into my own opinions on this one.
First: I think it's worth teasing out that there are multiple issues at play here:
- Is Reading Street -- or basal readers in general -- effective at all? I don't go into this in the story, but there seems to be evidence in the Magnolia report to suggest that, yes, this/these may be effective from the literacy teaching method perspective, even an improvement on other non-basal approaches. BUT, as many have pointed out, the longer-range studies on this aren't in, and there are some clouds hanging over the assessments in some cases for political/NCLB reasons.
- Even if a method is effective, should it be used universally across schools for all kids? This issue strikes me as one to which there is likely much natural skepticism, especially a standard deviation or two from the norm on both sides (AIG and ESL/EC programs.) To my mind, this seems to be where DPS is open to the most criticism.
- Should standardized testing matter? Some voices in the debate over education today take strong positions on this. Personally, if I knew that standardized testing outcomes on reading correlated highly with youth actually being able to read -- and that failing scores on these tests pointed out kids with reading difficulties -- then I'd see value. I've not looked at the studies, however. I do think there is a risk in the view that testing outcomes don't matter because kids grow and learn at their own paces. I worry about that less for kids coming from homes and backgrounds where their families are committed to -- and have the knowledge and skills to -- help their kids be successful in school.
- Should teachers have the choice over what they teach in the classroom? Teachers out there are going to kill me over this, but in my own opinion, I can't give an unqualified yes to this one. There are plenty of talented and creative and devoted teachers who can and do demonstrate great outcomes when developing and following through with excellent lesson plans. Are there enough teachers at that skill level, available to teach, and able to provide at least a baseline educational experience for all students? I can't believe the answer there is yes. Nor can I believe that there are enough principals and mentors to support every teacher in their classroom.
Much of the debate so far on Reading Street has come from parents concerned it is keeping their children from reaching their highest potential. They raise a good point (particularly relative to the universal application of the program.)
Personally, though, I've yet to see the argument made vis a vis whether this program is an efficacious way of making sure *all* children reach at least the most basic level of literacy in English and in mathematics that they need to be functioning, productive, self-supporting, healthy members of society. I'd like to see more exploration of this issue -- the issue that fundamentally explains why public education is so necessary in the first place.
When thinking of a curriculum as ensuring minimum competency, to my knowledge we've not heard the debate between what boils down to an argument over whether teachers left to their own devices can ensure the success of children without a more standardized course of study.
Posted by: Bull City Rising | September 26, 2009 at 08:22 AM
Thanks, Kevin.
Your thoughtful reporting on this issue is a gift to Durham.
I have to think that one of the primary reasons for implementing this curriculum swiftly, strictly, and across the board tossing aside any previously successful programs is that it is impossible for DPS, Magnolia, or any other unbiased consultant to measure the results of reading street unless DPS can guarantee that teachers are actually adhering to the curriculum.
This is not a just a Durham issue- it is a national trend. Aldine, ISU, Texas was recently named the "Best Urban School System in America" winning the prestigious Broad prize. They have had incredible success raising test scores for previously underperforming students.
Please read some of the articles here:
http://susanohanian.org/outrage_fetch.php?id=594
to learn about their methods.
Is this where we are heading with DPS? If so, we will resegregate the schools due to data flight and many families will want to consider the cost of an independent school before deciding to buy a house in Durham.
Is this really what is best for ANY of our children? Notice that though they coax good scores on TX standardized tests for reading and math the SAT scores have declined.
Posted by: JAP | September 26, 2009 at 10:51 AM
@JAP: Thanks for the kind words.
I've come across Susan Ohanian's blog in the past when researching educational issues, particularly NCLB. My best summation of what I've found there is that, if every student could have a teacher as well-prepared and dedicated as Ms. Ohanian, I don't think our schools would have any problems with getting students to succeed.
The impossibility of that happening is, I suspect, unable to be overcome -- and which is why I'm not prepared to accept the thesis that there's no value in assessment or standardization (though I very much acknowledge the point of what long-term data we have to support, or not, the trend we're following in education.)
An interesting (if extreme) counterpoint to Ohanian's perspective on teachers can be found in an article by The New Yorker this summer: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/08/31/090831fa_fact_brill.
Posted by: Bull City Rising | September 26, 2009 at 11:08 AM
This post is awesome,ecpecting the newest!!!LIKE IT LIKE IT LIKE IT!!!
Posted by: Timberland UK | November 26, 2011 at 02:15 PM