| Author |
Message |
    
Tom Reingold the prissy-pants
Citizen
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 1553
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 29, 2003 - 3:25 pm: |     |
I'm sure folks will tell me why this is unthinkable these days, but I got to thinking. (I know, that's a dangerous thing.) Some folks offhandedly (and jokingly) mentioned the psychological damage of not being as good at playing in the playground or knitting as well as one's fellow students. The point being, hey, it hurts, but get over it and move on.
Can we say the same about being left back?
Could this solve the problem of requiring lots of remedial classes? Imagine someone applies to CHS from another district and gets sent to one of the middle schools, to 8th grade. What would the ramifications be?
I realize this opens lots of doors on Pandora's box. For one, it might make a case for letting kids skip grades, which is nearly taboo these days.
OK, crazy idea, I admit. Please shoot it down in your usual fashion.
Tom Reingold
There is nothing
|
vor
Citizen
Username: Vor
Post Number: 111
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 29, 2003 - 3:49 pm: | |
Tom
The issue is the effect on self-esteem. The theory is that there are better ways of addressing a student who is failing academically (remedial classes, project help, this academic theory or that academic theory). I am not learned enough in these theories to offer an opinion as to which one works best but holding a student back is devastating for the child and the family. I went to a school where children were held back. Not only was this traumatic for the family, these children became a disruption for the next years class. It was a no win strategy. I do not remember one child who was left back who ended up doing well later on. As a matter of fact most of them dropped out. I’m not saying there wasn’t a success story now and then, but I imagine it was a rarity. Oh, and yes, the children were laughed at, looked down upon and in many cases became our most disruptive students. We would be taking a giant leap backwards if this ever was used again, IMHO. |
Tom Reingold the prissy-pants
Citizen
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 1557
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 29, 2003 - 3:54 pm: | |
Might there be less of a stigma if holding back were common? Of course, we have a chicken and egg problem, because it would have to become common, and only then might it hurt less, having hurt lots of kids.
But are you saying the school's mission to develop the social psyche more than the intellect? Aren't we doing kids a disservice by passing them on when they haven't earned graduation?
Tom Reingold
There is nothing
|
vor
Citizen
Username: Vor
Post Number: 112
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 29, 2003 - 4:10 pm: | |
No, of course I'm not saying that a child's social psyche should be more of a focus than academics. But I don't believe a school's mission is to do damage to it either.
My point is that holding students back never worked, at least in my very limited small school experience. Therefore why continue it? I suspect the failure rate of these kids had something to do with the trauma they experienced by being left back which many of them could not overcome. I fully agree with the concept that pushing a child along solely for the purpose of not damaging self-esteem (or worse yet, to get the "problem" kids" out of one's hair) is fool hardy and is counter productive, but that's assuming there is no other type of help for these children, such as remedial classes.
All I'm saying is that I believe the current approach works better than the old school method of holding kids back. |
jfburch
Citizen
Username: Jfburch
Post Number: 1187
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Monday, December 29, 2003 - 5:51 pm: | |
Less stigma might or might not be a good thing. I had a friend who taught in a Louisiana public school where many kids were left back and she was left with a room half full of 19 year old 10th graders, mostly male. It wasn't pretty.
|
bobk
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 4163
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, December 29, 2003 - 6:00 pm: | |
I think that we do hold students back. When Littlek was at MMS a couple of his contemporaries were held back a year, although my recollection is that they eventually caught up.
Also I recall some postings here about class size numbers and some of the fall off between ninth and tenth grade student counts was attributed to holdbacks.
What good does it do to keep moving kids ahead if they have no chance of passing the state mandated tests for graduation? |
Reflective
Citizen
Username: Reflective
Post Number: 214
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 29, 2003 - 6:21 pm: | |
Holding selected students back for not passing key subjects might be the best to motivate such students. This group normally can make up failing grades in summer school and move ahead with his/her class with a better sense of learning.
For those falling into the achievement gap category, primarily new students, it is vital for our district to benchmark their reading and math levels at the start of the year or before. This is where remediation kicks in. Reading and writing is a key success factor. Holding these students back accomplishes nothing but another year wasted for them.
