Point-Counterpoint

I like having my students debate, because even though they may believe strongly in one specific side of a topic, a debate helps them see why others might disagree with them, and also helps them distinguish strong arguments from weaker ones. Debating gives students a chance to be creative and engage in problem-solving, two skills that are essential in the workplace and in every day life.

In this post, I will present three different arguments, each with two sides. Although the purpose of this blog is to present my own personal beliefs, I do realize that there are many sides to each position (as we should teach our students to acknowledge). I do not usually illustrate both sides when I write (which is my right), but I am taking this opportunity to do just that, since there has been much from both sides recently in The Answer Sheet  (which I am finally caught up on), my favorite column in the Washington Post. So, without further ado, and without any commentary whatsoever, I present the following.

Argument 1: Common Core Standards

Point: Principal Jayne Ellspermann of Florida lauds the idea that the CCSS provides the same standards for all students, regardless of where they go to school.

Counter-Point: Principal Carol Burris of New York argues that the Common Core Standards are more harmful than helpful.

Argument 2: The Importance of Shakespeare

Point: Dana Dusbiber argues that she doesn't want to teach Shakespeare to her English classes, so she shouldn't have to.

Counter-Point: Matthew Truesdale argues why teaching Shakespeare in today's modern world is essential.

Argument 3: Technology Use in Classrooms

Point: In Business Insider, Peter Jacobs states that technology is good for the classroom, especially for children in poor countries.

Counter-Point: Kentaro Toyama states that technology is not a panacea for poor schools; it in fact may make them worse.

This last pair of arguments is especially interesting to me, as I have always tried to integrate technology into the classroom, since that's the direction in which the world appears to be going, considering how popular MOOCs and other online platforms are now.

I will also be starting a new job next week that relies entirely on Distance Learning. So let's see what happens in my new adventures!

How is a raven like a writing desk?

Is it like modern education "reform," in that no one has seemed to come up with a reasonable answer?

This post is, surprise, about standardized testing (which you're probably sick of hearing about, but that's essentially all we hear about now when it comes to education policy, and I'm going to talk about it at length and hope others do too in the hopes that policy makers will finally get on board and realize it's. Not. Working.)

I read this poignant article yesterday that I thought summed things up very nicely: "[The standardized test] is a fundamentally flawed tool that will only debase the good work we teachers do in the classroom, the work that districts do in designing and implementing quality curriculum, and the work our students do in learning to become enlightened critical thinkers."

One of the author's main points here is that the secrecy surrounding standardized tests make it extremely difficult -- perhaps even impossible -- for teachers to accurately gauge which skills students still need to improve once the tests have been graded. It seems to her as if the testing services, Pearson in particular, care more about their own security (read: profit) than about students actually knowing the material.

She also mentions the fact there are bad test questions. For example: "How does the narrator's point of view contribute to the mood of the story?" I am an English teacher, and when I read this question, my first thought was, "Huh?" because that doesn't make any sense. The writer of this article concurs; as she states, an author does not use point of view to develop mood. When tests are written by psychometricians and not educators, how can the test developers be held accountable (*ahem* another magic word in education reform *ahem*) in creating legitimate questions that test real skills?

I have noticed both these problems on the GED exam, since this is what I teach. It is extremely frustrating on both ends -- student and teacher -- when a student fails the test the first time, and I can't help them improve. The reason I cannot do this is because, like the tests in the previous article, there is great secrecy surrounding the GED exam, which was also developed by Pearson.

For example, when a student finishes his or her exam, the computer generates a score. The student cannot see which questions he or she got incorrect. Therefore, a non-passing score could be a result of a few skipped questions, or an accidental marking of "C" when the student meant to click "B," or even a misspelling on a fill-in-the-blank, since the computer grading system has no nuance.

Moreover, the GED Testing Service (which as far as I can tell is not "accountable" to anyone) lists a set of skills for the student to work on for next time, but this is not very helpful to the student, or to me as an educator, because without seeing how the student missed the questions that pertained to the skills, the student's only option is to essentially regurgitate what he or she has already been studying. It's very possible a student has these skills down cold, but could have missed a question due to an unknown vocabulary word, or was reading too quickly, or legitimately does not know how to solve the problem. These are all things that are essential for educators to know in order to better serve their students.

When I give quizzes back, the students can see immediately not only which questions they got wrong, but why. I think understanding this premise is, in some ways, more important than getting a multiple choice question correct. Also, I give students a chance to correct any wrong answers, and while I do not change their quiz grade, their corrections give them another opportunity to think critically and understand their own thinking.

I could probably type for another hour here about my issues with the GED Testing Service, and really, all standardized tests that employ the same level of secrecy, but I won't. Instead, I'll let this article about the more rigorous GED do the talking for me. In this one, a point is made that testing companies have a monopoly and seem to care more about their own profit margin than about students succeeding. This is especially the case with adult education, I feel, since these adults have a) been out of school for so long and b) were exposed to bad education in the first place, especially if they grew up poor and urban (which mine did). These students can often not handle the higher rigor of the new GED. I'm not saying we should eliminate rigor, of course; I'm simply saying there has to be a better way.

Perhaps instead of privatizing standardized testing, we can have schools and districts be in charge of what students should know and how to measure their knowledge.

The first sentence says it all...

"Few education policies are built from a deep knowledge of schools, the teachers who work in them, or the students who attend them," says Valerie Strauss in this article. How apt. 

This is what I've been saying all along. And I don't think I have ever met a teacher who would not agree with this statement. Policy-makers, on the other hand...

The writer of this article also excoriates CCSS, her thesis being, rightly, that not all students develop at the same pace. That is one of the biggest issues with the standardization movement -- we know not everyone is the same (in terms of learning styles, interests, ability, etc.), so why does this movement insist on pretending that everyone is? 

How kids (and adults) learn

Many teachers and educational experts are against the standardized testing movement for many good reasons, one of which is because testing does not equal learning. One of the reasons why I believe that standardized tests are not accurate measures of what a student learns is because the brain naturally works in such a way that it forgets what it does not deem relevant. If memorizing an algebraic equation or analyzing a Shakespearean sonnet does not matter to the student, they may master this concept on a test, but they will not remember it for the long-term. Things that are irrelevant to students (and, for that matter, adults) have no meaning. This site has a great diagram (about 5/6ths of the way down) of what happens in our brains when something has no meaning for learners.

This theory is clearly observed when put into practice. We naturally gravitate toward what we enjoy. It should be no different in classrooms. In this blog post published almost a year ago, the author explains extremely well why students have trouble learning basic skills like spelling when teachers ignore (or don't know) how the brain works. She states that “[i]f spelling words are simply strings of letters to be learnt by heart with no meaning attached and no investigation of how those words are constructed, then we are simply assigning our children a task equivalent to learning ten random seven-digit PINs each week. That is not only very very hard, it's pointless.” Her idea about teaching morphemes so that a child will write “jumped” rather than “jumt” not only helps students develop meaning about words and therefore attach relevancy to them, but also helps them with deductive reasoning, which is a skill that is transferable to almost anything. But most standardized tests do not test deductive reasoning; most are based, instead, on rote memorizing, like spelling, which will likely be forgotten.

Teaching and testing methods that rely on this type of knowledge are not only ineffective, they are boring. This is one reason why children drop out of school. These children soon become adults, and since they have been out of school for so long, they often feel stuck, and they become unemployed and/or incarcerated. This is a problem particularly in DC, where more than 60,000 adults do not have a high school credential. The GED is designed in much the same way high school standardized tests are, so the problem remains: students must study for things they just don't care about. Can we blame them for not caring about quadratic equations and whether or not a character's mood changes in contrast with the setting? I don't think so. I think we should train teachers and test-makers instead to assess what is relevant. Students will be happier and more productive when we do.

Arts Appreciation... or not

Educators and policy makers have been aware for a long time that the education movement has been focused on standardized testing, and that focus does not seem to be shifting. Those who have the most power still want the testing movement to press on -- see this article, despite the fact that everyone who knows anything about education keeps telling them there is much more to school than test scores. The article above, for instance, states it perfectly: "Despite assessment experts... warning over and over again that using students' standardized test scores to evaluate educators is misguided, Duncan maintained his allegiance to using [standardized tests] as an evaluation tool."

But as experts (and I) have stated time and time again, standardized tests are not the best measure of either a student's or a teacher's ability. Nor, for that matter, are they a particularly useful learning tool, since standardized tests will not continue once students are finished with school and enter the workforce (I'm not counting those one-time tests like the MCAT or LSAT that students take to enter a line of work -- I'm more interested in the rest of students' lives, once they have begun careers). So why are we so focused on teaching children test-taking skills and little else?

