good

Document Sample
good Powered By Docstoc
					      University of Oregon                                                          Roland H. Good III
      College of Education                                                          Deb Simmons
                                                                                    Ed Kame’enui
                                                                                    David Chard
             Operationalizing Response to
             Intervention in Eligibility Decisions

Responsiveness-to-Intervention Symposium
December 4-5, 2003 • Kansas City, Missouri

The National Research Center on Learning Disabilities, a collaborative project of staff at Vanderbilt University and the University of
Kansas, sponsored this two-day symposium focusing on responsiveness-to-intervention (RTI) issues.

The symposium was made possible by the support of the U.S. Department of Education Office of Special Education Programs. Renee
Bradley, Project Officer. Opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the position of the U.S.
Department of Education.

When citing materials presented during the symposium, please use the following: “Good, R. H., Simmons, D., Kame’enui, E., & Chard,
D. (2003, December). Operationalizing Response to Intervention in eligibility decisions. Paper presented at the National Research
Center on Learning Disabilities Responsiveness-to-Intervention Symposium, Kansas City, MO.”
                Overarching Goals of Response to
                Intervention
                1. Early intervention and prevention to enhance
                    outcomes for students with disabilities and students
                    at risk of disabilities.
                      Rapidly escalating intensity of support
                2. Make accurate and defensible decisions about
                    services and eligibility.
                      Reliable and valid decision procedures that can
                         be manualized and brought to scale.



Good, R. H., Simmons, D., Kame’enui, E., & Chard, D. (2003, December). Operationalizing Response to Intervention in eligibility decisions. Paper presented at the
National Research Center on Learning Disabilities Responsiveness-to-Intervention Symposium, Kansas City, MO.
                                                                                                                                                                    2
                Operationalizing Response to Intervention
                  The key construct of interest is Response to Effective
                   Intervention. We need to spend as much time
                   establishing procedures to evaluate the effectiveness of
                   instruction and intervention as to evaluate response.
                1. Evaluating Effectiveness of Intervention
                     Core curriculum and instruction
                     System of intervention
                2. Evaluating response to intervention
                     Deficit in initial level
                     Deficit in slope or rate of progress


Good, R. H., Simmons, D., Kame’enui, E., & Chard, D. (2003, December). Operationalizing Response to Intervention in eligibility decisions. Paper presented at the
National Research Center on Learning Disabilities Responsiveness-to-Intervention Symposium, Kansas City, MO.
                                                                                                                                                                    3
                Evaluating the Core Curriculum and
                Instruction
                        If students are not making adequate progress because they are
                         not being taught, they are teaching disabled not learning
                         disabled.
                        Is the core curriculum research based? However, a research-
                         based curriculum isn’t enough. We also need to evaluate how it is
                         delivered:
                              Core + fidelity
                              Core + fidelity + supplements
                              Core + fidelity + supplements + time
                              Core + fidelity + supplements + time + timeliness
                              Core + fidelity + supplements + time + timeliness +
                               intangibles


Good, R. H., Simmons, D., Kame’enui, E., & Chard, D. (2003, December). Operationalizing Response to Intervention in eligibility decisions. Paper presented at the
National Research Center on Learning Disabilities Responsiveness-to-Intervention Symposium, Kansas City, MO.
                                                                                                                                                                    4
                Evaluating Secondary Interventions
                         System of support
                            How are students identified to receive support?
                            Who will provide the support?
                            How much time and when?
                            What program components or adjustments will be
                              used?
                            What are the characteristics of the tasks?
                            How intensive is the intervention?



Good, R. H., Simmons, D., Kame’enui, E., & Chard, D. (2003, December). Operationalizing Response to Intervention in eligibility decisions. Paper presented at the
National Research Center on Learning Disabilities Responsiveness-to-Intervention Symposium, Kansas City, MO.
                                                                                                                                                                    5
Table 1:     Alterable Program Components and Specific Adjustments Used To
            Intensify Intervention

                                                   Intensity of Interventions
     Program
    Components          (Low) 1               2              3 (Medium)              4              5 (High)
                     Increase            Increase          Increase           Add 1-to-1         Add another
                     attendance and      individual        individual         tutoring for 10-   instructional
 Time and Response   ensure daily        response          response           15 minutes on      period(double
                     instruction--set    opportunities     opportunities      same daily         dose) for group
   Opportunities                                                              lesson--high       on additional
                     goals               within group      outside group
                                         structure         structure          correct response   lesson
                                                                              rate
                     Research-based      Preteach          Supplement         Replace core       Implement
                     core program in     difficult         core program       program with       specially
                     place & staff       prerequisite      with               another core       designed
  Program Efficacy
                     trained             skills/compo-     appropriate        program            program in
                                         nents of core     materials &                           addition to core
                                         program           enhancements                          program
                     Core program        Conduct           Provide            Provide         Change
                     lesson taught       fidelity check    additional staff   coaching and    lesson teacher
     Program
                     each day at high    on lesson         development on     ongoing support
  Implementation     level of fidelity   implementa-                          on lesson
                                                           target areas
                                         tion weekly                          teaching
                     Placement is        Reduce group      Reduce group       Provide 1-to-1     Provide 1-to-1
     Group Size      appropriate         size to 4-5       to 2-3 students    instruction 1-2    instruction only
                     within group        students                             times per week     and daily
                     Clarify and         Establish clear   Provide            Establish          Meet weekly to
  Coordination of    establish           communica-        complemen-         concurrent         examine
    Program &        instructional       tion across       tary reading       reading periods    progress
    Instruction      priorities          instructors       instruction
                                                           across periods
Table 2:    Alterable Task Components and Specific Adjustments Used To Intensify
            Intervention

                                            Intensity of Interventions
      Task
   Components          (Low) 1          2            3 (Medium)          4     5 (High)

                     Narrow range                 Medium range               Wide range and
   Range of Task
                     and limited                  and moderate               extensive
 Examples--Narrow,   number of                    number of                  number of
   Medium, Wide      examples                     examples                   examples


  Task Complexity    Easy task--                  Medium task                Difficult Task
  Variation--Easy/   familiar task                with 3-5 steps             with multiple
       Hard          with 1-2 steps               and parts                  steps, and
                     or parts                                                unfamiliar

                     Abbreviated                  Medium task                Extended task
   Task Schedule     task schedule                schedule with              schedule with
    Variation--      with focus on                focus on 1-2               focus on
    Abbreviated      one response in              response with              multiple
     /Extended       1-2 minute                   5-10 minute                responses > 15
                     period                       period                     minutes


Task Response Form Use of Yes/No                  Use choice                 Use production
 Variation--Yes/No, response form                 response form              response form
 Choice, Production to each task                  to each task               to each task
                     request                      request                    request
                     Use motor                    Use oral                   Use written
   Task Modality
                     response to                  response to                response to
  Variation--Oral,   point to correct             identify correct           demonstrate
  Motor, Written     response                     response                   correct response
                Evaluating Effectiveness of Intervention:
                A Modest Proposal
                         Phase 1: Empirical. A school that meets established standards for
                          effective core curriculum and instruction and effective
                          intervention for an instructional step is accepted as having an
                          effective intervention.
                         Phase 2: Observation. A school that does not meet established
                          standards provides direct observation evidence for effectiveness
                          of core curriculum and instruction and effectiveness of
                          intervention.
                               Note: The direct observations can be a part of consultation
                                to improve the effectiveness of instruction for these schools.




Good, R. H., Simmons, D., Kame’enui, E., & Chard, D. (2003, December). Operationalizing Response to Intervention in eligibility decisions. Paper presented at the
National Research Center on Learning Disabilities Responsiveness-to-Intervention Symposium, Kansas City, MO.
                                                                                                                                                                    8
                Empirical Standards for Core Curriculum
                and Instruction
                         Effective core curriculum and instruction
                           1. 90% or more of benchmark students in the school
                               achieve the benchmark goal for the step, or
                           2. The school is in the upper third of effectiveness of
                               their core curriculum and instruction.
                         An ambitious absolute standard (1) is needed so that
                          all schools can achieve the standard. A relative
                          standard (2) is needed so schools cannot argue that the
                          absolute standard is too rigorous.


