v
Many thanks to new contributors Mary Rodriguez, AZ, and Leanna Baker, CA, for the article that follows. Ed.
As a female Hispanic, I have worried that my role as a leader is not taken very seriously at times. When I first attended case discussions, I tended not to talk. That changed as I took on more and more responsibility as a leader. There are many like me who need, and want, to have a voice. But because of our upbringing or other reasons, we don’t make waves or speak out. Sometimes it’s difficult to voice your views among certain groups of people, and through math cases, I have become more of an advocate for my students, teachers, and myself as a person.
—Mary Rodriguez, Teacher Leader, Phoenix (AZ) Elementary District #1
As a primary teacher entering into case discussions with intermediate grade and junior high math teachers, I was a bit intimidated. I was sure that they all knew much more math than I. I was very interested in listening to their discussions, but reluctant to speak. I learned a lot from those discussions and realized that I, too, had something to offer. It was great to be able to have my voice heard. Continuing with math cases and taking on a larger role has strengthened my teaching and helped me to develop leadership skills.
—Leanna Baker, Teacher Leader, Hayward (CA) Unified School District
Our reasons for joining math case discussions were opposite of each other. Mary’s reason for joining was because she saw math as a weakness. Leanna saw math as a favorite subject and was looking for ways to improve her teaching. Neither of us entered with the intention of becoming leaders in mathematics. Through the mentorship of the Math Case Methods Project with Carne (Barnett) Clarke and Alma Ramirez, we were encouraged to take on larger roles over time. Our backgrounds are different, but as we talked, we realized that our experiences in teaching math and becoming math leaders have been more similar than different.
We attended the working conference, "Inviting and Sustaining Diversity Among Teacher Leaders," at WestEd in Oakland, California. This conference was supported by the ExxonMobil Foundation for the purpose of discussing how to encourage diversity among the participants and leadership of math case discussions, specifically, and mathematics education generally. We were looking at the ways that the Math Case Methods Project works to build diversity within the groups of participants and leaders. Building diversity is a major goal of the project.
For us, diversity includes such things as ethnicity, variety of backgrounds, styles of teaching, gender, language, types of schools, teaching experience, etc. The value of diversity in case discussions is in providing different points of view that enable us to look at situations from a different angle or through a "different lens."
Our group for this conference was very ethnically diverse, including Asians, African-Americans, Hispanics, and European-Americans. It was also diverse in that we come from different kinds of schools, teach a variety of grade levels, vary in our math backgrounds, and have different teaching styles and experiences. At the conference on diversity in leadership, we discussed the steps that have been followed by the project to encourage involvement by diverse members. The steps taken to involve participants in discussion groups include flyers, word of mouth, and a most effective approach —the personal one. This personal approach of asking someone to take on a leadership role can cultivate leadership. Volunteers are welcome and those who are reluctant to volunteer are often encouraged through this personal contact.
At the conference we looked at ways that the project has encouraged this diversity. "We now know what they did to build our group." Their believing in our potential and coming to us on a personal level made us stop to think, "Maybe I can do this!" Like the Little Locomotive—"I think I can, I think I can." Once that idea was planted in our minds, we were much more willing to come back to do more. "How can we refine our skills?" "How can we do more with our own knowledge and with helping our students learn?" So as we reach out as math leaders to our peers, we offer a personal invitation, we offer support and reminders, and we encourage their participation. As we do so, we are also careful to offer feedback to help them and encourage them to become leaders as well. Through our own experiences we know that sometimes it takes someone believing in you for you to believe in yourself.
Another way that the project broadens participation among diverse participants is through the case discussion process itself. Each part of the process is carefully designed to vary the amount of risk required to participate. This encourages risk-taking and helps lessen the effects of status differences.
The discussion process itself begins with an "icebreaker" or inclusion activity. This helps people make connections with one another and builds a comfort level for participants. Over time this helps to build group trust in knowing one another better. The next step is to work on a starter problem from the case individually, rather than with a partner. This allows people to get into the math at their own comfort level. Sharing is on a volunteer basis during the whole group discussion.
Following the starter problem, we read or review the case. Then we collect the facts from the case. This is a relatively "safe" part of the process and helps people be a little more relaxed and begin talking. Then we work in pairs to generate issues in question format so that everyone has an opportunity to participate. This involves a little more risk since ideas must be shared with a partner. Then the issues are collected in the whole group and recorded for the discussion that follows.
