Skip to content

Beware of Data Sharing Cheerleaders Offering Webinars

January 3, 2014

Perhaps the most sobering component of the privatization push is its unprecedented demand for data collection (data “mining”) on American students. Data mining is not just an American issue. However, on the American front, two education activists have been at the forefront of the fight against this mammoth student data collection: Louisiana’s Jason France (here’s a great example of his writing on the subject) and New York’s Leonie Haimson (her is her testimony on student data/privacy issues in a September 2013 New York city council meeting).

(For those unfamiliar with the data mining issue, see this concise yet thorough summary on the WhatIsCommonCore blog.)

US Secretary of Education Arne Duncan believes that there is “power” in data for “school reform”.

Indeed there is. The issue isn’t whether there is “power” in data collection and storage, and its potential sharing. There certainly is power. That is precisely why the public is wary of the federal push to develop statewide, longitudinal data systems.

The question is whether state and federal governments (and the privatizing interests nurtured by state and federal governments) should have control of over 400 data points per student.

As is true with any attempt to hand over the public to privatizing interests (i.e., the heart of corporate reform), the potential for exploitation abounds is this so-called “data storing/ data sharing” endeavor.

Those promoting the data collection want to assure those who will be subject to it that there is nothing to fear, that if handled properly, the mountains of data can only benefit those whose lives have been mined.

Enter the “reassuring” data sharing webinar. This is sponsored by the Education Writers Association (EWA):

Student Privacy: Lost in the Cloud?
Thursday, Jan. 9, 2014
3:30 p.m.

As more school districts share data with parents and teachers, privacy advocates warn that they run the risk of violating students’ privacy. How valid are such concerns? Should parental rights trump educators’ efforts to track students? What should the federal role be?

Our webinar will look at these issues, with a particular focus on how the rollout of assessments linked to the Common Core State Standards could affect student privacy. Speakers include:

Aimee Guidera, Data Quality Campaign
Joel Reidenberg, Fordham University
Jim Shelton, U.S. Department of Education
Ben Herold, Education Week (moderator)

Space is limited — register today!  [Emphasis added.]

To those who would isolate the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) from other reforms: This webinar maintains that CCSS, its assessments, and resulting data collection are a package deal.

Furthermore, notice the wording: Should parental rights trump educators’ efforts to track students? 

Got that? It’s the educators who want to track the students!

Now, know that the term educators is the fashionable disguise to hide those with either zero or arguably cosmetic classroom experience but who have inserted themselves into key decision making positions in public education.

It isn’t the teachers and local administrators who want to collect hundreds of data points and store these in some “cloud.”

In our upside-down, corporate-reform-shaken world, educators also means education for-profits and education philanthropists.

Speaking of “education philanthropists”:

Guess whose “education stuff” dollars are all over this webinar?

Yep. Bill. Gates.

First of all, it was Gates money that funded the inBloom data “cloud.”

Next, the sponsor of the webinar, EWA, has taken $2.7 million in Gates money since 2003.

Third, the Data Quality Campaign (DQC) has taken $13.5 million in Gates money. (In November 2013, I wrote this post on Aimee Guidera and DQC. Enlightening reading.)

Fourth, USDOE Assistant Secretary for Innovation and Improvement Jim Shelton used to work for Gates as the Gates Foundation director of its education division. Shelton is also a partner with the charter-market-creating New Schools Venture Fund (a connection to Education Undersecretary nominee Ted Mitchell) AND was a senior management consultant for McKinsey and Company (former employer of Common Core “lead architect” David Coleman).

Fifth, Fordham University professor Joel Reidenberg and others conducted a study on privacy issues and “cloud computing”… funded by Microsoft.

To be fair, I must note that Reidenberg’s paper does include the following acknowledgement and assertion of no influence of funding upon study outcomes:

A gift from Microsoft to the Center on Law and Information Policy at the Fordham University School of Law, New York, NY (Fordham CLIP) supported work on this study.

The views and opinions expressed in this report are those of the authors and are not presented as those of any of the sponsoring organizations or financial supporters of those organizations.

However, whereas the Reidenberg et al. study “proposes a set of specific, constructive recommendations for school districts and vendors to be able to address the deficiencies in privacy protection,” it does not address the question of the appropriateness of such massive data collection in the first place.

To be blunt: Reidenberg and his colleagues can offer as many reasonable cautions as they like. None if it matters since those with the power and influence to force their data collection agenda answer to no one.

Reidenberg et al. suggests the establishment of a national research center and clearinghouse.

What they should have suggested is the establishment of a regulatory agency to enforce their other suggestions and a halt to all massive data collection until such an agency were established and active.

(I have no evidence to the effect that the Reidenberg recommendations were in some way modified to suit the wishes of the study’s funder. However, I have been learning some lessons regarding the subtle limiting ability of funders upon so-called “outside” or “objective” investigation. For example, I will never forget that the agency hired by former DC Chancellor Rhee and Rhee successor Henderson to investigate cheating in DC, Caveon, had limits set by its “funders” and had to operate within the scope of those limits. Thus, I learned that it is possible for investigators [and researchers] to operate truthfully within prescribed limits. Thus, in reading the Reidenberg et al. recommendations, I wonder whether the overall study is somehow couched within parameters “suitable” to Microsoft and by extension, Gates.)

No one on this panel will offer strong cautions against massive data collection. 

Incidentally, no one on this panel will be subject to having the likes of inBloom “store” hundreds of data points connected to their lives in some unregulated “cloud.”

And so it goes in the world of corporate reform: Those cheerleading and strategically devising ways to entice “voluntary” participation/agreement are themselves removed from the consequences of their own advice.

I challenge Duncan, and Gates, and Guidera, and Shelton, and Reidenberg, and anyone else who promotes the longitudinal data collection on America’s students to first volunteer for hundreds of points of his or her own information– selected by others– to be placed in the trust and care of the privatizer-friendly data cloud.

Such a demonstration really would be the heights of “backing up one’s opinion with data.”

  1. Garrett I stopped by the inBloom library and read two documents…

    next generation learning: introduction

    next generation learning: scaling the opportunity

    I have pasted below excerpts from both documents that caught my attention and encourage others to take the time to read them both in their entirety.

    While you stated that “Giving teachers more information and tools to help the students in their classroom is our mission as a non-profit.” it is clear from these documents that additional priorities include redefining the role of teachers, cost savings for districts, and expanding the practice or “business” of data mining.

    “Together, the Common Core and associated assessments will allow entrepreneurs to develop
    school models that measure student progress not in hours or years, but in skills learned and knowledge attained. A second enabler is the development of information technology, particularly
    with respect to the collection and analysis of student data.

    Currently, players from multiple markets (including publishers, technology vendors, and non-profit organizations) are trying to position themselves as “integrators” and gain share of this relatively new market.

    In schools that have embraced NGL, individual students receive instruction tailored to their needs and interests in new and different ways. Students can learn anytime, anywhere, and receive instruction through a variety of modalities, facilitated by a diverse corps of learning professionals.

    High-performing schools are using student-level data in new and exciting ways as they begin to focus on personalized learning. For these schools, the challenges lie in figuring out how to improve their use of human capital and in making models more easily scalable through automation, information technology, and cost-effectiveness.

    In short, the overall goal for entrepreneurs is to demonstrate that better student outcomes (including higher student learning gains and higher rates of high school graduation and post-secondary acceptance and persistence) are possible, and often for less money. Interviewees named documentation as a critical priority. “If it works, everyone will want to know how you did it. Your goal is to create a blueprint that anyone can follow,” explained one entrepreneur. Interviewees identified cost savings as a critical but often-overlooked piece of documentation. “It’s the second thing everyone wants to know,” explained one interviewee. “The first: how did your students do? The second: how much did it cost?”

    Next generation content must also be modular, capable of being “unbundled” at the level of specific skills. Modular content is necessary to provide the proper instruction to each student at the appropriate time. Very few next generation schools will use a single textbook; instead, schools collect individual lessons from a variety of content providers. As a result, the typical next generation school model will require a tremendous volume of modular content.

    Current next generation learning content is both vertically aligned and modular, enabling a skill-by-skill learning progression. At the School of One, students might learn from content provided by over twenty vendors in a single week, with each vendor delivering a different skill.

    Eliminating barriers to next generation learning requires participation from four key stakeholder groups: districts and states; funders; evaluation, policy, and advocacy organizations; and NGL entrepreneurs inside and outside the education system. Each will play an essential role in generating demand and building capacity for next generation learning.

    Legislative and administrative policies, such as state seat time policies present perhaps the most significant NGL barrier. In many states, students receive credit based on the amount of time they are physically present in a classroom, while NGL classrooms typically allow students to progress at their own pace toward commonly held post-secondary readiness standards.

    The most obvious task for district and state officials is removing important policy barriers. Less obvious but also critical at the local level is delivering a coherent, reassuring message to all constituents. Local leaders must recognize that teachers, parents, and students are often skeptical of new and different learning models. Local leaders set the pace of change within a district and are responsible for convincing key stakeholders of the benefits of innovation. “Our technology department supports the iPhone because employees stood up and demanded it,” explained one interviewee. “The challenge for the local leader is to get students, teachers, and parents to demand next generation learning.”

  2. gitapik permalink

    I’m glad we’ve got some influential people from the reform movement chiming in on this. Huge structural changes such as these require serious debate and transparency in a free society.

    To date, there has been no serious dialogue. In fact: the very people who these “reforms” effect the most (teachers, parents, and kids) have been ridiculed, reviled, and left entirely out of the discussion and decision making process. Not exactly a recipe for cooperation and trust.

    The structural platform of the “reform movement” has stated, from the start, that our national public education system is broken and failing the youth of America. That our standing in international test scores and an inability to churn out “career ready” college grads in the STEM fields is proof of this desperate situation. The claim is that we need dramatic and sweeping changes to adapt to the more competitive global market place.

    When you’re taking on professionals in the field of education (and psychology), you’re taking on some pretty smart cookies. Even here, in the “floundering” USA (though there are brilliant people all over the world who disagree with the slash and burn tactics being employed here, as well). Many of the studies and tactics used to further the cause of education “reform” have been effectively refuted and/or found to be lacking in objective scope. And there are other factors at work here, in terms of our “competitive disadvantages” (aka: salary needs and expectations).

    1) Study after study has shown a direct correlation between poverty and poor academic/social performance.

    2) Income disparity in the USA is higher than it was before the Great Depression and continues to grow.

    3) The people with the most money (and they have quite a bit, already) will see immense profits and power as a result of these changes in educational policy.

    1 + 2 = 3.

    Lack of transparency on the part of an entity that wants to effect change is always a reason to prompt caution. This is what we’re seeing here. Maybe the reformers are “right”. But the consequences will be devastating if they’re not. If you’re so concerned about the well being of our nation’s kids, why not step back and allow a thorough review by academics, economists, and child psychologists, subject to fair national media coverage, of the methods being employed?

  3. Deborah permalink

    What it all boils down to is this: Arne Duncan killed FERPA in a cold-blooded, calculated, pre-meditated act. He purposefully eviscerated the entire legal purpose and spirit of that sacrosanct statute so as to pave the way for the inBlooms of the world. With the stroke of a pen, he effectively abolished all parental rights to control the collection and destiny of their own children’s data. Make no mistake; he knew exactly what he needed to do. He knew that parents would never consent to this blatant scheme; else, why go through the trouble of twice revising the regulations the way that he did? He played with certain definitions — all to suit and effect his documented grand data mining scheme otherwise impossible without his 2008 and 2011 revisions. Arne Duncan clearly exceeded the bounds of FERPA. It matters not how secure their cloud can be. My rights of parental consent should trump all. Let ME decide what, if any, of my child’s confidential data they get the privilege of having. Then I will decide if they can safeguard that privileged material to my satisfaction. Feel free to sign the children’s data protection and privacy petition. Thank you.

  4. Garrett you continue to assure parents that private student data will not be “sold” but what about allowing vendors access to this data so they can create NGL and personalized learning products that will be sold back to school districts?

    There is no doubt that FERPA was amended in 2011 specifically to allow for greater access and sharing of private student data…

    “…These amendments are needed to ensure that the U.S. Department of Education (Department or we) continues to implement FERPA in a way that protects the privacy of education records while allowing for the effective use of data”

    While I take you at your word when you say “inBloom is an independent, non-profit organization whose mission is to provide a valuable resource to teachers, students and families, to improve education.” I do wonder why you did not include vendors and product developers in that statement when the “for developers” section of your web site states, “inBloom offers a growing suite of tools for developers interested in building new and innovative applications to deliver personalized learning.”