Note well that students below grade level generally become classroom discipline problems because they don't feel part of the learning environment, that teachers try so hard to create, but are so often sidetracked. |
bobk
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 4165
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, December 29, 2003 - 6:53 pm: | |
Again, ancient history. 
When my daughter who is now 20 and in college was in grade school it was common for the schools to put kids back a grade when they moved here, especially from NYC. This happened to the daughter of one of our friends and neighbors. |
happyman
Citizen
Username: Happyman
Post Number: 81
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 30, 2003 - 12:57 pm: | |
Many of the private schools require/strongly suggest new students take entry courses during the summer. This seems to be a good model for us, given that we currently have the school open for the Summer Enrichment Program. |
ffof
Citizen
Username: Ffof
Post Number: 1766
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, January 5, 2004 - 3:01 pm: | |
sure, open in the summer, but you should see how many actually register not until September. |
Reflective
Citizen
Username: Reflective
Post Number: 228
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 6, 2004 - 7:06 pm: | |
If they register in September, these new district students should be tested and placed accordingly.
Wouldn't it be ironic to have a ninth grader placed in the seventh grade? However,I have to believe that entry level courses could be interwoven into a curricula for these students.
The status quo, we now have, doesn't work, and creates classroom disruptions.
The elementary, middle and High school are supposed to be learning environments.
Why does the curent BOE dodge addressing these questions? |
nan
Citizen
Username: Nan
Post Number: 1120
Registered: 2-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, January 25, 2004 - 2:40 pm: | |
Here's a petition that's being sent around in response to the announced retention of many NYC 3rd graders.
-----------------
Please consider signing the letter below, drafted by me and Jill
Chaifetz of Advocates for Children, protesting the just-announced
proposal of the Mayor Bloomberg and the NYC Chancellor to retain 3rd
graders on the basis of their standardized test scores. If you decide
to sign the letter, please include your name, title and organizational
affiliation, if any, and email directly back to me at leonie@att.net.
The full text of the letter follows, except for its footnotes. If
anyone would like to receive a copy of the letter w/ full citations,
please email me and I will send them a copy as an attachment. And
please forward this to others who might be interested in signing as
well.
Thanks!
Leonie Haimson
Class Size Matters
124 Waverly Pl.
New York, NY 10011
212-674-7320
www.classsizematters.org
leonie@att.net
Dear Mayor Bloomberg and Chancellor Klein:
We ask that you reconsider and withdraw your proposal to retain 3rd
grade students on the basis of test scores. All of the major educational
research and testing organizations oppose using test results as the sole
criterion for advancement or retention, since judging a particular
student on the basis of a single exam is an inherently unreliable and an
unfair measure of his or her actual level of achievement. In fact, there
are few issues about which there is such a powerful consensus among the
professionals in the field.
The American Educational Research Association (AERA), the nation's
largest professional organization devoted to the scientific study of
education, opposes their use, as does the National Board on Educational
Testing, the International Reading Association, and the National
Council of Teachers of Mathematics, which argues that “far-reaching and
critical educational decisions should be made only on the basis of
multiple measures.” The Standards for Educational and Psychological
Testing, developed by the American Psychological Association, the
American Educational Research Association, and the National Council on
Measurement in Education, contain the following statement:
“Any decision about a student's continued education, such as retention,
tracking, or graduation, should not be based on the results of a single
test, but should include other relevant and valid information.”
The National Academy of Sciences published a comprehensive report a
number of years ago, explaining in detail why the use of high-stakes
testing is intellectually indefensible as well as counterproductive.
As the authors point out, “A student’s score can be expected to vary
across different versions of a test….as a function of the particular
sample of questions asked and/or transitory factors, such as the
student’s health on the day of the test. Thus, no single test score can
be considered a definitive measure of a student’s knowledge.”
Harcourt and CTB McGraw Hill, the two largest companies that produce
standardized tests, and the developers of New York City’s 3rd grade
reading and math exams, are on record opposing the use of their tests as
the exclusive criterion for decisions about retention, because they can
never be a reliable and/or complete measure of what students may or may
not know. As Harcourt, the company that produces New York City’s 3rd
grade reading test, has written:
"Another misuse of standardized achievement test scores is making
promotion and retention decisions for individual students solely on the
basis of these scores....Achievement test scores may certainly enter
into a promotion or retention decision. However, they should be just one
of the many factors considered and probably should receive less weight
than factors such as teacher observation, day-to-day classroom
performance, maturity level, and attitude."
CTB-McGraw has the following statement on its website: “No single test
can ascertain whether all educational goals are being met. A variety of
tests--or, multiple measures--is necessary to provide educators with a
well-rounded view of what students know and can do. Just as different
tests provide different information, no one kind of test can tell us all
we need to know about a student's learning.”
In addition, as with all standardized tests, a substantial margin of
error exists, inescapable given the nature of these exams. Thus, we are
likely to fail many students who would really pass if we took account of
the statistical uncertainties involved. There is also the distinct
possibility that the tests themselves may be flawed, or are scored
incorrectly, as has occurred in the recent past. In this case, even
more students would be unfairly held back, and their futures put at
unnecessary risk.
Another reason we strongly oppose this policy is that the consensus
among researchers and experts is overwhelming that retaining students,
no matter what their actual level of achievement, is likely to damage
rather than help their educational prospects..
After reviewing the many controlled studies of grade retention, the
National Academy of Sciences report concluded that: “Low performing
students who have been retained in kindergarten or primary grades lose
ground both academically and socially relative to similar students who
have been promoted.”
Several large scale studies of retention have found that these policies
are counterproductive. A meta-analysis of 63 controlled studies found 54
that were negative, with only 9 positive. The author concluded that
"[o]n average, retained children are worse off than their promoted
counterparts on both personal-adjustment and academic outcomes."
After controlling for student background and academic achievement, a
longitudinal study of more than 12,000 students concluded that being
held back before the 8th grade increased the likelihood of dropping out
by the 12th grade by more than 200%. Furthermore, "students who were
held back before the 8th grade were more than four times as likely as
students who were not held back to not complete high school or receive a
GED" six years later.
The results of New York City’s “Gates” program from the early 1980’s
were found to be similarly harmful. In 1981, then-chancellor
Macchiarola launched a large-scale retention program that held back
25,000 students from the fourth and seventh grades, on the basis of low
scores on the citywide reading tests. In following years the program was
expanded to students who had low scores on the standardized math exams
as well.
The program was later rescinded when research indicated that the
achievement level of retained students had not improved compared to
students with similar scores who were promoted in earlier years, even
after extensive intervention and summer school, at a cost of more than
$100 million per year. Moreover, long-term follow up showed that 40% of
the students who were retained eventually dropped out, compared to 25%
of those with similar test scores who had been promoted. According to
Ernest House, one of the authors of the evaluation, “the Promotional
Gates Program had retained tens of thousands of students at huge dollar
and human costs without benefits.”
More recently, the large-scale retention policy carried out in Chicago
has also been at best, ineffective, and at worst, extremely detrimental.
An independent evaluation concluded that for those students who were
promoted after attending summer school, the program “produced short-term
test score gains but did not significantly address the ongoing learning
problems of low-achieving students,” with the results particularly
disappointing for 3rd graders.
The fate of those Chicago public school students who were retained even
after summer school has been even more dismal. As the researchers noted,
“Few of these students retained in 1987 made adequate progress the next
year. After two years in the same grade and a second Summer Bridge, only
43% of retained third graders and 47% of retained sixth graders were
able to raise their test scores to the promotional cutoffs. Passing
rates were lowest among retained eighth graders because so many of these
students dropped out.”
The large-scale retention policy now under consideration is not only
unfair and counterproductive; it is also inherently inequitable.
The practice of retaining large numbers of New York City students on the
basis of test scores alone is likely to disproportionately affect those
who are poor and minority. Moreover, the policy of using high-stakes
tests to make retention decisions has been shown to be much more common
in school districts with high percentages of black and Hispanic students
compared to the rest of the nation. Given the fact that research shows
that these policies on balance are harmful to students who are subjected
to them, their use appears to exacerbate rather than ameliorate racial
and class differences.
As the authors of the National Academy of Sciences report conclude, “…it
is cause for concern that low-SES children and minority students are
disproportionately subject to any negative consequences. Those who leave
school without diplomas have diminished chances. High dropout rates
carry many social costs.”
At the very least, even if you decide to carry through with this
misguided policy, despite its inherent unfairness and poor record in the
past, we ask that you delay its implementation to the fall of 2004.
Only then will those 3rd grade students at risk of being retained have
the opportunity to take advantage of whatever intervention services you
intend to offer them for more than a few months, as well as making it
more feasible that a workable summer school program could be designed
and implemented.
We trust that you will reconsider this proposal, and instead, put into
practice measures that identify students at risk of low achievement
earlier in their educational careers, and provide them with programs
that research and experience have been shown to actually improve their
chance of success: increased access to preKindergarten, smaller classes
where they can receive more individual attention and support from their
classroom teachers, and intensive intervention for those who have fallen
behind, including afterschool and/or weekend tutoring.
As George Santayana wrote, “Those who do not learn from history are
doomed to repeat it.” Let us not make our children suffer from our
failure to learn from the unsuccessful policies of the past.
Yours respectfully,
Jill Chaifetz, Executive Director, Advocates for Children
Leonie Haimson, Chair, Class Size Matters
Robin C. Brown, President, United Parents Association
Sam Anderson, Education Director, Center for Law & Social Justice,
Medgar Evers College-CUNY
Rolando Bini, Director, Parents in Action
Donald R. Moore, Ed.d., Executive Director, Designs for Change
Henry M. Levin, William Heard Kilpatrick Professor of Economics and
Education,Teachers College, Columbia University
John S. Mayher, Professor, Steinhardt School of Education, NYU
Sue Ruskin-Mayher. Director, Middle School Program, Bank Street College
of Education
Norm Fruchter, Director, NYU Institute for Education & Social Policy
Ann Cook, Co-chair, NYC Coalition of Essential Schools
(list in formation) |
Montagnard
Citizen
Username: Montagnard
Post Number: 382
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 25, 2004 - 3:07 pm: | |
Looks like we're back to levels again. It's called grade 6 level X, but it's really grade 5.
|
Cynicalgirl
Citizen
Username: Cynicalgirl
Post Number: 350
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 25, 2004 - 7:13 pm: | |
Some days, I wish the whole of K-12 were more like Montessori strategy, with no grades per se, and just a continuum along which to progress. At whatever age you get to the finish in all required subjects to be mastered, you're done...Yeah, I know, too idealistic and impractical. |
Montagnard
Citizen
Username: Montagnard
Post Number: 384
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 25, 2004 - 7:33 pm: | |
In many ways this is what we have, except it's called something else in order to preserve appearances (another lesson that kids get to learn). |
J. Crohn
Citizen
Username: Jcrohn
Post Number: 849
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 25, 2004 - 9:50 pm: | |
"Some days, I wish the whole of K-12 were more like Montessori strategy, with no grades per se, and just a continuum along which to progress."
Yup, me too.
There's supposed to be an interesting cooperative school in Montclair, but I've only heard about it second hand...
(BTW, I'm finding it disconcerting that, in general, I agree with some 90% of what you post. Were we separated at birth?) |
Lizziecat
Citizen
Username: Lizziecat
Post Number: 142
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 25, 2004 - 10:53 pm: | |
I think that the cooperative school in Montclair is Playhouse. It used to be in West Orange, and my younger son went there more than 30 years ago. My older son also attended a cooperative preschool before we moved here. I remember that the children all loved having their moms--or the occasional dad--here on their "special" day. It gave the parents a chance to really participate in their kids' schooling. I also remember a lot of spiteful fights--among the parents, not the children--over car pools, work assignments, and snacks. Now that most families have two parents who work full time, cooperative schools may not be practical for many. My kids did well in cooperative schools. The younger one loved Playhouse. Because a lot of the work is done by the parents, the fees are a lot lower. Playhouse might be worth looking into, if you have the inclination. |
Cynicalgirl
Citizen
Username: Cynicalgirl
Post Number: 351
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 26, 2004 - 5:46 am: | |
Hey, J. Crohn, I dunno on the separated at birth question. Sometimes I think some of my attitudes are a function of my age (49 3/4). At times I've been drawn to home schooling, cooperative schooling, Montessori/completely individualized instruction. I don't care for prep/private school as a rule, and I do care for meritocracy. Always used to like public education as the great leveller, best hope for equal opportunity. Having a kid later in life though, I find myself slightly out of step with where public education has gone. Some days, looks like a co-dependent mess of agendas, almost in lieu of the original purpose.
BTW, I attended public school in Scotch Plains for grades 2-7 and it was very good. I liked those self-paced SRA reading programs of the 1960's, post Sputnik! I find myself wondering why the solution to holding kids back isn't instead to require Summer school or during school intervention. Why is holding back cheaper than that in both cost to remediate and self-esteem? I get the possible self-esteem issue, but why can't the intervention be earlier?
Lizziecat, do you know off-hand if Montclair runs to 8th grade? Probably couldn't do it for the working parents reasons you cite but curious. |
J. Crohn
Citizen
Username: Jcrohn
Post Number: 851
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 26, 2004 - 11:57 am: | |
Lizziecat: I'm pretty sure Playhouse is not the school I heard tell about. I think it has a more mundane name with the word "Montclair" in it.
Cynical: "Some days, looks like a co-dependent mess of agendas, almost in lieu of the original purpose."
Yeah. And that's why one tends to be drawn to alternatives that promise some sort of getting back to the point. But except where those alternatives are able to isolate or protect themselves somehow from larger institutional structures, they tend to get corrupted by 'agendafication'.
One of the broader problems I have with most public education is that what is taught is too limited, and unfortunately, progressivist attempts to broaden the scope of teaching inevitably become co-opted--which is part of why I no longer put much faith in progressivism per se as the cure for public education's ills. Does any school child really learn the first thing about Martin Luther King (that he was a brilliant intellectual, for instance), or has King simply replaced Albert Einstein in the litany of Great Names to be memorized for their sound bite accomplishments? (Einstein = E=mc2, Lincoln freed the slaves, King had a dream.) Do kids in our public schools learn anything substantial about European history, the mideast, or Asia, or are those subjects largely relegated to brief synopses of Marco Polo's travels and, oh, perhaps some ethnic tragedy such as the Holocaust or the Irish potato famine? How come most public schools don't teach economics as a separate subject, beginning in grade school? Or statistics?
I had a mediocre education, almost all of it public. But for one year (sixth grade) I went to an orthodox Jewish religious school. It was a rotten school; the only reason I went was because my mother taught music there and I could go for free, our local public school was reputed to be quite awful, and we were moving the following year to a better district.
Aside from Hebrew and the religious material to which I would otherwise never have been exposed, I have no recollection of what was taught in this place. When I went to 7th grade in the better public school district the next year, I wasn't behind in any subject--which was startling considering that in 6th grade Jewish school we'd had a mean drunk for a secular studies teacher and a succession of no fewer than 3 math teachers, each one chased out of school after the other by our unbelievably unruly class. The last of the math teachers simply gave up on teaching altogether and balanced chairs on his chin to amuse the little monsters.
Let me add that all these events transpired in Texas, which at the time I was in elementary school was an educational wasteland compared with the NY metro area.
But here's the rub: what I learned in the religious studies portion of 6th grade stuck with me as a basis for further learning--not in terms of indoctrination at all, but as (for instance) exposure to ways of thinking foreign to me, which in my adult life I've found are more ubiquitous than I'd supposed. In a sense, it was like going to a bad school in another country: what you come out with (including language) is more than you would get from studying in your own mediocre milieu.
The factory nature of public schools--which I think automatically prevails unless schools are given a great deal of individual leeway--makes such experiences in public education difficult to come by, at least for middle class students.
I think some private schools do their best to capitalize on this difference. That is, they promise a different kind (or breadth or depth) of cultural or intellectual experience in at least some part of the overall curriculum/school experience. That goal, however conceived, can supplant or at least rival other agendas, even in the most mediocre of private schools.
(By the way, I'm creeping up on 45. As you are nearly 50, it appears we could not possibly have been separated at birth.)
|
jfburch
Citizen
Username: Jfburch
Post Number: 1267
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Monday, January 26, 2004 - 12:10 pm: | |
(Playhouse is a cooperative pre-school, thru kindergarten (though my kid does imagine going there for HS). For anyone interested they are having an open house on February 4th. Privateline me for more info. I've got a kid there and am happy to report that I've never seen a spiteful fight, or anything close. It's a great place.) |
happyman
Citizen
Username: Happyman
Post Number: 91
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Monday, January 26, 2004 - 1:25 pm: | |
The school's name is Montclair Cooperative. It is located in Montclair, near the High School. It goes up to 6th grade, though it has attempted for years to expand past that grade.
PS: I might be the triplet!!!!  |
happyman
Citizen
Username: Happyman
Post Number: 92
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Monday, January 26, 2004 - 1:39 pm: | |
http://www.montclaircoop.org
{This is not an endorsement of the school} |
Cynicalgirl
Citizen
Username: Cynicalgirl
Post Number: 354
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 26, 2004 - 2:48 pm: | |
I am guilty of thread drift! Anywho, back to Tom's question: I'm really curious as to why Summer School, and during the year remediation, couldn't be mandatory and in lieu of holding a kid back? I would think by mid-year it's clear whether a kid is in trouble academically. If that were offered, I would think it could be mandatory (just like going to school is)? I realize it costs, but does it cost more than the cost per pupil of repeating a grade? Seems to me intervening during the year agressively would be the ticket. If the district gets like $10K to educate a kid per year (more if special needs), why couldn't they effectively get that $10K or somewhat less earlier and intervene? And why couldn't parents be "forced" to go along? |
happyman
Citizen
Username: Happyman
Post Number: 94
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 27, 2004 - 10:52 am: | |
I had mentioned this a few weeks/months ago in a separate thread ... our town is blessed with a well run, month long summer program that would be the perfect forum for new/existing students that require small classroom intensive instruction. I think you would avoid having to "pull out" students throughout the school year if the student could get this kind of additional help. Also, any teacher would agree that children that continue to read/practice math/study over the summer break, have a much easier time starting up the new school year. I truly, see this as a alternative to many of the Project Ahead/Pull-out students, since pulling out a student throughout the school day has its own set of problems. |
Cynicalgirl
Citizen
Username: Cynicalgirl
Post Number: 358
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 27, 2004 - 7:10 pm: | |
Boy do I agree on pullout -- for whatever reason. As luck would have it, my kid was in both excel programs. One wasn't worth much, and both caused her to miss assignements, etc. She dropped the less worthy, but I still think it a poor way to address special needs, either to remediate or to enhance.
For during the schoolyear, I was thinking of Saturdays or after school as a likely time to remediate as you go. |
jmfromsouthorange
Citizen
Username: Jmfromsorange
Post Number: 31
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 31, 2004 - 1:02 am: | |
wow! i remember playhouse when it was in the valley area of west orange! my brothers, sisters and i all went there! it was a lot of fun...
>>>
ted on Sunday, January 25, 2004 - 10:53 pm:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think that the cooperative school in Montclair is Playhouse. It used to be in West Orange, and my younger son went there more than 30 years ago. My older son also attended a cooperative preschool before we moved here. I remember that the children all loved having their moms--or the occasional dad--here on their "special" day. It gave the parents a chance to really participate in their kids' schooling. I also remember a lot of spiteful fights--among the parents, not the children--over car pools, work assignments, and snacks. Now that most families have two parents who work full time, cooperative schools may not be practical for many. My kids did well in cooperative schools. The younger one loved Playhouse. Because a lot of the work is done by the parents, the fees are a lot lower. Playhouse might be worth looking into, if you have the inclination. |
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page