A breakthrough in education reform in Seattle
UPDATED: Teachers ratify a contract that moves the district ahead in teacher accountability. Here's how this surprising outcome happened.
Seattle Public Schools
This story has been updated, with new material, on Sept. 6.
All of a sudden, Seattle Public Schools have joined the national parade, if somewhat timidly. In a three-year contract just ratified (Thursday night) by the Seattle Education Association, the teachers' union, Seattle is playing catchup. After a decade or so of foot-dragging by the union and dithering by the School Board, education reform has arrived, albeit less than the district hoped for. And this is a big signal — from the biggest district and the most recalcitrant union — to other districts in the state.
The School Board still has to ratify the agreement, which is expected. A school levy has to pass this November, providing funds for the teacher-evaluation reforms. One key reform — dealing with reductions-in-force (RIF) of teachers — didn't get into the new contract. The strong medicine of the district's proposal turned into a mild dose. And there is the very discordant note of a union vote of no-confidence in Supt. Maria Goodloe-Johnson, whose toughness in the stretch was instrumental in getting the reform package.
Observers of the closed-door negotiations think that something happened about two weeks ago, after which union negotiators got on the reform bandwagon and the district seems to have decided to settle for a half-loaf. Not only was a strike avoided; the two sides made significant progress in finding a way to join the national tide toward school reform. Other school-watchers, such as The Seattle Times' editorial board, were underwhelmed. Complained the editorial:
A diminutive version [of value-added measurement] is now part of a new three-year deal allowing the district very limited use of student growth, as measured by test scores, to help rate teachers. The downsides are that the method will not be used for all evaluations. It will only be used for teachers who volunteer for it. Nor will the district be able to use money as a carrot to attract volunteers. The district agreed not to limit raises to just those teachers who volunteer for the system.
Here's some context. A year ago, as a five-year contract with teachers expired, neither union nor school district wanted to face the long-put-off question of how to evaluate teachers meaningfully, particularly when it came to using student-performance as part of the evaluation. A one-year extension of the contract was agreed to, while both sides continued to wrestle with the thorny issues of evaluating teachers.
The pattern of teacher evaluations is easy to see from many other districts: put in place an objective system for evaluating effectiveness in teachers, reward the best ones with more pay, help the struggling ones, and show the door to the poorest teachers. In most reform-minded districts, a part of the evaluation of teachers is pegged to how well students of a teacher are performing, as measured by tests to determine the "value-added" component by the teacher in over several years.
These tests have lots of problems; there are all kinds of external factors that need to be weighed. Here's a particularly incisive summary of the debate, by David Leonhardt of The New York Times. Given the uncertainty and the controversy, it would have been easy for both sides to punt, waiting for more tests of the tests. But this year a unified board, a broad community coalition, and a determined superintendent were bent on facing up to the issue and moving the needle somewhat.
Apparently negotiations went along slowly but well. In early August, the SEA union put its proposal on the table, and it seems to have embraced the philosophy of accountability for teachers, but only in small pilot programs while more studies took place. It's at this point, according to some accounts, that Supt. Goodloe Johnson erupted and made the district's much more aggressive plan public. The SEA cried foul play, tried to make the not-very-popular superintendent the issue, and sought to rally the troops.
Political leaders such as former Mayor Norm Rice and Richard Conlin and Tim Burgess of the city council issued op-eds in support of the district's reform proposal. Other leaders, like Mayor McGinn, stayed mum. Sadly, no reform group of teachers has been formed locally, who might have shaped the reform package more. As it worked out, all the reforms are being imposed on the teachers, with natural resentment. On the other hand, the contract that emerged was to a large degree a product of the teachers' union approach.
The national context also put the unions at a disadvantage, effectively ruling out the strike option. There were many stories attacking the privileges of public employees. Other media stories touted Obama's "Race to the Top" program, which rewards districts that embrace reform (charter schools, tying evaluations to student performance, career ladders based on excellent teaching and not just seniority), and showing how far Washington state lags behind.
So negotiating sessions resumed, and the SEA stripped out much of the district's SERVE proposal but finally moved toward more robust evaluations. In a few ways, the package that emerged early this week (just as school is about to resume) went even farther than the district hoped. One example: The district proposed that teachers could voluntarily opt into the new system of evaluating, earning a small bonus and chances at higher pay; those who wanted to stay with the old lock-step system, with pay rising only based on longevity and graduate degrees, could do so. Under the new contract, all teachers will be in the new system after three years. But this also removed the incentive for teachers to opt into more rigorous evaluation programs, in exchange for a chance to earn more money.
The district was forced to take some steps back from its proposal. Student-growth measures will be used to trigger reviews of teachers who might have otherwise gotten good evaluations, rather than as a key part of all evaluations. Test scores cannot be used to fire poorly performing teachers. The district wanted to limit raises to teachers who volunteer to be part of the new, results-oriented evaluation scheme; instead, all teachers will opt into a watered-down version, and all will get (small) raises. Here's the district's summary of the new contract.
Politically, both sides are able to claim they "won." Practically, a great deal will depend on getting new funding to implement the more robust evaluation programs, and on how well the district implements them and wins trust (or provokes passive resistance). Another factor to watch: How well the reform coalition (largely business interests and parents) holds together, keeps up the pressure, and finds new funding. This coalition has been building for the past five years. It was originally formed to find ways to get more money to schools. Gradually the tradeoff of more accountability moved to the fore. Some reformers may feel all that work produced only modest gains in this new contract.
Reform advocates I've spoken to so far say they are "thrilled." Karen Waters of the Our Schools Coalition, a key group of reform supporters put together over the past year, said, "The agreement is a watershed moment in the history of public education in Seattle, and is an important piece in closing the achievement gap, increasing student learning across the system, and supporting teachers."
These advocates for reform feel the district now has a balanced system of quantitative data and qualitative evaluations by which teachers can know how they are doing, move to improve, or face the music and leave. (In the old system, evaluations barely took place and there were only two levels: satisfactory and unsatisfactory, with 99.5 percent of teachers earning a satisfactory grade.) There are now ways to reward excellent teaching with more pay (not a lot, at least in this contract, but a start). And the district will now put itself in better graces with voters (two levies coming up), nose-holding funders like the Gates Foundation, and federal grants. Thus the old bargain of rewarding real reform with more funding will have a test at last. (Not so easy in a recession, alas.)
Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism. Become a member of Crosscut today!
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feeds
Comments:
Posted Thu, Sep 2, 2 a.m. Inappropriate
I'm Jon Sayer, site admin.
The comments on this page were originally published in an earlier version of this story which ran as a blog post here:
http://crosscut.com/blog/crosscut/19743/A-breakthrough-in-education-reform-in-Seattle/
To be fair to those earlier commenters, I moved the comments over into this thread soon after we changed this content to a story.
If you have any questions or comments you can reach me at webmaster@crosscut.com (I'll probably be gone for the long weekend, though)
- Sep 3, 2010, 1:15 pm
Posted Thu, Sep 2, 9:15 p.m. Inappropriate
Brewster...you haven't read the contract have you? Let's just settle that issue first.
If you had read the 35 or so pertinent pages you would realize that the District got nothing in the way of reform, that the rewards are "more work for more pay (if you choose)," and that test scores will not be used to fire teachers.
If you can point to one item in that contract that looks like some major reform in Seattle education has occurred, then you know something that 4000 teachers missed when they read the contract today.
BTW...the no confidence vote was because Maria Goodloe-Johnson has a conflict of interest in that she sits on the board of the same company that was intended to evaluate teachers by testing their students.
David...quit parroting press releases.
Posted Thu, Sep 2, 10:07 p.m. Inappropriate
Grousefinder great observations.
First paragraph "Seattle Education Alliance" the teachers' union,..." Um, the Seattle Education Association is the union and the Alliance -well that is a group of business folks who believe that they know more about educating children than real educators. Maybe the Alliance had a hand in helping you to write this? I wonder too if you read the contract, because it is not what you described.
Have you read the most recent state audit of SPS? You should because what you will find is that the current superintendent does not follow some federal and state laws, or SPS written policies. Pretty bad eh,but that is not the worst of it.The auditor determined that the Board fails to supervise the superintendent and between the two of them have put district resources at risk. Yup those were the auditor's conclusions.
Also,of interest is that under the current leadership the central administration is larger than it was 15 years ago when there were considerably more students enrolled. Hmmm -larger central administration and fewer students does that make sense? Nope.
