Will a name change help the MoE embrace ‘Structured Literacy’ as it strives for world-class inclusive education ?

Pondering why the NZ Ministry of Education is slow to accept Structured Literacy as best literacy practice for ALL learners...

Source: Hattie, Visible Learning

Recently I read a good blog post Leaving the Balanced Literacy habit behind: A theory of change by a leading light in reading science, Dr Pamela Snow, in which she commented on how ‘balanced literacy’ seemed hard to argue against, due to the nature of the word ‘balance’ as who doesn’t like the idea of balance, harmony and equilibrium. It sounds inviting and wholesome, like eating a ‘balanced diet’.

Whereas ‘Structured Literacy’ sounds possibly rigid and constrictive, though it does mean orderly, organised and well-planned.

In schools, we work within timetables and are meant to plan our lessons to align with the NZ Curriculum. However, educational philosophies in recent years have given rise to a great belief in the power of autonomy in school decision-making processes.

Curriculum practices, from school to school and classroom to classroom, have sometimes become less orderly and in some cases more haphazard, in my observations, despite school leaders' individual attempts to stamp their ‘school brand’.

Sometimes as a teacher, it feels as if we are throwing in ‘everything but the kitchen sink’. Teaching is viewed by many as prone to ‘fads’.

When I first trained, the teaching style in vogue in the early 2000s was ‘Inquiry Learning’. Then this morphed into ‘play-based learning’ especially for the junior students. Some schools plumped for modern learning environments and some went ‘yeah, nah’.

The concept of a core curriculum didn’t go away, it just wasn’t put first and foremost in place of priority when discussing the needs of our struggling or target students, in my humble opinion.

I anticipate some kick-back from fellow teachers about this view. However, let me clarify - most teaching works, but some teaching works 'more effectively than others' and I'll pop a link to Kiwi educational researcher John Hattie in the links below to back up my claim. Expert teacher knowledge and teaching skills are what make the most difference. So why waste time and student engagement when some things will help them achieve success faster than other methods?

(As an aside, I do believe in the power of play and my junior classrooms were always set up with play-opportunities for my young learners. 

My concern is about meeting the needs of our learners in a clear, targeted way. For some, that means, a longer time building up oral language skills before they can tackle complex reading or writing skills. For others, they may be halfway to cracking the start of the alphabetic code, and will soon be reading, spelling and writing. Diagnostic and formative assessment is key, step-by-step, to becoming fully literate.

But I digress. This isn’t a debate about ‘play-based learning’ and its pros and cons.)

It is about the misguided notion of ‘structured’ literacy being bad and ‘balanced’ literacy being good.

…………..

So what if we changed the name?

‘Structured Literacy’, with capital letters, is in fact a trademarked term of the International Dyslexia Association. Lots of schools in Australia are teaching this way, but it is rarely called SL. Instead, they say they follow the ‘evidence-based science’ or sciences of reading and learning.

What if the MoE in NZ was able to embrace a term that sounded more like ‘us’, here in Aotearoa NZ?

I know the direct translation, English to Maori is:

Structured Literacy - Hanganga Reo Matatini

I wonder if something more poetic could be used, based on the imagery of the moon, reflecting our culture here:

Clear, Comprehensive Language - Te Reo Marama Aroa  (CCL for short)

Or, what about…

Equitable Language - Te Reo Tautika

Or…

Responsive Literacy - Te Reo Katoitoi

Which is catchy and has the best ring to it?

…………..

But then, if we have campaigned so far for Structured Literacy, would a change of name confuse matters? 

Or could it be a bridge, offered to the MoE, for it to adapt and join us on this journey, without losing face? 

…………..

Some in the MoE perhaps view SL as a step back in education, a return to old ways (much of it is good-old fashioned teaching) rather than the forward-looking, progressive approach to teaching, to meet individual needs, that it is when looked at in its entirety.

One other aspect to contend with is some misguided notions that ‘Structured Literacy’ is favoured by the political right or conservatives, or worse, by ‘Euro-centric’ private schools, when that is not the case here in New Zealand. (See Natalie Wexler article below for this criticism in the US).

Instead, in NZ, Structured Literacy is closing the gaps between ethnic groups and works just as well in low decile schools as it does in higher decile schools. (See school case studies below.)