And with all the focus on helping students score high on standardized tests, we do not have time to teach children so many other (and I would argue, more important) skills they need to help them grow into successful adults. Untested subjects are often those that are more important -- the arts, for example. This blog post does a beautiful job of explaining why the arts enhance education and how they can be applied to all subjects. We don't measure art because it is often subjective, but that doesn't mean it's not important. If you're still not convinced that there should be more focus on the arts in school, this article also does a great job at explaining why the arts are important (even if you don't believe in art for art's sake). Who can argue that the skills proffered in this article are not necessary for creating successful human beings? (Especially #10, ahem, which education policy-makers seem to be obsessed with.) Aren't these skills what employers look for when hiring new employees?

I'm not suggesting that we eliminate testing all together, but no two people learn exactly the same way. This, perhaps, is the largest failure of the standardization movement -- we cannot realistically expect all students to succeed on the same metric when learning styles will invariably differ. That's another reason we should focus on arts integration. The arts are intrinsically differentiated. Here is an excellent explanation from a drama resource teacher about how the arts are beneficial for all types of learners. We can still test students' abilities without the constraints of multiple-choice tests.

Finally, children are naturally curious and so much testing destroys their love for discovery, which is really what school should be about. Not that elementary school students should design their own curricula, but this student from New Jersey says in child-friendly language precisely what I am thinking. I've said many times before that teachers, not politicians, should lead the education reform movement, and clearly we need to listen to the children, too.

I'll take Policy Potpourri for 500, Alex (aka Link Storm 2014)

Most educational reforms, as most of us know, deal with testing and accountability. In many cases, this means several things: teachers lack control of their own curricula, academics take priority over everything else; and schools systematically find ways to deal with "bad kids" who inhibit learning.

To the first point: Curricula cannot be one-size-fits-all. All students, and all teachers, are different. But when one is teaching to a specific standardized test, this idea is often forgotten, and then teachers are stuck teaching things they themselves may not even care about. Thus, students become bored and disengaged, and no one can learn like that. Education needs to be relevant or you won't remember what you learned. That's basic learning theory. Additionally, as this article points out, racial makeup of schools (in regards to both students and staffing) does matter, especially in terms of how comfortable students and parents feel in their neighborhood schools. I believe that first and foremost, schools should feel like a community for all involved, not simply a place where one goes to learn stuff. When teachers can't control what they're teaching, it breaches basic theories about how students learn, and quashes the idea that schools act as safe communities who embrace their students' cultures. Perhaps more importantly, when teachers are not in control, their voices are not heard, and neither are their students'.

To the second point: We all know that there is not enough time in the day to do everything we want to do. This is even more problematic for teachers, especially when they must teach to the test. But is it really a bad thing when students don't have time for non-academic activities, like music, sports, and theater? Yes. The author here does an amazing job of advocating for the arts. I know from experience that the arts are vital. Especially for at-risk students. True, the arts are not tested. But we can still hold arts teachers accountable for what their students learn. Not all successes can be measured through numbers (and this is coming from someone who creates pivot tables for fun...).

And to the last point: Perhaps I am naive, but I don't understand why there is such a preponderance of expulsions and suspensions in the school system. First of all, if a child dislikes school, suspending him is not a punishment. Secondly, while I understand that teachers may not be able to manage a classroom with constant misbehavior (speaking from experience), taking a child out of school sends a message that the people in charge are giving up on helping her. This article alludes to the idea that expulsion rates correlate to drop out rates (and looking at this graph, you can see that "not being interested" -- i.e. the first and second points -- and "missing too many days" account for the most popular reasons for why students drop out (page 3)). We need to develop a culture that tells students school is important, but this goes back to making school relevant and interesting again.

Finally, to end on a good note, despite the fact that is so much wrong with education reform, the world needs passionate and caring teachers. This professor explains why beautifully.
.

The learning never stops!

I'm trying really hard not to slack off this summer, so I'm taking a teacher-ed class that the county is offering this summer. It's a four day session (which is now half-way finished) about Media Literacy, and it has been really fascinating. The course is based around how we can implement media like TV, movies, internet, advertisements, etc. into lesson plans, and it has actually gone above and beyond my expectations.

However, despite all the good that's coming out of this course, it reminds me about the things that are wrong with education. And here they are:

1) The first element that made me rather sad was the fact that teacher materials are rather hard to get. The county purchases textbooks from a certain textbook company, like many others, and this company provides additional materials to help us teach better. Ok, makes sense. But the instructor of the Media Literacy course said that the county was going to give each teacher a supplemental DVD from this company that had things like film clips with guiding questions to make our jobs easier. Except then they didn't because these DVDs cost $300... each. Probably because of copyright and stuff, but still. That is ridiculous. I realize this textbook company is a for-profit corporation (which is sickening to me), but that is outrageous. However, what I found even more offensive was the fact that these guiding questions (the instructor gave us a preview) were pretty simplistic for the most part. The textbook company seemed quite patronizing in that regard, saying that teachers are basically interchangeable and not even all that necessary -- all we do is press play, apparently.

2) Next, I've gotten to know teachers at other schools through this course, and the way they talk about how the SOLs make their jobs more difficult is rather baffling. For instance, one woman was saying she teaches a Read 180 class, which is a highly scripted course that helps struggling readers. She is supposed to stick to the script, but today she said she had to deviate from it in order to teach simile, metaphor and personification, which are not in the script for this course, but are on the SOL. Which these students, even though they are behind their peers, still have to pass. Umm, what? How does that make any sense whatsoever? That just goes to show that standardized tests do more harm than good, and that there is something wrong with prescribed programs, especially when they are so evidently contradictory.

3) The instructor today was talking about a project she had her students do in which they had to create and discuss a metaphor they created based on a specific text. She said this was a fabulous project, because the depth of conversation and analysis the students got into was much greater than it would have been if she had provided them with a more simple question-and-answer, or even a seminar. I thought that was really awesome, but then of course my mind went to the idea of standardized tests again, and how these tests aren't really testing what students know. It was clear to this teacher how well her students understood a text, but more importantly, how honed their critical thinking skills are, yet if they were to have a standardized test on the same text, it would be difficult to judge how deeply their thoughts could go.

4) Finally (and this is not from the course), this article is so well-written, so poignant, and so in-tune about what is wrong with national education standards when it comes to children in poverty. Why is there so much wrong with this profession?

Whoops...

With the craziness at the end of the year, I guess I forgot to post. Here are some tidbits.

First, student quotes/maneuvers that stay with me:
S: Ms. Brown, can you please not call my mom about my grade?
Me: Well, that's kind of my job.
S: I know, but can you give *me* the assignments I'm missing instead? She's bat-shit insane.
Me: *speechless*
S: She almost threw my computer away.
Me (regaining composure, though not entirely): I'm sorry to hear that. But I did give you the assignments. Get them in as soon as you can.

And my favorite of the year, which I will probably (hopefully) remember for years: My entire fifth period class helped one student put on a very elaborate ruse to ask me to go the prom with him. It was hilarious, however, I'm still not sure if he was joking...

As well as prom being in the air, so are standardized tests, screwing up the schedule even more so that it already is at the end of the year. I see my fifth period three more times before the final. Which basically means they will be screwed.

Speaking of standardized tests, here's awesomeness* out of Florida.

*sarcasm

Wow, I can't believe the year is almost over...

Gross.

I will let this article speak for itself.

But on a positive note, one of my more difficult boy students said to me today, "Ms. Brown, I want to be just like you when I grow up. Except a man." I could not hide my laughter.

Jon Stewart, you're my hero

I rarely watch TV, but when I do... usually my first choice is The Daily Show. Stewart's wit and interview skills are really freakin' amazing. It's too bad guys like that did not go into politics... but I digress.

Recently, Education Secretary Arne Duncan was on the show. If you missed it, here is the link. He did have some good things to say (I really loved his idea about the "wraparound" school, where it becomes a crucial community center, not just an 8-4 building), but for the most part, Stewart was ripping him a new one. It was one of the better interviews I have seen, if for no other reason than it got a professional policy maker to admit just how broken the current system is.

In other (better) news, I have a student in my first period who always brings his guitar with him to class. He almost always arrives early and starts to play a song while others are shuffling in. It's a great start to the day, and today he played "I Will Follow You Into The Dark" by Death Cab For Cutie. We had a really nice conversation about it before the bell rang. Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay creativity!