Then there is the fact that she sits on the board of NWEA,the company that just landed a lucrative contract with SPS. No monetary gain for the Sup, but she threw some friends a bunch of taxpayer money.
Her no nonsense, top down style may appeal to the business community, but frankly as a taxpayer I could care less about her style. I want a district that is managed well making the best use of scarce resources and fully discloses any conflicts when entering into contractural relationships.
The district is poorly managed and at risk under the current leadership and she deserves a no confidence vote -as does the Board. I would urge the taxpayers of Seattle to vote NO on the November supplemental levy.
Posted Fri, Sep 3, 6:24 a.m. Inappropriate
Once on TV I saw a boxer get knocked out with a perfect punch. He was out cold before he hit the canvas, and the referee stopped the fight without a count. Interviewed afterward, he said "What? You're telling me I got knocked out?"
Yes, David, that's what we're telling you -- and Norm Rice, and Tim Burgess, and Richard Conlin -- all dupes, the lot of you. The teachers kicked the District's ass in this contract, no matter which group of liars you choose to quote.
* Teachers' final evaluations will not depend on student test scores.
* Teachers' jobs will not depend on student test scores.
* Teachers' pay will not depend on student test scores.
* The new evaluation system was proposed by the UNION.
* The superintendent can't override the process.
If a test produces anomalous results from a teacher's previous evaluation, it could trigger an additional evaluation from the principal. That's the only change in this contract that regards testing. But whereas teachers had been complaining for years about inadequate, cursory, or shallow evaluations from their principals, I'd say that's a positive change -- as long as the superintendent and central staff aren't allowed to meddle in it.
So let your "Alliance for Education," your "Stand for Children," your "Our Schools Coalition," and whatever other phony "reform" group, claim they have won some great victory. Those of us who pay attention know better, even if you don't.
Posted Fri, Sep 3, 8:23 a.m. Inappropriate
"A year ago, neither union nor school district wanted to face the long-put-off question of how to evaluate teachers meaningfully."
Mr. Brewster, that is a bold-faced lie. The district and the union have been working together for the last TWO years on the contract issues including teacher evaluation. That both sides voted for a one-year contract at the times doesn't mean either side wanted to put it off. Careful consideration of big change is usually considered a good thing.
"..."value-added" component.." A briefing paper about a major study on this issue was just put out by the Economics Policy Institute. They state:
"If new laws or policies specifically require that teachers be fired if their students’ test scores do not rise by a certain amount, then more teachers might well be terminated than is now the case. But there is not strong evidence to indicate either that the departing teachers would actually be the weakest teachers, or that the departing teachers would be replaced by more effective ones. There is also little or no evidence for the claim that teachers will be more motivated to improve student learning if teachers are evaluated or monetarily rewarded for student test score gains."
"...a broad community coalition" - Ah, you must mean the "Our Schools" coalition that the Alliance started. It has no real parent groups attached to it. How is that? Meanwhile the REAL community coalition, the Seattle Community Organizers, was working to help BOTH the district and the union listen to and include parent ideas/wishes in the contract.
"...tried to make the not-very-popular superintendent the issue". They didn't have to try much. Teachers at 12 schools voted no confidence right before the school year ended. Additionally, at least 2 petitions gathered hundreds of parent and community signatures not supporting the Superintendent's leadership. And now, nearly the entire SEA voted no confidence.
After 3 years, the Superintendent is just NOW reaching out to parents and community (with coffee hours, oh boy). Her inability to listen to parents and care about their concerns has been deafening.
And you left out a HUGE piece. The latest State Auditor's report which covers, yes, the entire time she has been here. To whit:
"The School Board and District management have not implemented sufficient policies and controls to ensure the District complies with state laws, its own policies, or addresses concerns identified in prior audits.
The District Superintendent and executive management have not familiarized
themselves with state law and District policy regarding school operations. Additionally, the Board does not provide oversight to ensure laws and policies are followed.
The District’s Board and Management have placed public resources at risk. We noted several instances in which public assets were misappropriated or susceptible to misappropriation due to lack of effective policies, management’s failure to enforce existing policies and/or inadequately trained staff. The District exposes itself to greater risk of loss of federal and state funds and increases the risk for non-compliance with
laws and regulations.