Perhaps a local brand name will help explain this approach to the public more easily, across all political spectrums, and the MoE will be proud to say it responds to feedback and it welcomes the chance to meet our people’s needs?

I don’t really have the answer. But I do know that often what wins these sorts of campaigns is not changing people’s minds, but changing their hearts.

Could changing a few words help the MoE to embrace this equitable, inclusive approach?

After all, it outlines ‘Structured Literacy’ on its own MoE-approved ‘Inclusive Education’ site for best practice for special education.

If it’s considered best practice for struggling readers and writers, SL must certainly also work in mainstream classes?

Or, are we only ‘inclusive’ outside of the classroom rather than inside it? Beggars belief!

What do you think?

……………………………….

FYI

Here is more food for thought: these are our current, official, government-led priorities for education in NZ: National Educational and Learning Priorities

N National Education and Learning Priorities (NELPs) released in November 2020 are: NELP 1: Learners at the centre – learners with their whānau are at the centre of education NELP 2: Barrier free access – great education opportunities and outcomes are within reach for every learner NELP 3: Quality teaching and leadership – quality teaching and leadership make the difference for learners and their whānau NELP 4: Future of learning and work – learning that is relevant to the lives of New Zealanders today and throughout their lives NELP 5: World class inclusive public education – New Zealand education is trusted and sustainable

References:

http://pamelasnow.blogspot.com/

Leaving the Balanced Literacy habit behind: A theory of change.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/nataliewexler/2022/04/12/lets-not-make-phonics-political-again/?sh=6494c27e122d&fbclid=IwAR045f2jzZxjYeqP_szq-LzjKGeweds1Hn0umG6vRCHCup42DQysE2j_-YE

https://www.education.govt.nz/our-work/overall-strategies-and-policies/the-statement-of-national-education-and-learning-priorities-nelp-and-the-tertiary-education-strategy-tes/

https://assets.education.govt.nz/public/Documents/NELP-TES-documents/FULL-NELP-2020.pdf

https://www.liftingliteracyaotearoa.org.nz/support/case-studies

https://www.learningmatters.co.nz/case-studies/

https://inclusive.tki.org.nz/guides/dyslexia-and-learning/understanding-structured-literacy/

https://www.slideshare.net/richardcookau/john-hattie-effect-sizes-on-achievement

A cry for help! - Read the research, read the words, read my face

 

After the launch of the government’s new literacy strategy last week- and no direct mention of Structured Literacy - several members of the dyslexia advocacy groups I belong to said they were tired, emotionally exhausted and they needed to take a break.

Like the struggling learners we support, there comes a time when - faced with seemingly insurmountable barriers - you just want to crawl back inside your protective shell.

For a while there, we were passionate and loud. We were like the kids, the struggling learners, who get disruptive in class.

Then we tried humour. We all know the ‘class clown’ gets attention. A few memes started being shared around. Perhaps they did not paint the Ministry of Education  (or Minister Hipkins) in a good light. But we certainly vented some of our frustrated passion with a laugh or too.

Then the joke fell flat. Some other advocates of SL, teachers not parents, accused us of being bullies. Bullies! That’s right. Parents advocating for their struggling learners, calling the MoE out for not publicly addressing their demands for the widespread adoption of Structured Literacy, were told they were being disrespectful.

For years, many of our students have been labelled by various ill-informed teachers ‘slow’, ‘difficult’, ‘needy’, and ‘disengaged’. So to be told, by a few more teachers, that we were not behaving nicely was difficult to hear.

• Some of us have trawled the internet for years to find ways that we could help our learners learn how to read and write, because it wasn’t happening at school, in class time.

• Some of us have spent thousands and thousands of dollars paying tutors to teach our children how to read and write.

• Some of us gave up our jobs to ‘homeschool’ our children, so they could learn to read and write.

• Some of us, years ago, have written long submissions to the government on the inclusive education strategy.

• Some of us, years ago, have signed petitions advocating for Structured Literacy.

• Some of us got active on Facebook education groups, to advocate for our learners.

• Some of us have had meetings, face to face, with the MoE about our concerns.

• Some of us have invited education bureaucrats and ministers to visit schools using Structured Literacy, to see it in action.

• Some of us have made presentations to our school boards, requesting Structured Literacy.

• Some of us have written even longer submissions to the government on the then proposed literacy strategy.

• Some of us have signed a new petition advocating for dyslexics' right to an education.

• Some of us have built shared drives and websites to advocate for Structured Literacy.

• Some of us have been on the radio, interviewed on television and written about in newspapers.

• Some of us want to cry: “Why are we and our children being ignored?”

• Some of us just want to cry.

Some of us have had successes - our own children got the help they needed or we convinced a local school to make the shift to Structured Literacy.

But we were thinking big, ‘going for gold’…We wanted this not just for our own kids, but ALL kids; not just this generation, but the next one, too!

But we are tired. We need help. Maybe you do not have a child with dyslexia, but chances are you know someone who does. More than 1 in 5 New Zealanders struggle to read and write.

Can we pass the baton on to you in this tiring ‘race for gold’? (Please don’t hit us on the head with it.) 

Please ask your school-aged family members how they are getting on at school. How many of their classmates need a hand to read and write?

Can we help them?

Yes, we all can. We can ALL advocate for Structured Literacy and lift NZ’s ‘dire’ literacy rates.

Remember, those ‘dire’ statistics are not just numbers; they are people, they are workmates, they are children, they are classmates, they are yours and mine, and they need our help.

And spare a thought for those passionate - possibly angry - people, those ‘bullies’; after all, ‘acting out’ is a call for help, too. 

Some of us are just too tired to remember our best manners.

Respectfully, Chris, I disagree…

 Response to Minister of Education Chris Hipkins, in an interview on TVNZ, 1News 6pm (25.3.22, approx 6:25pm).

"Sounding out the words, and looking at the pictures - that's how kids learn to read, and this idea that you have to pick one or the other, is just such a red herring," said the Minister of Education, Chris Hipkins, after launching our new national literacy strategy, when interviewed by 1News.

My response, using teacher-talk: "Chris Hipkins, I feel upset that you do not know how I feel when you mock my teaching experience of a faulty way to teach reading."

I need to sit down with him and have a 'restorative chat'.

I jest, of course. Laughter, rather than tears. In fact, I’m furious.

Why? Because in the week a report tells us our country’s literacy rates are “dire”, and that we need to look to respected research for a way forward, our Minister of Education says things are going to change and then he trots out such a nonsensical statement.

My faith in the ‘powers-that-be’ in the MoE is fast eroding.

Children do not learn to read by looking at pictures. End of story!

They learn to read by learning the Alphabetic Principle. They learn that written language is a ‘code’ for the words they know and say.

So yes, they need to know how to talk. And yes, they need to know how to sound out words on a page and relate them back to words they have heard spoken. But do they need pictures to do this? No. 

So, following this basic logic, pictures are not needed for reading but sounding out words is an absolute must, therefore sounding out words MUST be picked as a preferential method if we want our children to learn to read. That’s not a red herring. That’s a fact.

‘Predictable texts’ with pictures, in early reading materials favoured by Balanced Literacy proponents (such as those advising the minister, it appears), currently teach children to guess a large part of what they are reading, rather than attending to each and every sound in each word.

(Pictures are, of course, a nice additional touch if you want to engage your students in further talking around the subject, after they have read the sentence or story. And, indeed, skilled teachers introduce their students to possibly unfamiliar vocabulary before reading a text. But the pictures should not be used to work out the words on the page. Sounds and spellings should be used, instead.)

When pictures become less frequent in older students' reading materials, if they have not been taught to decode, they will often start guessing randomly for any old word that might possibly fit in the sentence. Worse, they’ll look at the teacher’s face, at the walls, at the ceiling - in fact, all over the show, as they try to work out what they are meant to do. In simple terms, they have missed out on learning ‘how to read’.

Of course, some children ‘crack the code’ early on and the more explicit teaching, the ‘how to read’, is not essential for them. But Structured Literacy benefits them in other ways too; they become better spellers, more quickly, and their comprehension, written composition and access to other parts of the curriculum is accelerated. It's a win, win!

My husband, an engineer, said to me: "Would you drive over a bridge that was deemed only 70% safe? Why does the education system accept a 30% failure rate? It’s a faulty system.”

And he’s right. Our role as educators is to progress the learning journey for ALL the students in our care. We cannot count ourselves ‘successful’ educators if we have masses of low-achieving ‘target students’ each year, falling off the bridge to further learning. We are failing them if our systems are not safe, fit for purpose and educating the majority of them.