During the discussion, the participants are encouraged to really look at the mathematics and the student thinking in the case and build on each other’s ideas, therefore creating a diversity of ways of solving problems and relating them to their teaching situations. The facilitator— who is a classroom teacher— becomes the guide who allows the group to expand on its ideas and helps to further the group collegiality. It is the facilitator’s job to sometimes slow the pace of the discussion. This encourages those who are more tentative and provides an opportunity for them to enter into the conversation. The group is asked to give serious consideration to other’s ideas, even though they may at first disagree.
The final step in the case discussion, the process check, allows individuals to give feedback to the group about how they feel the group discussion went. Through this they do not evaluate the facilitator, but evaluate their group’s participation in the discussion.
The variety of components of the process allows participants with varying levels of comfort and expertise to have a voice, including those who may have been silent in the beginning. Even if someone does not speak, it does not mean that that person is not actively listening. There are different ways to participate.
As one of the participants, a teacher of grades 4 and 5, commented, "Equity goes farther than just the color of your skin or your gender. It will affect my participation as a leader as I actively look to build ‘equity’ in the group we are trying to start."
The project continues to support us as we practice and refine our skills. Through opportunities provided for us, such as this conference, we continue to refine and strengthen our leadership skills. We have both become math leaders at our sites and in the districts where we teach. We will continue to develop our own skills in leadership and we look forward to using the ideas and the process to continue recruiting a diversity of leaders.
Project director Vicki Bachman forwarded this article about her current work. Please look for "Part 2" next spring. Many thanks, Vicki. Ed.
This Foundation is famous for encouraging thoughtful reflection. When Jean Moon paid a visit to our Iowa City project last spring, we had many productive conversations with various combinations of curriculum professionals from the district. True to form, our discussions led to a good deal of reflection about our past work and its impact on current efforts and future plans.
For a period of years, this project centered its focus around development of a district assessment instrument. Toward the end of Jean’s busy visit, she stopped by my classroom and sat in on an assessment exchange as I interviewed one of my students using the assessment that Jean had heard so much about. After observing this interaction, Jean suggested that it would be a good idea for me to share some information about our development process with colleagues via the newsletter. The assessment itself has been shared with several other projects and has been described in detail at annual meetings. Hopefully a description of our efforts will be of some value to others who are grappling with assessment issues.
Assessment became a priority for our project around 1996. Not only did we need to respond to state and board of education requests to quantify student progress, we also wanted to find a systematic way to gain information about what our pre-standardized testing students understood and were able to do in the area of mathematics.
Once the need was determined, a committee was formed to pursue existing assessment instruments. The committee consisted of our district math coordinator, elementary math specialists, a classroom teacher, and the extended learning (gifted and talented) district coordinator. After searching for and reviewing a variety of assessments, it was decided that we should create our own district assessment tool. We appealed to the Foundation for financial support in this effort. The committee then turned its attention to making decisions about what should be included in our assessment product. The group was in agreement that creating a discretely grade-leveled assessment would limit our view of children who were functioning at either end of the proficiency scale. We wanted an assessment tool that would help us understand what the children were thinking, and how they were approaching mathematical tasks. This line of reasoning led to an instrument that is designed to look at various aspects of student thinking on a continuum from kindergarten to second grade.
Next the group tackled decisions about key elements that needed to be included in the assessment. It was decided that the following areas should be included: sorting, pre-measurement, patterning, number, and problem solving. Much conversation centered around the issue that young children are often unable to show their thinking in written form or even using pictures. Because of these limitations, the assessment was designed using an interview format. Children would be asked to demonstrate understanding with the use of manipulatives, and teachers would use identical materials and follow clear procedures in order to ensure consistency. The actual writing began almost a year after the original larger committee had been formed. A smaller writing team developed interview protocols and put together kits of needed materials.
The larger committee gave periodic feedback on the product. Once a prototype of the assessment was available, we enlisted the help of pilot teachers in each of the sixteen elementary schools. Thanks to the Foundation, this group of teachers attended an NCTM convention where we attended assessment-related sessions to deepen our own dialogue. The pilot teachers then administered the assessment to each of their students. We met in study groups to discuss our results and the practical matters involved with giving the assessment. Based upon teacher comments and discussion, a variety of changes were made before broader use of the assessment began. In an effort to increase classroom efficiency, it was decided that the assessment continuum would be phased in one year at a time beginning with all kindergarten classrooms in the district. Each year as a new grade level began to administer the assessment, teachers received necessary materials and instruction. Individual student profile sheets were created to keep track of each student’s mathematical growth. These profile/reporting sheets are placed in a portfolio that accompanies the child from one grade level to the next.
