Getting Back on Tracking

by Robert Pondiscio
December 11th, 2009

Want to start a fight in education?  Suggest that ability grouping or “tracking” is a good idea and someone (usually not a parent and seldom a teacher) will accuse you of being indifferent to struggling students.  And that’s one of the milder forms of criticism. 

A new study by Brookings’ Tom Loveless issued by the Fordham Institute concludes, among other things, that tracked schools produced more high-achieving students than nontracked schools.  The study, Tracking and Detracking: High Achievers in Massachusetts Middle Schools, finds schools with more tracks produce more math pupils at advanced and proficient levels and fewer failing students.  The opposite is found in nontracked schools:  more students  failing than in schools that track.

Commenting on Loveless’s report Fordham’s Checker Finn and Amber Winkler offer two “bottom lines”:

Bottom line number one: American education needs to care more about taking all of its students to the next level and less about how we get them there. Anna Penny, a former teacher in New York City, said as much in the New York Daily News this past summer: “Anyone who has ever taught knows that kids progress at dramatically different speeds in different subjects. When our schools resist tracking even when it’s clearly needed, they wind up valuing homogeneous classrooms over effective ones.”

Bottom line number two: In the name of equity, gap closing, political correctness, and leaving no child behind, American education has been a bit too willing to neglect its higher-performing students and the school arrangements that best meet their needs. A recent report by the National Association for Gifted Children finds that eighteen states can’t even tell us how many children have been identified as gifted within their borders. Further, the vast majority of gifted children are placed in regular classrooms (no surprise, given Loveless’s findings), places with teachers not ordinarily trained in gifted education. In fact, thirty-six states don’t require regular teachers to have training in gifted education at any point in their careers, nor do most teacher-preparation programs include coursework on gifted learners. That’s obviously unfortunate for high-achieving youngsters and the ill-equipped teachers who teach them, but it’s also damaging to our long-term national interest. 

I agree.  As a teacher, I thought tracking made sense if for no other reason than pure pragmatism.  In my 5th grade classroom I had kids functioning anywhere from a first to eighth grade level.  “Differentiation” (a.k.a intra-room tracking)  among such a disparate group of students sounds great, but it’s an idea that’s more honored in the breach than the observance.  It’s awfully hard to do well, especially in a classroom with serious behavior problems and students who struggle to work well independently.  Moreover, there will always be a natural tendency in heterogeneous classrooms to regard your high achievers as doing just fine.  Compared to where the rest of the class is, that’s true.  Compared to where they could be is another matter.


  1. If I had to answer a generic question of whether I’m for or against tracking, i’d be just as agnostic as answering a question on social promotion. But just as I’m against just passing kids on while claiming to have stopped social promotion, I’m equally disgusted by the hishonest euphemism that is “differientiated instruction.” Invest ENOUGH resources to really avoid tracking and really allow differientiated instruction, and that makes sense, but I can’t conceieve of that happening.

    The CEP study on school turnarounds said that successful turnaround often used data for “regrouping” of students. What’s the chance that regrouping isn’t another euphemsism for tracking? We just had that great (hopefully) study of intensive reading instruction (150 hours worth, I understand) that builds new brain tissue. That’s a full class’ worth of instruction. What’s the chances that that can be done through differientiated instruction?

    Comment by john thompson — December 11, 2009 @ 6:11 pm

  2. “Anyone who has ever taught knows that kids progress at dramatically different speeds in different subjects.” Strike one.

    “As a teacher, I thought tracking made sense if for no other reason than pure pragmatism.” Strike two.

    “Differentiation (a.k.a intra-room tracking) among such a disparate group of students sounds great, but it’s an idea that’s more honored in the breach than the observance. It’s awfully hard to do well.” Strike three. You’re out!!!


    Tracking? Homogeneous groups? More pragmatic? For whom, the teacher or the kids? AH HA. Just as I suspected.


    What’s dishonest about differentiated instruction?

    Comment by Paul Hoss — December 11, 2009 @ 8:09 pm

  3. You suspect incorrectly, Paul. I don’t see how heterogeneous classrooms benefit the kids. Differentiation is sufficiently difficult that it is talked about far more than it is actually done, so the “what’s best for teachers canard is exactly that a canard. If the teachers can’t make it work, how is that good for kids?