    It is clear there are numerous NGL “players” who have plans to monetize the student data you are collecting through new “personalized” and adaptive learning products that are in research and development phases..

    “With these technologies available in our classrooms, we will be able to create learning environments that not only teach, but also “learn” to teach more effectively. By distributing the intelligence between student and environment, the curriculum will be able to track student successes and weaknesses and monitor the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of its own methods. The result will be a curriculum that becomes smarter, not more outdated, over time.”

    “Using content marked up in advance by developers and A BASIC PROFILE OF A STUDENTS PREFERENCES AND NEEDS, a prototype adaptive engine analyzes student decisions and infers which kinds of presentations (graphic, text, etc.) work best for each student based on their learning characteristics. It then automatically generates that content for the student.”

    As the role of teachers and “learning professionals” in the classroom is redefined, might we learn that under the NGL model an educators role will be primarily room monitor and tech support?

    I do understand how “parking” students in front of computer screens is much more cost effective for school districts…a PC can “work” 24/7, is not unionized, does not receive a salary, pension, health care, and other benefits.

    While these “personalized” and self-paced programs may help students to achieve proficiency with respect to a narrow set of measurable hard skills, I am very concerned we will discover in the future that we have “educated” a generation of students that are not socially and emotionally equipped for the real “tests” in life…

    “Unfortunately, the Common Core is more concerned with telling students what “college readiness” skills they have yet to master at each grade level, rather than helping every student to discover his or her own unique talents and unleashing the athletic, artistic, musical, creative, emotional, inventive, social, scientific, and vocational skills they do possess.”

    “Focusing education programs on a narrow set of measurable hard skills at the expense of student-centered classroom activities and community building experiences that promote social/emotional learning and ethical behavior will leave our students ill equipped and unprepared for the real “tests” in life.”

    The appropriate and skillful application of hard skills is soft skills dependent. ~ Corporate Learning World Blog

    While a NGL computer lab may be filled with students interacting with adaptive and “personalized” software programs that are self-paced and appeal to individual interests…they are all sitting in front of computers in order to learn.

    Dating myself, but my old school definition of personalized learning would be having students walk into an industrial arts (shop class), home economics, music, or gym class and then allowing students to choose an activity.

    • Garrett Suhm permalink

      Our customers (School Districts) have absolute control over who can access the inBloom service.

      From our security and privacy policy:

      Customers Determine Access to PII. School Districts and State Educational Agencies that use inBloom to store PII have control of the data and are the ultimate arbiters of who is able to have access to the PII. School Districts and State Educational Agencies that elect to use inBloom sign an agreement with inBloom, Inc, which includes requirements to comply with this Data Privacy and Security Policy. A State Educational Agency, as authorized by School Districts, may also sign a participation agreement on behalf of School Districts in its state. Student data are uploaded into inBloom by the School District and/or State Educational Agency. It remains the responsibility of the School District and/or State Educational Agency to ensure that the information uploaded into inBloom is accurate, or correctly amended, in accordance with law.

      • Deborah permalink

        “Our customers (School Districts) have absolute control over who can access the inBloom service.

        From our security and privacy policy:

        Customers Determine Access to PII. School Districts and State Educational Agencies that use inBloom to store PII have control of the data and are the ultimate arbiters of who is able to have access to the PII. School Districts and State Educational Agencies that elect to use inBloom sign an agreement with inBloom, Inc, which includes requirements to comply with this Data Privacy and Security Policy. A State Educational Agency, as authorized by School Districts, may also sign a participation agreement on behalf of School Districts in its state. Student data are uploaded into inBloom by the School District and/or State Educational Agency. It remains the responsibility of the School District and/or State Educational Agency to ensure that the information uploaded into inBloom is accurate, or correctly amended, in accordance with law.”

        Is that control really ABSOLUTE? Two comments. First, inBloom Inc.’s own privacy policy acknowledges that it “cannot guarantee the security of the information stored … or that the information will not be intercepted when it is being transmitted.” And, as we have come to know all too well from recent events, data is easily lost, corrupted, and/or accessed by unauthorized individuals. So much for absolute control.