Had to share...

As much as I'm trying to talk more about my own teaching experiences now and less about others, I couldn't not share this, because it is a great example of how broken the system is. Why are teachers continuing to be so undervalued? Why is there all this obsession with standardized testing, when we keep hearing, time and again, that we should be teaching children how to think critically and creatively, something that will never be accomplished with test upon test upon test? Aaaaaaargh.

Standardization baaaaaad... Curiosity goooooooood

Every month, the English department (like every other discipline) has a dept. meeting. Invariably, the meeting entails reiteration of what the county and/or principal wants us to implement, and then there is the requisite whining. This week, there was a raucous ruckus (see what I did there?) about the new grading policies that will most likely begin next September. Currently, we can basically weight the grades however we want, as long as homework is not a ridiculous amount (I think 15% is the max). However, the administrators on high in their infinite "wisdom" have declared that now, homework and classwork together can now not count for more than 20% of a student's grade. Which means that 80% comes from tests. What happened to all their bitching about not wanting us to "teach to the test"?

On the one hand, I can see where having a student's grade based primarily on their knowledge makes sense, and the practice with which to master this knowledge counts much less. However, students will quickly realize with this system that they can do little to no work in class and at home and they can still most likely earn a passing grade. But what they will fail to realize is that they can only master the information on tests if they spend enough time practicing. Therefore, students who just care about grades and not learning skill sets (which, let's face it, is how most of them think, as do their parents) will not be motivated to ever attend class unless there is a test. (Just like many college students... but that's another subject.)

Furthermore, as one colleague pointed out, this will mean we have to "test the shit out of these kids" in order to get enough data for sufficient grading, which will make them even less engaged in school and more apathetic toward learning in general. Another teacher pointed out that in the city in which he taught before he came here, these standards were implemented, and because of them, teachers had to have a specific number of homework assignments, tests, seminars, etc., and because it was almost impossible to fit all this in and not make themselves (or the students) crazy, teachers ended up randomly calling a classroom activity a test or project, and thus the categories lost all meaning.

Yikes.... I could go on, but I won't. Sooooo glad it's the weekend and there are only four more days of school before Winter Break. Before I sign off, I thought I would share this, with which I agree 100%. That's where we should be headed, not prescribing random percentages to classroom procedures.

Words are Hard...

I went to a training today that dealt with teaching English Language Learners. They are obviously at a disadvantage because they're learning both language and content at the same speed that native English speakers are learning the content, so the county has decided to educate its teachers about how better to serve this group. Most suggestions they had, perhaps obviously, can serve all populations of students. But what I found most interesting was that we wrapped up the session with a reading selection from an old SOL test. I have no idea what grade level it was for, but holy crap it was difficult for anyone other than a high achieving (not average) Junior native speaker. It was ridiculous. There is no wonder ELL students have a difficult time passing standardized tests. I'm not saying we should dumb things down, but I'm saying we should expect them to perform at a specific level which may be lower than their peers, because words are hard, man.

Thanksgiving!

It's been strange having 3 days off and it still only being Friday. It's going to be a pain going back to school on Monday, for both me and the kids.

But anyway, I found this gem about standardized tests and poverty in the Post today. Le sigh.

Whoops...

Haven't updated in a while. Bad blogger. Also haven't been keeping up on education news. Bad Ms. Brown. But today, my students took the PSATs. Most of them complained about it. Can't say I really blame them. They are so inundated with standardized tests that the important ones are starting to mean nothing. Not to mention that the class time taken out to administer these tests could be used for actually teaching something. What a novel concept. Anyway, here's an article about it (by guess who) that sums up yet another problem with the standardized milieu affecting education today. Woot?

Why so standardized?

I did not go to school today because I had to go to an all-day training for new English teachers. The training was supposed to teach us how to use our textbooks. Qua? A: Why was this training not done before school started? B: Why do we even need training on how to use a textbook? Surely (most) teachers are intelligent enough to figure out how to navigate through them. There are also people called Department Heads and Resource Teachers we can turn to.

To add another layer of ridiculousness to this nonsense, the county is discontinuing the use of these textbooks next year. Que?? We can surely spend our time doing other things (like, oh I don't know, LESSON PLANNING??) if what we "learned" today will be useless in another 9 months.

Now add ANOTHER layer of incongruity on top of that unappetizing cake. (Though not a surprising layer.) There were maybe 20 minutes of the whole day that were useful, out of the 6+ hours of the training. And it could have been handed to us in packets. We're adults. We will read it. Maybe I'm being optimistic; I'm also quite computer literate (most of the training was how to use the supplemental online resources, which I didn't even think were useful for my purposes... but I'll come to that in a moment), and perhaps some of the older teachers are luddites. Ok, fine, but the county does not need to pay for a private textbook company to send their Floridian consultant (even though we use VA textbooks.... ummmmmm ok....) to walk us through tons of information that most of us either won't use or will forget the second we walk out of that room. Not to mention paying for the subs who have to replace us. This seems especially ridiculous in a county as bountiful and wealthy as this; there are plenty of people and resources for media illiterate teachers to turn to.

The frosting on this masterpiece, though, was the insistence of doing EVERYTHING (or so it seemed) through this one textbook company. Sure, some of it served to save us time coming up with tests and the like, but most of it seemed like a marketing campaign toward standardization. Ug.

Ok, I am really not a sourpuss (except I am when it comes to this country's obession with standardization). One of the benefits of working in this particular county is the freedom with which we are allowed to teach. That can also be difficult, as I was given few guidelines and fewer texts. But clearly, standardization has not affected us as much as other counties. Yet.

And finally (whoops, didn't mean to write an essay...), I continue to love Valerie Strauss for reasons like this. Normally I don't like Alfie Kohn nearly as much, but he has earned major brownie points with me with this article denouncing standardized tests.

The good, the bad, and the CRAZY

Classes at the school at which I teach are on a block schedule, so I see students every other day. I have a crazy disruptive & rude 7th period, and a ridiculously docile and almost boring 6th period. Mind you, these classes meet at the exact same time every day, and the difference between them could not be more pronounced. A lot of it is the dynamic of the students in terms of how they interact with each other; almost half the students in my 7th period have ADHD or have animosity toward each other or are just generally giant jackasses. I am so exhausted after they leave, whereas after 6th period I am just frustrated because I can't tell if the information is getting to them.

There is so much to keep track of in teaching. It's usually not until after the fact that I realize there are other factors at work when a student sits in my class: are they wondering if they can eat tonight? If their mother will wander home drunk? If their father will hit them?.... The list goes on and on. VS says it well (as usual) in this article about poverty. She also has another one about standardization that is rather amusing yet also sad.

Yaaaaaaaaaay weekend.

Standardization is not standard

More complaints about standardized testing today. Surprise, surprise.

One of the ESL teachers was in the testing coordinator's room today, and he was saying how useless the tests were for his students, since the tests are not written to cater to students whose first language is not English. At this school, there are three levels of ESL students: A, who are *just* learning how to speak, B, who have a pretty good grasp of the language, and X, who know English well enough to be placed into mainstream curricula. This teacher said that the A students by definition should *not* pass the standardized tests. If they do, we have to move them up to B status and then they miss a year of instruction. Yet, their scores count against the school when they fail. Qua? In what universe does that make sense?

While this article does not relate to standardized testing, nor is it by Valerie (amazing! Even more amazing, it's by Jay Matthews, whom I normally detest, and while I'm still not a fan of his writing here, he does make a good point, and this probably should have been a completely separate sentence, but oh well)... it does relate to education policy as a whole, and states why politicians tend to generally ignore it.

This is the last week of testing. Then there are two more weeks of school, in which students will learn nothing and do nothing, because everything they did previously was so they would do well on the tests. So we're going to waste two weeks. Awesome.

Trash Talking Testing

Only a few more days of testing left! It seriously wastes so much time, both for students and for teachers. This article sums it up nicely. Awesome.

It's Friday! Hooray! And less than three weeks of school left!

And the testing continues...

I've been up to my eyeballs in logistics with the testing, and I'm not even the one in charge. It's ridiculous. One more week...

On my lunch break, I have fulfilled my Valerie Strauss obsession. In this article, she explains exquisitely about why Matthews' "Challenge Index" is problematic. This is what inspired my dislike of Matthews (even more so than his poor writing), so clearly I strongly agree with her.

This one discusses why innovation is not always a good thing. Also well-written.