Segregation for Children With Special Needs: A good idea?

j0407459.jpgI was reading the CBC’s Mary-Ellen Lang’s column today on special needs students in the classroom. Mary states that perhaps some children should be segregated into special schools because they can receive more help than overworked teachers in typical classrooms can provide. She says the gifted students are suffering because the special needs students require most of the teachers energy and attention.

“It is also reasonable to question whether some special needs students might learn more or do better socially and emotionally if they were in special classes designed specifically for them.”

I couldn’t disagree with Mary more on this issue. Has she read Bandura (UBC), and Vygotsky? One of the main ways children learn is through observational and peer mediated learning. If you segregate special needs children into special schools, they will still learn through peer observation; but the peers they are learning from will now have the same learning and developmental delays they have. What are they going to learn from this type of education situation? Not too much I think.

Mary’s solution is a cop out; inclusion isn’t working so let’s quit trying and go back to segregation for the kids with high needs. Why isn’t “let’s fight to ensure teachers have the resources required to ensure inclusion is supported properly” the solution to this issue? Why isn’t the answer, “let’s ensure all teachers receive the special education instruction support they require, for both special needs and gifted students”? When will we learn that when we isolate children (and adults), out of sight and out of mind, it harms our society as a whole? Have we learned nothing from the BC Woodlands tragedy about the harm of segregation?

Segregation is not cheap either and the developmental detriment of long term placement in these settings for children with special needs can never be undone. These children need to be in inclusive settings, where they can be with all of their peers that represent a rainbow spectrum of different cultures, and abilities. I believe the answer is to fight for the funding to properly include all children in typical settings.

Sometimes it seems like we have made so much progress in our society. When I see discussion suggesting segregation at the CBC, it seems like we could so easily take 10 steps backward if we are not careful.

April 4th Update: Check out this article in the Vancouver Sun today on the issue of creating these special schools. An excellent read and L. Siegel is co-author on this news item….I know her work because I have studied her research in my program. Hat tip to Where the Blog has No Name for the link.

Note June 19, 2007: Mary-Ellen Lang has made a point that she did not explicitly state separate facilities as meaning “separate buildings” in her column.

This is the piece I did not interpret correctly,

It is fair to wonder sometimes if severely handicapped students might do better in some more protected or appropriate setting (at least sometimes). And certainly, many school districts strive to provide some special needs kids with separate facilities and classes. At some point, then, it is also fair to ask to what degree the needs of the many are being sacrificed to accommodate the needs of the few.

I agree with Mary-Ellen’s point (in her subsequent comments on this post) that facilities has many meanings and I interpreted facilities=buildings. I apologize to Mary-Ellen for jumping to that conclusion. I do agree children need spaces and some opportunities to work one-on-one with an education assistant and resource/special education teacher and schools need quiet areas when children who have sensory issues/challenging behaviours can go when they are overloaded.

I also still believe that more resources including a special education instructor in every classroom would ensure children could ideally remain with their peers as much as possible.


43 thoughts on “Segregation for Children With Special Needs: A good idea?

  1. Drew Adamick says:

    I can see the merits of both sides of this issue, but I do agree with you- segregation is not good for special needs students. As someone who technically has a quote/unquote “learning disability” (Asperger’s Syndrome- high-functioning autistic spectrum disorder) but is/has passed off as “normal”, I can understand the problems that students with special needs have in the classroom. They do ultimately benefit from the interaction and assistance they get from their “normal” peers.

  2. Nobody in particular says:

    I agree with you 100% Woman! So much for the CBC being a “liberal wing” eh? I’ve had the privilige of being connected for 8 years with a school that includes every child in the catchment area, and I have seen the benefits of inclusion reflected in the children I’ve watched over that time. Those with special needs, and those children without, all benefitted from the principle of inclusion. It fosters understanding and acceptance, patience and striving. It is good for all children. And their parents. And their teachers. And the community.
    The parents and students of this sort of school feel more connected, involved and accepted. They give back a lot because of it and the students, their families and the school environment are healthier and happier for it. It’s a win/win situation where everyone thrives.
    School boards and governments must promote an inclusive atmosphere and approach to special needs children for the betterment of all society. They must support teachers and increase training, staff and aides where required. Inclusion works wonders!
    Segregation of special needs children is inhumane. Everyone should understand that it takes all kinds to make the world go ’round. The best place to learn that is experiencing it while young and that means school. So where would be a better place to start?