        Second, I thought I read somewhere that if the school or school district breaches the Data Privacy and Security Policy, or some other provision in its contract with inBloom (wish I could find that provision so I could post it here), inBloom retains the absolute right to “cut off” access to the database, thereby preventing ANY access to the database by the school or school district. Again, so much for absolute control.

  5. InBloom officials have said they intend to charge its “clients” $2-$5 per student; recently according to NY officials that has risen to $3-$5 per student. They have also said they are exploring charging vendors for the “services” it supplies; which in my mind is very similar to selling access to the data.

    • monarda permalink

      Let’s see, three million students in NYS @ $5 each — how often per year, from the taxpayers’ money?

  6. One of the education officials in NYS pointed out that we will be have to pay each year to get back from inBloom the student data that we gave them for free. A great business model for them; especially if they can charge vendors for access to the data as well.

  7. Sara permalink

    I am a mom and an opponent of the CCSSI. I had a meeting today with the person in charge of data management for the Louisiana Dept of Education and she repeatedly assured me that though they were outsourcing certain data related services that no personal information was being shared by them with the US-Dept of Ed.

    In addition she assured me that the longitudinal database was handled by LDOE and not outsourced and that it did not collect any information that was not collected before the database was in existence and that data collected on individual students was:

    1. Name
    2. SSN
    3. Gender
    4. Ethnicity
    5. DOB
    6. Lunch Status
    7. Address
    8. Class Schedule
    9. Grades
    10. Enrollment/Attendance Overview
    11. Exceptionalities
    12. Discipline
    13. Assessments

    I posed 31 questions in advance and really did not get much more than that which is stated here beyond references to certain LA and Fed laws and also that any contracts with vendors for outsourced services, protect the data with strict provisions regarding security by outlining the laws governing the use of this data, containing specific provisions for how the data may and may not be used and the specific data elements to be shared and ensuring that data cannot be shared with third parties. Like many of you, I am very frustrated and fear for the privacy of my children and the longterm effects and use of this data in addition to however it is currently being collected, shared and used.

    Does anyone have any specific proof to the contrary beyond the PARCC Agreement and the INBloom letter to State Super John White regarding the “parking” of student socials in violation of its policy? Also can someone explain the difference between Louisiana Education Data Repository System (LEDRS) and the statewide longitudinal database or as the LDOE, are they the same?


    • I can. Just give me a call. I thought we were going to have a phone conversation before that meeting but I am still available. That answer is incorrect and if you google SIS student information guide Louisiana you will see a few hundred pages of data elements. Some of those were created as part of LEDRS grant.