Good, R. H., Simmons, D., Kame’enui, E., & Chard, D. (2003, December). Operationalizing Response to Intervention in eligibility decisions. Paper presented at the
National Research Center on Learning Disabilities Responsiveness-to-Intervention Symposium, Kansas City, MO.
                                                                                                                                                                    9
               Instructional Steps to Reading Outcomes
Big Ideas in                                                                                                Accuracy &                             High-Stakes
Beginning                          Phonological                       Alphabetic
                                    Awareness                          Principle                            Fluency with                            Reading
Reading                                                                                                    Connected Text                           Outcome




Dynamic
Indicators of
Big Ideas in                       ISF         PSF                         NWF         ORF                      ORF                     ORF              HSA
Beginning
Reading


Benchmark Goal
Timeline for
Assessing Big                                                Fall      Winter Spring Fall Winter Spring Fall Winter Spring
Ideas K-3      Fall              Winter Spring


Instructional               Step         Step                       Step        Step                     Step                   Step
Step                         1            2                          3           4                        5                      6

                             Kindergarten                             First Grade                   Second Grade            Third Grade
                In the beginning of first grade, the primary instructional goal is
                development of the alphabetic principle meeting a goal of 50 or more
                on Nonsense Word Fluency.
Good, R. H., Simmons, D., Kame’enui, E., & Chard, D. (2003, December). Operationalizing Response to Intervention in eligibility decisions. Paper presented at the
National Research Center on Learning Disabilities Responsiveness-to-Intervention Symposium, Kansas City, MO.
                                                                                                                                                                    10
                Step 3: Nonsense Word Fluency in First
                Half of First Grade
          80                                                                                                                    Middle first goal:
          70
                                                                                                                                 50 on NWF
                                                                                                                                Beginning first
          60
                                                                                                                                    Low risk: >= 24



                               }
          50
                                                                                                                                    At risk: < 13
          40
                                                      Low Risk                                                                  Mid first NWF:
          30
                                                                                                                                    Established:
          20
                                                      Some Risk                                                                      NWF >= 50
          10                                                                                                                        Deficit: < 30
                                                      At Risk
                    Sept.             Oct.              Nov.              Dec.              Jan.              Feb.
                                                                                                                                Additional Goal:
          Week 1
                   Scores            Scores            Scores            Scores            Scores            Scores
                                                                                                                                 ORF >= 20
          Week 2
          Week 3
          Week 4




Good, R. H., Simmons, D., Kame’enui, E., & Chard, D. (2003, December). Operationalizing Response to Intervention in eligibility decisions. Paper presented at the
National Research Center on Learning Disabilities Responsiveness-to-Intervention Symposium, Kansas City, MO.
                                                                                                                                                                    11
                Effectiveness of Core & Intervention
                                               300
                                                                                                           Intensive
                                               250                                                         Strategic
                           Number of Schools


                                                                                                           Benchmark
                                               200

                                               150

                                               100

                                               50

                                                0
                                                     0

                                                              0

                                                                       0

                                                                                0

                                                                                         0

                                                                                                     0

                                                                                                                0

                                                                                                                            0

                                                                                                                                       0

                                                                                                                                                 00
                                                 -1

                                                          -2

                                                                   -3

                                                                            -4

                                                                                      -5

                                                                                                 -6

                                                                                                             -7

                                                                                                                        -8

                                                                                                                                    -9

                                                                                                                                              -1
                                                0

                                                         11

                                                                  21

                                                                           31

                                                                                    41

                                                                                             51

                                                                                                         61

                                                                                                                     71

                                                                                                                                81

                                                                                                                                          91
                                                                  Conditional Percent Reaching NWF Goal
                     Based on 384 schools, a typical (median) school gets 25 percent of
                     strategic and 68 percent of benchmark students to the goal of 50 on
                     NWF, with substantial school to school variability.
Good, R. H., Simmons, D., Kame’enui, E., & Chard, D. (2003, December). Operationalizing Response to Intervention in eligibility decisions. Paper presented at the
National Research Center on Learning Disabilities Responsiveness-to-Intervention Symposium, Kansas City, MO.
                                                                                                                                                                    12
                Empirical Standards for Core Curriculum
                and Instruction
                         Effective core curriculum and instruction
                           1. 90% or more of benchmark students in the school
                               achieve the benchmark goal for the step, or
                                 Is the 90% standard too high?

                                 Or are most core curricula and instruction not
                                    providing enough emphasis on alphabetic
                                    principle?
                           2. The school is in the upper third of effectiveness of
                               their core curriculum and instruction.
                                 76 percent of benchmark students achieving
                                    the NWF goal of 50 is in the upper third.
Good, R. H., Simmons, D., Kame’enui, E., & Chard, D. (2003, December). Operationalizing Response to Intervention in eligibility decisions. Paper presented at the
National Research Center on Learning Disabilities Responsiveness-to-Intervention Symposium, Kansas City, MO.
                                                                                                                                                                    13
             Percent of Students in Instructional
              Recommendation Category who
 School-       Achieve Mid First NWF Goal
 Based,                                             Effectiveness of Core Curriculum and
Percentile   Intensive    Strategic    Benchmark     Intensive or Strategic Intervention

     5           0             0            40
    10           0             0            45
    15           0             7            50
                                                                Lower Third
    20           0            10            52
    25           0            13            55
    30           0            15            58
    35           0            17            60
    40           0            20            63
    45           0            23            64
    50           0            25            68                 Middle Third
    55           4            27            70
    60           6            30            72
    65           8            31            74
    70          11            33            76
    75          14            40            78
    80          17            43            80
    85          22            47            83                  Upper Third
    90          27            50            86
    95          36            60            90
    99          67            81            94
                Empirical Standards for Intervention
                         Effective system of intervention is in place for a school
                          if
                           1. 50 percent or more of strategic students in the
                               school achieve the benchmark goal for the step, or
                           2. The school is in the upper third of effectiveness of
                               their strategic intervention.
                         For Step 2 in the first half of first grade, 33 percent of
                          strategic students achieving the NWF goal would be in
                          the upper third of effectiveness of schools’ strategic
                          intervention.
Good, R. H., Simmons, D., Kame’enui, E., & Chard, D. (2003, December). Operationalizing Response to Intervention in eligibility decisions. Paper presented at the
National Research Center on Learning Disabilities Responsiveness-to-Intervention Symposium, Kansas City, MO.
                                                                                                                                                                    15
               Instructional Steps to Reading Outcomes
Big Ideas in                                                                                                Accuracy &                             High-Stakes
Beginning                          Phonological                       Alphabetic
                                    Awareness                          Principle                            Fluency with                            Reading
Reading                                                                                                    Connected Text                           Outcome




Dynamic
Indicators of
Big Ideas in                       ISF         PSF                         NWF         ORF                      ORF                     ORF              HSA
Beginning
Reading


Benchmark Goal
Timeline for
Assessing Big                                                Fall      Winter Spring Fall Winter Spring Fall Winter Spring
Ideas K-3      Fall              Winter Spring


Instructional               Step         Step                       Step        Step                     Step                   Step
Step                         1            2                          3           4                        5                      6

                             Kindergarten                             First Grade                   Second Grade            Third Grade
                In the beginning of first grade, the primary instructional goal is
                development of the alphabetic principle meeting a goal of 50 or more
                on Nonsense Word Fluency.
Good, R. H., Simmons, D., Kame’enui, E., & Chard, D. (2003, December). Operationalizing Response to Intervention in eligibility decisions. Paper presented at the
National Research Center on Learning Disabilities Responsiveness-to-Intervention Symposium, Kansas City, MO.
                                                                                                                                                                    16
                Step 4: Oral Reading Fluency in Second
                Half of First Grade
                                                                                                                                  End first goal:
          70
                                                                                                                                   40 on ORF
          60
                                                                                                                                  Middle first ORF:
          50
                                                                                                                                      Low risk: >= 20
          40



          30



          20
                               }                      Low Risk


                                                      Some Risk
                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                      At risk: < 8
                                                                                                                                   End first ORF:
                                                                                                                                      Low risk: >= 40
          10                                                                                                                          At risk: < 20
                                                      At Risk                                                                     Additional Goal:
                    Dec.          Jan.           Feb.           March           April           May            June

          Week 1
                   Scores        Scores         Scores          Scores         Scores          Scores         Scores
                                                                                                                                   Retell > ORF/4
          Week 2

          Week 3

          Week 4




Good, R. H., Simmons, D., Kame’enui, E., & Chard, D. (2003, December). Operationalizing Response to Intervention in eligibility decisions. Paper presented at the
National Research Center on Learning Disabilities Responsiveness-to-Intervention Symposium, Kansas City, MO.
                                                                                                                                                                    17
                Step 4: End of first grade
                                                350
                                                                                                       Intensive
                                                300                                                    Strategic
                            Number of Schools


