No More Gold in the River: Cognitive Enrichment Advantage

It has been several years since my visit with the people in a remote rural area of Chile and yet the lesson I learned there will live with me always. Many years prior to that day, I founded the Cognitive Enrichment Network for family-school partnerships in helping children learn how to learn. Since 1988, the education model has been referred to by most as COGNET. With publication of materials in 2000, it was renamed the Cognitive Enrichment Advantage or CEA approach. CEA applies the theoretical work of Israeli clinical psychologist Reuven Feuerstein and related ideas. Since that time, CEA research has validated our comprehensive mediated learning teaching method and ramified into areas I could not have imagined. I have found myself traveling to many places and learning from many people in widely varying settings.

I could have been at the Centrum Voor Het Bevorderen Van De Cognitieve Ontwikkeling vzw in Belgium. Dedicated staff at the Centrum have provided professional development related to CEA for more than 500 special and regular educators.

I could have been with teachers, school staff and parents on the Flathead Indian Reservation in Montana where they adapted the model to help all of their children learn to learn and to overcome problems of Limited English Proficiency for those whose grandparents and parents were sent to residential schools and did not learn the Salish or Kootenai or English languages well, which led to language problems for their children even until the present. Because only half the children are American Indian and half are of European descent, the elementary school where CEA has been used must deal with culture clash on a daily basis.

I could have been in the highly culturally diverse city of Vancouver where teachers found the shared vocabulary of CEA is helped them meet learning goals with their children. They deal with problems of cultural difference that are not resolved but merely heightened in their effect on learning for those who are not of the mainstream culture--especially in the case of First Nation children. Due to the vision and mission of one amazing First Nation woman, my friend and colleague Lorna Williams, (read an article by Lorna Williams on this website: http://www.newhorizons.org/strategies/ie/lwilliams.htm) many educators and professional support staff in the Vancouver schools have begun to use various cognitive education approaches to teaching and assessment, including CEA.

I could have been in Detroit where educators felt the need to lock children inside their schools to protect them from drive by shootings, theft, and drug sales. In Detroit, a core group of special education administrators, school psychologists and other professional support staff have worked for more than 10 years to develop a systemic model for the implementation of mediated learning programs and assessment approaches by parents and educators with children and adolescents who are disabled and for those doing well in school.

I could have been on the Land Trust recently awarded to the Sans people in South Africa. They are in the process of changing from a mostly rural, non technical way of living to a semi-urban one. I could have been with educators in other parts of South Africa who are learning to use CEA as a part of their dedicated efforts to bring about what is needed to maximize learning potential for all South Africans.

I could have been in Knoxville, Tennessee, at one of two urban schools that received federal funding for four years as demonstration sites for CEA when it was one of the national education models for the U.S. Department of Education's Follow Through Program (USDE Follow Through Program grant #S014C11013). One of these schools purchased walkie/talkies for use on the playground because of the number of drive-by shootings in their neighborhood. One student in this elementary school has been killed and another grazed by a bullet in the past few years.

I could have been at the North Carolina School for the Deaf or the Lexington School for the Deaf in New York City, or in one of several other places. But in January of 1996, I was enjoying the summertime in Chile.

We rode in an old pick up truck from the city of Talca into this remote rural region of central Chile. The clothes I wore that day have been washed many times since then, but I can still smell the red, baby powder fine dust that rose from the bumpy roads to seep onto and inside all things animate and inanimate, especially those of us squeezed inside the truck. The people lived on subsistence farms in small houses hidden by the forest and hills. All we could see of the community was a small clinic, a four room school house, and the tiny home where the school director and his family lived for nine months of the year. We were there to attend a luncheon in our honor where we were served traditional tea, cheese, and bread, specially prepared by the parents of the children of the school. The teachers were participating in a workshop with me in preparation for using CEA in their school.

This community (and I believe all communities), are facing change unlike any in past history. The story of these peoples is a powerful metaphor for a kind of change that all of us are facing--for there is no more gold in the river. My translator shared the story told by Jose, the director of the school.

Just down the hill from our picnic table was a small river. Throughout the history of these people and their families, anyone in the community who needed money due to a crop failure or ill health in the family, could go to this river and quickly find a few grains of gold that could be used to purchase food or medicine. Because of an ever growing pulp industry in their region, others had learned about the gold in this river, gotten a permit from the government, and brought in machinery to take away all of the gold. The bank was emptied. But the saddest part of the story was still to come.

What concerned me most was that the people were not particularly upset when there was no more gold in the river. Indeed, they were excited because the pulp industry was offering to buy their land in order to plant more pine trees. They would be moving to the towns where the money would last only a short while They did not understand that they needed to prepare for the changes this would mean to their lives. They did not understand that only by knowing very clearly how to learn would they be able to gain the tacit knowledge of city dwellers that would be needed in order to learn a new trade and to get jobs. >

The land was in a state of change as well. The teachers could walk with the children to their own laboratory of balanced nature and, beside it, environmental devastation. They could walk through the natural forests filled with all the life of such places and into the pine forests of the pulp industry where trees were planted so closely together nothing else could grow and no birds or mammals could live.

It is not the purpose of CEA to focus on the global issues of our physical environment. And yet, our lack of balance and knowing about nature affects our every action of cognition, affect and motivation. CEA focuses more narrowly on global issues of the learning environment and the technologies of teaching and learning that are stripping the gold from many of our rivers because we do not have a way of knowing that allows us to see the consequences. My experiences with CEA have taught me that there is no more gold in the river for any of us.

We have entered the Information Age. We can no longer predict today what our children--or we--will need tomorrow. We do know that we will have to deal with change and a lot of it. Therefore, we need to develop a flexibility of mind, the capacity to adapt to new situations and make changes so vital to the survival of our world. Traditional teaching methods in modern schools, where the teacher attempts to transmit to the children most of the information they will need in the world, is no longer effective. This is true whether these approaches are used in kindergarten or graduate school. To be sure, those of us who teach can still bestow grades that show a respectable and even statistically correct number of students across the bell curve. Some students, although not nearly as many as we would hope, do graduate from high school and the university. But complaints are increasing about the capacity of some of these graduates to be successful in the workplace. Further, consensus is building around a different view of what learning is and how it takes place--in ways that are not as well nurtured by traditional teaching methods in modern schools. It is my belief that even those who are good at this kind of teacher-centered traditional learning need much more in the Information Age.

What more should education be doing to help members of society meet with success in the Information Age? Through my learning over the past 25 years of work in cognitive education, I have come to believe that we need to create a radically different learning environment from the traditional for students in kindergarten through graduate school. When I began my work, I focused on the needs of children and adults with learning problems. As I began to apply my education model in the field, the difficulties faced by teachers, school administrators, parents, social workers and others who were trying to find ways to work together to create new learning environments, forced me to pay attention to their learning needs. At the same time, I begin to reflect upon the cognitive dissonance I was feeling when teaching workshops in the field as well as when teaching my graduate courses. More often than not, I was using a traditional lecture approach to teach class participants about the theoretical reasons for using very different kind of teaching methods! Over time, I began to reflect more deeply upon the need for change in my teaching and how it related to theory and research underlying the CEA approach.

The work of Israeli clinical psychologist and theorist Reuven Feuerstein, and also Piaget, Vygotsky, Shirley Brice Heath, Dewey, Shotter, Jarvis, Wittgenstein, Bakhtin, and Volosinov and others have greatly influenced CEA. I agree with Piaget that cognitive development depends upon opportunities to construct knowledge through interactions between the individual and stimuli within his or her environment. But I also agree with Vygotsky, Wittgenstein, Feuerstein and others that knowledge is socially constructed; that we learn through a fluid, interactive, evolving process, with momentary, poetic images expressed prior to abstract thought. Parker Palmer beautifully describes the results of authentic education that draws upon these beliefs about learning.

The authentically education person can both embrace and transcend the particularity of his or her story because it has been triangulated many times from the standpoints of other stories, other disciplines. The result is a self illuminated in the shadows where ignorance hides, and a [subject of study] warmed and made fit for human habitation. (Parker Palmer)

The research of Shirley Brice Heath has helped me understand the pervasive influence of the use of language within one's immediate community on the development of intelligence and the ways in which one engages in inquiry. Research conclusions from the work of Sylvia Weir at the Technical Education Research Centers in Cambridge, Massachusetts have helped me understand that providing learners of any age with opportunities to inquire, rather than merely memorize, is not enough. Teachers and learners must have explicit knowledge about how to learn in order to ensure that effective learning can take place.

The theoretical works of Lev Vygotsky and Reuven Feuerstein enhance each other in important ways. Vygotsky wrote about a zone of proximal development, a place where we can see the buds of development of human competence within a learner. Vygotsky defined this zone as "the distance between the actual developmental level as determined by independent problem solving, and the level of potential development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers." Feuerstein's theory of Mediated Learning Experience describes what happens within the zone of proximal development--from the perspective of the mediator of learning experiences who is assisting the learner in moving through the zone, and from the perspective of how a learner develops human competence within the zone. CEA focuses upon the role of the mediator within the zone of proximal development. When a student receives high quality mediated learning, he or she learns how to learn, at least tacitly. In CEA and other applications of the Feuerstein's theory, however, the tacit knowledge about how to learn is made explicit. In CEA this is done through the use of a shared vocabulary by all those within the learning community regarding specific cognitive processes and affective/motivational approaches to learning--and how to use them to develop learning strategies as needed in any kind of situation. The cognitive processes are shared as Building Blocks of Thinking and the affective/motivational approaches are shared as Tools of Learning. See figures 1 and 2.

Figure 1.

CEA Building Blocks of Thinking

Building Blocks for Approaching the Learning Experience

Exploration: to search systematically for information needed in the learning experience
Planning: to prepare a detailed method for approaching the learning experience
Expression: to communicate thoughts and actions carefully in the learning experience

Building Blocks for Making Meaning of the Learning Experience

Working Memory: to use memory processes effectively
Making Comparisons: to discover similarities and differences spontaneously among some parts of the learning experience
Getting the Main Idea: to identify spontaneously the basic thought that holds ideas together
Thought Integration: to combine pieces of information into a complete thought and hold onto them while needed
Connecting Events: to find relationships spontaneously between past, present, and future learning experiences.

Building Blocks for Confirming the Learning Experience

Precision & Accuracy: to know there is a need to understand and use words and concepts correctly and to communicate thoughts and actions spontaneously when the need arises.
Space & Time Concepts: to understand how things relate in size, shape, and distance, how events occur in time and order, and how to use this information effectively in the learning experience.
Selective Attention: to choose between relevant and irrelevant information and to focus on the information needed in the learning experience.
Problem Identification: to experience a sense of imbalance spontaneously and define its cause when inconsistencies occur in the learning experience.

Skylight Professional Development

Figure 2.

CEA Tools of Learning

Tools for Understanding Feelings within the Learning Experience

Inner Meaning: to seek deep, personal value in learning experiences that energizes thinking and behavior and leads to greater commitment and success.
Feeling of Challenge: to energize learning effectively in new and complex experiences.
Awareness of Self Change: to recognize and understand feelings about personal grown and to learn to expect and welcome change and development.
Feeling of Competence: to energize feelings, thoughts, and behaviors by developing beliefs about being capable of learning and doing something effectively.

Tools for Motivating Behavior within the Learning Experience

Self Regulation: to reflect on thoughts and actions as they occur to energize, sustain and direct behavior toward successful learning and doing.
Goal Orientation: to taking purposeful action in consistently setting, seeking, and reaching personal objectives.
Self Development: to value personal qualities and to enhance personal potential.
Sharing Behavior: to become interdependent by sharing thoughts and actions effectively, by enhancing collaborative learning, and by participating actively as learner and peer-mediator.

When I began the development of CEA many years ago, I thought the best way to solve problems in education was to put theory into practice. I have learned that it is not that simple. Peter Jarvis, a Professor of Adult Education in England, helped me to gain an explicit understanding of what I have been learning through experience: People do not learn or create change by putting theory into practice--they learn by deriving theory from practice. But effective learning and change do not occur in just any kind of practice. They occur when practice is reflective or, in the words of my colleague, John Peters "influenced by sustained inquiry into the relationship between thought and action." To be sure, the sustained inquiry can and should be influenced by decontextualized, formal theories. However, as I worked with many teachers, parents, and others in long term partnerships, I found their reflective practice improved the CEA approach immensely--and turned it into an open system, designed to be modified for use according to the needs within each and every setting.

My research and outreach work have culminated in the CEA approach. It is a theory based, comprehensive teaching method of proven practices in cognitive education through which students learn how to learn. CEA helps students enlarge their capacity to develop personalized learning strategies based on explicit knowledge about 12 cognitive processes that help on think effectively and 8 affective/motivational approaches to learning that help one become an independent and interdependent learner. Further, the model describes the important role teachers and parents serve as mediators of learning experiences and how they can create learning environments which facilitate reflective and critical thinking.

From 1988 through 1995, the U.S. Department of Education awarded several million dollars of support to CEA research and implementation projects at The University of Tennessee, Knoxville, and several field sites. Through these grants, elementary schools in Tennessee and on the Flathead Indian Reservation in Montana worked as partners with university staff to demonstrate use of the model in four urban and two rural schools. In 1995, we submitted a proposal to the U.S. Department of Education which described the results of 14 research studies demonstrating the impact of CEA on student academic achievement and teacher classroom behavior in rural and urban schools. A panel of evaluation experts reviewed this proposal and awarded CEA its approval as an education program with demonstrated effectiveness (i.e., U.S.D.E.'s National Diffusion Network Performance Effectiveness Panel).

CEA has been implemented in US classrooms in California, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nebraska, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennessee and Maryland. Internationally, CEA has been used in Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, the Netherlands, South Africa, and most recently in the United Kingdom. A teacher handbook and related materials have been translated into Flemish, Portuguese, and Spanish. Although our research to date at UTK has focused on the use of CEA with children, the approach is now being implemented with adults. CEA is recognized as a best practice in correctional education in Canada and is being used by educators working with adults in prison schools in the Prairie Region of Canada.

When the federal funding began, we were working with only one school in a rural, Appalachian setting in East Tennessee. After my initial observations in classrooms, I felt as though I had returned to my childhood in the 1950's. Every teacher had created a highly traditional learning environment in her classroom. Even kindergarten teachers primarily lectured and drilled students on rote memory tasks, albeit briefly. Students mostly spoke when called upon to state the one right answer. They were expected to work quietly without talking to other children. I wanted to create a learning environment in which there was not one right answer, an environment in which students spoke more than the teacher, especially to each other. I wanted to create a Laboratory for Learning in the classroom where all people, including the teacher, were seen as learners who explored the real world together in personally relevant ways. Together, they would socially construct knowledge related to some aspect of the world while focusing on the process of learning at least as much as the product. In this way, students would explicitly learn how to learn in all kinds of situations. When problems arose for one or more learners, everyone else would be ready to mediate learning experiences in ways that did not deprive anyone of the opportunity to learn. My view of an effective learning environment did not appear to be compatible with the traditional view of these teachers.

With almost no knowledge at the time about how to facilitate change, my intuition told me that I needed to respect the teachers' methods for establishing a learning environment. So we began by focusing on teaching the children cognitive processes and affective/motivational approaches to learning–that they saw as teaching "thinking skills." The teachers were also willing to listen to lectures and complete activities in workshops related to Feuerstein's theory of Mediated Learning Experience (MLE), the primary theory underlying CEA.

When the teachers in this rural setting began to share the "thinking skills" with their students, they were surprised at how quickly the children were able to develop their own learning strategies. Because of the primary focus on rote drill and practice workbook pages, the children had little need for learning strategies in school, but they began to tell their teachers of how they were using them in other situations--such as a first grade girl who used Approach to Task to make new friends. As evidenced by the data we were collecting, these teachers were clearly beginning to display more characteristics of high quality mediated learning.

At the beginning of the second year we shared more information about the kind of environment which facilitates learning more readily than a traditional environment. We did not, however, point out the differences between their environments and the new nor insist that the teachers change their classroom environments. Within a few months, however, we began to see teachers messing about with different teaching methods that allowed children to engage in more challenging activities. By the third year the teachers were begging for the opportunity to learn to use computer activities in which children worked together to solve difficult problems. Within a short period of time, the children were able to use software activities usually reserved for students two or three grades beyond their level. Further, a consultant to the project reported that they were learning how to work together in small groups much more quickly than other children whom she had observed who had not learned how to learn explicitly. Our data revealed that the children had made gains in academic achievement that were much greater than those of the comparison group. We also found that the teachers interacted in ways that facilitated a laboratory for learning environment, while comparison teachers displayed fewer of these behaviors.

Encouraged by these small successes, we obtained further federal support to expand our work to include five new school partnerships. I thought we had learned a lot about the process of change in the first project. We had only turned the knob on the door into the unknowns that always accompany real change. Our work gradually revealed a pattern of change that has been observed by many in education, business, and in most other kinds of organizational learning. Michael Fullan describes the literature on change from the perspective of educators in a most powerful way.

Beyond these lessons, however, we were witness to social construction of knowledge in progress. As we compared events occurring at each of the five schools, we began to notice that the change process occurred more successfully for those teachers who had more frequent and better opportunities to reflect together on their experiences in the classroom. We slowly realized that this collaborative learning was more important than the opportunities we provided for review of program concepts. At our annual Leadership Conferences, we found participants requesting more time to engage in focused conversations with other practitioners from many different CEA schools and less time to listen to the "experts" share additional formal knowledge.

Our introductory workshops on the CEA approach were never exclusively lecture oriented. They always included opportunities for reflection and discussion--but the reflection in workshops early on was tightly controlled through specially designed learning activities based on concept analysis theory. We always engaged participants in challenging, problem solving simulations which allowed them to gain insight into their own need for cognitive processes and affective/motivational approaches to learning that they would be mediating to children. When we began to encourage teachers to engage students in small group, cooperative learning activities, we modeled this practice in the workshops by revising activities so that participants did a number of activities as a part of a team of four or five participants.

Through the years I developed a set of 110 transparencies that covered all concepts presented in the basic workshop. I also developed a set agenda for these workshops based on our most highly rated learning activities. But I began to change my teaching practices before I was explicitly aware of how theory and practice were coming together.

I suppose I first noticed the change when I found that I could no longer follow the agenda that I carefully constructed prior to each workshop. On the agenda participants could read our itinerary: from 8:30 - 8:50, I would lecture on the characteristics of a mediator, from 8:50 until 9:30, participants would work in teams to describe what they might say or do to display each characteristic in the classroom when teaching a lesson about the eating habits of lizards. I discovered, however, that we would get "side tracked" by a free flowing discussion related to the wide variety of ways one could display these behaviors, or a dialogue about the differences and similarities in behaviors displayed in the teaching of reading and math lessons. Before the next workshop, I would revise the agenda once again based on the changes I had made at the prior workshop. But I would find that this group perhaps needed even more time to discuss the differences in mediated learning behaviors based on the needs of individual children that they were teaching. At first I thought that the changes were due to my difficulty in paying attention to how I structured time within the workshop. I learned, however, that the changes were due to my increasing ability to respond to the needs of individual learners; to get out of the way of their learning and let them reflect on personal insights into their own practice.

Eventually, I moved away from developing an agenda for these workshops. Instead, I developed a list of activities which had proven helpful for reflection to learners in prior workshops--a sort of cookbook that CEA consultants and I can draw upon during workshops. Rather than relying on an agenda to provide structure for the given workshop, I relied on a set of objectives which I believe allow participants to develop knowledge and understanding about the CEA approach.

My method of evaluating workshops took on a new form as well. At first I changed from asking participants to rate my teaching to sharing personally relevant and irrelevant information that had been the focus of a given workshop session. More recently, I have moved to asking participants to reflect upon their personal learning. They describe "What I know now that I did not know before" and also "What I would like to know."

As a result, my teaching methods were transformed. I have moved from seeing myself as the sole provider of knowledge, to a role as the facilitator of the sharing of knowledge by all participants. I still monitor the development of skills related to each objective. But, I have relinquished control over the process in which we master objectives. This is now up to the group at large. I encourage all participants to share information that might help each of us to develop a better understanding of some aspect of CEA. Although I provide a great deal of this information myself, I also become another learner within the group, often taking as many notes as others on what is shared or insight that we develop together. I work hard to help participants feel comfortable in "messing about" with the model. I let them know when I think they have an idea which might improve the model.

Most of these changes have been gradual and caused me no real discomfort, but one kind of change is more mysterious and often feels scary. It is what I call "trusting the process," that is a free flowing form of collaborative learning. When participants move together through discussion in some direction that does not fit closely with our objectives, I do not break this flow. I am frequently amazed at how we are able to wander about in our thinking and sharing in ways that ultimately enrich our understanding of the workshop objectives. Seldom, if ever, do we get so far off track that we do not accomplish our objectives. Many times I decide that I am going to have to interject a lecture on some aspect of the workshop--because we have not approached the given concepts in any real way. But just before I break the flow of conversation with this lecture, the group will turn as if by magic to a rich discussion around the very concepts in a manner that provides much more understanding than I could through a lecture. At other times, someone will ask a question that appears to be of interest to everyone that then allows me to interject some new concept into the flow of conversation that covers another workshop objective better than any arbitrary focus I might have provided. This is not an occasional, encouraging event. It happens almost always. My only problem is in being able to have at my fingertips the page numbers of where the information can be found in the CEA Handbook or the paper and pencil activities that I want to use to solidify our learning.

I do not draw upon the standard view of higher education, where learning is thought to be based on a cognitive understanding of knowledge. According to Bruffee (1993), this traditional approach assumes that knowledge is "an entity that we transfer from one head to another" (P. 3). Instead, we assume that knowledge is "a consensus among the members of a community of knowledgeable peers--something people construct by talking together and reaching agreement." Collaborative learning appears to be critically important if Vygotsky, Feuerstein, and a growing number of others are correct that knowledge is socially constructed. If there is no more gold in the river, if we all are facing continuous change, then the future of society may well depend upon our ability to help all students, especially those who are not as yet reaching their full potential. A growing body of evidence and interest around the world suggests that we are indeed exploring important new dimensions of teaching and learning. William A. Henry III stated our need clearly as he focused on the next century:

"...the urgency of making collaborative decisions about the [world's] environment, technology and natural resources will compel new ways of working together. The tribal must give way to the global. People everywhere are going to have to... demand much more from themselves. For the future to be bright, it must be lit by the lamp of learning, the true Olympic torch."

And because there is no more gold in the river, this demand must go beyond the cognitive to include affect and motivation, love and trust amongst peoples that do not share the same culture. Octavio Paz cautions us:

What sets worlds in motion is the interplay of differences.... by suppressing differences and peculiarities, by eliminating different civilizations and cultures, progress weakens life and favors death. The ideal of a single civilization for everyone implicit in the cult of progress and technique, impoverishes and mutilates us. Every view of the world that becomes extinct, every culture that disappears, diminishes a possibility of life!

In the US we now have children shooting children in some of our schools. Because there is no more gold in the river, we must focus on an even more basic need, one stated beautifully by The Haudenosaunee, or Six Nations Iroquois Confederacy within their Statement to the World regarding the need to understand relationships and the need to preserve life:

We bring to your thoughts and minds that right-minded human beings seek to promote above all else the life of all things. We direct to your mind that peace is not merely the absence of war, but the constant effort to maintain harmonious existence between peoples, from individual to individual and between humans and other beings of this planet.... We who walk about on Mother Earth occupy this place for only a short time. It is our duty as human beings to preserve the life that is here for the benefit of the generations yet unborn.

In order to replace the gold in the river, what do we need? I believe it is the ability to learn to learn, to think more deeply, and to understand the importance of integrating cognition, affect and motivation within all learning. To this end, it is the vision of CEA to help children become effective, independent, lifelong learners who are able to adapt to an ever changing world, to make good decisions about their relationships with the world, and to make this world a better place for all that live here now and in the future.

About the author

Katherine H. Greenberg, Ph.D. is a professor of educational psychology at The University of Tennessee. She is the founder of the Cognitive Enrichment Advantage approach to family-school partnerships for helping children learn how to learn. She was a classroom teacher for 10 years prior to completing her Ph.D. and entering higher education. Katherine has been exploring various aspects of cognitive education for the past 25 years. Much of her study and application has focused on the work of Reuven Feuerstein and his theory of mediated learning experience. In 1986 -87 she worked with Feuerstein at the Hadassah-WIZO-Canada Research Institute in Jerusalem as a Fulbright Research Scholar. She can be reached by email at khgreen@utk.edu or via the CEA website a http://web.utk.edu/~khgreen

This article includes material adapted from
The Cognitive Enrichment Advantage Teacher Handbook by Katherine H. Greenberg,
copyright (c) 2000 SkyLight Training and Publishing Inc.

Adapted by permission of SkyLight Professional Development,
Arlington Heights, IL.
For more information please call
800-348-4474 or e-mail
info@skylightedu.com

Posted with permission by
New Horizons for Learning
http://www.newhorizons.org
E-mail: info@newhorizons.org