  8. gitapik permalink

    This is an important thread. I just read through it, again, and started to put some ideas down. It got pretty lengthy, which makes me self conscious. But I still have more to say, lol. I don’t pretend to be an expert, so I’m putting these ideas out for consideration. If I need to be corrected, I will gladly take the heat. I’m all about getting it right for all of us:
    “You can opt out of sharing your child’s data”.
    “Parents have no rights to opt out in practice. I opted out, as did many parents, yet all data, including SSN’s were sent to inBloom, multiple times”.
    “inBloom and Amplify doesn’t have student data”
    “Both companies do have the data”
    These two disparities, alone, display a need for transparent debate. They’re both very important points that require clarification.
    “inBloom will never sell student information, nor will we share it with others unless directed to do so by a state or local customer”
    What’s the definition of a “local customer”?
    Regarding “…a state…”, please see below.
    “Our customers (School Districts) have absolute control over who can access the inBloom service”.
    Part of the disconnect, here, is that, even if inBloom is a disinterested party with no access to the data (a disputed claim), the school districts and the politics that influence them are not. Is it reasonable to assume that, throughout the US, every school district will maintain strictly monitored guidelines in the use of student data that’s stored in the cloud? Especially with the added pressure from the State and Fed to meet up with the stipulations of programs such as Race to the Top?
    “inBloom Inc.’s own privacy policy acknowledges that it “cannot guarantee the security of the information stored … or that the information will not be intercepted when it is being transmitted.”
    I understand the legal need for this clause. Any company, large or small, needs to cover it’s bases. And the more people that are served, the more severe the consequences can be without a clause of this sort. But a point was made about hackers breaching some of the most highly guarded data systems in our country. Is it really possible to say that this won’t happen with the information that’s being put out there about our kids? Is ANY margin of error acceptable?
    “Focusing education programs on a narrow set of measurable hard skills at the expense of student-centered classroom activities and community building experiences that promote social/emotional learning and ethical behavior will leave our students ill equipped and unprepared for the real “tests” in life.”
    “It’s discouraging reading the comments on this blog. So far, the word Gates appears 51 times. Privacy? 32 times”.
    “Time to wake up & accept the fact that data is going to be collected & most likely won’t be all opt-in.”
    There’s a movement underway to completely change the way in which children, adolescents, and adults are educated. A movement that does away with the teacher/student centered classroom and relies on technology as the prime delivery system. Beyond multiple choice tests, now essays can be graded through programs designed around the profiled grading systems of chosen professors. Children can be educated at home or, if in school, be supervised by inexperienced, inexpensive teachers who act as monitors and collectors of data. Programs evaluate the data and then decide on the steps to follow according to both current and past records of the student’s work and interest levels, etc.
    A very large part of this movement is being pushed by Bill Gates. Is it any wonder that his name would come up 51 times on this or any thread that has to do with education reform? How about 100 times? His influence can’t possibly be understated. This man lives by data. It’s his life and his gold mine. Of course he will believe in it’s effectiveness and profit by it’s proliferation.
    With this kind of capital to invest in R&D and the effective marketing of a valuable product, the question still needs to be asked: who put this man and his ideas in charge? Are his ideas of what’s best for America really in the public’s best interests? He’s investing in Biosensors to monitor U.S. students’ attentiveness ( I don’t usually get into absolutes, but beyond it’s uses in studies, how could anyone justify the use of something like this in a classroom? How could anyone NOT see the negative implications?
    At what point do we draw the line between what’s acceptable and what’s not? Should those decisions be made by people who are profiting from the “solutions” and not having to deal with their repercussions (e.g. sending their kids to private schools that don’t use those methods) without the input of the millions of those with less wealth who will be the most effected in terms of footing the bill (taxes) and getting a quality education from this new system?
    Yes, my alarm clock went off loud and clear and my eyes are wide open to the realities of data collection. This doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t question, discuss, and try to effect different ways in which it can be used, if at all. Mr. Duncan sneered at the idea of “going back to the days of pencil and paper”. Don’t get above your raising, people. The pencil is as powerful a tool as any computer. And it’s still there when the “system is down”. My personal preference would be to see a coexistence between technology and our current system of education that allows for a more natural evolution than the current “takeover” mentality is currently displaying. This model, imo, would better take into account the educational, social, and civic needs of the many different student populations that our educational system is supposed to serve.

  9. Making inBloom a pariah has overshadowed the larger issue of student privacy. I’d encourage everyone here to take a moment to read recent posts on

    Consider Clever which connects into a school or district’s central student information system to access to all the data. They then move that data into the cloud and make it available to 3rd parties: Clever is a small startup in SF, just over a year old. They are now in more than 15,000 schools and growing exponentially.

    • FLERP! permalink


    • gitapik permalink

      Wow. Thanks for this, boboze.

      • Deborah permalink

        Yes, perhaps it is wrong to assail inBloom, for once we get rid of “this” inBloom, another is sure to follow. That is why the most important thing we can do right now is to put all such contracts and companies on hold while our legislators get it straight — that parental consent must be the first step in ensuring that student privacy rights are properly guaranteed and protected. That is the gist of the children’s data protection and privacy petition.

      • gitapik permalink

        Well…that’s what Sheila’s been saying, in terms of opting out of sharing your child’s data, Deborah. Yet I’m reading that this isn’t a guarantee, either.

        Conflicting messages. It’s frustrating.

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. The Octopus of inBloom… | Dolphin
  2. Twelve Embarrassing Years of NCLB and RTTT: Time for Arne to Blame USDOE | Georgia SchoolWatch
  3. Happy New Year and Smarter Balanced Assessments in California coming to your child in 2014 or 2015! | teaching malinche

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,664 other followers

%d bloggers like this: