Archive for May, 2012
We call ourselves a “community that cares.” When we answer the phone, we always say, “Room 17, a community that cares.”
In Mary Shorey’s classroom, literacy learning goes hand-in-hand with amazing thinking about social issues, inquiry, and working together as a community toward common goals. In Many Texts, Many Voices, Penny Silvers teams with Mary to share innovative practices from Mary’s primary classrooms over a period of several years.
Whether responding to Hurricane Katrina, protecting bald eagles, or participating in biography book clubs, Mary’s students are always incorporating multidisciplinary themes and multiliteracies—digital, visual, and critical—into traditional literacy tasks. You’ll see students who:
- meet in small inquiry groups to pursue topics that interest them;
- think and talk together about important social issues;
- examine perspectives, consider alternate points of view, ask critical questions, and take social action;
- use technology such as wikis, blogs, and podcasts to achieve their goals.
Numerous appendixes provide checklists, graphic organizers, and rubrics.
Many Texts, Many Voices will be ready to ship in mid-June. You can pre-order and preview the entire book online now!
May 31st, 2012
This week we have a great post from teacher educator Maureen Barbieri. She has written for the Stenhouse Blog before, reviewing Waiting for Superman and sharing the story of an inspirational writing group. After working as a teacher, principal, and literacy coach for many years, Maureen currently teaches literacy courses at the University of New Hampshire, volunteers at a local elementary school, and takes care of two young grandchildren every week.
We would love to hear your thoughts on summertime reading. How do you encourage your students to keep reading during the summer months? What has worked for you and what hasn’t?
It happens every year around this time. School children seem more restless wishing that recess, in schools that still have recess, could last a little bit longer. No doubt about it: summer is coming, and the kids are counting down the days. Teachers too. The ones I work with tell me they’re looking forward, more than anything else, to some long stretches of reading time.
Teachers also wonder about their students’ “summer slide,” a common term for the loss of academic progress children have made since September. One of the biggest concerns, of course, is reading proficiency. Teachers hope against hope that students will maintain the gains they’ve made and start the new school year with sustained passion for reading. Towards this end, some schools initiate summer challenges. How many books can each child read over the summer? How will we recognize the effort? Who will read the most?
Of course, we wish our children would all be like Scout Finch in Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird who says, “Until I feared I would lose it, I did not love to read. One does not love breathing.” We want our kids to see reading the way Scout does.
In some towns, libraries organize reading initiatives, offering prizes to children who read books. Where I live, children are asked to keep track of the minutes they spend reading. Then, if they’ve read a fair amount of time, they’re given a coupon for ice cream cones, pizza, or cups of chowder. In the fall, at the high school’s first football game, there is a halftime ceremony to applaud their achievement. Students who have participated in the library’s reading program are invited onto the field at halftime for recognition, to the delight of their parents. Other libraries have wall charts, where students’ names are posted and stars given for each book completed.
I have been intrigued by Daniel Pink’s book, Drive: The Surprising Truth about What Motivates Us, which details several longitudinal studies that indicate human beings’ tendency to be unaffected or even turned off by extrinsic rewards. What really inspires people, Pink explains, what actually fosters more productivity, is autonomy, the chance to create something at one’s own speed, in one’s own way. Pay raises or other external carrots often have a negligible effect on workers’ motivation. I’ve been wondering how his research relates to children’s desire to read. Shouldn’t children want to read because it’s just about the most satisfying thing in the world to do with one’s mind? Pink says, “In environments where extrinsic rewards are most salient, many people work only to the point that triggers the reward –and no further. So if students get a prize for reading three books, many won’t pick up a fourth.” (page 58)
Teachers I know agree. “The trouble with giving kids stickers for every book they read,” says one, “is that pretty soon they want two stickers or three, insisting that’s the only way they’ll read.” Exactly what we don’t want to happen. We can almost hear their reasoning, “If reading is so great, why do I need a bribe?” Teachers want to help students become confident, joyful readers, to see the myriad ways reading can change and enhance our lives, to be able to stretch and roam and celebrate the whole arc of human experience, one book at a time. A sticker for reading a book? A star? A coupon? Are we crazy?