  3. Woman At Mille 0 says:

    I understand about the high functioning autism Drew. In some ways I think its is harder on kids than autism. Children with autism don’t really want to socialize, they are happy to be left alone. However children with high functioning autism do want to socialize…very badly..but they lack the social and cognitive processes necessary to succeed at this.

  4. Woman At Mille 0 says:

    “It fosters understanding and acceptance, patience and striving. It is good for all children. And their parents. And their teachers. And the community.”
    Your dead on with that statement Nobody in Particular. I saw the article and have heard twinges of other discussion in the news media on this issue. I thought we were past trying to isolate segments of our society. I can’t believe it is being suggested again as a viable option….very disheartening.

  5. pale says:

    Every so often this scary stuff comes up again, by someone who is deemed an “expert” by the press.

    If we added the costs of a segregated Education system and forced the government to apply that amount to an inclusive system, we may start to see some improvements.

    As it stands, a special needs student is only allocated a small amount extra, and in many cases it is not actually used towards supports for those students. (cuts, cuts, cuts! Often that money will be used towards other programs or they are lost)

    I am always amazed that the Canadian public allows this to continue.
    Apathy will be the downfall of all our kids. From those that need extra assistance, to the brightest who should be getting more challenges.
    Smaller class sizes would be the best start, and education programming could then be tailored to each students individual needs in an inclusive and respectful setting.

  6. Saskboy says:

    Segregation doesn’t work in so many things in life. When the disabled grow up, they are not going to be able to buy their food from segregated stores, or get help from segregated doctors. They’ll need to learn to interact with able bodied people, and visa versa.

  7. Woman At Mille 0 says:

    I agree with you pale. Inclusion has never been properly funded. Inclusion does not mean lets put all those kids who were in special schools into regular classrooms without providing the resources they had in special school settings. It means providing the same supports in a regular setting. I think governments missed that piece…perhaps they thought it would be cheaper because they could eliminate a lot of that support and unload it on to the regular classroom teacher. That is not inclusion…that is chaos.

  8. Woman At Mille 0 says:

    Exactly saskboy. The funny thing is now you see some parents of children with special needs supporting special schools ….when it was these same parents who put up the big fight 15-20 years ago to ensure inclusion happened. It is sad that inclusion is so poorly resourced that parents are saying that segregating their child might be the better option.

  9. Michael says:

    I am going to have to stand up and disagree here. My concern is that the classroom time and resources spent on inclusion actually hurts some of the other students. As someone who supports dividing students into three course paths upon entering high school, I believe that at an earlier age that if there is going to be a policy of inclusion as it currently stands, then there needs to be something to help the most gifted students as well so that they thrive. The most intelligent are less likely to be intellectually challenged when the teacher’s time is stretched by having to help special needs students while teaching everyone.

    As it stands right now, I would argue that our public education system is failing and, in particular, it is failing some of the most intelligent because it does not challenge them enough. Whether its the culture of sheltering where red ink, academic competition, and actual grades in elementary classes are highly discouraged, or the fact that in high school, students are graduating with very high marks in classes such as English while being almost functionally illiterate, our public education system is doing a disservice to its students. I think that inclusion only worsens this because it puts even more strain on the strained resources and can lower the degree of difficulty.

  10. Woman At Mille 0 says:

    Michael….I think I already stated in my post that I think both groups should have better resources..special needs and gifted. I still don’t get why the best solution is to put the special needs kids off in a special school with a bunch of their peers that have the same learning problems they have? The research shows this is not what works best for children with special needs.

    A good teacher will not have to lower the difficulty level of the curriculum for the whole class for the needs of a few students if they have proper resources and support. With the support of special education instructors, activities can easily be adapted for both groups (made more challenging or less difficult).

  11. Michael says:

    Are we perhaps asking the wrong question though. You argue it is not good for children with special needs. I wonder whether or not it is good for the other students and, in particular, the very intelligent ones. I am not sure we can reconcile all of these problems into a programme of total inclusion that benefits everyone.