So, come on Chris Hipkins. Please actually READ the research.

Don’t rely on someone else telling you what’s what. 

But then maybe the education system failed you somewhere along the way and you struggle to read complex text?

I have a solution. Teach your children using Structured Literacy - it’ll improve your adult literacy skills, too. It’s never too late to learn to read and write effectively. Age is no barrier…

But, if you are short on time, how about you try a Youtube clip:

What Teachers Should Know About the Science of Reading

Other helpful links:

The Science of Reading: a top-level primer (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2fQyaoGjIo) (Includes lots of links to other readings in the notes.)

What is the science of reading? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnkJ6VvDr2M)

https://sarahsnippets.com/how-do-we-learn-new-words-orthographic/

https://www.inclusive.tki.org.nz/guides/dyslexia-and-learning/understanding-structured-literacy/

https://www.liftingliteracyaotearoa.org.nz/initiatives/connecting

Teaching HFWs by sound before sight

Earlier this week I was concerned to read that an early years teacher new to Structured Literacy (SL) was saying she was ‘mixing it up', and combining elements of explicit, direct instruction in phonics as well as some ‘look and say’ high frequency word teaching using predictable readers.

I’m sure she is a well-meaning teacher and believes some of her methods of old are effective. However, in SL our teaching is meant to follow the evidence-based, peer-reviewed science and not just what we ‘feel’ works or the results we get with a particular set of students. SL is designed to work for the most children at any given time or place.

All the terminology to be used perhaps complicates understanding. For instance, common or high frequency words (HFWs) get called ‘sight words’ by some, and then there is the difference between decodable words and irregular words (or ‘heart’ words!) to learn, too.

There are a very few HFWs that beginner readers do need to be exposed to frequently as they begin to apply their phonics knowledge to hearing, saying, reading, and spelling or writing sounds. 

However, my understanding is that we need to still explicitly explain which parts of the high frequency word they could decode and which parts are ‘tricky’ or advanced code they have yet to learn, and need memorising at this stage by ‘heart ’= hence ‘heart words’.

Brain research shows that teaching words phonetically helps strengthen the pathways in the brain that lead to efficient and effective reading, whereas ‘look and say’ methods train the brain to read inefficiently, by treating whole words as pictures rather than a sequence of sounds. 

Why am I bothering to post about this? Because refining our teaching practice is a journey that takes time, but we can also take mis-turns or end up in cul de sacs if we ignore helpful navigation. Yet we have a duty of care to our learners to speed up our skills as soon as possible, so we shouldn’t waste time in personal experiments if there is a reliable method shown to get the best results.

So, I recommend, we do the PD readings and don’t skip over the background science when adapting our teaching practice from ‘balanced literacy’ to Structured Literacy. Know ‘why’ we do something this way, and not just ‘how’.

As to any teacher using predictable readers, I advise caution: while ‘look and say’ can help children learn HFWs, we want most of their words to be mapped orthographically, rather than through visual memory, as there is a limit to how much information children can store in their working memory.

It is far better to remember sound/spelling patterns, to build hundreds and thousands of words, rather than clogging up the working memory with only a few hundred rote memorised words. 

Furthermore, guessing words by context or picture clues undermines the role of teaching children to read phonetically. It is far more important to teach children to keep their ‘eyes on the words’.

Ten HFW to teach beginner readers: the, a, I, to, and, was, for, you, is, of

https://www.readingrockets.org/article/new-model-teaching-high-frequency-words

Further reading:

https://www.phonicbooks.co.uk/advice-and-resources/free-teaching-resources/phonic-high-frequency-word-chart/ HFWs sorted by phonetic difficulty, starting from CV pattern.

https://keystoliteracy.com/blog/high-frequency-sight-words/

https://www.reallygreatreading.com/content/make-tricky-sight-words-sticky-really-great-reading-blog

https://ufli.education.ufl.edu/resources/teaching-resources/instructional-activities/irregular-and-high-frequency-words/

Warning! Warning! Enemy Approaching!

(A post about the shortage of reputable Structured Literacy PLD* in New Zealand)

*Professional Learning & Development

My attention grabbing Lost in Space analogy is for a good reason, though slightly exaggerated. Be careful out there...Let me explain.

I’m feeling pretty proud that my principal has confirmed that we’re switching to Structured Literacy (SL) schoolwide next year and we are signed up with a reputable PLD provider. (We will have seminars, workshops, online lessons, in-class demos and on-going mentoring for at least a year, probably three.)

However, not all colleagues in our SL community are fortunate to be approaching this shift schoolwide. Some are only doing it in their junior teams and some are all alone in the wilderness of ‘Balanced Literacy Land’.

Structured Literacy PLD is scarce out there.

Like a scene from Lost in Space, SL novices are in an alien desert and thirsty for knowledge and they are reaching out for something, anything to quench that thirst.

Imagine their relief when they google PLD in the EdGazette online, and up pops an advert with tantalising words, including ‘systematic’ and ‘structured’.

This is what I tried out last night and I was scared for the novices out there, hence my warning.

Now, I don’t want to be slammed with a defamation case, but a sound defence is that my opinion is based on researched and peer-reviewed facts, hence my warning: Buyer Beware!

Some PLD courses out there - tempting novices with enticing words like ‘systematic’ and ‘structured’ - are still based on Balanced Literacy and their authors defend the role of a bit of phonics, a bit of sight word memorisation and a bit of other stuff - you know, a ‘balanced diet’ of what has been used in our classes for years and with unsatisfactory results!

The problem with this approach is ‘a bit of this and a bit of that’, and a bit of your class will get it and a bit of your class will not. Science has shown that the BEST results for all students comes from an explicit Structured Literacy approach that is diagnostic, systematic and cumulative AND uses a systematic synthetic phonics programme from the start.

The other important point is what we now know about memory and cognitive overload. You know what this is, it’s when your brain hurts from trying to remember too much at once! (Like how it feels when you're trying to learn about SL!)

Yes children can learn sight words by memorising them. I admit I used to teach my students that way. But then they plateaued and got stuck, at around about orange or turquoise levels, and progress was slow.

This happens when children have filled up their memory banks with sight words and they have not orthographically mapped them in their brains, sound to print. In a way, it's like stuffing the letterbox at your gate with junk mail rather than using the more efficient email.

Automatic recall of ‘sight words’ is what happens when readers have mapped a word by sound into their long term memory and then it becomes readable ‘by sight’. But to get it into long term memory it has to be by sound work first, not ‘look and say’ as if it was a picture. Re-reading words already mapped by sound is a valid practice, but it has to follow the sound work first.

Sadly, some popular BL resources use picture clues and context in sentences to get children to memorise a set of about 50 high use ‘first’ words. Even worse, often the job is given to well-meaning teacher aides, who just follow the instructions.

Even more problematic is how these ‘intervention’ programmes are often used with our most struggling learners and we perpetuate their struggles by focusing on such memorisation. Such ‘pictorial reading’ is how poor readers read, when their brains are scanned, not how good readers read. 

As teachers, once we know better, we should do better.

So, Buyer Beware: Be a good reader and ‘read the fine print’ before booking any bitsy PLD in the holidays. A short course on ‘phonics’ or a short course on ‘words’ will be like drinking salty water. It will seem to work at first, but will not sustain you in the long run (nor your learners).

The Science of Reading  takes time to get to grips with at first, but it is better to go slow and steady than to dash off on a false start. (Really mixing up my analogies now!)

Thirst for knowledge but be sure to check that what you are drinking is really ‘pure’ and healthy for you and your learners in the long term.

And, if you’re finding it hard to get PLD and not keen on a DIY route, write to the MoE and your local MP. Tell them what you want and why. Let’s lift our reading results and sustain the gains.

Here’s some links to help: 

The Science of Reading: a top-level primer (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2fQyaoGjIo) (Includes lots of links to other readings in the notes.)

What is the science of reading? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnkJ6VvDr2M)

https://sarahsnippets.com/how-do-we-learn-new-words-orthographic/

https://www.reallygreatreading.com/content/make-tricky-sight-words-sticky-really-great-reading-blog

https://www.inclusive.tki.org.nz/guides/dyslexia-and-learning/understanding-structured-literacy/

https://www.liftingliteracyaotearoa.org.nz/support/looking-for-pld-for-your-school

https://www.liftingliteracyaotearoa.org.nz/initiatives/connecting

NZ Teachers - Structured Literacy and Using Decodable Texts 

Lockdowns, wall banging and ripples of change

A teacher reflects….