“But sometimes these reading competitions get the kids into the library,” one reading specialist insists. True, and this is obviously a great thing. But, as Francie Nolan in A Tree Grows in Brooklyn knows, the trip to the library with its implicit invitation to take books home, should be its own reward. Our library has story hours every week, one for toddlers, and one for older children. It’s this kind of experience that can entice a child, from earliest days, to know in her bones that there’s nothing in this world as magical as a good story.
One of my University of New Hampshire students argues that rewards like stickers or coupons might be a good way to get a reluctant reader to read. “If the person who doesn’t like to read just hasn’t found the right book yet,” he says, “then maybe the reward is a way to put the book in his hands and get him to try it.”
Another student who tutors elementary students in reading insists that for struggling readers, lollipops are great inducements. “At least in the beginning, I have to have that carrot to offer. This doesn’t last long though; once they see how great reading can be, they’re off and running. Reading a chapter book is something they clamor to do.” Much as I want to stand with Daniel Pink, Scout Finch, and Francie Nolan, my students stop me in my tracks and remind me that all children are different.
A librarian friend describes what goes on in her library. During the summer, the place is jumping. Families come often and stay for various events, including magic shows and concerts. There is a sense of community here. Older students keep track of how many hours they’ve read, and the person who reads the most wins a Kindle. Younger students win smaller prizes, based also on the number of minutes they’ve read. One year they all read detective stories, so every reader won mustaches, badges, or dark glasses. Other years the library has given children coupons for pizzas.
While I’m not a fan of these prizes, I do like the focus on minutes read. The problem with reading competitions that reward kids for the number of books completed is that they tend to privilege fast readers. The more books read, the better, right? For children who already love to read and who read fairly quickly, the competition becomes a game, something fun, another feather in the cap. But for those who struggle or just prefer to meander through their stories more carefully, savoring every moment, why then the competition will be nothing more than a frustrating distraction or, worse, reinforcement of the notion that they are simply “not good readers.” We never want a child to feel judged by how fast he or she reads or to have reading be something intimidating. Slow reading, on the other hand, is more deliberate, more purposeful, more thoughtful, as Tom Newkirk argues in his new book, The Art of Slow Reading: “. . . it has to do with the relationship we have with what we read, with the quality of attention that we bring to our reading, with the investment we are willing to make.” (page 2) Why is it better to read ten books over the summer than to read three or four, reflect on what they mean to us, and hold them in our memories? Perhaps, as Newkirk suggests, we should all slow down a bit.
When my librarian friend describes the giant white board where kids who check out books write their names, and how proud they are to do that, I am reminded of Frank Smith’s notion of “joining the literacy club.” Librarians here know their patrons and chat with them about what they’ve read lately, making suggestions about what they might like to try next. Clearly, in her library, reading is a social enterprise. This kind of encouragement feels natural and right. As summer vacation approaches, I’ve heard other good ideas.
At a Maine high school, students going into a sophomore AP writing class will get together to choose four books to read over the summer, but they won’t write traditional book reports – what a friend calls “book autopsies” – on these. Instead, they’ll meet with their new teacher four times in small groups during the summer to discuss the books.
A colleague in Brooklyn describes a similar plan. Charts are posted in the corridors with book titles in boxes. Students and teachers sign up to read and agree to meet at appointed times to share their reactions. The key here is, students choose which group to join, based on the book title, and the time and place of the group meeting.
Finally, at one local elementary school, teachers help children choose books to borrow over the summer. Knowing the kids as well as they do, they’re able to suggest specific books for each student. They pack these into little canvas bags. “We lose some books,” the reading specialist tells me, “but it’s worth it.” Letters are sent home with the books, suggesting other titles the child might like, urging families to make reading a daily ritual during the summer months.
Nothing quite tops the involvement of families. Recently (April 24, 2012) author Mo Willems was interviewed on NPR, sharing his process of writing books for young children, acknowledging that he always keeps the adult audience in mind.
“I want the parents to be engaged,” he insists. “I want them to laugh because then it’s cool. I think that sometimes parents forget that they are the coolest people in the world to kids . . so if they’re enjoying reading a book, suddenly the kid is going to say, “Wow, reading books is awesome!”
There you have it. Reading books is awesome. We know it, and we want our students to know it too. Better than a sticker, a coupon, or a contest might be some quiet lap time, a chance to meet up with friends for some book talk, or a dinnertime question, “Hey, what did you read today and how did you like it?”
May 23rd, 2012
Even with all of today’s technological advancements, some days you just have to return to basics. That’s what Debbie Diller and Stenhouse math editor Toby Gordon did when they met in Philadelphia recently to iron out the final outline for Debbie’s upcoming Math Work Stations video. The best tool to do the job: Post-its. Debbie’s video will be available later this year — stay tuned!
Debbie uses Post-its and the hotel room wall to organize her thinking.
May 21st, 2012
Don’t miss these great professional development opportunities featuring Stenhouse authors this summer!
Peter Johnston and Ann Marie Corgill
The Power of Talk: Choosing and Using Language Well
Orlando, FL • June 21
Steve Layne, Pat Johnson, Katie Keier, and Jeff Wilhelm
Georgia Conference on Teaching Writing and Reading
Perry, GA • June 5-6
Stephanie Harvey, Kelly Gallagher, Rick Wormeli, and Julie Ramsay
National Conference on Differentiated Instruction
Las Vegas, NV • July 10-13
Debbie Diller, Ralph Fletcher, Patrick Allen, Ruth Ayers, and Franki Sibberson
All Write Summer Institute • Warsaw, IN • June 21-22
The Sisters’ Daily 5 & CAFE Workshops
Daily 5: Tacoma, WA (June 21—only a few spots left); Atlanta, GA (August 18)
CAFE: Atlanta, GA (July 21)
Debbie Diller’s Summer Institutes
Denver, CO • June 28-29
Houston, TX • July 12-14
Stephanie Harvey, Debbie Miller, and Cris Tovani
Comprehension with Common Core • Denver, CO • July 24-26
ERG K-12 Literacy Institute • Winston-Salem, NC • August 7-9
Jennifer Allen, Aimee Buckner, and Franki Sibberson
Choice Literacy Summer Workshops
Wrentham, MA • July 17-18; Ypsilanti, MI • July 23-24
Kelly Gallagher and Rick Wormeli
Olathe Summer Conference
Olathe, KS • May 30 & June 1
Mid-State Reading Conference • Normal, IL • June 18
MCCSC Literacy Summit • Bloomington, IN • July 30-August 1
Minnesota Reading Summer Conference • Saint Paul, MN • August 8
May 15th, 2012
As we were getting ready for IRA a few weeks ago, we asked a couple of volunteers to Tweet from Stenhouse author sessions during the conference. We thought we’d share a few of those Tweets with you. You can read all of them on the Twitter site by following this link.
From Kelly Gallagher's session
Another quote from Kelly's session
From Steph Harvey and Anne Goudvis
From Janet Allen
A quote from Kate Messner
Two gems from the Sisters' session
May 14th, 2012
In the last installment of our Girls + Math series Chris Confer, coauthor of Small Steps, Big Changes, shares her personal history with math and how she found herself in a “less stressful” math class in seventh grade.
Marissa’s hurt brown eyes looked unhappily at me across the class full of eighth-grade math students.
Surprised, I asked myself, What did I say? I mentally replayed my last comment. A building contractor uses functions as he plans building projects with the same house design.
He. It suddenly hit me. My poorly worded example had completely excluded Marissa—and half of the class. Marissa knew it, and her eyes communicated her dismay. I immediately corrected my pronoun use, noting that both women and men can be contractors. Relief washed vividly over Marissa’s face, and I made a mental note to talk with her later.
Mathematics is my love and my passion. I’ve been a mathematics educator for thirty-five years, and a consultant for more than twenty of those years. I’ve dedicated my life to helping all students find their genius for mathematics, their own passion for math, and their voice to claim their place in classrooms and in life. So how could I fall into the same trap that I have talked about so many times with groups of teachers?
In “Debunking Myths about Gender and Mathematics Performance,” Jonathan M. Kane and Janet E. Mertz share some answers to my question. Differences in boys’ and girls’ rates of participation in mathematics and the small differences in their levels of performance are most likely due to “a variety of sociocultural factors present in their environment.” Specifically, the authors note that equity in society, employment, and pay correlates to the socioeconomic status of the home. The article states that “well-educated women who earn a good income are better positioned to ensure that their own children’s educational needs are met.”
As I read the authors’ conclusions, I reflected back on my experiences as a child. How did I ever become a mathematics author and consultant? Surely good fortune smiled on me, because the sociocultural factors present in suburban Tucson, Arizona, in the 1960s and 1970s most certainly did not.
I remember my beloved third-grade teacher answering my question about the procedure for adding fractions with, “Don’t ask why, Christy. Just do it.” I was a good little girl. So I stopped trying to make sense of math.
I remember my conscientious sixth-grade teacher worrying about too much stress in junior high, and recommending that Jimmy, who also got all As, take high math and average reading. I, a girl, should take average math and high reading, he decided.
So in seventh grade I found myself in a classroom with students who were practicing their multiplication tables, which I had learned years ago. My schedule didn’t get changed until the spring semester, when I finally joined the high math class. I struggled for the remainder of the year, having missed an entire semester of learning. This one event impacted my choices for the rest of high school and college.
I remember that, as a sophomore in high school, I consciously chose wrong answers on a standardized test, to try to gain the acceptance of my peers who looked down on “those smart kids.”
I know that the world of today has shifted profoundly in many of its assumptions about girls and math. However, the specter of old habits and words—and even beliefs—peers out from the shadows, anxious and ready to hop out at a moment’s notice, eager to recreate yesterday’s culture. Just as I did, we teachers invite that ghost from the past into the present through our words and misstatements. How often do teachers say that they’re not good at math, unwittingly giving permission for their students—especially the girls—to give up? How often do teachers forget to highlight that success in math is the key to opening doors in college and careers?
Girls need chances to use mathematics in the games that they play, by building with blocks (not just the pink and purple ones), and through mental math (I occasionally invited my daughter to keep the change if she could figure it out before we got to the cashier). Girls need to learn that they are good problem-solvers, that they can justify their thinking, and that math is an exciting, vibrant tool for making sense of the world. Girls need to see mistakes as learning opportunities, and success as a cause for celebration.
I sincerely hope that Marissa stays in the game of mathematics, that she develops confidence born of solid skills. I hope that Marissa can continue to challenge unthinking remarks such as mine—not only with her eyes, but by raising her hand to question them—knowing that she has the solid support of her peers. I pledge to continue to do my part, to remain vigilant, to make sure that “math is for boys” becomes “math is for everyone.”
May 10th, 2012
Jessica Shumway, author Number Sense Routines continues our Girls + Math series today with a post on helping girls develop their sense of agency as a way to combat gender stereotypes. Share your thoughts in the comments section.
Research studies and news media articles about the gender differences in mathematics achievement are prevalent and still at the forefront of debates regarding education in our society. Most recently, Kane and Mertz’s 2012 article, “Debunking Myths about Gender and Mathematics Performance,” has received a lot of media and social network attention.
As a mathematics educator, I expect and hope to see both genders do well in mathematics, and I strive to help every child reach her or his potential. Because I believe in every child’s ability to learn mathematics, what concerns me is that schools continue to report girls’ low enrollment numbers in elective math and science classes. More often than not, high school teachers indicate that their advanced math, engineering, and elective physics classes are disproportionately populated with boys.
Where have all the math girls gone?
What is it about these classes that are attracting more boys than girls? What are girls choosing to take instead of math and science classes? As an elementary mathematics teacher and coach, I have observed female students not only enjoying mathematics and science but also demonstrating aptitudes parallel to the male students and developing deep (and, I hope, lasting) interest in math and science. Yet the statistics predict that these girls who are interested in math and science are likely to be underrepresented in such elective and/or advanced courses at the secondary level. Why aren’t they signing up?
I wonder if the stereotypes about girls not being good at math affect female students more than we realize. If this conjecture is correct, by the time these females reach high school, no matter how much they might have loved math in elementary school, they opt not to participate in math and science classes beyond the requirements. Krendl et al. (2008) conducted a study using neuroimaging to see what happens to the brain when a person is confronted with a stereotype. They found that women who were told that “research has shown gender differences in math ability and performance” (reminding women of gender stereotypes in math ability) underperformed on the math problems they were given. The neuroimaging showed that these women’s brains did not show recruitment of the mathematical brain regions and instead showed activity in the region of the brain associated with emotional information, whereas the women in the control group (without the stereotype threat) showed heightened activation in the mathematical brain regions and not in the emotional regions.
Since we know that . . .
* lack of gender equality in American culture is affecting gender differences in math participation (Kane and Mertz 2012),
* many girls are opting not to sign up for higher-level math and science classes, and
* stereotype threat not only produces anxiety toward mathematics but also can affect achievement in mathematics (Krendl et al. 2008),
. . . then I am wondering if developing students’ sense of agency in mathematics could potentially combat some aspects of gender gaps in mathematics and science. Lately I’ve been thinking a lot about the role of self-efficacy and developing a sense of agency in learning. I recently revisited one of my favorite books, Peter Johnston’s Choice Words: How Our Language Affects Children’s Learning, and reflected on how we as teachers play a critical role in developing students’ sense of agency. Johnston writes about building agency around successful events and says that, in school, “It is our job to help expand the possible agentive narrative lines available for children to pick up” (2004, 40). I think it is important to talk with girls about the gender stereotypes that they may run across and how these have the potential to impact girls’ own narratives about their math abilities.
Could this development of “agency” be a factor in encouraging more girls to continue to develop their interests in mathematics and science? If developing agency is a critical part of combating gender stereotypes, what are the implications for our teaching? What are the best approaches to developing students’ sense of agency, especially in light of gender stereotypes and inequalities that are still present in society?
Johnston, P. H. 2004. Choice Words: How Our Language Affects Children’s Learning. Portland, ME: Stenhouse.
Kane, J. M., and J. E. Mertz. 2012. “Debunking Myths about Gender and Mathematics Performance.” Notices of the American Mathematical Society 59(1): 10–21.
Kendl, A. C., J. A. Richeson, W. M. Kelley, and T. F. Heatherton. 2008. “The Negative Consequences of Threat: A Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging Investigation of the Neural Mechanisms Underlying Women’s Underperformance in Math.” Psychological Science 19(2): 168–175.
May 9th, 2012
We kick off our Girls + Math series with a post by Maryann Wickett, coauthor of Beyond the Bubble: How to Use Multiple-Choice Tests to Improve Math Instruction. Maryann shares her thoughts on how teachers can guide ALL students to success in mathematics and in their lives as learners.
I have been working on writing this post for more than a month and have written it many times only to immediately delete it. Each of these attempts has been preceded by hours of thinking about performance by gender during the wee hours of the morning, when it is dark and quiet and no one is awake to interrupt my thoughts. I have come to the conclusion that gender is not really the issue—the issue is bigger. In fact, the issue involves ALL children and how to help each one reach her or his greatest potential.
Do boys outperform girls in mathematics? Research is available to support various opinions on this matter. Although it is important that girls do well in mathematics, it is just as important that ALL students perform to the best of their ability. Gender, intelligence, primary language, socioeconomic level, and so forth should not be factors or challenges to a child’s opportunity to reach her or his potential in mathematics or any other subject area.
What is success in mathematics? I define success as moving forward in the acquisition of knowledge and understanding and the ability to apply it to new learning and problem solving at a speed that allows for deep understanding but doesn’t stagnate the learner. Rather, the learner remains engaged, excited, and interested.
What are the characteristics of successful learners? In my experience as a practicing public elementary school teacher in grades pre-K–6, successful learners do the following:
- Possess self-confidence
- Are open to new learning and ideas
- Work to make sense of situations and their learning
- Make connections
- Reflect on solutions to be sure they make sense, and revise when they don’t
- Ask questions and put forth ideas and hypotheses
- Listen to others and discuss ideas and solutions
- Apply what they know to solve new problems
- Communicate their ideas through speaking and writing
- Use a variety of tools including paper and pencil, manipulatives, calculators, charts, graphs, computers, etc.
- Search for and make use of patterns and structure
Although successful students display a common set of learning attributes (as listed), these students come in all varieties: gifted, special education, English only, English language learners, rich, poor, Hispanic, black, white, Native American, Asian, female, and male. Success in my third-grade classroom is not limited to boys or any other particular group.
How then do we create classrooms where all students perform to the best of their ability? There seem to be two key areas where we, as classroom teachers, can make a difference. These areas are: (1) our beliefs about our students and their abilities, along with our role in helping them to achieve success, and (2) the opportunities we provide.
- Beliefs: It is imperative that we hold high expectations for our students as well as ourselves. When people truly believe they can do something, they will do it. The same is true when it comes to learning mathematics. I believe that all of my third-grade students can understand the concept of multiplication, and it is my job to find ways to make this happen for them. It is also my job to convince them that they are capable of understanding. As students rise to meet my expectation for understanding multiplication, they develop self-confidence, which enhances their belief that they can achieve. When students believe they are capable, know that I believe they are capable, and have experience with success, they will persevere. They will make sense of their learning and apply it to new problems and situations, and in new ways. Asking ALL children to share and discuss ideas, in writing and aloud, values their thinking and further strengthens an “I can” attitude.
There are cultural values that we have to watch out for that can be confusing to students. For example, when adults make lighthearted comments such as, “I was never good in math,” we need to be prepared to respond. Adults usually do not make such comments about their abilities in reading, so why is it okay to make such confessions about math? It conveys the message that it’s acceptable not to do well in math.
- Opportunities: Because each student is unique, we must provide learning experiences with multiple access points and ways to extend learning. Learning opportunities need to accommodate different learning styles, interests, and skill levels. Students must have opportunities to demonstrate their learning in multiple ways. Opportunity for students to reflect on their learning and revise when appropriate is essential. They need opportunities to make connections and explore ideas. Students need many different opportunities to engage with and explore a single concept. Mistakes are not failures; they are golden opportunities to learn. We should all be expected to learn from our mistakes.
To sum up, not only do we need girls to do well in mathematics, we need ALL students to reach their full potential.
May 8th, 2012
Are boys better at math than girls? If so, why?
The topic has been in the news lately with several studies and blog posts circulating among parents and educators.
Researchers Jonathan Kane and Janet Mertz set out to answer the question in their recently published article, “Debunking Myths about Gender and Mathematics Performance.” Along the way, they devote statistical analysis to a range of theories that have been put forward to explain the greater participation of males in high-end math classes and math-oriented careers, including the following:
- “The greater male variability hypothesis”—I.e., boys are biologically predisposed to quantitative fields, whereas girls are more comfortable with nurturing ones.
- “The gap due to inequity hypothesis”—Girls perform worse in math in countries that have a lot of gender inequity.
- “The Muslim culture hypothesis”—In certain Muslim countries, there is little gender gap in math performance.
- “The single-gendered classroom hypothesis”—Maybe that’s because boys and girls are taught in separate classrooms in many Muslim countries?
Through their analysis, Kane and Mertz reject all of those theories in favor of what they call “the gender stratified hypothesis”—boys and girls are born with similar potential but end up displaying differences due to a complex mix of sociocultural factors, including the education and income levels of women and their ability to advocate for their children.
The researchers point out that because girls’ math performance is linked to sociocultural factors and not biology, it can improve over time, as it has in the United States during the past several decades (according to Kane and Mertz):
- Girls have reached parity with boys in math performance in the United States, even in high school, where a large gap existed in the 1970s.
- In the 1970s, boys scoring higher than 700 on the math portion of the SATs exceeded girls by a ratio of 13:1. In the 1990s, the ratio had dropped to 3:1.
- The percentage of math PhDs awarded to U.S. citizens who are girls has risen from 3% in the 1960s to 30% in the past decade.
That’s significant progress, but we still have a ways to go. We asked three of our math authors to comment on what we can do to ensure that both girls and boys reach their potential in school and in their careers. Over the next week on this blog we will hear from Chris Confer, coauthor of Small Steps, Big Changes; Jessica Shumway, author of Number Sense Routines; and Maryann Wickett, coauthor of the Beyond the Bubble series.
What is your take on the topic? Leave your thoughts in the comments section.
May 7th, 2012
It’s been a busy couple of weeks at Stenhouse. While our office in Portland was mostly quiet, our exhibit booths in Philadelphia and Chicago were buzzing with activity. We always love to get out and meet our readers, customers, and authors. Here are a few snapshots from our booths at NCTM and IRA.
Author Kassia Omohundro Wedekind (right) talks to teachers as she signs her book Math Exchanges at NCTM.
Steph Harvey (left) and Anne Goudvis (Strategies That Work) chat with fans at IRA.
Tony Stead (center) sits with Stenhouse editor Philippa Stratton (right) as he talks to a teacher and signs his books.
Debbie Diller (center) signs her books at booth at IRA.
Steven Layne (Igniting a Passion for Reading) stopped by our booth after delivering a rousing keynote speech.
May 4th, 2012