We recommend the Board and Management familiarize themselves with and follow state laws and regulations. We also recommend the District establish effective internal controls to ensure the District is operating in accordance with the law and in a manner that safeguards public resources. The Board and Management should be more involved in District operations."
The Board and Management should be more involved in District operations? That should tell Councilman Burgess, former Mayor Rice, Karen Waters and anyone else who has their head in the sand, all they need to know.
You're supposed to be a journalist, Mr. Brewster. Be fair and tell the entire story or you, and Crosscuts, will lose all credibility.
Melissa Westbrook
Save Seattle Schools blog
P.S. And how about that nearly $7,000 retirement party that the Superintendent threw, complete with carving station, live music and $100 restaurant gift certificates? Here's what the State Auditor has to say about that:
"She (Kathie Technow in SPS Accounting)told us the District has no formal policies for banquets and awards ceremonies.
We discussed guidance from the AG that we audit to, that tells us that unless there are policies in place to address this topic it is considered gifting of public funds."
Gifting of public funds. Your tax dollars at work courtesy of the leadership of Maria Goodloe-Johnson.
Posted Fri, Sep 3, 8:50 a.m. Inappropriate
Thank you teachers of Seattle for the no confindence vote in this awful superintendnt. I am a parent of 2 school age kids both of whom attend private schools because we couldn't get into the alternative school we wanted (Salmon Bay).
We had the oppurtunity to send our incoming freshman to public high school and did a thorough look at the Seattle Public high schools. We came away with a really good impression of Nathan Hale and were all set to send our kid there. Then we found out about the math program implemented in the high schools. The same math program all our public school friends complained about in the Grade school and Middle school programs. Even in the gifted program, the parents complained about the math program and were paying to send their kids to Kumon or elsewhere. This is the math program the superintendent supports.
So once again, we find ourselves choosing a private school. Sorry Nathan Hale. You have great staff and teachers there as well as very supportive parents but I can't jeapordize my kid's future with that math program. Here's hoping they change the math program before we have to choose a high school for our second kid.
Posted Fri, Sep 3, 9:46 a.m. Inappropriate
I feel sorry for any teacher who works in schools that are located in neighborhoods where families aren't traditionally strong supporters of education.
Posted Fri, Sep 3, 10:01 a.m. Inappropriate
I should add that this voter plans on voting against every single school board member who gave this superintendent a good review.
Posted Fri, Sep 3, 3:38 p.m. Inappropriate
Hi David,
Hmmm.... Goodloe-Johnson is actually a heroic savior who crushed the teachers union. I can't wait to see your next piece on how George W. Bush was actually a political genius, saint and humanitarian who saved the planet and how Rod Blagojevich is really a just a great Chicagoan who was trying to raise money for widows and orphans.
David -- are you experiencing any of the following?
* Sudden numbness or weakness of the face, arm or leg, especially on one side of the body
* Sudden confusion, trouble speaking or understanding
* Sudden trouble seeing in one or both eyes
* Sudden trouble walking, dizziness, loss of balance or coordination
* Sudden, severe headache with no known cause
You may be having a stroke.
Get it checked out buddy.
Posted Sat, Sep 4, 10:50 a.m. Inappropriate
@Rhonwyn I couldn't agree with you more about the district's new "Math" program. Please remember that it was the school board as much if not more than Goodloe-Johnson who brought this on us. The vote was as Follows:
Voting for the "Discovering Math" series:
Peter Maier,
Cheryl Chow,
Steve Sundquist,
Sherry Carr
Voting against bad math and for our kids:
Michael DeBell,
Martin-Morris,
Mary Bass
source: http://www.seattlepi.com/local/405961_math07.html
Please take this into account the next time they are up for election.
To the rest of the posters crowing over whether or not the District or the Teachers "won", shame on you. This should be first and foremost about what's best for the students. While most of the teacher's I've encountered in the Seattle School system have been good some have not. In every school there are a handful of teachers parents pray their kids don't get stuck with. Some of whom are quite senior, and there really needs to be some way to send them packing.
Posted Sat, Sep 4, 1:54 p.m. Inappropriate
This is a long needed step in the right direction.
Most teachers are wonderful, caring individuals and deserve to be supported and appreciated 100%. Sadly, however, as in every profession, a few are bad to the point of being harmful to the vulnerable population whom they serve. (Come on now, people, let's not try to say that teaching is the only profession in the world in which every person is good). Everyone knows who these folks are but are unable to effect change.
Although a life long supporter of unions, I have changed in the last couple of years after experiences as a parent with the SEA and their are-you-kidding-me teacher evaluation rules which serve ONLY to protect bad actors and certainly not to serve the children or the folks who fund the system (citizens).
I applaud the system for taking these steps, am disappointed that RIFs are still based on seniority, and applaud the superintendent for finally making desperately needed changes. Too bad on the vote of no confidence. Many parents and the public are overjoyed to see some improvement.
Posted Sat, Sep 4, 7:05 p.m. Inappropriate
I'm sorry to break it to you, seattlecenter, but you really haven't gotten what you appear to think you have gotten.
The superintendent hasn't made any changes, and the changes she has sought are far from "desperately needed." What's more, if the changes in this contract turn out to be an "improvement," it will have come about because the teachers, and not the superintendent, pushed for them.
Any positive change in SPS will come despite Maria Goodloe-Johnson, and not because of her. Her goals and her policies are pernicious, and harmful to quality education, and I join with the teachers in voting NO CONFIDENCE in her. The sooner she is gone, the better.
I don't feel any shame whatsoever for being delighted that the teachers "won." I have been a Seattle Public Schools parent for the past nine years now, and I support my daughter's teachers because they have supported her.
As for "the SEA and their are-you-kidding-me teacher evaluation rules," when you say they "serve ONLY to protect bad actors," you are speaking from ignorance.
In the first place, these "rules" are provisions in a mutually bargained labor agreement, which the District has agreed to.
In the second place, there are clear guidelines in that labor agreement for dismissal of nonperforming or substandard teachers. Bad teachers can and do get fired. SPS dismissed 24 teachers last year alone. The system can work, and it does, anecdotal statements to the contrary.
In the third place, these contract provisions protect GOOD teachers. They protect them from arbitrary actions by principals and administrators, and from disgruntled parents with grudges. Don't tell me you haven't seen THAT, because I sure have.
Finally, I ask you, and anyone else who thinks we should make it easier to fire teachers, how SPS will attract and retain top quality teachers, if we allow this superintendent, or ANY superintendent, to erode teachers' job security and bargaining power? Why would good teachers want to come here, or stay here, if they weren't protected from arbitrary discipline or dismissal?
Do you think younger, cheaper, less prepared teachers from "Teach For America," or some other scab school, are going to give our kids the best possible instruction and support? If you do, then please join David Brewster, Norm Rice, Tim Burgess, and Richard Conlin in the Gullible Room, because that's where you belong.
Posted Mon, Sep 6, 4:53 p.m. Inappropriate
I'm more than a little amused that the only positive comment this article received was also chosen as the Editor's Pick.
Posted Tue, Sep 7, 7:44 p.m. Inappropriate
I am glad to know that the teachers will be in the classroom tomorrow, but the conversation here neatly avoids the absolutely crucial issue in education today. The business model is going to destroy education. I wonder if any of your read a superb essay in the SeaTimes. On August 27th, Wayne Grytting put his finger on the most essential truth in education with his essay "Give Me Teachers With Passion, I'll give You Students Who Learn." The truth is that the teachers who changed YOUR lives were almost always passionate and nearly uncontrollable by a system that is trying to shoebox all teachers into identical molds. These progress tests create classrooms wherein there is no passion, only dull emphasis on the upcoming tests. Teachers hate them with passion. Students may learn the tests, but they don't become passionate about knowledge; just the opposite. Think of the teacher who reached your heart of passion. Imagine him or her in the school that the education establishment wants to create! I want teachers who immerse my children in their passionate love of their subjects. Math teachers who love math; English teachers who love English, etc. No passion in the teachers, no passion in the students.
The people who are running the schools have no idea how to create those life-changing experiences that result in greatness. And when one of their new ideas takes hold (as in the horrific math program mentioned above at Hale), it ends up in doing enormous damage before being hauled away by outraged (rightly) parents.
Posted Wed, Sep 8, 11:36 a.m. Inappropriate
Anyone interested in some related reading, there is an article in Mother Jones entitled 'Confessions of a DC Teacher', dated September 6th, 2010.
Posted Thu, Sep 9, midnight Inappropriate
The old contract specifies that all teacher's records get destroyed at the end of the year unless the problem rises to a certain level in administration. Readers, in which of your jobs are your evals destroyed by contract at the end of the year? This is the are-you-kidding-me part. This has in the past protected pedophiles in the Seattle School district (you can find article on this in Seattle Times or PI). In our kids' school, 2 abusive and incompetent teachers have gone on year after year, although everyone knows the problem. Everyone if afraid of the union and of repercussions in their kids assignments. Sadly, I know all about this from direct personal experience and as someone from inside the profession.
In healthcare, teaching, and every part of our lives, real assessments, metrics and continuous improvement plans are here to stay AND SHOULD BE. We demand assessments, rating, comparisons and measures in every small purchase we make. Nowhere is this more important in jobs that deal with vulnerable populations. Society and well meaning folks should not protect bad people in any profession (teaching, healthcare, priests). It is time to get real and get with the program.
Yes, shining light on and expecting results from a group is resisted in those professions that have historically operated outside real independent evaluation and transparency. To be expected. I have seen it in healthcare and in teaching. Loud resistance does not mean it is not the moral thing to do.
Understand that as a teacher myself I know how much hard work, (low pay), and passion goes into excellent teaching. As members of the public, we support all our wonderful teachers with our time, votes and money. But the profession, as all others, has to police itself to keep the public trust, as the other part of the public contract.
Posted Thu, Sep 9, 9:17 a.m. Inappropriate
seattlecenter's anger is misplaced. It is the responsibility of the principal, as the teachers' supervisor, to identify and remove abusive or incompetent teachers.
The presence of bad teachers is conclusive evidence of ineffective principals.
Second, the new evaluation written into this contract should be the effective evaluation that you are looking for - with transparency and accountability. However, that evaluation did not come from the superintendent. On the contrary, the superintendent nearly cost us agreement on that evaluation.
The evaluation was developed through a cooperative and collaborative effort between the District and the union. They worked together for two years to write it. They have piloted it. They were on the fast track to writing it into the contract when, at the eleventh hour, the superintendent unilaterally wadded it up, tossed it out, and replaced it with her own proposal: SERVE. Her proposal, which included giving her authority to revise any teacher's evaluation without opportunity for appeal, nearly brought the District to either a strike or a lockout.
Fortunately, the negotiations survived her bad faith and the parties eventually settled on the evaluation that had been developed without her.
You have the union to thank for the new evaluation - not the superintendent.
Posted Thu, Sep 9, 12:48 p.m. Inappropriate
How does the local media continue to miss the real story about Seattle Public Schools?
Posted Fri, Sep 10, 8:03 a.m. Inappropriate
The last question I asked is becoming, more and more, a question that concerns me deeply. How is it that the local media - the Times, the TV, Crosscut, Publicola, the PI, etc. - but mostly the Times as the dominant news source in the city, completely misses the story on Seattle Public Schools? How is it that they have all been totally bought by the well-monied interests that don't come from education and don't understand education, yet want to dictate the terms of education to the whole country?
Surely these folks can't all be in the employ of the Gates Foundation or the Broad Foundation. There must be something else that doesn't work in our local journalism for all of these sources to continue to be blind to the real story.
The real story is that the superintendent, Dr. Maria Goodloe-Johnson has some good ideas but cannot implement any of them well at all. Unfortunately implementation is the focus of her job. The real story is that the School Board has utterly failed to do any part of their job as well. They just approve whatever the superintendent puts before them, believe everything she tells them, and disbelieve everything they hear from every other source.
Yet the media continue to laud the superintendent and the Board, just as they loved the previous superintendent, Raj Manhas. Didn't they read the CACIEE report, the entire first half of which essentially said that Mr. Manhas had completely failed to do his job? Mr. Manhas had a reputation for integrity, but can anyone provide an example of this integrity? I can provide numerous examples of his lack of integrity.
The myth about the current superintendent is that she gets it done, only the truth is that she has done nothing but defer and delay and then fail to get things done. Every project of the Strategic Plan is overdue, overbudget, and shortcut into a cheap imitation of itself. She's supposed to be all about accountability, but after three years we do not have a single example of accountability and the Southeast Initiative, which was supposed to be a high profile example of accountability had no accountability at all.
So where do these myths come from and why does the local media not only buy into them but spread them? I simply don't understand it at all.
Login or register to add your voice to the conversation.