The assessment is now being used in all kindergarten through second-grade classrooms in the Iowa City Community Schools. Teachers use the assessment information when they make instructional decisions, interact with individual students, report to parents at conference times, and write end of the year reports. The assessments assist classroom teachers when there are questions about students who appear to be falling behind, or are demonstrating advanced progress in mathematics. Having this reference point has allowed us to have discussions about specifics and avoid predominantly subjective perspectives when making decisions for our young students.
We are now working to compile assessment results on consolidated class profiles sheets. As a classroom teacher, I am able to look at the data for my classroom at a glance and see the range of student performance. I’m also able to identify areas that show either unusually strong growth or notable need for greater emphasis. The compilation of this data enables teachers and administrators to analyze class composites and quickly get a sense of relative strengths and challenges for a particular group of students. Our plans for the future include using technology to increase efficiency of updating class composites. We are seeking a means of efficiently combining data in various ways to give us even more information about what our students understand and are able to do. We thereby gain important information about our program and our ongoing quest to offer all that we can for our children in the area of mathematics education. We thank the Foundation for providing funding for our assessment project.
As a result of the tragic events of September 11 and the aftermath, ExxonMobil Foundation did not convene the Thirteenth Annual Meeting of the K-5 Mathematics Specialist Program in late September.
Arrangements have been made for the meeting to be held January 18 – 20, 2002 at the corporation’s headquarters in Irving, TX. Invitees who have indicated that they will be able to attend should look for further information to arrive by mail. Questions may be addressed to Jean Moon or Bernie White.
Retired ExxonMobil Foundation program officer Bob Witte was the James R. C. Leitzel memorial lecturer at this summer’s "Mathfest" meeting of the Mathematical Association of America. About 1,000 attended the early August meeting in Madison, Wisconsin. Dr. Leitzel, with Dr. Christine Stevens and several others, created the faculty development program known as Project NExT, for "New Experiences in Teaching." ExxonMobil Foundation grants have supported Project NExT since its beginning in 1993. Each year seventy new mathematics faculty, in their first or second year of teaching, become NExT Fellows, share in the project’s programs and benefit from a large network of experienced faculty mentors. Today there are over 500 NExT Fellows.
The topic of Witte’s talk to the mathematicians was "What I Have Learned from the Mathematics Community."
When Bob joined the Foundation in 1992, a colleague insisted that he read Theodore Sizer’s book, Horace’s Compromise. Bob found Dr. Sizer’s account of the dilemmas of the high school most compelling, and he was especially impressed with Sizer’s answer to the challenge that efforts to improve the schools will fail because "no one cares." Here is what Dr. Sizer said:
"Yes, too many don’t care, even parents.
"Few citizens really know what’s going on in their schools. They settle for the familiar form and ignore the substance. The businessman who would neither copy any part of the high school’s routines or structure for his own firm’s training programs nor tolerate for his employees the work conditions that are standard in schools sanctimoniously takes part in pep rallies for the schools.
"The college professor who on principle would not stand for close state regulation of her classes of freshman blithely endorses tight control on twelfth-grade instruction, and even assists central authorities with that standardized regulation."
"Hypocrisy?" Sizer asks. "Not really," he answers. "Just indifference and the unwillingness to think hard and honestly about the process of education."
Witte concluded that the failure to think hard and honestly about the process of education was the reason so many efforts to improve education fail. To share this with others, Bob created "Witte’s First Law of Productivity."
"If you work on the wrong thing, no matter how hard you work, you will never get the right answer."
Bob told the mathematicians that his next big lesson came from the splendid teachers in the Math Specialist Program. Upon joining the Foundation, Witte said he "…inherited not only a thoughtful program design that was based on long-term teacher professional development in mathematics and in leadership, but also the teachers’ trust, which had been won by my predecessors. Our teachers were willing to share with me both their successes and failures and they were willing to work to help me begin to understand the complex environments in which they worked. I got an up-close and personal view of the classroom realities that make it so difficult to sustain the very best teaching in our schools. One cannot work with these teachers and continue to hold oversimplified ideas about education." These understandings helped him to recognize the great potential of Project NExT when the Foundation received the request for a grant to start the project.
Bob closed his talk by challenging the mathematicians to add four items to their "unfinished business" agenda:
v To invent new roles for the mathematics profession, its academic departments, and for mathematicians in our nation’s K-12 schools. He strongly recommended establishing ties to ExxonMobil Mathematics Specialist projects where that is possible. v To provide leadership in shaping education accountability policy. This is important because mathematics plays a central role in many accountability strategies. v To seek a prominent role for the mathematics community in national school reform efforts. Witte believes it is very important that the major academic disciplines get involved and not delegate this to others. v Bob noted that none of the other disciplines have faculty development programs similar to Project NExT. He suggested the mathematicians attempt to correct this shortcoming by working with their colleagues in other fields.
The MAA expects to publish the 2001 Leitzel Lecture in its Mathematical Monthly publication next year.
Many thanks to Martha LaPointe for the article below. Martha is currently on a year’s absence from classroom teaching. Learn more about what she’s up to in the column below. Ed.
The Central Aroostook Council on Education (CACE) ExxonMobil Math Specialists K-5 group had its second Ruth Parker Mathematics Education Collaborative (MEC) session on Geometry. It was led by Lisa Mesple for nine days in June. Half of the participants had taken the algebraic thinking course last year and knew we could survive anything after that. The atmosphere was much more relaxed this time because we knew what to expect.
The returning half carried the new half along. We had an interesting mix of grade levels from preservice teachers, to elementary, to middle school, to high school, to one college level professor. The benefit is that we learned from one another. In the MEC courses, the premise is "to see" (construct understanding) in concrete materials before deriving the abstract formulas. The elementary teachers, not accustomed to using abstract formulas, forced the middle and high school teachers "to show" them with concrete materials what the formulas mean. The preservice teachers experienced newer ways of teaching mathematics. The experienced high school teachers learned what it means to allow students to construct understanding of a formula. A quote from an evaluation piece, "What a wonderful way to understand concepts and how the traditional algorithms were created." And another from a middle school teacher, "My ah-ha’s were continuous as I worked with elementary teachers. They made us see things like I did as an elementary student."
Teaching is an isolated profession. This was an opportunity to work in collaborative groups and to see how the concept might work in their classes:
"I think the collaborative aspect of this course was key to my learning. Once again I was reminded that two heads are better than one and my thinking became complete after discussing my thoughts with another and listening to other people’s thoughts."
"Being able to collaborate with others showed me how beneficial that experience could be to my students."
"I have learned that working in groups teaches me much more than working on my own. I found it more valuable than anything else to listen to others approach a problem from different angles and to make me think outside my ‘box.’"
As hoped, there were many shifts in thinking about how to present mathematics to students so it makes sense and is understandable:
"I need to let my students do more discovery on their own before having ideas presented to them. I’ve learned that it’s important to accept strategies that work as long as it helps the student in understanding."
"I realize that I should try to get some cooperation from the education department for implementation in our methods courses."
"My view of teaching mathematics has changed so much because of the two courses. I am convinced now, more than ever, that teaching children how to reason and make sense of mathematics is the way children need to learn math to fully understand it."
Even though a nine-day course eats into that valued summer break, many teachers expressed interest in taking the algebra course next year. Some even expressed interest in taking algebra for a second time:
"I have taken both the algebra and geometry courses and am looking forward to taking others in the future."
"Come back, please! (and I’m an English major!)."
"This course was excellent and I would definitely come back for the algebra course."
Our purpose in offering the MEC Institutes is to give teachers the chance to deepen their understanding of mathematics content and pedagogy. In return for that opportunity, it is our hope that teachers will reform their way of presenting mathematics to students. We now have forty-eight different teachers who have experienced one or both of the institutes. With continued opportunity to grow professionally and with support and encouragement from administration, we will make a difference in how children learn mathematics.
Martha LaPointe contributed this article about a new project in which she is engaged this year. Thanks, Martha! Ed.
I am taking a one-year leave of absence from my classroom to work with Maine’s State Department of Education on a pilot project to develop a standard for mentoring new teachers. Our work will lead to an induction design tied to Maine’s Teaching Standards—consistent, meaningful coaching and support for all new teachers acrioss the state. It is funded by the U.S. Department of Education Title II Higher Education Act.
Our state is divided into nine superintendents’ regions. Each region will have a Regional Mentor. I will be the regional mentor to three school districts in Aroostook County. Each district will have a site mentor and three new teachers who will have a mentor or support team. I will be responsible for planning workshops for them. Workshops will be based on their identified needs. Built into those sessions will be reflection time.
At a July training session, we learned peer-coaching techniques that I found intriguing. I had never been exposed to them as I had never taken any administrative courses. I can see how these techniques would also be useful in observing colleagues wishing to make changes in teaching practices. In late August we will have training in using portfolios for certification. By 2004, certification that is awarded will be based, in part, on a professional portfolio.
The focus this first year is on mentoring new teachers of math, science and technology. The hope is to retain new teachers by giving them the support they need. The reason many give for leaving the teaching profession is the lack of support and the isolation of teaching.
I will still be, foremost, passionate about mathematics. I will return to my classroom next year. (Maybe. This may lead to something other than classroom teaching.) I see this as an opportunity to learn to work effectively with adults, to gather more support for mathematics reform, to learn more about portfolio design and technology use for certification. This opportunity cannot help but advance my developing math specialist role in the CACE project. I look forward to practicing what I’m learning.
An interactive exhibit that introduces young children to mathematics through familiar children’s books has been visiting children’s museums and public libraries across the country since September 2000. Produced by the Minnesota Children’s Museum, the American Library Association, and the Association for Library Service to Children, "Go Figure!" has major funding from NSF with additional support from Cargill and 3M. The 700-square-foot display will be "on tour" through January 2003.
Although the colorful exhibit was created for children two to seven years old (and their parents), older children will also be drawn to the displays and activities. The exhibition includes representations from many children’s books, including Arthur’s Pet Business by Marc Brown; The Doorbell Rang by Pat Hutchins; The Quilt by Ann Jonas; Frog and Toad Are Friends: A Lost Button by Arnold Lobel; and Goldilocks and the Three Bears, illustrated by James Marshall. Exhibit text is in both English and Spanish.
Free take-home materials guide parents to help their children see and use mathematics in their everyday lives.
Check the list of libraries and museums near you that will feature the exhibit.
Two people reviewed this title by Grayson Wheatley and Anne Reynolds. Many thanks to Jennifer Kibler, a multi-age first- and second-grade teacher at Parkdale School, East Aurora, NY, and to Martha LaPointe, a teacher on leave from her classroom. Ed.
Jennifer Kibler’s Review
"Knowledge is not acquired but constructed by the individual as he or she solves problems." It is through this understanding that Grayson H. Wheatley and Anne M. Reynolds develop the ideas contained in their book Coming To Know Number: A Mathematics Activity Resource for Elementary School Teachers (Tallahassee, FL 2000). "In today’s fast changing society with numerous new challenges, it is important that students give meaning to mathematical activity and be able to solve problems not seen previously." This activity resource provides numerous lessons, activities, and games that encourage children to construct mathematics knowledge and develop thinking strategies. In addition to ready-to-use student activities, the authors provide background information for the teacher, samples of teacher-student communication, and many examples of mathematics conversation between students.
Wheatley and Reynolds begin by making reference to the NCTM Standards. They explain that the current mathematics reform movement includes a shift from a procedural to a conceptual orientation. Mathematics teachers from kindergarten through the twelfth-grade should be emphasizing sense making as a central goal in mathematics education. The activities presented help children come to know number while interacting with one another within an intellectual community.
While exploring a number of math programs available to schools, teachers, and students, it becomes apparent that there are several distinct instructional approaches available. In Wheatley and Reynolds’ activity resource, a problem-centered instructional strategy is described and illustrated. Next, a task is presented. Students work cooperatively to come up with a solution. Then the solution is shared with the class and more student discussion occurs. Students are encouraged to justify thinking and validate each other’s strategies and solutions. This approach, presented by Wheatley and Reynolds, is different from an approach that emphasizes rote memorization of facts and practicing computational procedures described by the teacher. It is also much different from the belief that mathematics is out there "to be discovered" and students can learn and discover through "exploring" with manipulatives. The goal of the program presented here is "students who can use their knowledge to solve nonroutine problems as well as well as perform routine mathematics tasks efficiently."
Part I of this resource, Helping Children Learn Mathematics, prepares teachers to encourage students to first think in units and then construct ten as an abstract unit. Wheatley and Reynolds present many major thinking strategies, address the basic facts issue, and explain the role of manipulatives in effective learning activities. They go further to describe effective learning environments. They focus in on social norms, classroom cultures, problem-centered learning, effective tasks, assessment, collaboration, class discussion, and creativity. These discussions are extremely useful to the classroom teacher as he/she envisions mathematics "in-action."
Once a classroom teacher has a clear vision of how this mathematics program would be implemented in the classroom, he/she would be pleased to discover Part II of the resource, Pupil Activities. Eight ready-to use activities are presented. Each includes background information for the teacher, directions, reproducible game cards and necessary student recording sheets. The students are sure to enjoy these cooperative games and activities that encourage them to use and construct mathematics knowledge.
Wheatley and Reynolds’ activity resource contains activities for a wide-range of elementary students. The resource could either be used on its own for a strong emphasis on number sense or it could be used as a supplement to other math programs. I would recommend this resource for elementary school teachers as well as math-support staff and remedial teachers. The activities provide for good mathematics learning and discussion through either full class or small-group activities. In addition, I have found that the games and activities build upon one another and assist children in forming strong connections in mathematics.
Martha LaPointe’s Review
My next door teacher friend and I frequently discuss our frustration with students who cannot break out of their habit of always counting on to find out how many. In spite of providing students with opportunity to learn different strategies, they persist in always counting on. They seem to lack understanding that numbers should make sense. We can never conclude what makes the difference in helping students change their thinking. Enter Grayson Wheatley and Anne Reynold’s book Coming to Know Number as a resource for activities designed to encourage students to develop number sense. The activities have good descriptions and seem easy to follow. These activities are mental rather than physical. The premise is that students need to develop visual images of numbers in order to work flexibly with them. If care was taken at the earliest levels of school to ensure that children develop these images, we might not have the problems we do with second and third grade students who always "count-on" mindlessly.
Part One of the book—one fourth of its total pages—contains the rationale for having students develop visual images for number. ond-Discussions range from "Thinking in Units," to "Constructing 10," to "Use of Manipulatives," to "Problem Solving," and "Multiplicative Reasoning," to the ever-present "Basic Facts Issue." Always present is the underlying theme that mathematics education should have sense making as its goal.
Part Two has the directions and the blackline masters for each set of cards for the activity or game. "Ten Frames" has three pages of description and 25 pages of masters. "Balance Tasks," "Hundreds Boards," and "Math Squares" are other activities with approximately the same balance of description and masters. Included in the discussion of each activity is a helpful section called "Where’s the Mathematics" that tells how playing the game will encourage mathematical thinking. Another section tells the teacher what to look for in students’ behavior and thinking and gives suggestions for additional work that will help students gain the understanding needed. There are suggestions for student writing that could be useful for assessment purposes.
As its subtitle, A Mathematics Activity Resource for Elementary School Teachers suggests, this book would be a resource for both whole group and small group work. The pages have wide margins suitable for note taking. An initial investment of time would be necessary to make the sets of cards for the activities. Once done they could be used many times for a range of student ability levels. The book is a valuable resource for different ways to get students to think about numbers.
To order, visit mathlearning. Ed.
Thanks to Marilyn Burns Education Associates, there are three new titles from Math Solutions awaiting review. As you’ll recall, if you volunteer to review one of these, it’s yours. The titles are:
Teaching Arithmetic: Lessons for First Grade by Stephanie Sheffield; Teaching Arithmetic: Lessons for Addition and Subtraction (Grades 2-3) by Bonnie Tank and Lynne Zolli; and Learning Math with Calculators: Activities for Grades 3 - 8 by Len Sparrow and Paul Swan.
If you want to review one, please contact the editor.
By the way, if you haven’t yet visited the Math Solutions website, do. Among other features, you will find an on-line newsletter. This quarter it features book reviews by Pat Hess and Babs Margolies that first appeared in Intersection. Check it out!
Get an article to your editor and that’s what happens. When you contribute news about your project, it’s read by one-thousand print-copy recipients and countless on-line visitors.
The last chance to "get read" this year is in the November / December issue—deadline Monday, November 12. Please send submissions to Jean Ehnebuske, 105 Hideaway Cove, Georgetown, TX 78628; e-mail, jean@intersectionlive.org; fax, (512) 869-8477; phone, (512) 869-1580. Thanks!
 |
 |
 |