                                                250                                                    Benchmark

                                                200

                                                150

                                                100

                                                50

                                                 0
                                                      0

                                                               0

                                                                        0

                                                                                 0

                                                                                          0

                                                                                                   0

                                                                                                            0

                                                                                                                     0

                                                                                                                                0

                                                                                                                                         00
                                                  -1

                                                           -2

                                                                    -3

                                                                             -4

                                                                                      -5

                                                                                               -6

                                                                                                        -7

                                                                                                                  -8

                                                                                                                             -9

                                                                                                                                      -1
                                                 0

                                                          11

                                                                   21

                                                                            31

                                                                                     41

                                                                                              51

                                                                                                       61

                                                                                                                71

                                                                                                                         81

                                                                                                                                  91
                                                                   Conditional Percent Reaching ORF Goal

                     Based on 399 schools, a typical (median) school gets 96 percent of
                     strategic and 39 percent of benchmark students to the goal of 50 on
                     NWF, with little school to school variability for benchmark students.
Good, R. H., Simmons, D., Kame’enui, E., & Chard, D. (2003, December). Operationalizing Response to Intervention in eligibility decisions. Paper presented at the
National Research Center on Learning Disabilities Responsiveness-to-Intervention Symposium, Kansas City, MO.
                                                                                                                                                                    18
             Percent of Students in Instructional
              Recommendation Category who
 School-        Achieve ORF Reading Goal
 Based,                                             Effectiveness of Core Curriculum and
Percentile   Intensive    Strategic    Benchmark     Intensive or Strategic Intervention

     5           0             6            82
    10           0            14            86
    15           0            18            89
                                                                Lower Third
    20           0            22            90
    25           0            26            91
    30           0            29            92
    35           0            32            93
    40           0            34            94
    45           0            37            95
    50           0            39            96                 Middle Third
    55           4            40            96
    60           7            43            97
    65           8            45            97
    70          11            50            98
    75          13            53            98
    80          15            57           100
    85          17            61           100                  Upper Third
    90          22            67           100
    95          33            76           100
    99         100          100            100
                Empirical Standards for Core Curriculum
                and Instruction for Step 4
                         Effective core curriculum and instruction
                           1. 90% or more of benchmark students in the school
                               achieve the benchmark goal of 40 or more on Oral
                               Reading Fluency, or
                           2. The school is in the upper third of effectiveness of
                               their core curriculum and instruction.
                                 98 percent of benchmark students achieving
                                    the ORF goal of 40 is in the upper third.



Good, R. H., Simmons, D., Kame’enui, E., & Chard, D. (2003, December). Operationalizing Response to Intervention in eligibility decisions. Paper presented at the
National Research Center on Learning Disabilities Responsiveness-to-Intervention Symposium, Kansas City, MO.
                                                                                                                                                                    20
                Empirical Standards for System of
                Intervention
                         Effective system of intervention
                           1. 50 percent or more of strategic students in the
                               school achieve the benchmark goal of 40 on ORF,
                               or
                           2. The school is in the upper third of effectiveness of
                               their strategic intervention.
                                 50 percent of strategic students achieving the
                                    ORF goal of 40 is in the upper third of
                                    effectiveness of strategic intervention.


Good, R. H., Simmons, D., Kame’enui, E., & Chard, D. (2003, December). Operationalizing Response to Intervention in eligibility decisions. Paper presented at the
National Research Center on Learning Disabilities Responsiveness-to-Intervention Symposium, Kansas City, MO.
                                                                                                                                                                    21
                Evaluating Adequate Progress in Step 3
          80                                                                                                                    Middle first goal:
          70
                                                                                                                                 50 on NWF
                                                                                                                                Beginning first
          60                                     Adequate Progress
                                                                                                                                    Low risk: >= 24
          50
                                                                                                                                    At risk: < 13
          40
                                                                                                                                Mid first NWF:
          30
                                                                                                                                    Established:
          20                                                                                                                         NWF >= 50
          10                                                                                                                        Deficit: < 30
                                                                Deficit in level & slope`
                    Sept.             Oct.              Nov.              Dec.              Jan.              Feb.
                                                                                                                                Additional Goal:
          Week 1
                   Scores            Scores            Scores            Scores            Scores            Scores
                                                                                                                                 ORF >= 20
          Week 2
          Week 3
          Week 4




Good, R. H., Simmons, D., Kame’enui, E., & Chard, D. (2003, December). Operationalizing Response to Intervention in eligibility decisions. Paper presented at the
National Research Center on Learning Disabilities Responsiveness-to-Intervention Symposium, Kansas City, MO.
                                                                                                                                                                    22
                        Three Tier Model of Primary, Secondary,
                          and Tertiary Prevention
                                                    Tertiary Prevention
                    Students                                                                                         •     Tertiary Support
                    severe
                                                                                                                     •     Level 5 Intensity
                    sustained
                    learning
                    difficulty
                    (5%)
                    Students at
                    some risk or who                          Secondary Prevention
                    make adequate                                                                                    •     Secondary Support
                    progress with                                                                                    •     Level 3 or 4 Intensity
                    additional
                    intervention
                    (15% )

                    Students at low risk or who
                    make adequate progress with                        Primary Prevention
                    modest support (80%)                                                                             •     Universal Support
                                                                                                                     •     Selected Support
                                                                                                                     •     Indicated Support


          Note. Adapted from Walker, H. M., Horner, R. H., Sugai, G., Bullis, M., Sprague, J. R., Bricker, D, & Kaufman, M. J. (1996).
          Integrated approaches to preventing antisocial behavior patterns among school –age children and youth. Journal of Emotional
          and Behavioral Disorders, 4, 194-209.
Good, R. H., Simmons, D., Kame’enui, E., & Chard, D. (2003, December). Operationalizing Response to Intervention in eligibility decisions. Paper presented at the
National Research Center on Learning Disabilities Responsiveness-to-Intervention Symposium, Kansas City, MO.
                                                                                                                                                                    23
                Purposes of Three Tier Prevention
                         to reduce the number of new cases of severe difficulty
                          learning to read
                            Primary Prevention
                         to reduce the duration of existing cases of severe
                          difficulty learning to read.
                            Secondary Prevention
                         to reduce sequelae and complications from established
                          cases of severe difficulty learning to read
                            Tertiary Prevention

                          Simeonsson, R. J. (1994). Promoting children's health, education, and well being. In R. J.
                          Simeonsson (Ed.), Risk, resilience, and prevention: Promoting the well-being of all children (pp.
                          3-12). Baltimore: Paul H. Brooks.
Good, R. H., Simmons, D., Kame’enui, E., & Chard, D. (2003, December). Operationalizing Response to Intervention in eligibility decisions. Paper presented at the
National Research Center on Learning Disabilities Responsiveness-to-Intervention Symposium, Kansas City, MO.
                                                                                                                                                                    24
                Needed Resources for Three Tier
                Prevention
                         Effective core curriculum and instruction.
                         System of effective intervention and support.
                         Interventions that can be arranged on a continuum of
                          intensity and level of support ranging from good (1) to
                          bullet proof (5).
                         Meaningful and important goals, waypoints, or
                          benchmarks representing reading health or wellness.
                         Brief, repeatable, formative assessment of progress
                          toward benchmark goals that is sensitive to
                          intervention.
Good, R. H., Simmons, D., Kame’enui, E., & Chard, D. (2003, December). Operationalizing Response to Intervention in eligibility decisions. Paper presented at the
National Research Center on Learning Disabilities Responsiveness-to-Intervention Symposium, Kansas City, MO.
                                                                                                                                                                    25
                Additional Needs for Three Tier
                Model
                         Integrated, flexible general and special education
                          service delivery to provide intervention of increasing
                          intensity.
                         Decision procedures that are reliable and valid and
                          that can mobilize intensive prevention resources very
                          early, before reading difficulty and failure.
                         Schoolwide process to bring school resources and
                          context to bear to accomplish three tier prevention
                          needs.
                         Procedures that get effective intervention to students
                          at risk early to prevent more severe difficulties.
Good, R. H., Simmons, D., Kame’enui, E., & Chard, D. (2003, December). Operationalizing Response to Intervention in eligibility decisions. Paper presented at the
National Research Center on Learning Disabilities Responsiveness-to-Intervention Symposium, Kansas City, MO.
                                                                                                                                                                    26

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Stats:
views:7
posted:2/21/2010
language:English
pages:26