Latest News and Comment from Education

Thursday, December 3, 2015

Congress is getting rid of No Child Left Behind. Here’s what will replace it. - Vox

Congress is getting rid of No Child Left Behind. Here’s what will replace it. - Vox:

Congress is getting rid of No Child Left Behind. Here’s what will replace it.





The days of No Child Left Behind are numbered.
The House of Representatives voted Wednesday night, with a massive bipartisan majority of 359 to 64, in favor of a new education bill that would reduce the federal role in K-12 education for the first time since the 1980s.
The bill, the Every Student Succeeds Act, would keep the most familiar feature of No Child Left Behind: annual tests in reading and math for students in third through eighth grades. But it drops the 2002 law's other big idea: that the federal government, which spends $14 billion each year on poor schools, should directly hold those schools accountable for the quality of their education.
This is a major victory for the conservative vision for education policy, which puts the states, not Washington, in charge of holding schools accountable — and it means states could scale back their efforts to improve schools for poor and minority children.

No Child Left Behind gave the federal government more power over education

Since the 1980s, every major education law has expanded the federal government's power over state policy. This bill is the first to reverse that trend, undoing much of the federal control introduced in No Child Left Behind.
That law is best known for its emphasis on standardized testing. But the testing regimen was in service of a larger project: step-by-step prescriptions of what states had to do to hold schools accountable if they weren't making "adequate progress" toward the goal of nationwide proficiency in reading and math by 2014.
If schools that got federal money to educate low-income students weren't making enough progress, they faced an escalating series of consequences, ending with drastic changes such as replacing the principal and most of the staff.
Because closing the gaps in reading and math abilities between black and Hispanic students, students with disabilities, and their peers was No Child Left Behind's central goal, those consequences kicked in even if the entire school was making progress if certain groups of students — such as students with disabilities or students learning English — were still falling behind.
Research has found that many consequences were ineffective, with the exception of the most dramatic options, which kicked in only after schools had failed for years. Still, No Child Left Behind improved fourth- and eighth-grade math scores, particularly for African-American students and students from poor families.
The law failed to meet its goal of getting every student able to read and do math by the end of the 2013-'14 academic year, and because it became synonymous with standardized testing and Washington mandates, it also was politically unpopular. But it wasn't a complete failure.

Congress could get rid of nearly all of No Child Left Behind

The new education bill would keep some of No Child Left Behind's ideas. But states, not the federal government, would largely be in charge of holding schools accountable, reversing a trend toward greater federal control.
  1. Students would still have to take tests every year from third to eighth grade.
  2. Schools would have to report the results of those tests, including breaking out the scores for "subgroups" of students: racial minorities, students learning English, students in special education, and students from poor families.
  3. States would have to come up with a system to hold schools accountable for their progress toward goals. But the goals themselves would be up to states, and other factors besides standardized test scores will have to weigh in.
  4. States would be required to do something about the bottom 5 percent of schools, and to identify schools where individual subgroups of students were struggling.
That means states are free to design their own system. States decide what factors are most important, although they have a few guidelines: They need to pick three academic factors, including test scores and graduation rates, as well as one variable dealing with something besides a school's academic performance, such as surveys of students or parents.
Still, states decide how to weigh those factors, although academic factors must be most important. States decide what, if anything, happens to schools that don't make their goals. States decide what happens if large numbers of parents opt their students out of required standardized tests. And states decide what to do about the bottom 5 percent of schools where they're required to intervene.
The federal government would have to approve states' accountability plans within 120 days after the states submit them. But there are limits on whether they can reject them, part of a broader set of measures meant to curb the Education Department's power. The education secretary can't urge states to adopt academic standards, as Arne Duncan did with the Common Core. And they can't change the requirements for accountability systems to emphasize different priorities.

The big question: What will states do to hold schools accountable?

The struggle to reach the compromise bill was the latest example of a new dynamic in education policy. Republicans and teachers unions, historic enemies, were on one side, with civil rights groups and some Democrats on the other.
The final bill got a broad array of support. Conservatives support the Every Student Succeeds Act because it means states will take the lead on education, historically a local responsibility, although some conservatives are concerned that it doesn't go far enough. The National Governors Association also supported it. Teachers unions support it because they became strong opponents of No Child Left Behind's approach to testing and accountability, which they argued had a negative effect on classrooms.
Civil rights groups, which supported No Child Left Behind because of its mission to force states to pay attention to poor and minority students, were harder to win over, although they eventually endorsed the bill because they decided it was better than the status quo.
Before No Child Left Behind was passed in 2002, most states didn't hold all students to the same standard on standardized tests — instead, they were compared with their peers. Nearly half of states didn't break out scores by students' family income. And while 29 states had methods to hold schools accountable, that means 21 still did not.
In other words, some states didn't do anything to hold schools accountable for the performance of poor or minority children until the federal government forced them to. The question is whether states will continue to do so with less pressure from Washington.
Some almost certainly will. Compared with 2002, the education reform movement is better funded and has more national reach. And states will still be required to report test score data, meaning they can't return to the earlier days of sweeping the problem under the rug. Conservative supporters of No Child Left Behind argue that the bill will unleash energy for new solutions and greater improvement in individual states now that they're no longer required to all take the same steps to change their schools.
But states' track record on other issues, such as voting rights or expanding Medicaid, makes clear that they don't always act when they're not federally required to do so. And holding schools or teachers accountable isn't always politically popular.
Generally, parents think their own public schools are good, even if they have a negative view of public education in the US as a whole. And public opinion has turned against standardized tests. Even President Obama has backed off parts of his education agenda due to a backlash.

Against all odds, the bill seems poised to pass

Although No Child Left Behind has been overdue for renewal for years, a compromise that congressional Republicans could vote for and Obama would sign meant threading the tiniest of needles. It seems like Congress has actually pulled it off.
The bill includes some protections important to civil rights organizations and Democrats, such as the requirement that states identify schools where individual groups of students aren't performing well. It includes funding for preschool grants, a key priority for Senate Democrats. But it also rolls back the federal role in education and turns some federal programs into block grants. It checks off many boxes on the Republican wish list.
It wasn't conservative enough for some House Republicans. The Heritage Foundation has criticized the bill for maintaining federal funding and for not turning Title I, the federal program sending money to students in poor schools, into a voucher program. Heritage Action has named opposing the bill as a key vote. And conservative bloggers and activists who nearly derailed a House vote on an early, more conservative version of the bill have organized against this one as well.
But those opponents don't seem to be gaining traction: only 64 Republicans voted against the bill. And there's virtually no Democratic opposition. The White House strongly supports the bill.Congress is getting rid of No Child Left Behind. Here’s what will replace it. - Vox:

What proposed changes to ESEA mean for students of color | TheHill

What proposed changes to ESEA mean for students of color | TheHill:

What proposed changes to ESEA mean for students of color



“There’s no use in passing a federal education bill if it’s not a civil rights bill” —Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.)
Many of us can agree that the most recent iteration of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), commonly referred to as No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and passed in 2001, has not lived up to its name and has been characterized by its many shortcomings. Despite those shortcomings, however, the strength of NCLB will always be the information it requires from states, particularly for subgroups of students.
After NCLB was passed, we were able to learn more about how black and Latino students, who are most commonly affected by the achievement gap, are being educated. The limitation of NCLB is that we do not know enough about how to better serve historically disadvantaged students. As NCLB approaches reauthorization, it is important to remember the students who are most adversely affected by the achievement gap.

Although achievement gaps are decreasing, they are still too wide. The Center for American Progress recently released a report that detailed why we need to track data by student subgroups. According to their research, about 1.2 million Black students, 1 million Latino students, 2.8 million students with disabilities, and 2.8 million low-income students are scoring 10 percentage points or more below the overall performance at their schools.
This means achievement gaps exist not only between schools, but within schools. This is particularly important as the racial and economic makeup of this country drastically changes. Low-income students are now the majority of students enrolled in public schools. In just five years, children of color will make up over half of the children in this country. Closing the achievement gap should be considered a national priority, not just an issue that impacts small subgroups.
Many would argue that NCLB required too much from teachers and schools without giving enoughresources for solving the problem that we already know exists—too many students are being left behind. NCLB’s subgroup data reveals inequities that most harshly impact disadvantaged students. The downfall was that it was too prescriptive and had a one-size-fits-all approach to schooling. While states should have the opportunity to tailor action plans to their populations, it is also important that states are being held accountable and receive some kind of oversight.
In the proposed ESEA bill, students would still be required to be tested in grades 3-8 and once in high school in reading and math. Instead of federal direction on the best way to measure success or intervene in low-performing schools, states would be given the power to decide what to do with tests, how to rate failing schools and what goals to set for schools. The proposed act also requires states to take action on schools with achievement gaps, but gives states complete freedom and oversight to determine what action they take.
But state and local agencies have a poor track record in protecting the rights of people of color. Had the federal government not stepped in after Brown vs. Board of Education, schools would still be What proposed changes to ESEA mean for students of color | TheHill:

All the philanthropic causes near and dear to the hearts of Mark Zuckerberg and Priscilla Chan - Quartz

All the philanthropic causes near and dear to the hearts of Mark Zuckerberg and Priscilla Chan - Quartz:

All the philanthropic causes near and dear to the hearts of Mark Zuckerberg and Priscilla Chan

Image result for All the philanthropic causes near and dear to the hearts of Mark Zuckerberg and Priscilla Chan

Welcoming his new daughter to the world, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg announced yesterday (Dec. 1) that he and his wife Priscilla Chan plan to donate 99% of their shares in the social network to a new philanthropic foundation they created.

“Like all parents, we want you to grow up in a world better than ours today,” he wrote in a Facebook post addressed to his daughter, Max. “We will do our part to make this happen, not only because we love you, but also because we have a moral responsibility to all children in the next generation.”

The shares, currently worth $45 billion, will be doled out to the recently launched Chan Zuckerberg Initiative over the course of the Facebook CEO’s lifetime, according to a filing with the US Securities and Exchange Commission. The foundation will work “to advance human potential and promote equality for all children in the next generation.”

Zuckerberg, who is taking two months of paternity leave, outlined some initial areas of focus for the organization: curing disease, improving education and “connecting people and building strong communities.” Many of the details remain vague, but he said he plans to share more “in the coming months.”

However, previous donations from Zuckerberg and Chan provide clues into the causes and organizations they’re likely to support.

Education

Zuckerberg and Chan have become big champions of education. Chan was the first of her family to graduate from college, and told the Todayshow last May that “education is an incredibly personal issue for me.” A pediatrician who’s worked as a science teacher, she also encouraged Zuckerberg to teach a weekly after-school program for local underprivileged students.

In 2010, Zuckerberg made his name as a philanthropist with the announcement on Oprah that he was donating $100 million to schools in Newark, New Jersey. But five years later, the funds were found to have fallen short of his vision for urban school reform. As Dale Russakoff reveals in his book The Prize, much of the money was wasted on lavishly paid consultants, with little say given to the local community. In the end, Zuckerberg’s generous donation went to support bureaucracy.

Zuckerberg has learned firsthand how difficult it can be to change education, but he has remained dedicated to the cause. In an op-ed for the San Jose Mercury News last May, he and Chan pledged $120 million to improving the quality of education in underserved Bay Area communities through another organization they created, called Startup:Education. The money has gone toward purchasing computers, providing internet connectivity, training teachers, and more.

The couple has also donated about $1.5 billion to the Silicon Valley Community Foundation, which offers scholarships to students and gives to charities globally focused on a gamut of issues, including education, immigration, and economic security. And Chan is the cofounder of The Primary School, a free private school opening in August that will serve underprivileged students who live in East Palo Alto and Menlo Park.
In his letter to Max, Zuckerberg talks about how students will be able to “use personalized learning tools over the internet,” to improve education and overcome limitations of their local schools. In September, Facebook dedicated eight full-time engineers to help All the philanthropic causes near and dear to the hearts of Mark Zuckerberg and Priscilla Chan - Quartz:

Giving it away: A look at past decade's $1 billion donations

Giving it away: A look at past decade's $1 billion donations:

Giving it away: A look at past decade's $1 billion donations

Warren Buffett, right, stands with Bill and Melinda Gates June 26, 2006 at a news conference where Buffett spoke about his financial gift to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation in New York City.




Warren Buffett, right, stands with Bill and Melinda Gates June 26, 2006 at a news conference where Buffett spoke about his financial gift to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation in New York City.
The elite list includes three men—Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates, stock market sage Warren Buffett and Oracle co-founder Larry Ellison—who are wealthier than Zuckerberg, according to Forbes magazine's latest rankings.
That trio and Zuckerberg are among the 138 wealthy individuals and families who have signed a "giving pledge" committing them to give away most of their fortunes in an attempt to fix society's problems.
Zuckerberg, 31, and his wife Priscilla Chan, 30, waited until the birth of their first child, a girl named Max, to reveal their intention to give away all but 1 percent of the Facebook stock that accounts for most of their fortune.
Here's a look at the donations of at least $1 billion announced during the past decade, as tracked by the Chronicle of Philanthropy:
—Buffett pledged to donate a total of $43.6 billion in 2006 to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and three other foundations.
—Helen Walton, the wife of Wal-Mart Stores founder Sam Walton, donated her estimated fortune of $16.4 billion to a family foundation after her death in 2007.
—Leona Helmsley, who made her fortune in hotels and other real estate, donated an estimated $5.2 billion to charitable trust after her death in 2007.
—Medical entrepreneur James Sorenson donated an estimated $4.5 billion to a family foundation after his death in 2008.
—Buffett pledged to donate $3.1 billion to three different foundations in 2012.
—Zuckerberg donated $1.5 billion to the Silicon Valley Community Foundation in 2012 and 2013.
—Hotelier Barron Hilton pledged to donate $1.2 billion to the Conrad N. Hilton Foundation in 2007.
—Former investment banker Peter Peterson donated $1 billion to a foundation bearing his name in 2008.
—Ralph Wilson Jr., the longtime owner the National Football League's Buffalo Bills, donated $1 billion to a foundation bearing his name after his death in 2014.Giving it away: A look at past decade's $1 billion donations:

Teachers union president apologizes for remarks about ‘chronically tarded’ and ‘medically annoying’ kids - The Washington Post

Teachers union president apologizes for remarks about ‘chronically tarded’ and ‘medically annoying’ kids - The Washington Post:

Teachers union president apologizes for remarks about ‘chronically tarded’ and ‘medically annoying’ kids





The president of the nation’s largest teachers union has apologized for referring to “chronically tarded” and “medically annoying” children, remarks that drew stiff rebukes from parents of children with special needs and others in the disability rights community.
“Open mouth. Insert foot. That’s what I did,” Lily Eskelsen Garcia, president of the National Education Association, wrote on her blog. “Epic fail. In my attempt to be clever and funny, I stepped on a word in one phrase, and I created another phrase that I believed was funny, but was insulting. I apologize.”
Eskelsen Garcia made the remarks during an Oct. 27 speech addressing the Campaign for America’s Future. Speaking about her frustration with people who don’t understand the full range of what schools do, she rattled off a long litany of teachers’ responsibilities.
“We serve kids a hot meal. We put Band-Aids on boo-boos,” she said. “We diversify our curriculum instruction to meet the personal individual needs of all of our students the blind, the hearing impaired, the physically challenged, the gifted and talented, the chronically tarded and the medically annoying.”
The video of her talk made the rounds on social media as many teachers applauded Eskelsen Garcia’s sentiment: Being a great teacher is a difficult Teachers union president apologizes for remarks about ‘chronically tarded’ and ‘medically annoying’ kids - The Washington Post:

Wednesday, December 2, 2015

Jersey Jazzman: The @starledger's Editorial Page Editor, @tomamoran, Is Once Again a Massive Hypocrite

Jersey Jazzman: The @starledger's Editorial Page Editor, @tomamoran, Is Once Again a Massive Hypocrite:

The @starledger's Editorial Page Editor, @tomamoran, Is Once Again a Massive Hypocrite





Just when I think my world can't get any more bizarre:

The New Hampshire Union Leader's endorsement of Chris Christie for president has drawn fire from an unexpected quarter: another newspaper. 
A few days after the influential New England broadsheet threw its support behind Christie, Tom Moran, the editorial page editor and columnist for the New Jersey Star Ledger, which has been critical of the New Jersey governor, wrote a piece criticizing the Union Leader's endorsement. 
"The paper knows almost nothing about his record as governor," Moran writes, noting of the Union Leader, "the paper has been paying close attention to Christie's speeches in New Hampshire, and his visit to the editorial board. And that's a dangerous game when it comes to a slick character like our governor."
Oh my lord. My sweet, sweet, lord....

Go read Moran's dumb-ass column right now. No, go do it, seriously. I'll wait...

[...]

Did you read it? Well, that's good for Moran, whose newspaper is dying. He can thank me for the bump in readership later...

But did you notice something? Not once does Tom Moran mention that his own paper endorsed Christie's reelection for governor in 2013!

Moran issued his tepid mea culpa for endorsing Christie soon after it became clear the governor had let his staff run out of control during Bridgegate.  And yes, most of what we - See more at: http://jerseyjazzman.blogspot.com/2015/12/the-starledgers-editorial-page-editor.html#sthash.eWymY5cO.dpuf









Seattle Schools Community Forum: It Appears Many Are Lining Up to "Save" Washington State Charter Schools

Seattle Schools Community Forum: It Appears Many Are Lining Up to "Save" Washington State Charter Schools:

It Appears Many Are Lining Up to "Save" Washington State Charter Schools



Would that be as many folks lining up to support McCleary funding for over 1M Washington state public school students.

Here's the latest.

I asked OSPI some questions and got some curious answers. 

Me 

1) if the charter schools go off state funding (and they should, on or about Dec. 14th) but they get private funding, what do they have to do legally with OSPI? 

Do they register as private schools?

Can they be in some quasi-charter state until/if they get funding from the Legislature?

In essence, by OSPI rules, could they go from a charter school to a private school and then back to a charter school? 

2) When charters go off the state-funding, will the Superintendent be making any kind of press announcement on how this plays out vis a vis OSPI?  


OSPI

1. Six of the charters will go to Mary Walker School District as ALE schools. The two charters in Spokane will remain in that district as general education schools. We are still wrestling with 
Seattle Schools Community Forum: It Appears Many Are Lining Up to "Save" Washington State Charter Schools:

Jersey Jazzman: Star-Ledger: Christie Stinks, But We Hate Teachers Unions More

Jersey Jazzman: Star-Ledger: Christie Stinks, But We Hate Teachers Unions More:

Star-Ledger: Christie Stinks, But We Hate Teachers Unions More




NOTE: I accidentally erased this post on 12/2/15. I retrieved it through Google Cache and have printed it with the original publishing date.

When it comes to generating illogical, incoherent, self-contradictory claptrap, Editorial Page Editor Tom Moran and his merry crew at the Star-Ledger never fail to disappoint. But their idiotic and shameful endorsement of Chris Christie for governor - a man they admit has been an abject failure in Trenton - is a new low. An embarrassment of ignorance, Moran and the S-L's endorsement proves once again that their unhinged hatred of teachers unions has clouded any sense of reason this editorial board may have once had.

The editorial, quite rightly, documents the many, many failings of Chris Christie [all emphases mine]:


Balance that against his measurable failures, and you have to conclude he is much better at politics than he is at governing.
The property tax burden has grown sharply on his watch. He is hostile to low-income families, raising their tax burden and sabotaging efforts to build affordable housing. He’s been a catastrophe on the environment, draining $1 billion from clean energy funds and calling a cease-fire in the state’s fight against climate change.
The governor’s claim to have fixed the state’s budget is fraudulent. New Jersey’s credit rating has dropped during his term, reflecting Wall Street’s judgment that he has dug the hole even deeper. He has no plan to finance transit projects and open space purchases now that he has nearly drained the dedicated funds he inherited from Gov. Jon Corzine.
His ego is entertaining, but it’s done damage as well. By removing two qualified justices from the Supreme Court without good cause, he threatened the independence of judges at all levels, and provoked a partisan stalemate that has left two vacant seats on the high court. This was a power grab gone wrong.
The public gives him top marks for his handling of Sandy, but the record is mixed. Why would his administration park NJ Transit trains in a low-lying area where they flooded, causing $120 million in damage? Why did the federal government have to strong-arm the state to include more relief for renters and Spanish-speakers than Christie had proposed? And why should anyone believe taxpayers got the best price on refuse removal when the governor awarded a no-bid contract through a political friend?
Our own view is that Christie is overrated. His spin is way ahead of his substance.
If all this is true - and it is - why in the world would the S-L ever think of endorsing Chris Christie? The only possible reason would be that his opponent, Democratic State Senator Barbara Buono, is far worse. She must have a record so bad, so truly awful, that the S-L would get behind Chris Christie, a governor they just admitted is "overrated."

What is it that earns Buono such opprobrium from Tom Moran and his posse? Surely, they would mention her worst transgression first; surely, they would cast the first stone at her for her most terrible, her most heinous, her most unforgivable sin.

True to form, they do. In the world of Tom Moran and the Star-Ledger, the most horrid crime a politician could ever perpetrate would be to side with a teachers union:


Why then, are we endorsing him for a second term? Because his challenger, state Sen. Barbara Buono, is a deeply flawed candidate.
Begin with education. Buono’s close alliance with the teachers union is a threat to the progress Christie is making in cities such as Newark and Camden. She is hostile to charter schools, which now educate nearly 1 in 4 kids in Newark.
Think about this for a minute. Moran and the S-L admit property taxes have skyrocketed under Christie, despite his claims that he's reined in taxes on the middle class. They admit Christie is waging war on the poor and the environment. They admit he is a fraud on the budget, they admit he is neglecting the state's infrastructure, they admit he has dangerously politicized the courts, they admit he is an out-of-control egomaniac, they admit he steers contracts to his political patrons, and they admit his handling of Sandy was less than admirable.

But all together, none of this matters nearly as much to the S-L as the fact that Barbara Buono has earned the support of the NJEA and AFT-NJ. This so important to Moran that he mentions it first in the list of the reasons why the S-L won't back Buono against an admittedly failed governor.

The Star-Ledger's jihad against the NJEA is a troubled and troubling obsession on the part of Moran and his editorial board. How deep must their hatred of teachers unions run that all of Chrstie's failures - failures they admit in their very endorsement of him - are swept aside so they can, once again, take a swipe at the only organizations in the state that stand for teacher workplace rights?

Continuing:


An authoritative national study showed that students in the charters are learning more, which explains why 10,000 Newark families are on waiting lists. Yet Buono cannot bring herself to acknowledge that the charters have helped. She sponsored a bill that would basically slam the brakes on new charters by requiring voter approval of each one. She is making a status quo argument in the face of persistent failure.
That "authoritative" study - which I have to assume is the CREDO report, because the S-L, true to form, won't actually give us the name of the study in question - says no such thing. When it comes to learning gains, charter schools are essentially a wash - when you account for student characteristics, a point that Moran pig-headedly refuses to understand. Continuing:

Buono opposes the Newark teacher contract, which freezes the pay of the worst teachers and grants bonuses to the best. She wants a traditional union deal, in which no distinction is made.
Buono supports 

- See more at: http://jerseyjazzman.blogspot.com/2015/12/star-ledger-christie-stinks-but-we-hate.html#sthash.Vxaqsjsl.dpuf






Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) Passes House 359-64 | deutsch29

Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) Passes House 359-64 | deutsch29:

Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) Passes House 359-64

lesser evil


On December 02, 2015, the Every Student Achieves Act (ESSA) passed the Houseby a vote of 359-64.
All 64 Nay votes were Republican, with three Democrats and seven Republicans not voting.
ESSA is the long-overdue reauthorization of the Ele,entary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), the latest version of which was the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB).
Like NCLB, ESSA is a test-centered bill, and ESSA is clear in its requirement that a state receiving Title I funds tests at least 95 percent of all students in grades 3 through 8 and at least one grade in high school in English and math. (Science is a testing requirement, as well, but not as often as ELA and math.)
Unlike NCLB, ESSA does not dictate a state’s goal-setting terms for “annual yearly progress (AYP),” and it does not spell out a list of punitive consequences for states’ not achieving AYP. Nevertheless, I do not view ESSA as a happy marriage so much as a necessary divorce. ESSA is clear that states are expected to work the results of that at-least-95-percent-tested requirement into their state accountability systems– which on the face affects schools, and, yes, could still influence teachers’ being graded using student test scores.
If it passes the Senate, ESSA becomes immediately effective except in the case of Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) Passes House 359-64 | deutsch29: