If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
"Structured Decision Making" SDM idiot sheets
On Feb 11, 11:34 am, LK wrote:
On Feb 11, 11:03 am, "dragonsgirl" wrote: "LK" wrote in message ... On Feb 11, 12:59 am, "dragonsgirl" wrote: "Greegor" wrote in message ... DCF is now searching through personnel records of its 13,500 employees, looking for any red flags. But that needed to happen in November 2006, when a policy change required that all new employees go through background screening. The agency is considered the front line of defense for children who are victims of dysfunctional chaos. Displacement is traumatic enough without having to fear someone in the system. DCF is on the right track, making sure it weeds out potentially dangerous employees. And it's a clear message to other governmental agencies that deal with children that background checks are necessary for all employees. From the agency viewpoint isn't it good Public Relations for them to root out their own perverts? If they find some raging perverts inside their agency will they announce it publicly? I doubt it. So they can do their own version of "keep it in the family" with all of the pervs they find internally, right? How are they going to test hard enough to find the perves within their agency? If some slip through won't it prove that they don't know their head from their heiney? If they can't even accurately screen their own people, how do they pretend any credibility screening parents? They don't screen parents. Maybe they don't call it that. They take parent's behaviors into account when determining their ability to parent. And everything else they can find. ***Such as? Haven't you ever seen one of their initial assessment forms? There is a whole list of generalized questions on that alone, I'm sure they differ slightly from state to state, but you can't tell me that the only thing that they factor in is the behavors of the parents. Condition of the house, interviews with the children or professional care providers, etc. LK, Are you talking about the Risk Assessment "instrument"? They have a document by that title that caseworkers would see as an insult to their intelligence IF only they were smart enough to realize it is. In the ascps newsgroup in the past, these "idiot sheets" have been discussed. They were created supposedly to make the decisions objective and non-biased. One outfit that created a set of these forms was called "Structured Decision Making". I was greatly amused that on their web site they warned that their forms were NOT to be used for decision making. Imagine an outfit with that name having to disclaim that their form is not for making decisions. It's a bit like actuarial tables but used to decide risk. Single mother? Under 30 years old? Two or more kids? Lives in the country? Owns a hunting rifle (locked in gun safe)? Butcher any farm animals? In an example a woman has the first four against her so she is considered guilty before CPS even arrives at her door. The "risk assessment" instrument is supposed to be used after a family is founded and set up for services to decide what services are appropriate. The "instrument" is only supposed to be used by people who are thoroughly trained to use it. The problems: These are often are brought out at the very beginning of a "case" and used to decide whether to "found" somebody. Many people using them have not had the training. Even if a set of these "idiot sheets" is used only after a founded and to decide "services" then they are assigning "services" based on risk factors (actuarial tables) rather than actual facts IN THAT CASE. This would NOT be a legally acceptable basis for assigning a "service". The "serv ices" are not supposed to be assigned but agreed to through a meeting of minds with the family, first of all. Secondly, an "actuarial table" rationale does not seriously qualify as a material BASIS for a service. But my personal favorite gripe is that the "instrument" is supposed to be scientific, impartial and objective, but throughout the "instrument" there are places deliberately intended to "fudge" the numbers. If a caseworker is inclined for or against somebody they have many places actually arranged specifically to "fudge" the numbers either for or against the "suspect family". So the pretense of impartiality and objectivity is just a load of BS. By the way, the "SDM Structured Decision Making" website disclaiming that their forms are NOT to be used for DECISION MAKING was quickly changed. SDM was a consortium of several states but later incarnations of the "idiot sheet" forms appear to be plagiarized BY those states. I doubt that the ""expert material"" is something that can actually even be copyrighted. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
DCF is learning the hard way that employees should havebackground checks
On Feb 11, 1:39*pm, "dragonsgirl" wrote:
"Greegor" wrote in message ... DCF is now searching through personnel records of its 13,500 employees, looking for any red flags. But that needed to happen in November 2006, when a policy change required that all new employees go through background screening. The agency is considered the front line of defense for children who are victims of dysfunctional chaos. Displacement is traumatic enough without having to fear someone in the system. DCF is on the right track, making sure it weeds out potentially dangerous employees. And it's a clear message to other governmental agencies that deal with children that background checks are necessary for all employees. From the agency viewpoint isn't it good Public Relations for them to root out their own perverts? If they find some raging perverts inside their agency will they announce it publicly? I doubt it. So they can do their own version of "keep it in the family" with all of the pervs they find internally, right? How are they going to test hard enough to find the perves within their agency? If some slip through won't it prove that they don't know their head from their heiney? If they can't even accurately screen their own people, how do they pretend any credibility screening parents? BW * They don't screen parents. LK Maybe they don't call it that. BW They take parent's behaviors into account BW when determining their ability to parent. They're not qualified to "determine" any such thing. I think you are wrong. I think that they are very well qualified to determine when parents lack the ability. There are indicators, as you very well know. Heavy drug use, perisistent physical abuse and neglect, mental instability, etc. You can't argue those points Greg, because you, yourself, point to them many times when it suits you. And yet, you are no more qualified than a social worker is. You point to the mental status of Lisa's daughter's grandmother as reason for the child not to be placed in her home, as an example. If, in your case, that is, indeed, a reason for the child not to be placed there, then do tell how you can determine that, and how DFS is not qualified to make that determination in the case of others. LK And everything else they can find. BW ***Such as? "Mowing the lawn with a broken lawnmower" was one of their complaints in our case. If DFS cited that as a reason for removal, then it was wrong. *No two ways about it. That has nothing to do with the ability of the parents to effectively raise a child, and I would agree with you that it was absurd for them to bring that up for any reason. The child was forced to watch some Babylonian movie. (Babylon 5, a sci fi show akin to Star Trek) Again, that is no indicator of ability to parent...though I really don't see any reason why someone would 'force' a child to watch a movie, and think it's nuts to do so, it still has nothig to do with ability to parent. The morons from CPS will write up anything they hope will "score" for them. Those above are very invalid points. What about the valid ones? And what do they need those for? |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
DCF is learning the hard way that employees should havebackground checks
On Feb 11, 1:42*pm, "dragonsgirl" wrote:
"LK" wrote in message ... On Feb 11, 11:03 am, "dragonsgirl" wrote: "LK" wrote in message ... On Feb 11, 12:59 am, "dragonsgirl" wrote: "Greegor" wrote in message .... DCF is now searching through personnel records of its 13,500 employees, looking for any red flags. But that needed to happen in November 2006, when a policy change required that all new employees go through background screening. The agency is considered the front line of defense for children who are victims of dysfunctional chaos. Displacement is traumatic enough without having to fear someone in the system. DCF is on the right track, making sure it weeds out potentially dangerous employees. And it's a clear message to other governmental agencies that deal with children that background checks are necessary for all employees. From the agency viewpoint isn't it good Public Relations for them to root out their own perverts? If they find some raging perverts inside their agency will they announce it publicly? I doubt it. So they can do their own version of "keep it in the family" with all of the pervs they find internally, right? How are they going to test hard enough to find the perves within their agency? If some slip through won't it prove that they don't know their head from their heiney? If they can't even accurately screen their own people, how do they pretend any credibility screening parents? They don't screen parents. Maybe they don't call it that. They take parent's behaviors into account when determining their ability to parent. And everything else they can find. ***Such as? Haven't you ever seen one of their initial assessment forms? * There is a whole list of generalized questions on that alone, I'm sure they differ slightly from state to state, but you can't tell me that the only thing that they factor in is the behavors of the parents. Condition of the house, interviews with the children or professional care providers, etc. *****No, and I was not implying that the behaviors of the parents are the only thing that is taken into account. I was simply pointing out that it is a major factor, nothing more, nothing less. I have seen an interview assessment form. *I do think that some of the things on them are off the wall, such as whether or not family lives in the vicinity of the parents, but also some of the questions are valid as well, such as the condition of the home. Well, when it comes to the behavior of parents, any true professional would realize that no parent is going to be happy to see them. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
"Structured Decision Making" SDM idiot sheets
On Feb 11, 2:04*pm, Greegor wrote:
On Feb 11, 11:34 am, LK wrote: On Feb 11, 11:03 am, "dragonsgirl" wrote: "LK" wrote in message ... On Feb 11, 12:59 am, "dragonsgirl" wrote: "Greegor" wrote in message ... DCF is now searching through personnel records of its 13,500 employees, looking for any red flags. But that needed to happen in November 2006, when a policy change required that all new employees go through background screening. The agency is considered the front line of defense for children who are victims of dysfunctional chaos. Displacement is traumatic enough without having to fear someone in the system. DCF is on the right track, making sure it weeds out potentially dangerous employees. And it's a clear message to other governmental agencies that deal with children that background checks are necessary for all employees. From the agency viewpoint isn't it good Public Relations for them to root out their own perverts? If they find some raging perverts inside their agency will they announce it publicly? I doubt it. So they can do their own version of "keep it in the family" with all of the pervs they find internally, right? How are they going to test hard enough to find the perves within their agency? If some slip through won't it prove that they don't know their head from their heiney? If they can't even accurately screen their own people, how do they pretend any credibility screening parents? They don't screen parents. Maybe they don't call it that. They take parent's behaviors into account when determining their ability to parent. And everything else they can find. ***Such as? Haven't you ever seen one of their initial assessment forms? * There is a whole list of generalized questions on that alone, I'm sure they differ slightly from state to state, but you can't tell me that the only thing that they factor in is the behavors of the parents. Condition of the house, interviews with the children or professional care providers, etc. LK, Are you talking about the Risk Assessment "instrument"? The one that the "Product Acquisition Team" comes to the door with. They have a document by that title that caseworkers would see as an insult to their intelligence IF only they were smart enough to realize it is. Well they can't afford to have any independant thought going on in there, can they? In the ascps newsgroup in the past, these "idiot sheets" have been discussed. They were created supposedly to make the decisions objective and non-biased. One outfit that created a set of these forms was called "Structured Decision Making". I was greatly amused that on their web site they warned that their forms were NOT to be used for decision making. Imagine an outfit with that name having to disclaim that their form is not for making decisions. It's a bit like actuarial tables but used to decide risk. Single mother? Under 30 years old? Two or more kids? Lives in the country? Owns a hunting rifle (locked in gun safe)? Butcher any farm animals? In an example a woman has the first four against her so she is considered guilty before CPS even arrives at her door. The "risk assessment" instrument is supposed to be used after a family is founded and set up for services to decide what services are appropriate. The "instrument" is only supposed to be used by people who are thoroughly trained to use it. The problems: These are often are brought out at the very beginning of a "case" and used to decide whether to "found" somebody. Many people using them have not had the training. Even if a set of these "idiot sheets" is used only after a founded and to decide "services" then they are assigning "services" based on risk factors (actuarial tables) rather than actual facts IN THAT CASE. This would NOT be a legally acceptable basis for assigning a "service". The "serv ices" are not supposed to be assigned but agreed to through a meeting of minds with the family, first of all. Since when has what the family thought mattered? Secondly, an "actuarial table" rationale does not seriously qualify as a material BASIS for a service. But my personal favorite gripe is that the "instrument" is supposed to be scientific, impartial and objective, but throughout the "instrument" there are places deliberately intended to "fudge" the numbers. If a caseworker is inclined for or against somebody they have many places actually arranged specifically to "fudge" the numbers either for or against the "suspect family". So the pretense of impartiality and objectivity is just a load of BS. By the way, the "SDM Structured Decision Making" website disclaiming that their forms are NOT to be used for DECISION MAKING was quickly changed. SDM was a consortium of several states but later incarnations of the "idiot sheet" forms appear to be plagiarized BY those states. *I doubt that the ""expert material"" is something that can actually even be copyrighted. It's a generalized form. There are no check boxes, lots of open types of questions. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
DCF is learning the hard way that employees should have background checks
"LK" wrote in message ... On Feb 11, 1:39 pm, "dragonsgirl" wrote: "Greegor" wrote in message ... DCF is now searching through personnel records of its 13,500 employees, looking for any red flags. But that needed to happen in November 2006, when a policy change required that all new employees go through background screening. The agency is considered the front line of defense for children who are victims of dysfunctional chaos. Displacement is traumatic enough without having to fear someone in the system. DCF is on the right track, making sure it weeds out potentially dangerous employees. And it's a clear message to other governmental agencies that deal with children that background checks are necessary for all employees. From the agency viewpoint isn't it good Public Relations for them to root out their own perverts? If they find some raging perverts inside their agency will they announce it publicly? I doubt it. So they can do their own version of "keep it in the family" with all of the pervs they find internally, right? How are they going to test hard enough to find the perves within their agency? If some slip through won't it prove that they don't know their head from their heiney? If they can't even accurately screen their own people, how do they pretend any credibility screening parents? BW They don't screen parents. LK Maybe they don't call it that. BW They take parent's behaviors into account BW when determining their ability to parent. They're not qualified to "determine" any such thing. I think you are wrong. I think that they are very well qualified to determine when parents lack the ability. There are indicators, as you very well know. Heavy drug use, perisistent physical abuse and neglect, mental instability, etc. You can't argue those points Greg, because you, yourself, point to them many times when it suits you. And yet, you are no more qualified than a social worker is. You point to the mental status of Lisa's daughter's grandmother as reason for the child not to be placed in her home, as an example. If, in your case, that is, indeed, a reason for the child not to be placed there, then do tell how you can determine that, and how DFS is not qualified to make that determination in the case of others. LK And everything else they can find. BW ***Such as? "Mowing the lawn with a broken lawnmower" was one of their complaints in our case. If DFS cited that as a reason for removal, then it was wrong. No two ways about it. That has nothing to do with the ability of the parents to effectively raise a child, and I would agree with you that it was absurd for them to bring that up for any reason. The child was forced to watch some Babylonian movie. (Babylon 5, a sci fi show akin to Star Trek) Again, that is no indicator of ability to parent...though I really don't see any reason why someone would 'force' a child to watch a movie, and think it's nuts to do so, it still has nothig to do with ability to parent. The morons from CPS will write up anything they hope will "score" for them. Those above are very invalid points. What about the valid ones? And what do they need those for? ***I didn't say they did. I was simply agreeing with Greg that it was useless for those issues to be raised in his case. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
DCF is learning the hard way that employees should have background checks
"LK" wrote in message ... On Feb 11, 1:42 pm, "dragonsgirl" wrote: "LK" wrote in message ... On Feb 11, 11:03 am, "dragonsgirl" wrote: "LK" wrote in message ... On Feb 11, 12:59 am, "dragonsgirl" wrote: "Greegor" wrote in message ... DCF is now searching through personnel records of its 13,500 employees, looking for any red flags. But that needed to happen in November 2006, when a policy change required that all new employees go through background screening. The agency is considered the front line of defense for children who are victims of dysfunctional chaos. Displacement is traumatic enough without having to fear someone in the system. DCF is on the right track, making sure it weeds out potentially dangerous employees. And it's a clear message to other governmental agencies that deal with children that background checks are necessary for all employees. From the agency viewpoint isn't it good Public Relations for them to root out their own perverts? If they find some raging perverts inside their agency will they announce it publicly? I doubt it. So they can do their own version of "keep it in the family" with all of the pervs they find internally, right? How are they going to test hard enough to find the perves within their agency? If some slip through won't it prove that they don't know their head from their heiney? If they can't even accurately screen their own people, how do they pretend any credibility screening parents? They don't screen parents. Maybe they don't call it that. They take parent's behaviors into account when determining their ability to parent. And everything else they can find. ***Such as? Haven't you ever seen one of their initial assessment forms? There is a whole list of generalized questions on that alone, I'm sure they differ slightly from state to state, but you can't tell me that the only thing that they factor in is the behavors of the parents. Condition of the house, interviews with the children or professional care providers, etc. *****No, and I was not implying that the behaviors of the parents are the only thing that is taken into account. I was simply pointing out that it is a major factor, nothing more, nothing less. I have seen an interview assessment form. I do think that some of the things on them are off the wall, such as whether or not family lives in the vicinity of the parents, but also some of the questions are valid as well, such as the condition of the home. Well, when it comes to the behavior of parents, any true professional would realize that no parent is going to be happy to see them. ****Surely. I would agree with you. No parent would be happy to see social services knocking on their door. However, I am not referring to behaviors that are exhibited over the course of an interview necessarily. It's easy to imagine, and understand, a person being agitated, sometimes rude, feeling on the defenseive, etc during an interview. What is harder to swallow is persistent and extensive drug abuse, outbursts of anger that cause lack of work, or minor injury to a child, destruction of property, etc. I am talking about behaviors that are exhibited over time before, and after social services interviews. Not during the itnerview itself. Those behaviors can be seen via police reports, court records, medical records, etc, and are not based on the opinion of a caseworker, intake or otherwise. Some behaviors during an interview can be indicators, though. Screaming at kids in the presence of a worker? How about things people say? "I didn't whip Johnny with no belt, it was a switch off that peach tree", for example. People say and do stupid things, and sometimes they do them in the presence of the wrong person...DFS, doctor, LE. Does it take an assessment form and a genius to figure out there are serious problems in that case? |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
DCF is learning the hard way that employees should havebackground checks
To get back to the original topic, how do you think that
the caseworkers THEMSELVES would do if put under the same scrutiny they use on others? Curio Jones the famous mental case caseworker did a LOT of harm to families before she became a huge Public Relations liability to the CPS agencies. Bring on the Witch Hunt to burn the perverts within the agency! |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
"Structured Decision Making" SDM idiot sheets
"LK" wrote in message ... On Feb 11, 2:04 pm, Greegor wrote: On Feb 11, 11:34 am, LK wrote: On Feb 11, 11:03 am, "dragonsgirl" wrote: "LK" wrote in message ... On Feb 11, 12:59 am, "dragonsgirl" wrote: "Greegor" wrote in message ... DCF is now searching through personnel records of its 13,500 employees, looking for any red flags. But that needed to happen in November 2006, when a policy change required that all new employees go through background screening. The agency is considered the front line of defense for children who are victims of dysfunctional chaos. Displacement is traumatic enough without having to fear someone in the system. DCF is on the right track, making sure it weeds out potentially dangerous employees. And it's a clear message to other governmental agencies that deal with children that background checks are necessary for all employees. From the agency viewpoint isn't it good Public Relations for them to root out their own perverts? If they find some raging perverts inside their agency will they announce it publicly? I doubt it. So they can do their own version of "keep it in the family" with all of the pervs they find internally, right? How are they going to test hard enough to find the perves within their agency? If some slip through won't it prove that they don't know their head from their heiney? If they can't even accurately screen their own people, how do they pretend any credibility screening parents? They don't screen parents. Maybe they don't call it that. They take parent's behaviors into account when determining their ability to parent. And everything else they can find. ***Such as? Haven't you ever seen one of their initial assessment forms? There is a whole list of generalized questions on that alone, I'm sure they differ slightly from state to state, but you can't tell me that the only thing that they factor in is the behavors of the parents. Condition of the house, interviews with the children or professional care providers, etc. LK, Are you talking about the Risk Assessment "instrument"? The one that the "Product Acquisition Team" comes to the door with. They have a document by that title that caseworkers would see as an insult to their intelligence IF only they were smart enough to realize it is. Well they can't afford to have any independant thought going on in there, can they? In the ascps newsgroup in the past, these "idiot sheets" have been discussed. They were created supposedly to make the decisions objective and non-biased. One outfit that created a set of these forms was called "Structured Decision Making". I was greatly amused that on their web site they warned that their forms were NOT to be used for decision making. Imagine an outfit with that name having to disclaim that their form is not for making decisions. It's a bit like actuarial tables but used to decide risk. Single mother? Under 30 years old? Two or more kids? Lives in the country? Owns a hunting rifle (locked in gun safe)? Butcher any farm animals? In an example a woman has the first four against her so she is considered guilty before CPS even arrives at her door. The "risk assessment" instrument is supposed to be used after a family is founded and set up for services to decide what services are appropriate. The "instrument" is only supposed to be used by people who are thoroughly trained to use it. The problems: These are often are brought out at the very beginning of a "case" and used to decide whether to "found" somebody. Many people using them have not had the training. Even if a set of these "idiot sheets" is used only after a founded and to decide "services" then they are assigning "services" based on risk factors (actuarial tables) rather than actual facts IN THAT CASE. This would NOT be a legally acceptable basis for assigning a "service". The "serv ices" are not supposed to be assigned but agreed to through a meeting of minds with the family, first of all. Since when has what the family thought mattered? Secondly, an "actuarial table" rationale does not seriously qualify as a material BASIS for a service. But my personal favorite gripe is that the "instrument" is supposed to be scientific, impartial and objective, but throughout the "instrument" there are places deliberately intended to "fudge" the numbers. If a caseworker is inclined for or against somebody they have many places actually arranged specifically to "fudge" the numbers either for or against the "suspect family". So the pretense of impartiality and objectivity is just a load of BS. By the way, the "SDM Structured Decision Making" website disclaiming that their forms are NOT to be used for DECISION MAKING was quickly changed. SDM was a consortium of several states but later incarnations of the "idiot sheet" forms appear to be plagiarized BY those states. I doubt that the ""expert material"" is something that can actually even be copyrighted. It's a generalized form. There are no check boxes, lots of open types of questions. ****That is not true. At least, not on the form I have seen, and I believe I provided that form some time back, maybe two years ago, for viewing with personal information of the subjects (no, not me) blacked out. It was a grid type form, each column had a heading...can't recall exactly what they said, but something like 'Physical appearance', and other types of generalizations. Under those were descriptors in boxes, and the worker was apparently to check mark the descriptor that best described the conditions that applied. For instance (because I'm not making myself clear, I don't think), under the heading 'Environment', for example, there would be several boxes that said things like (box 1) "Homeless", (box 2) Living with friends or family, (box 3) "Inadequate housing' and that box would go on to name what constituted such...no heat, no utilities, over crowding, etc. in each case. I can't recall what the risk ratings were, but for each category there was a no risk, low risk, moderate risk, and high risk box. The end of the assessment asked for the number of moderate to high risk check marks, and then gave a determination as to the over all risk based on that. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
DCF is learning the hard way that employees should have background checks
"Greegor" wrote in message ... To get back to the original topic, how do you think that the caseworkers THEMSELVES would do if put under the same scrutiny they use on others? I think that the vast majority of them would fail their own tests miserably. I think that the majority of them know that. I can't recall if I ever mentioned this in the group. There was a family that lived on my block. The parents had two kids that were the same ages as my two oldest. It was weird...after my kids went to bed at night and I'd go out on the porch to smoke I would see their little girl, then only about seven, riding her bike. I once stopped her...it was like 11 or 11:30 at night, and I told her to get her butt home and stay inside, and asked where her mom and dad were. She told me her dad was home, but she didn't know where her ma was. Then, one day, I was taking a shirt over there that their kids had left in my yard and it was summer...oh my god, the smell from that house being so dirty almost knocked me off the front porch, and the door hadn't even been opened yet! The last day of school my son and this other boy got into an argument on the way home and the boy took out a pocket knife and held it to my son's throat. Of course, I marched right over there to get onto their mom. She answered the door and asked me to come in. The place was literally a pig stye...some of the links to photos that have been posted here made that lady's house look CLEAN! I almost gagged at the smell. When I told her why I was there she started telling me that she hadn't the time to keep an eye on her kids, she was busy going to college to become a social worker for the county. I got pretty ****ed off, and I told her that she'd better hope that she never got a call to come to my house because I'd laugh her ass right off the lawn. Curio Jones the famous mental case caseworker did a LOT of harm to families before she became a huge Public Relations liability to the CPS agencies. Bring on the Witch Hunt to burn the perverts within the agency! |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
"Structured Decision Making" SDM idiot sheets
Some of the assessment seems to be more about
determining the family's ability to fight back or resist the agency's demands. Support systems like friends and church as well as lots of relatives living nearby can all cause gigantic difficulties for the agency. Lots of people who could testify on behalf of the family? Family with serious money for a legal warchest? This threatens CPS. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
DCF is learning the hard way that employees should have backgroundchecks | fx | Spanking | 10 | February 13th 08 03:58 AM |
DCF is learning the hard way that employees should have backgroundchecks | fx | Spanking | 0 | February 10th 08 02:18 AM |
DCF is learning the hard way that employees should have backgroundchecks | fx | Foster Parents | 0 | February 10th 08 02:18 AM |
How To Yell At Employees | [email protected] | General | 0 | January 19th 08 09:48 AM |
LeapPad learning system for learning english as a second language. Good idea? | Joao Barros | General (moderated) | 2 | October 31st 03 12:56 PM |