  12. Michael says:

    Your stance is commendable but until I see convincing evidence that this is the case I will remain skeptical. If we cannot ensure both groups benefit, and I am not convinced that we can do so, then as much as you may disagree, I think that we need to ensure the most intelligent can succeed and prevent the levels of under achievement that occur; this would mean focusing on them rather than special needs students who should have their own special attention rather than be in the classroom. Sad but true.

  13. Saskboy says:

    Michael, so long as there is a teacher’s aide present to assist the most challenged students, it’s good for the gifted students to see how the world actually is. The world very rarely separates the gifted from the challenged when you get to the workplace, so they both need experience living and working with each other in the same space.

    The problem gifted students are having in schools, is that they are designed to average out excellence. If a kid shows an aptitude for soldering, they probably aren’t going to be encouraged to become a [well paid] plumbing entrepreneur, they’ll be pushed toward university because they also happen to be very good at creative writing. The problem is, that kid could end up inventing the next most important plumbing invention, while an English degree will possibly get them a career at Walmart if they aren’t lucky.

  14. pale says:

    Michael, it all comes down to the F word again.


    If we funded the schools properly, so they could have the proper amount of supports in place and the class sizes were managable, the whole situation would be a beautiful thing.

    Kids with special needs learning and modelling from so called “normal” and gifted kids.
    And the “normal” and gifted kids learning compassion and tolerance.

    I have seen this work up close and personal.

  15. Woman At Mile 0 says:

    Well I received an email sent to someone else and then forwarded to me (cause they thought it was actually meant for me) from Mary-Ellen Lang


    Contrary to your assertion that I support segregation of special
    needs students in separate schools, I invite you to find where I said anything of the sort.

    In fact, I was noticing that SOMETIMES for SOME students, a separate
    ROOM or CLASS might be more helpful for them, as it doesn’t take a
    brain surgeon to realize that SOMETIMES, students may BENEFIT from
    more protected, or specially designed courses or situations.

    I have “special needs” students in my “mainstream” classes, and
    really enjoy having them there, as do my other students. However,
    I’ve noticed over the years, that sometimes students with special
    needs learn more, and do better SOMETIMES when they have access to
    other venues or facilities.

    In my column, I came nowhere near suggesting separate schools for
    special needs students. Please read the column again.

    Thanks. M.E.

    End of Snip:

    So I read her column again and this part…is the issue.

    It is also reasonable to question whether some special needs students might learn more or do better socially and emotionally if they were in special classes designed specifically for them.

    (I am left to wonder what she means by this and she doesn’t elaborate. Is this all of the time? Some of the time? Half the time? ¼ of the time? Does that include the time already spent by these children in resource rooms? Alternate programs? Therapy programs?)

    While the conventional wisdom of our times dictates that inclusion in regular classes is by definition more desirable than segregation, it is fair to wonder sometimes if severely handicapped students might do better in some more protected or appropriate setting (at least sometimes). And certainly, many school districts strive to provide some special needs kids with separate facilities and classes.

    (Here she elaborates somewhat I think. But is she suggesting separate facilities by level of need? Severity? What is the criteria? What types of separate facilities? Children with autism spectrum disorder (e.g Asperger’s) can cause the big behavioural problems for teachers but must have mainstream social interactions.
    Protected? What does protected mean? We are hearing in the news the BC government is exploring model schools. Is this what she is referring to?)

    Mary-Ellen has a good point she did not specifically say separate schools, she uses the word sometimes in regards to other venues or facilities. I guess I found the vagueness confusing. I apologize to Mary-Ellen if I did not read it right but that what I got from it at the time. Now I am not sure really what she is saying at all because it is so vague and seems like what we already have in BC right now. So is it news then? I did find the article at the CBC news site.

    Whatever the mistake I am glad she does care enough about the concept of inclusion to write a letter to deny she supports the concept of segregation. It’s a good thing.

  16. mary-ellen lang says:

    I was pleased to see you included my letter on your blog. If some of my points seem vague, it is because, in my opinion, it is not a good idea to try and invent “rules” that are set in stone, for these very human, and fluid situations. (Some of the people who responded negatively to my column, by the way, appear to not have read it. Most responded in ways that indicated they understood me fairly clearly, even if they did not agree, which is fine with me.)

    Anyway, my use of the word “sometimes” was meant to indicate that there is no “one size fits all” in these situations. Right now, for instance, I have an “Aspergers-Autism Syndrome” person in one of my classes, and he has experienced the most inclusion, success and acceptance in school in four years. Previously, he either wasn’t ready to participate in “regular” (in quotation marks because I don’t know how else to convey the idea that I don’t mean regular, I mean ‘considered regular’)classes, or strategies or programs tried did not catch his interest. Who knows?

    I know of other situations in which “special needs” kids were completely shortchanged by inclusion in courses that were completely inappropriate for them. They killed time. They learned nothing. (Deaf kids, in my opinion often have the hardest time in mainstream classes…) If inclusion in a more appropriate setting, with more realistic objectives had been tried, perhaps these kids would have had a better learning experience. But maybe some of you would call that “segregation”.

    No one wants to see any sort of kid segregated. But SOMETIMES, a child might learn better when in a setting more specialized to meet their needs. Surely it isn’t hard to see that.

    In any case, I’m only supposed to write about 800 words for CBC, and obviously, this topic requires more discussion.

  17. Woman At Mile 0 says:

    Sorry for the hyphen error Mary-ellen and thanks for visiting. I agree more than 800 words is needed….a lot more. Using your deaf example though…. I think all children should be taught to sign from early childhood. Having teachers who know sign language would be extremely helpful to deaf and hearing children, but this is not typical in regular classroom settings. I think it should be included in the regular curriculum. It certainly can’t hurt anyone. It might assist those with other social learning disabiliities to recognize/pay more attention to body language and non-verbal cues. I also agree children with disabilities benefit from special direct instruction opportunities.
    If every classroom also had a special education teacher, I don’t think these issues would be such huge barriers.

  18. mary-ellen lang says:

    Well, I’ve seen deaf kids in public schools whose parents did not want them to sign, and others who only could sign. So signing, as far as I know is a contraversial issue among people in the deaf community. It would be nice if we all could sign, but that’s totally unrealistic. No one learns a skill like that unless it is reinforced daily over a long period, and occasional attempts to sign in individual classes or with individuals will not create signers.

    I had a deaf student in a class, and I saw that he went through 12 years of public school and learned next to nothing that he could take to the adult world. He would have been far better served getting specialized instruction suited to his particular set of difficulties.

  19. Jo says:

    I went to a school that was very good with students with special needs. I even had a teacher’s aide myself, to read things to me that I couldn’t see.
    The way the school handled things was to keep the children in normal classes as much as possible, but also have people who’s sole job it was to help those children. That way the teacher was free to help everyone else. That worked very well for them.

  20. mary-ellen lang says:

    It amazes me how many of you expressed an opinion on my column without (obviously) having read it. Since the premise and headline of this blog was completely wrong to begin with, and since most of the respondents spouted off an opinion based on the blog, and not my column, I wonder sometimes what the literacy rate and critical thinking skills in Canada really are.

  21. Woman At Mile 0 says:

    I read lots of comments on your column before I got around to posting on it. I think you presume too much in assuming that the column commenters who disagreed with your position came from my blog. This is a very new blog, started only a little over 3 months ago in March 2007.

    In addition, I did read your column and I believe that is your statement “separate facilities and classes” with no qualifications that has caused your reader’s confusion. In addition, there is this loaded statement, “At some point, then, it is also fair to ask to what degree the needs of the many are being sacrificed to accommodate the needs of the few.”

    I have included the whole piece I found confusing again here:
    It is also reasonable to question whether some special needs students might learn more or do better socially and emotionally if they were in special classes designed specifically for them. While the conventional wisdom of our times dictates that inclusion in regular classes is by definition more desirable than segregation, it is fair to wonder sometimes if severely handicapped students might do better in some more protected or appropriate setting (at least sometimes). And certainly, many school districts strive to provide some special needs kids with separate facilities and classes.
    At some point, then, it is also fair to ask to what degree the needs of the many are being sacrificed to accommodate the needs of the few.

    I am wondering if it makes you feel better to justify the fact that some of your readers found your statements confusing with a quick slam on our low literacy rates and thinking skills?
    Here is a quick look at a definition of separate:
    sep·a·rate (sp-rt)
    v. sep·a·rat·ed, sep·a·rat·ing, sep·a·rates
    a. To set or keep apart; disunite.
    b. To space apart; scatter: small farms that were separated one from another by miles of open land.
    c. To sort: separate mail by postal zones.
    2. To differentiate or discriminate between; distinguish: a researcher who separated the various ethnic components of the population sample.
    3. To remove from a mixture or combination; isolate.
    4. To part (a couple), often by decree: She was separated from her husband last year.
    5. To terminate a contractual relationship, as military service, with; discharge.
    1. To come apart.
    2. To withdraw: The state threatened to separate from the Union.
    3. To part company; disperse.
    4. To stop living together as spouses.
    5. To become divided into components or parts: Oil and water tend to separate.
    adj. (spr-t, sprt)
    1. Set or kept apart; disunited: Libraries often have a separate section for reference books.
    a. Existing as an independent entity.
    b. often Separate Having undergone schism or estrangement from a parent body: Separate churches.
    3. Dissimilar from all others; distinct: “a policeman’s way of being separate from you even when he was being nice” John le Carré.
    4. Not shared; individual: two people who held separate views on the issue.
    5. Archaic Withdrawn from others; solitary.
    n. (spr-t, sprt)
    A garment, such as a skirt, jacket, or pair of slacks, that may be purchased separately and worn in various combinations with other garments.

    Your comment/statement on deaf children in the classroom has alerted me to the fact that we see some things differently on this issue. What is the problem with that? At least you can feel good you stimulated a great conversation among your readers. I think it’s a good thing.

  22. mary-ellen lang says:

    My last comment had nothing to do with the comments on the cbc site; it was a reference only to this blog, and people who responded to your post here. I wouldn’t use your blog to respond to commenters on cbc, most of whom I wouldn’t think have visited this blog. Again, I question the assumptions you leap to so quickly.

    As for deaf students, I have taught several, and seen how several more have fared in a public school. My concerns for their wellbeing in a public school system not geared to meet their needs in a “regular” classroom are based on my experiences and observations. (I could write on this at length, but won’t here.)

    I am aware that people in the deaf community, those who are themselves deaf (to whatever degree) and their parents and families do not share a uniform opinion on the best way to deal with their hearing difficulties. Some believe in learning to speak and lip read so that they may integrate into mainstream, speaking, hearing society, while others prefer to stay inside the non-hearing community, and sign almost exclusively. To expect most other people to learn to sign in schools is just extremely not realistic. Which leads me to wonder how much actual experience you have with vast hordes of kids in public schools…

    Anyway, I agree that discussion of these topics is good, although I still think that some people shoot rather quickly from the hip, and for emotionally based reasons, before actually reading material and thinking about it first.

    I will also say, that feedback from practising teachers, especially those who work with “special needs” kids has almost uniformly been supportive of the points I was trying to raise. To them, the main points are obvious.

    In any case, I suspect that if you end up teaching for years, you’ll discover that there are very few tidy answers or neat formulae into which you can fit the incredible and diverse array of human beings and human conditions you will find yourself dealing with. While I agree that inclusion is an ideal that is generally good for everyone, there are times, and individuals, and places where special, (separate, different, whatever word you like), “facilities” (which means anything from different print material, different washroom facilities, extra teachers or assistants, special or separate wheelchair accessible trails, elevators, specially equipped rooms, “protected” spaces for “time-outs” etc) are there to enhance the “special needs” student’s learning, not detract from or demean it.

    Teachers clearly understood me when I used these terms. You clearly did not. Obviously, I should have been more precise.

  23. Woman At Mile 0 says:

    Once again I think you were vague,
    “It amazes me how many of you expressed an opinion on my column without (obviously) having read it.”
    “Opinion on your column” could go either way because you have many comments on your column.

    I happen to think sign language should be taught from birth and parents and children should be taught to use it because it would also benefit children who have <a href=”” rel=”nofollow”>difficulty reading non-verbal cues</a>. Disabilities involving difficulty reading non verbal cues are often not obvious until children are past the age of 6 when intervention is most effective. With the increasing popularity of baby signing I see a future where children understand and can use much more sign language. A new generation of baby signers is about to enter the school system.

    I see you have convincing yourself that anyone who actually “mattered” experience-wise must have agreed with you on your column. Fine with me, go ahead and believe it.

  24. mary-ellen lang says:

    I give up. Your last paragraph is another assumption and is not true, although I suppose you will still believe it.

    As for your statement that parents and children “should” be taught sign language, I’m left wondering how you think this would happen, because in the real world, unless you forced people to learn this skill, unless they had a pressing and personal reason to do so, they simply wouldn’t.

  25. Woman At Mile 0 says:

    Well I guess if we all thought about this issue your way, things always have to stay the same…people/society cannot change or progress forward and it’s useless to try.

    Many parents are joining baby sign language groups and they continue using it with their children over the long term because they can see the benefits for their children.

    All classrooms could include sign language instruction and usage if there was a second special education instructor in every classroom (for both the gifted and special needs students). Taking a few moments to learn a sign of the day could add up to 180+ signs a year and many children would already have some sign experience before they entered kindergarten with the baby signing craze.

    This of course goes back to the point of my original blog posting (more resources as the answer) but you seem to want to hear only your own opinion.

  26. mary-ellen lang says:

    I suggest you attend some PTA meetings, or some School Board meetings and propose a signing component to the overall elementary curricula, or get elected and join the Ministry of Education team and see how far you get. Then report back.

    But then, maybe you wouldn’t be safely anonymous any more. In the meantime, the premise of you blog is still dead wrong (I never proposed or supported the idea of separate schools in my cbc column)

  27. Woman At Mile 0 says:

    OK then I am saying that it is a good thing that you are not suggesting that and thanks for clarifying it.
    If 15-20% have extra learning needs (including social) that require extra support and an equal # would benefit from more difficult/challenging seems two teachers would have lots of good work to do. I think that the Federal Government should be putting in a greater share for this. It would increase productivity and competitiveness for the country as a whole. A good investment.

  28. Tim says:

    I have twins with Autism. I have talked to teens and adults with Autism to get their point of view and they all say mainstream was horrible. I also have read that 65% of children with Autism said they were bullied weekly in mainstream classes. My boys don’t talk much but both learned how to read and write before they were 4. They are both Visual learners and learn very fast if taught the right way. This would not happen in a regular class where most teaching is verbal. If you are looking for social interactions mainstream would be good but if you want them to learn I would disagree with putting them in mainstream school. My school district is desegregated and we are home schooling. I think school should be about learning not social interactions. That can be done outside of school. My boys are young and maybe when they are older I would reconsider. I just don’t see how putting non-verbal kids in classroom is going to accomplish anything besides housing them.

  29. Tim says:

    In a perfect world where every classroom had enough teachers (not teachers aides)to make sure the special needs children were learning. Where the material was taught visually for the kids that would need it. Where kids were taught about autism and learned and felt empathy. I would agree. That would be the best way to learn for kids with Autism.

  30. Summer says:

    Do either of you, or anyone making comments have a special needs child? Do you know what it’s like to live with a child that doesn’t understand a word you say to them, that can’t express any words, emotions or even if they are hurt? Because I do. My heart is breaking that I have to put my son into “mainstream” class with “normal” children. My son has mild CP, a genetic disoreder which is almost very close to autism. He doesn’t know how to proper go down stairs because of his “floppy” muscle tone and is a flight risk. So now I have to send my son to school with 25 or 30 students and ONE teacher. My son won’t qualify for a EA because of no funding and if they do get a EA, its always for children with behavioural issues…Which isn’t my son. My son is so gentle and if anything almost too friendly. He doesn’t understand “stranger danger” …another thing that scares me about him being left alone in a school. SO TO SUM IT UP…I have to worry about my son falling down stairs, leaving school without anyone seeing and leaving with just anyone…and the idea that my son can’t express pain, is non verbal and very developmentally delayed. So until ANYONE is in the shoes of a frightned mother/father don’t go bashing seprate schools/seprate classes or teachers.

  31. Michaela says:

    I have a 9 year old grandson who is totally alone in a classroom because of his special needs…Aspergers Syndrom ( diagnosis pending but all sings are evident).this has been going on for the past 6 weeks…he was taken out of his regular class room due to his tantrums which were instigated by either too much change in routine or bullying by other kids..he is getting depressed..he is beginning to hate school because now he feels like a true outsider…how sad is that….not even during recess does he have contact with other students…I live in Ontario Canada…any advice?..any suggestions??..

  32. Tehreem says:

    I think that segregation is not good for young people with special educational needs.
    They must be treated with normal people.
    Even i have an option for the people who disagree with my opinion.
    Initially the persons with disability should be treated separately, but when they are able to understand even a single easier work, they should be included with normal people

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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s