This is a post about hope.

Last Tuesday, I had been in lockdown for 5 weeks and, apart from creating online classroom lessons, I had been able to dedicate a chunk of my time to my dyslexia advocacy work. Likewise, in my previous three lockdowns in Auckland.

A silver lining of covid-19 restrictions has been the chance to spend time on professional readings and webinars, visualising a Structured Literacy future for my school, rather than commuting, doing duties or prepping at the copier.

But on the eve of the start of my sixth week at home, I had hit a wall and was moaning to my husband about how frustrated I felt about effecting change. “I don’t think they get it. I worry all my work has been for nought. Why don’t they understand how important this is?” 

Six days earlier I had sent a large report to my principal with my roadmap for ‘how’ I thought our school could transition into Structured Literacy and transform the lives of our learners. The response….silence.

Earlier in the year I had made a presentation at a staff meeting, sowing the seeds about the ‘why’ and ‘what’. In the interim, I had been working alongside other teachers, and dropping Structured Literacy tips into the afterschool conversations in the workroom. 

You see, I am just an ordinary teacher, not in the leadership team and not even a 5-day-a-week one either. I am just a little pebble trying to make a ripple in a big pond. And I was worried that Balanced Literacy stalwarts in the senior leadership team were going to drown out my message.

This month, annual reports were being written, budgets tallied and strategic plans made for next year. Time was running out…

In desperation, yesterday, I resent my emailed report to the principal and asked “Did you get this? What do you think?” He’s a man of few words but the joy of hearing ‘yep, we’re signed up, starting end of year’ was immense, intense, like a heavy load had been lifted from my shoulders and I was buoyant, no longer drowning in guilt.

Guilt...about letting teachers dismiss my noticing of the early signs of my own son’s dyslexia and waiting for five years to intervene.

Guilt… about training as a teacher and not having the nous to challenge the lack of specific ‘training’ about teaching literacy.

Guilt...about acquiring ‘stuff’ and ‘resources’ for my classroom, rather than acquiring ‘knowledge’ first and foremost about my learners.

Guilt...about teaching ‘balanced literacy ‘ and 3-way cueing and basically failing 15 years of struggling readers, until I learned better.

The first lockdown last year gave my husband and I time to reflect on our working lives. Did we have enough savings to cope if he lost his job? Did he want to take early retirement? Had we been successful in either of our careers? How did we measure success in that regard?

I reflected that I had entered teaching inspired by my brother, a dyslexic, and my dream had been to help more people learn to read and write. I couldn’t honestly say I had achieved that goal, because every year I had so many ‘target students’, teacher code for struggling students.

So my husband and I both set work and non-work goals, and one of mine was to refocus my teaching so I could transition from the classroom to specialist tutoring. 

Although I had been expanding my knowledge around struggling learners in the previous two years, my study intensified from autumn last year and that is how I found Spelfabet, the DEB (Dyslexia Evidenced Based) support group and Lifting Literacy Aotearoa. I found others like me, people passionate about equitable access to education for all.

So my goal shifted from training as a specialist tutor to helping my colleagues, school and wider teaching community learn how to transition to using Structured Literacy. I wanted to lift up many more learners through systemic change in our educational sector, rather than just the few who could afford tutoring.

In my teaching career, I estimate I have failed at least 75 students, if I count 5 ‘target students’ per year who were struggling readers and writers.

It is with great satisfaction that I know moving to Structured Literacy at my school will help 200 children per year, including the 40 to 50 children who would usually be our ‘target students’.

So the good news is, even if I change jobs or I retire to become a ‘lady who gardens’, at least I can leave my school knowing the torch has been handed on to others. My teaching colleagues will learn how to ensure all our students can be successful at cracking the reading and writing code. It won’t necessarily be easy, for teachers or students, but perseverance will pay off.

Remember I said this post was about hope.

Advocacy can be lonely work. You may be alone in your school, or a parent struggling with your child at home. You may feel like you are banging your head on that ‘wall’.

But by sharing our knowledge and supporting one another in our network of dyslexia advocates, we can make change, even if it is one child at a time. What wonderful results we can hope for if we can make it one school at a time!

Be the change you want to see, and don’t give up!

One ripple can turn into a wave.