SPS to Change Order of High School Science Classes

 Update: hearing from sources, this is what I believe this is about: NGSS - New Generation Science Standards, which are not directly part of Common Core.

What is the difference between the Common Core State Standards for Literacy in Science and the NGSS?
The Common Core State Standards (CCSS) for Literacy were written to help students meet the particular challenges of reading, writing, speaking, listening, and language in their respective fields—in this case, science. The literacy standards do not replace science standards-they supplement them. The NGSS lay out the disciplinary core ideas, science and engineering practices, and crosscutting concepts that students should master in preparation for college and careers.

How was the development of the Next Generation Science Standards different than the development of the Common Core State Standards?
The Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) followed a different developmental pathway than did the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) in English language arts and mathematics. The process for the science standards development took into account the importance of having the scientific and educational research communities identify core ideas in science and articulate them across grade bands. That is why the NRC took the first step by constructing a Framework for K-12 Science Education—to ensure scientific validity and accuracy.
When were the Next Generation Science Standards completed?
The Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) writing process began in the summer of 2011, and the final version of the NGSS was released in April 2013.
These are not federal standards and states had to agree to them; Washington State did.  Naturally, it followed that graduation requirements would change because of them AND a new test would be needed.  That testing seems to be driving the changes within SPS.

Most SPS science teachers embrace these new standards.  

As one person told me:
It was evident to us that there was no money to pay for the necessary changes and no evident mandate.

In December we were advised we needed to change course names and course descriptions to get ready for the 2018 launch.  Sometime in January or February the parents would be brought into this discussion.

While there was a teacher group working with the district, the final outcome was presented as a fait accompli.

Many science teachers reject this belief based on the following:

1) There is no need to change the sequence [in place since 1905]. We can hold on to the current sequence and fill in standards in each course to address NGSS items. (Such things as adding Earth Science curricula to a chemistry course).
2) There was no indication of Superintendent consent or School Board approval of such a profound and disruptive change.
3) There was no evidence of money to fund such a change. We pointed out that the offered plan would require teaching chemistry in classes with no sinks and no natural gas outlets. School facilities were designed to address the 1905 sequence. Existing teaching equipment is distributed to address the 1905 sequence.
4) There was no evidence that university admissions offices, across the country...not just someone at UW, would accept these courses.
5) The new teaching "units" had not been developed nor had they been field tested. We pointed out that the State of Massachusetts and California were simultaneously dealing with this transition and had delayed their own version of the boogey-man exam.
6) There were no existing materials for such a transition, let alone books...for which the district has shown no willingness to support.
7) There was no consent by the parents, students, instructional committees, Building Leadership Teams nor from the departments.
8) DO NOT undertake unnecessary alterations like this while simultaneously dealing with Core-24.
9) You are asking students that may likely be ill equipped developmentally to take on subjects beyond their current level of comprehension.
10) Even the suggestion of separating core courses (the semester "jumble") by a year of more completely overlooks the unnecessary delay caused by reteaching.

end of update

It seems apparent that high school in Seattle Schools is undergoing a massive overhaul.  And, at a quick pace.

The district is not good at big efforts.  They are not good at fast change.  So I don't see this all boding well.

Here's the latest on science classes- that again, sources - have said:

- SPS is implementing a complete reworking of all science courses.  There appears to have been low teacher involvement and, to the best of my knowledge, no acknowledgement to parents or students.

- Physics is to be moved to 9th grade.  This seems to fly in the face of developmental appropriateness for that age.

- Chemistry will also be moved to 9th grade.

- I'm starting to hear from high school teachers about the difficulties of having 170-180 students rather than 150.

- No extra funding for changes.

I will try to ask the district for more info but I am finding that I submit questions but rarely get answers.  Maybe the Board can do better.


Physics said…
The board did not adopt a science curriculum.

The board must step-in- now. Some teachers feel it is developmentally inappropriate to teach physics in 9th grade. As well, 9th grade students do not have the necessary math skills to be successful.

It is inappropriate to make sweeping changes without community input. Teachers must be heard.

Anonymous said…
Melissa, many private high schools in the area as well as public high schools elsewhere already offer physics in 9th grade. This is not our generation's science track, and that's OK. The 9th grade physics I suspect SPS wants to implement is conceptual in nature, not hard core math advanced physics, which incorporates calculus, and is generally taken by STEM-focused upperclassmen. The freshman physics texts I've seen are still quite rigorous in the breadth and depth of knowledge they offer, and good science teachers have huge opportunities to bring labs, hands-on or project-based classroom activities into the textual mix. An understanding of conceptual physics really is potentially the most important across-the-board science course for all levels of students, as its applications are a part of practically every moment of our modern lives. Honestly, kids moving straight to biology or chemistry in SPS have been shortchanged in their breadth of knowledge and don't even get me started about Earth Science as a frosh year standard.

Again, senior or AP Physics is not a repeat of freshmen physics and should still be considered an important course for those moving into various STEM fields.

Finally, my pleasure that SPS is catching up here is not to be equated with my approval of rolling this out overnight. Our wonderful science teachers need consulting, training, time and space to rework departmental expectations. SPS needs to give it to them.

Anonymous said…
A true honors, algebra based, high school Physics class requires mastery of Algebra II concepts. Most students would not have the needed math skills until 10th grade at the earliest. What is the source of the info, MW?

(And, thank you for the continued updates - it's frankly getting near impossible to keep on top the number of changes being considered and pushed through.)

endless churn
Anonymous said…
P.S. Oddly, the local private high school that has not moved to this sequence, last time I checked, is...Lakeside. (Perhaps it has since changed.) When my family looked at their science sequence it crossed that school right off the list for student and parents. Musty and fusty was the impression we had. In fact, at that time, an administrator whispered to me that they knew they needed to update their sequence offering. It goes to show that money -big $$$$$$$$! - does not always equal a better high school experience. Inquire deeply when choosing a school to match your student's talents and interests. Even for families with the blessing of monetary choices, SPS public high schools may have more and better to offer!

EdVoter, what you say may be true but science teachers were not given that explanation. So I have to wonder why not if this is a better move.
Anonymous said…
@ Melissa: My deep suspicion to your answer is the usual one: The cavernous gap (priorities, communication, funding, power) between downtown and school leadership and between school leadership and teachers. It bites us every. single. time.


Anonymous said…
There's nothing wrong with taking a physics course less based on math in 9th grade. Can do AP physics later.

Patrick said…
How do you have physics and chemistry both in 9th grade?
seattle citizen said…
This appears to come from this grand plan, the May 2016 report on Seattle Public Schools - Educational Specifications For High Schools.
This looong document lays out all the details, from structure to curricula, for future high schools in the city.
It seems to want to integrate disciplines, such as ELA and SS, and using the new NGSS Standards, yet here we find they're forcing Physics into 9th grade without doing a whole systems revamp as integration would require. So there doesn't appear to be commensurate connection to Math, nor are other disciplines bring similarly rejiggered.
Additionally, this drastic change is coming concurrently with the 24 credit requirement and its schedule changes, making even more of a mess and adding even more to teachers' workloads.
Anonymous said…
How does this proposed science pathway impact IB classes in later years?

What level of basic physics are they talking about? Garfield, for example, offers Physics 1/2 and Honors Physics 1/2, both of which are supposedly algebra-based. The regular level has Alg I as a prerequisite, the honors version requires Alg II. You can take AP Physics later. Is this going to be "honors for all" type 9th grade physics, or will they offer regular and honors versions?

How does this proposed change impact the science HCC students take in middle school? A lot of what might be covered in basic 9th grade physics class sounds a lot like what is covered in the 7th grade physical science class now. If we're moving toward a more basic, non-math physics class in 9th, will that be a lot of repeat for some?

Lakeside is hardly the only local private high school that hasn't moved to this sequence. I know SAAS doesn't do this, nor does Northwest, nor does Seattle Prep. I assume there are others.

Physics might be a great high school intro to science, I don't know. But I fear this represents yet another effort to lower the rigor of our curriculum by imposing a new one-size-fits-all requirement.

Half Full
Anonymous said…
Also, do we have enough physics teachers that they can offer it to all next year's 9th graders, AND 10th and 11th graders who were expecting to take it (since they took something else in 9th)?

Half Full
Anonymous said…
Every SaveSeattleSchools blog reader has his/her passion. You've hit on one of mine: 9th grade physics.

Ed Voter gave a lot of good information. For those interested, here is one of many good articles on the subject of the Physics First movement. It has all the pros and some of the cons. Yes, staffing is often a sticking point.

As part of a STEM-focused family I am thrilled that Seattle is initiating this sequence. Given the UW in our backyard and the high tech jobs in the area, this is an encouraging sign that the district is serious about student preparation for the 21st century STEM workforce.

I imagine chemistry is being kept as the 9th grade option for the HCC cohort as that's the traditional choice and they don't want to mess with the pathway or more likely the blowback from HCC parents. Have to tell you: 9th grade physics is the best choice for the majority of students, including HCC. It allows for a broader knowledge base for all students and for a deeper knowledge base for STEM-focused students to take AP chemistry, AP biology, AP calculus and other advanced science classes sophomore - senior years. As Ed Voter noted, AP physics incorporates calculus and is heavily math-based. 9th grade physics has plenty of algebra, but is focused on science principles. This is material not covered at all, or at best lightly introduced, in middle school. It is a disservice to HCC students to not have them take this course. (And let me cut off the "it's not rigorous enough for our kids" tangent right here. My kid was HCC in SPS. Further, 9th grade physics is known as the "freshman killer class" for good reason.)

Our family has done a huge amount of research into this very topic because, indulging in a gross generalization, I have a STEM kid who was not going to have his needs met in a Seattle public high school and a liberal arts kid who will be just fine in any of them. The 9th grade physics offering was one of the main selling points on selecting a private school. Ed Voter is also correct that this is not a Lakeside offering. U Prep and Blanchet offer it and SAAS offers physical sciences which isn't quite the same thing but close enough for purposes of this thread.

Stepping back from me and mine, 9th grade physics is most exciting because it is a huge step forward in applying the equity lens to our kids in the area of STEM, which badly needs that lens applied. Traditionally physics has been the scary smart-kid male-dominated science offering. No upper-level math skills, no physics. But physics does not have to be sequenced this way. Introducing the principles of physics to 9th graders opens the possibility of STEM careers to more women, more minorities, more students who need more time to master high school math.

This is one Seattle schools curriculum plan that I can finally whole-heartedly endorse.

Physics Fan
Anonymous said…
Forgot: Another area school that incorporates this sequence is Mercer Island, again with more of a physical sciences approach as SAAS does it. MI offers chem 1/physics 1. Can't say MI did it for the equity reason, but I have no doubt it did it for the "competitive academics" reason.

Not that we considered an MI move, but our family truly has done so much homework on this issue.

Physics Fan
Anonymous said…
@ Physics Fan, what about 9th graders who haven't taken, or passed, Algebra yet? If, as you said, "9th grade physics has plenty of algebra," is this setting them up for failure?

If it's "a disservice to HCC students to not have them take this course," what should they take in middle school instead? Or do you think HCC students should take physical science in 7th and basic physics in 9th, even though you've acknowledged that physical science (at U Prep) is essentially the same thing?

And let me say here that I'm not convinced by your attempt to cut off the "it's not rigorous enough for our kids" tangent. I fully agree that 9th grade physics COULD be rigorous enough for many, maybe if it were like the "honors" level high school physics classes. I don't know where exactly "9th grade physics is known as the 'freshman killer class' for good reason," but I don't expect that will be a reference to SPS anytime soon. It will probably be more like a "lite" version of what you are envisioning, so that it is "accessible" to all. Meaning not rigorous enough for many.

Half Full

Anonymous said…
@ Physics Fan, can you clarify what you mean by the equity vs. "competitive academics" reasons?

Half Full
Eric M said…
How do you suppose university admissions are going to look at an applicant's transcript, showing a semester of a (very limited algebra) "Physics" class taken in 9th grade, along with a semester of a (very limited algebra) "Chemistry" class taken in 9th grade?
Anonymous said…
Physics Fan it sounds like Half Full's glass is Half Empty and jonesing for another thread degradation into a rant about HCC kids not getting their due. Tread carefully.

Agree the proposal is interesting

Been There
Eric M said…
How is this blog the first time Parents (the primary stakeholders and financial scaffolding for this district) get to hear about this?
Anonymous said…
Here's an old article but another good starting point and it talks about the equity part.

I don't have insight into the reasoning behind the Seattle proposal. I hope it is for equity and academic excellence/intellectual growth and job preparation reasons. All three are important motivators. For MI, I simply meant that equity is not the primary lens through which academics are viewed. It is a less diverse economic, racial and cultural community. Therefore, academic excellence and job preparation are likely to be the motivators.

I can't defend Seattle's rollout of this switch because I don't know what that looks like. I've been through other curriculum changes and the experience has ranged from painful to chaotic and that is only from the family and student side. I cannot imagine how difficult it has been or will be for teachers. I do know a number of excellent Seattle science teachers and our move to private for our STEM kid is not a reflection on teacher quality, rather a reflection on the larger system, including underfunding causing too-crowded classrooms and scarce resources.

Still, a move to 9th grade physics is exciting.

I will have to think about whether to engage with Half Full. I don't feel the need to take on the politics of HCC. Another reason we went private for one kid.

Eric M: I think, actually I know, that STEM-focused colleges are on board with this more modern take on science sequencing. 9th grade is not a replacement of chemistry or physics for a science-focused high school student, whose transcript might follow 9th with 10th honors or AP chemistry, ditto 11th biology, ditto 12th physics. Very strong transcript.

Physics Fan
Anonymous said…
Any SPS teacher currently qualified to teach 9th grade physics? How soon do they want to roll with this baby? That's a lot of teacher training or new hires. How does this hit high school enrollment? And that's before curriculum definition and textbook selection.

Popcorn time for this movie rerun.

Anonymous said…
I love teaching 9th grade physics, and the model for it is one that is actually laid out by NGSS (appendix K of NGSS has several course model options, course 1 in many of them is a physics course). The math isn't a huge deal if you are strictly worried about standards as the limit to most of the standards is 3-variable equations that the kids can handle (though there are some weird ones that can be covered later they aren't many). Even those who aren't in algebra yet (80% of my students) were able to be successful because it's one of the few places that math still means something -- show the motion/concept first, then show how the math fits in.

That said, it requires a lot of work to scaffold, there is no good curricula out there for any NGSS yet (Though there are some Argument Driven Inquiry books for physics, chem, and bio which have some terrific stuff in them, but they are not exactly a curriculum), and dropping this on teachers without some serious planning will of course be a disaster. But we have some really strong professional development programs form the UW that have accessible equipment and experts in physics, and the standards really lend themselves to hands-on concrete projects and activities that have a high buy in and can be really successful with minimal materials. There are some weird things in the standards (Newton's first and third in middle school, second in high, and some of the scaling doesn't make sense), but largely they are pretty reasonable. IF Seattle really plans on how to implement this it could be really successful, but I'm not holding my breath for anything on a district-wide scale.

kellie said…
@ Mel,

Would you be willing to start a new thread with the information that Seattle Citizen posted about the Ed Specs for high school.

It seems like high school is about to become a train wreck with all of various moving part and various initiatives that require substantial coordination.

* 24 credit requirement for graduation
* “non-negotiable” new schedules and teaching loads for high school teachers
* teacher contract up for re-negotiation
* More credit earning opportunties for high schools students - the fact and fiction versions
* dismantling or re-distribution of high school HCC
* zero transparency regarding the impact of running start
* the increase in cohort size for the 2018 high school freshman class (one of the largest cohorts in the system)
* new boundaries for high school that have zero consideration for walkability
* the entire question of high school option schools and whether or not these are just going away.

I think there are even more moving parts.
Physics said…
I agree with Seattle Citizen. High schools are going to be focusing on 24 credit hours. I'm of the belief that central office is creating chaos.

To the best of my knowledge, there has not been community engagement.

How does 9th grade physics align with middle school science? Middle schools don't have text books. I'm not confident that all 9th graders have mastered basic math.

IMO, this is another half baked idea coming out of the John Stanford Center.
Anonymous said…
Is this for next year, 2018?

West Mom
Anonymous said…
If a student wants to take Engineering Physics (calculus based) at community college/Running Start, the pre-req is a year of high school physics. I don't think a semester would cut it. There are also several AP Physics courses - AP Physics 1, AP Physics 2, and AP Physics C:Mechanics - are the decision makers even aware of the difference? I think only Garfield offers AP Physics C.

Eric M said…
9th grade physical science, teaching developmentally appropriate physics and chemistry concepts, is to be scrapped. The "Chem A" class to be taught to 9th grade students will teach elements and atomic structure, but no reactions. That will have to wait until 11th grade, and Chem B. 9th grade Physics would address waves and electromagnetism, leaving the usual foundational physics concepts of motion and Newton's Laws until a semester of Physics B in junior year. Electives will become LESS available - there are a limited number of science teachers in a building, and you can't add more here without taking from there.
Eric M said…
As presented, this is for next year, 2018, and "parent engagement will happen once the courses are set, in February".
Anonymous said…
@ Been There and Physics Fan, I'm not looking for a fight or a rant at all. I'm simply looking for answers. I'm sorry if you somehow mistook my honest questions for an attempt to stir the pot or something. The minute someone mentions HCC all the alarms start blaring...

Like it or not, HCC middle school students take a different science sequence than non-HCC students. This impacts what classes are appropriate in 9th grade, and we are talking about potential changes to the 9th grade science requirement. My questions are legitimate, even if @Been There is trying to brush them off as some type of privilege. If HCC students are forced to repeat a class that others don't have to repeat, that doesn't seem fair.

OuttaSeattle thinks the math won't be a problem, so that's good to hear. Thanks for answering that part of my question.

EricM also seems to think the classes, based on what little we know now, sound like they are likely to be "lite" versions. Why is that not worthy of discussion?

Half Full
Anonymous said…
"The "Chem A" class to be taught to 9th grade students will teach elements and atomic structure, but no reactions. That will have to wait until 11th grade, and Chem B. 9th grade Physics would address waves and electromagnetism, leaving the usual foundational physics concepts of motion and Newton's Laws until a semester of Physics B in junior year."

Wait, what? If your basic physics and chemistry classes are split over 9th and 11th, will students have the prerequisites for an AP science class in 10th? Or do they have to wait until 12th grade for their first shot at AP science? Is this part of the effort to promote equity, by making the course sequence more on-size-fits-all?

Half Full
Eric M said…
Without an algebraic foundation, Physics A and Chemistry A, taught to freshman are, yup, "lite" classes. Students of any age are of course capable of learning, but developmentally, most students are concrete thinkers in 9th grade, and while it's appropriate to supply them with abstract thinking challenges, older students, juniors and seniors, are developmentally more ready to profit from abstract thinking challenges. This is not a question of learning vocabulary or memorizing rote ideas. It's about process, about learning to manipulate 2 (or more) things changing at once. And 9th graders just aren't as ready to do that, generally speaking.

And as any teacher of 9th grade students can attest, a LOT of class time must be expended teaching executive function skills, like putting a name on a paper, turning said paper in, and learning to use a ruler. No, students absolutely do not come out of Middle School with these skills.
Anonymous said…
So...just to remind everyone...we have three board members who are knowledgeable about high school students, their stresses, personalities, realities and how easy/hard it is to meet advanced requirements.

Thanks D-V
Anonymous said…
My new-to-Seattle freshman took Conceptual Physics last year as an 8th grader as part of the sequence ALL students followed at our previous school - Life Science (6th), Earth and Space Science (7th), Conceptual Physics (8th), Biology (9th), Chemistry (10th), 11th & 12th personalized IB courses. I really couldn't care less the science sequence, and honestly it doesn't matter a jot for college either. (FWIW, I have multiple STEM degrees including PhD.) But I do care that the science curriculum is not in total disarray as my children move through, ugh, and big curriculum changes seem always timed to impact my younger child only who has had a vastly different educational experience than older sib just two years ahead in school. It's been an issue for our family since long before SPS, I'm sorry to say.

Anonymous said…
At Hale they have one Physics teacher. They can't even provide enough physics classes to all the seniors who want that class. How are they going to cover it in 9th grade? Will the physical science teachers become the new 9th grade physics and chemistry teachers?

Anonymous said…
So what will students take in 12th grade under this plan? Does this just get rid of 9th grade physical science? Or really rename half of it 9th grade physics and then not have physics?

Anonymous said…
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said…
Melissa Westbook, none of the decisions have been made yet. We teach Physics in the 9th grade "Physical Science" is a semester of Chemistry and a semester of Physics.

Teacher's contracts are set at 150.

The committee you are referring to is comprised of teachers (making decisions about Science).

Ingraham has a teacher, Mr. Fisher on the committee and he has shared information with the staff at Ingraham to get valuable input about the decisions. Leanne Hust,Head Counselor Ingraham HS.
Anonymous said…
@ Leanne Hurst, so they are not talking about changing anything, since you say that's already what they are teaching? I'm

Anonymous said…
Does this change the 11th grade class, which would typically be Chemistry, into another hybrid class- physics and chemistry? That seems not awesome. And then probably eliminates some physics concepts, since the senior year class is fairly math heavy in a way that 9th graders won't have the math background for. I also still can't figure out what the standard senior year course would be.

Anonymous said…
From Anonymous above at 10:43 AM:

Melissa Westbook, none of the decisions have been made yet. We teach Physics in the 9th grade "Physical Science" is a semester of Chemistry and a semester of Physics.

Teacher's contracts are set at 150.

The committee you are referring to is comprised of teachers (making decisions about Science).

Ingraham has a teacher, Mr. Fisher on the committee and he has shared information with the staff at Ingraham to get valuable input about the decisions. Leanne Hust,Head Counselor Ingraham HS.


Are they just calling it something else? Because when I think back on my kid's 9th grade science at Hale, it was like described above. Biggest thing that drove me crazy was there was no book. Everything relied on my kid's notetaking in a journal. There was no book to refer to and no book to review.

Ms Hurst, I was careful to say - multiple times in the post - that this is not set in stone. However, parents and students have a right to know what is coming.

The contracts may be at 150 but it seems clear that the district is going to push higher and, as you know, the contract is to be renegotiated next year.
Actually, I was talking about the high school thread so I did not say - but I will - that this is still being discussed.
Anonymous said…
In response to Egads' 11/30/17, 7:56 PM comment, I don't think that a year of high school physics is a requirement to take engineering based physics at Running Start (or if it is, they're willing to waive the requirement). My daughter is a high school senior and is taking engineering based physics at the community college through Running Start; my daughter never had high school physics.

Anonymous said…
@sleeper yes 11th grade would be a hybrid class. It’s a plan that doesn’t make sense in terms of teaching or learning. There will not be any texts and the curriculum for the 9 th grade class is only partially developed and only parts are being piloted this year. Once again the district has a poorly laid out plain with little valid reasoning.
Sign me
Been there done that
Anonymous said…
We are always talking about our class offers at Ingraham to meet the needs of our students.
Anonymous said…
Yes, every bargaining year, we negotiate a new contract.
Anonymous said…
There are many places appropriate for parents to weigh in on schooling. This isn't one of them. Primarily because parents look first through the lens of their own child's needs. Fine, but not for setting sequence and pacing for the system. SPS should and will set the science sequence doing its best for its whole student body. Teachers should be part of informed decision making. Communication to families about any changes is also SPS's responsibility.

No I'm not a district employee.

Another viewpoint
Anonymous said…
@ Another viewpoint, how is the district supposed to do its best for the whole student body if they don't hear from parents what works/doesn't work for their own children?

And how do we know the district is trying to do its best for the system, as opposed to doing what's easiest or cheapest or trendiest or ?

Just sitting back and assuming the district will figure out what's best and smoothly implement it hasn't been a recipe for success. The district is notoriously bad at both planning and implementing. Need examples? How about some of the boundaries that were going to create horrible inequities, before parents got them changed? Or the recommended 3x5 schedule, before parents pointed out all the logistical problems? Or school closures and sales that parents said were a bad idea, and now we have a capacity crisis? Or MTSS.

Need curriculum examples instead? How about the promise of an HCC LA/SS curriculum when the JAMS pathway was established--a curriculum that never materialized? How about the disastrous reworking and shuffling around of middle school math (algebra?) a couple years ago, when teachers were instructed they had to teach the units in some bizarre order that skipped around and didn't make sense with the text (and was ultimately scrapped, wasn't it?) How about the creation of honors-for-all LA and SS classes at Garfield, which do not appear to be truly honors level work in most cases?

The district doesn't have a good track record on curriculum development, planning, implementation,...you name it. While it's tempting to think they are the true experts and have everything under control and have fully vetted ideas and considered the impacts on all students, the reality is that's rarely the case.

There are a lot of good questions being asked here, and there's s good chance the district hadn't given them any thought.

Half Full
Thanks for sharing, nice post!

Giaonhan247 chuyên dịch vụ order hàng mỹ và nhận ship hàng mỹ hay dịch vụ chuyên ship hàng từ mỹ về Việt Nam uy tín, tìm hiểu ebay là gì, mua hàng trên amazon vietnam hay mua hàng trên pandora úc như thế nào.

Popular posts from this blog

Tuesday Open Thread

Seattle Public Schools and Their Principals

COVID Issues Heating up for Seattle Public Schools