    Since you don’t like the word pragmatism, how about common sense? It doesn’t make sense to suggest that giving multiple students at multiple levels different forms of instruction can be as potent as whole class instruction where everyone is more or less on the same page.

    If you can successfully differentiate, good for you. Let a thousand flowers bloom. I never could make it work to my satisfaction. And my kids — not me — suffered for my spreading myself too thin.

    Comment by Robert Pondiscio — December 11, 2009 @ 10:45 pm

  4. I am for tracking since I believe that gifted education is essentially non-existent for elementary education. The only caveat is that there should be safeguards in place to allow children placed in the wrong track to be placed in the appropriate track in a very timely fashion.

    In my younger years, I was tracked into the lower groups on 3 different occasions. I was told that the school made a mistake, but that it was too late to place me in the higher track on each of those occasions even though it was still early in the school year:(

    Comment by pris — December 11, 2009 @ 11:14 pm

  5. I’m actually against tracking as it’s typically practiced. However, I am in favor of grouping children by where they are in the curriculum regardless of age.

    Comment by Crimson Wife — December 12, 2009 @ 12:42 am

  6. Robert,

    Again, guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree. Orthodoxy not withstanding, we both appear to have substantive arguments in our respective corners of this debate.

    Comment by Paul Hoss — December 12, 2009 @ 7:49 am

  7. Give us the resources to differientiate instruction, and there is nothing dishonest about the term differientiated instruction. But I’ve had 170+ students this year and 2/3rds are on IEPs, ELLs, 504′s for serious medical problems, and other severe challenges. I’ve had 70 hours of class time for each of my five classes. So, how many minutes of differientiating per at-risk student was I supposed to do? And think of how much of a greater challenge is faced by our middle school and freshmen teachers who face even greater challenges, who lose 22 days to testing, face disciplinary challenges that dwarf the challenges that I face, and consequently have far more paperwork.

    Quadruple the number of teachers and then we can talk about differentiated instruction with a straight face.

    Comment by john thompson — December 12, 2009 @ 11:45 am

  8. Paul,

    I have read your comments often on educational blogs. I’m not good at remembering who said what and when, but I believe the following is true. Correct me if I am wrong. You have taught elementary school in Massachusetts for thirty some years and are now retired. In your teaching you always believed differentiated instruction was the ideal to strive for. You practiced what you believed in, and you believe others can too. And you are frustrated to one degree or another that others do not believe in the ideal of differentiated instruction, or believe it is simply asking too much.

    I don’t know where I stand on all this, somewhere in the middle I suppose, for what that’s worth.

    But I do have some idea what it would take to shift me to either your position or the opposite. And that is very simple, though maybe not possible. What I would like to see is a simple, but comprehensive, description in what you (and others of course) have done in the classroom. You have many experiences that influence your thinking on these things. I don’t have those experiences. So put them down in writing. You don’t have to give names. You just have to make it realistic. Relate anecdotes. Explain strategies. Describe results. Justify conclusions.

    And make it reasonably long. Lots of details are necessary to make a description believable. A thousand words doesn’t go very far.

    In suggesting this I can’t promise much in return. I don’t know how to get people to read it. I wish I knew. I’ve got a website with a lifetime of writing on it, but few read it. Indeed I can’t even guarantee that it would make much impression on me. Maybe it would just convince me you’re not very realistic. I don’t know.

    I realize the plural of anecdote is not data. But all my life I have believed that an ounce of insight is often worth a ton a data. Insight might come from data, but often it does not. Insight also might come from ideas carefully developed and explained. That’s where the real action is, in my humble opinion.

    I have developed my ideas about the value of description in an article on my website, “The Lack Of Description In The Study of Education”. It’s at .

    Comment by Brian Rude — December 12, 2009 @ 12:20 pm

  9. Great point, John.

    What you say is true of so many grand teaching schemes that ed schools and administrators push on us. Can they work? Possibly, but ONLY if you give teachers a lot more prep time to put them together. The 45 minutes of prep time I get each day is barely enough to make a few copies, respond to a few emails, update my TeacherWeb page, pull a few files… I rarely have time then to prep my UNdifferentiated lessons, to say nothing of all the backlogged papers I have to grade. When are we supposed to do all this work? Are we supposed to stay late for two-three hours every day, skip our exercise, our errands, our social life, our laundry, our dishes, our personal reading? It seems to me it’s either this extreme sacrifice, or work like you’re on amphetamines for 8 hours a day, literally rushing about. Call me a hack, but I’m not willing to do either. I offer what’s feasible and sustainable for this veteran, mere-mortal teacher. I do the best I can to provide quality instruction to kids while at the same time avoiding the feeling of being drained and beat-up at the end of each day. Teaching seven classes of 12 year olds is a big job in itself –at least the way I teach, which is almost entirely up on my feet talking, monitoring, setting things up… I can do some, but not a lot, more labor beyond those seven classes without burning out, and I think it’s unfair and unrealistic to build an ed system premised on the idea that all teachers will give a lot more.

    But even if we did get a lot more prep time (as they have in other countries, from what I’ve read), I’d question whether using it to plan differentiated lessons would be its best use. As Robert said, this is spreading oneself thin. My best lessons are those on which I’ve gone DEEP in the preparation –reading background info and then marshalling resounces and carefully engineering each part to become an unforgettable learning experience. I can barely craft one of these within a three hour planning block; if I had to plan two additional lessons, quality would suffer.

    Comment by Ben F — December 12, 2009 @ 12:26 pm

  10. Tracking, adequately done, allows teachers and counselors to challenge students to achieve the most that they can at that time in their lives.

    The problem comes in real-life application when school boards pressure administrators to keep a restless public quiet. Once that is the supreme goal, which it often is in suburbs, then anyone who complains enough can have their child put in a track that is perceived by parents to be a “high” one. That leads to NOT having true tracking. Instead, the “high” tracks are simply a grouping of children whose parents are politically powerful in the community which ends up being just as academically diverse as a differentiated classroom. Game over.

    However, when large districts practice economies of scale and high school teachers have to teach and monitor 150 individuals each day, “differentiated instruction” hardly happens either, except in reports that teachers and administrators are coerced to produce.

    For the first time in my career I have finally achieved differentiated instruction in my classroom partly due to my experience and determination to do so; but, mostly due to the small size of the alternative school where I teach. Class sizes of less than fifteen and no more than 60 students to monitor (and only 135 in the building) is what allows me to do that. And so the issue for any public is this: Do you want effective (and expensive) education? Or, do you want financially efficient (and academically marginal) education?

    Comment by Brett D — December 12, 2009 @ 3:23 pm

  11. John,

    As a teacher in an urban system, you are truly to be admired, honored, and appreciated. The job of most inner-city public school teachers is reserved only for the true heroes of public education. I have no idea how you do it. 170+ students translates out to what, 30+ kids per class, and many of them special needs? Nothing short of a monumental undertaking.

    The most I ever accommodated in an individualized (not differentiated, because I believe Carol Tomlinson, et al place too much emphasis on attempting to accommodate the different learning “styles” when it can be done easily as part of the “hidden structure” of the classroom) classroom was 32, third graders. The daily operation of the class itself went fine. The hardest part of that year was trying to keep up with the daily correcting in six or seven subject areas which is essentially required to operate this type of classroom. Nine hour days were the norm but I suspect many teachers do that and more.


    At the risk of not boring others, I’ll attempt to respond to you via your website within the next day or so. Can’t guarantee how in depth I’ll get but I’ll try to give you at least a worthwhile skeletal overview.


    I’m not sure individualizing instruction revolves around how much prep time someone is allotted contractually. If people are primarily concerned with how long or how much effort is involved then they need to continue teaching the way they do.

    You certainly seem to be conscientious enough from the entries I remember reading from you that you would value greatly what your kids take away from being with you for a school year. It’s something you have to value enough intrinsically to believe it’s worth going to this extreme for your students. It’s certainly nothing that could ever be forced upon someone. Teachers would have to believe it to be the optimum experience for their students, they’d have to want to individualize in the belief that it’s what’s best in the long run.

    Bottom line; individualizing/customizing is an alternative system of delivering instruction to students. I honestly don’t believe it’s that much more demanding or time consuming than the way most teachers operate. It is different, and with anything different the adjustment can easily become the biggest challenge. However, once in place and up and running I believe almost anyone involved would find it much more satisfying, rewarding, and yes (Robert) more pragmatic, at least from the point of view of your students. After all, aren’t we supposed to be there primarily for them, for their benefit, attempting to meet their needs?

    Comment by Paul Hoss — December 12, 2009 @ 3:57 pm

  12. Brian to Paul:

    <<< What I would like to see is a simple, but comprehensive, description in what you (and others of course) have done in the classroom.

    Paul, let me sweeten the offer. I’ll happily publish this on the CK Blog, all at once or serially. I may be a differentiation skeptic, but I live in the real world — the one in which teachers, including those in Core Knowledge schools, are expected to diffferentiate instruction. Your insights would be valuable to read and to pass along.

    Comment by Robert Pondiscio — December 12, 2009 @ 4:51 pm

  13. Tracking is fine. Since every kid knows where every other kid is academically, saving face and not compromising self-esteem are moot.

    Differentiated instruction seems to be a term made up so we can have a term in the lexicon for what happens in impoverished classrooms when teachers are required to teach kids ranging in abilities from very low to very high; you must differentiate your instruction (IOW, teach ‘em differnt).

    Good teachers teach each kid. How they do it is their craft, and can’t necessarily be taught or explained.

    Track ‘em. We do it anyway.

    Comment by TFT — December 12, 2009 @ 5:22 pm

  14. Combine the issues:

    Comment by momof4 — December 12, 2009 @ 5:39 pm

  15. Sorry for the error. Combine the issues: (1)progressive/Romantic worldview (2)mainstreaming (3)the “achievement gap” which is politically unacceptable because of the racial/ethnic pattern (4)required testing (5)a certain anti-intellectual bias which is seen in the dismissal of gifted programs/tracking etc. as elitist, because “those kids will do well anyway”. It all combines to make a perfect storm; in classrooms with IQs from room temperature to 150 (and motivation starting at zero), differentiated instruction and groupwork are the fig leaves that enable the pretense that everyone’s needs are being met.

    Comment by momof4 — December 12, 2009 @ 5:51 pm

  16. Crimson Wife — while I am in favor of tracking, I have started writing about your idea, too. Either is fine with me and both are easy to do…

    Thanks –

    Comment by tim-10-ber — December 12, 2009 @ 7:59 pm

  17. The interesting/encouraging aspect of this topic is the passion it generates. There must be some underlying principle that stirs the contentious nature in so many.

    For me, pedagogy is the missing, and critical component of education reform. We’ve had standards based reform and have headed toward fiscal reform but the obvious, essential piece avoided to this point is the manner in which teachers deal with the instruction of their students. As well, I honestly believe many teachers know why this is so.

    Robert, your offer is very generous. I’ll attempt to address it, even at the risk of what I know will be skepticism from many teachers because of what is involved. It involves change, which is very challenging for many.

    Thank you.

    Comment by Paul Hoss — December 13, 2009 @ 7:56 am

  18. In a ‘differentiated instruction’ class, how are GRADES assigned?

    How can you compare the student writing foot-noted research papers with the one answering basic reading comprehension questions? If you just grade based on how they completed the assigned work, aren’t the students with more challenging coursework getting gypped? If a college looks at the transcripts, how can they compare the students?

    I can see how differentiated instruction would work on an elementary level (reading groups, math groups, etc. Each child in the groups that fit their abilities, so a kid who was great at math but miserable at reading could get the appropriate instruction in each subject.)

    BUT how on earth do you make it work for Jr High and High School?

    Comment by Deirdre Mundy — December 13, 2009 @ 8:08 pm

  19. Deirdre,

    It’s essentially up to the teacher (as it is in a “traditional” classroom) and can become complicated. There’s much more to understand about the process before grading needs to be considered.

    Comment by Paul Hoss — December 13, 2009 @ 10:32 pm

  20. Far too often, groupwork and the differentiated instruction label are combined to provide the fig leaf that enables the pretense that everyone is equally capable and equally motivated. Groups are assigned in such a way that the top students usually do all of the work and everyone gets the same grade. Sometimes the peer tutoring label is added. One of my kids was in that miserable situation for her last year in middle school. There’s also the liklihood that, for work done individually, the same grade is given for work of polar opposite quality, based on the teacher’s estimation of effort and ability.

    Comment by momof4 — December 14, 2009 @ 12:27 pm

  21. But what about the students in the lower tracks? Once all the high achievers are removed, the struggling students make a critical mass of kids who either don’t care about school or don’t know what’s going on- without any positive peer pressure or example of how to be successful. This can lead to a year of fighting with students to get them to stay in their seats and listen to your instructions.

    Math is different, but in language arts I’ve seen huge improvements in students simply by moving them to a stronger class. Given that writing assignments in particular are pretty easy to differentiate, I feel there’s a strong argument to be made for heterogeneous groupings in humanities classes.

    Comment by Jillian — December 14, 2009 @ 1:54 pm

  22. I don’t mean this to sound sarcastic, honestly, but whenever I hear this idea that higher level kids exert positive peer pressure and modeling for lower-achieving or disaffected kids, I don’t wonder if the person expressing it is a teacher. I wonder if the person ever ATTENDED school. As a kid and too often as a teacher, I saw those kids victimized by disaffected kids far more often than emulated. So you take one kid who likes school, let him get picked on by another kid who hates school in the name of heterogeneous idealism and you get TWO kids who hate school.

    I’m painting with a broad brush, but clearly the negative consequences need to be weighed as carefully as the positive, no? More to the point, children are not in school to help us with classroom management or to tutor lower-performing students. That’s our job.

    Comment by Robert Pondiscio — December 14, 2009 @ 2:13 pm

  23. I’m all for removing (by age 14) those kids who don’t care about school. They aren’t learning anything and they poison the well for those kids who are willing to work. I also think that it is immoral to insist that the academic needs of the top kids should be sacrificed on the altar of modeling for other kids; each kid should be challenged at an appropriate level. As for learning behaviors leading to success, those can be explicitly taught, and doing so used to be the norm.

    I also can’t agree with heterogeneous humanities classes. Why should kids capable of reading the Odyssey, Shakespeare or F. Scott Fitzgerald be in a class with kids that read at second-grade level? What about kids who know history and could read Alexis de Tocqueville and Bruce Catton sharing a classroom with kids who don’t know the difference between the Revolutionary War and the Civil War?

    Comment by momof4 — December 14, 2009 @ 2:38 pm

  24. I have certainly heard both administrators and teachers say that gifted kids don’t need anything special because “they’ll do fine, anyway.” Saying it is the duty of gifted kids to be role models for less able and/or less interested kids seems to be just another way of saying that gifted kids and their needs aren’t important.

    There really does seem to be a significant strain of anti-intellectualism in the education world and it gets in the way of the development of the kind of intellectual capital the country needs.

    Comment by momof4 — December 14, 2009 @ 3:07 pm

  25. It appears that most of the discussion stems around teaching experiences and frustrations from teaching in a 50+ year old educational system that is no longer meeting the needs of the citizens of this country. I believe we need a new paradigm for American Education. What is that paradigm? What would each of you have it be? There are multiple possibilities, but we must be willing to step out of the current system and be daring and bold. I have some ideas. I am sure that each of you have a dream school tucked away in your imagination. Bring it out and talk about it with your colleagues. Be open to different ways of thinking about education. Be willing to engage in civil disagreement. Trying to change the current system seems futile. Take a look at the Report of the National Education Commission on Time and Learning titled “PRISONERS OF TIME” published in April of 1994. You will quickly see that after millions of dollars spent in the past 15 years to change the system, nothing has change. I am 72 years old and I don’t want my grand children and their children to be taught in a horse and buggy system. I am working with come colleagues to develope and implement a new paradigm.
    So much for the ranbelings of an old man and veteran educator for 40 years.

    Comment by Jim — December 15, 2009 @ 10:56 am

  26. To track or not – that is one of the most vexing questions. For example, Tom Loveless points out using comparative statistics in Massachusetts that homogeneous classes hurt the progress of advanced students. That I agree with, and is beyond dispute.

    On the other hand, take the example of the Russian curriculum, which becomes differentiated only in the 10th and 11th grade. Yet Russia topped the 2009 Math Advanced TIMSS test. They came fourth in the Physics Advanced TIMSS, but their advanced Physics students were ahead of those of Netherlands, who came otherwise first. Netherlands employs tracking beginning with 9th grade – later than typical US schools.

    The US was not part of the study. One wonders why… There appears to be little interest in the US policy and education circles about the performance of advanced US students.

    So it is not clear when tracking has overall a positive effect for advanced students. It would appear that an advanced, well defined, sequential curriculum like the Russian Math and Physics curriculum is good for advanced students. Furthermore, such a curriculum ensures that the kids that do well are doing so less because of what their family environment at home predisposes them to do.

    To bring that point home, let’s talk about US schools, which too often follow a diametrically opposed philosophy and shun sequential, clearly specified, mastery-based curricula. Think of the education performance of a child as the sum of school and parent effort, motivating and pushing from behind. The child centered school education tends to neglect this equation. If teachers take a step back and let the students be the initiators, the result is that family environment becomes too great an influence on the education outcome. This among others goes a long way to explain the findings of the famous Johnson era Coleman education report.

    And therein lies the danger with tracking. I will argue that the reason some kids, and not others, go to the more advanced tracks in US middle schools, and end up in honors and AP classes in high schools is not that these kids are natively smarter – but that they had more supportive family environments.

    Comment by andrei radulescu-banu — December 15, 2009 @ 11:01 am

  27. On a related note, I’ve often been curious about two common memes in education reform: our impulse to improve U.S. education as a matter of economic security; and the impulse to see every child in the country reach an acceptable level of proficiency. If the former is your primary concern, does it make more sense to ensure that the most capable potential high-achievers are abundantly educated? Or is it better to have a general educated workforce with less care taken at high end? Is job creation and economic activity best spurred by a small number of innovators and creators? Or is it a by-product of general literacy and a well-educated populace?

    These two things needn’t be mutually exclusive (also as a practical matter they seem to be). I wonder what economists would say the higher priority should be if economic activity is the goal.

    Comment by Robert Pondiscio — December 15, 2009 @ 11:15 am

  28. Andrei,

    The reason Russian schools do not have to track is that they have decided to teach the curriculum they have and teach it to the highest learners. They expect the other students to do the additional work that they need to do in order to keep up with the class, and the teachers are not afraid to fail students who do not understand a certain percentage of the material. That isn’t the case here where many schools at the primary levels grade using terms such as Progressing, Satisfactory, and Exceeds Expectations which aren’t correlated to ANY percentage grade whatsoever. Where I teach, we are told to give Progressing grades to any student who isn’t consistently receiving 90% or better on their work – we are told this is because only students who are consistently receiving 80% (on our watered down curriculum which requires no content knowledge whatsoever) on school work are probably meeting state standards. Students who always receive 98% or better Exceed Expectations. Do parents know that this is what we are advised to do? No. Are we supposed to explain this bizarre grading system to them? No. Can any parent really know if their child is where they need to be? No. It is as if we are supposed to confuse the parents as much as we can and just assure them that Progressing means they are where they need to be.

    No one in my school ever receives Unsatisfactory. No one. And I haven’t heard of any child being held back even if they are failing every assignment and turning in no work.

    That is the biggest difference. That and a demanding, content rich curriculum (which we don’t have).

    Comment by Dana — December 17, 2009 @ 2:42 am

  29. I’m not scrolling through the multitude of comments. Just wanted to point out that tracking is great in elementary school IF you have the middle-high groups. If you get stuck with the low group, WATCH OUT!! They are generally off-task, suffer from low motivation and will have NO positive role models in the room to learn from. It’s a difficult row to hoe at best. I used to believe in tracking until I suffered through a low math class for a year. I wanted to hang myself along with some of my students. It sucked – to put it unprofessionally.

    Comment by Jennifer — December 18, 2009 @ 10:06 pm

  30. Surely by now we realize that individualized education of a child will achieve more that mass education. With computer systems we can now “track” students outside of the boundaries of Class or Grade or teacher competencies. If Johnny is in English block level 4 – let him study there not with the second graders. If Suzie is on level 10 in math why hold her to a sixth grade class. Why do they have to be bored! If Alex and Mary need that first level math again but everything else is squarely in level two maybe even a few level 3′s – why must they become social failures. If Hoesa, from Brazil, needs English as Second language – let him study in his home language while learning English — why hold him back! Dump the stupid structures that worked for our agri-culture non-mobile ancestors and let’s move forward into their future not our grandparent’s past. What is all this technology for anyway – World of WarCraft, Webkinz games, and Facebook? Which by the way I must check to see if my family 2000 miles is awake yet! Love technology, embrace technology, tame technology – that is the future of these kids not stupid classrooms run but equally ridiculous ancient social norms from ROME.

    Comment by Dee — December 26, 2009 @ 1:22 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment

While the Core Knowledge Foundation wants to hear from readers of this blog, it reserves the right to not post comments online and to edit them for content and appropriateness.